Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-0111 PEC
CPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF TAIL January 11, 2016, 1:00 AM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members present Brian Gillette, Webb Martin, John Rediker, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz, Kirk Hansen Members Absent: John Ryan Lockman A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow for converting three indoor tennis court into parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150035). - 5 min. Applicant: L -O Westhaven, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Mr. Neubecker: This project has been approved by staff. We are happy to answer any questions. (This item was not called up by the commission, resulting in the staff approval standing.) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) - 120 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristen Bertuglia Ms. Bertuglia introduced the Strategic Plan for water quality improvements on Gore Creek and the representatives from the Town, CDOT, and consultants from Timberline Aquatics, Inc. and Lotic Hydrological. Bertuglia noted that Mery Lapin, Vail resident and homeowner on Gore Creek, submitted a letter via email to the PEC for public record regarding a request for increased setbacks from Gore Creek. Charlie Turnbull, Public Works — Reviewed where the town applies deicers (magnesium chloride and sand): bottom of Sandstone Drive, cars can slide out. On Lionsridge Loop, that area is bad. Between the gas stations at West Vail, Kinnickinnick and Vail Valley Drive, we use magnesium chloride). We use sand/salt in other locations. It can get into flower beds. Gillette — Is CDOT using an alternative to mag chloride? Why can't we use that? I thought these modified agents were better than sand and cinders. Turnbull- I'm not sure on that. We put mag chloride down during a storm. Seth Mason, Hydrologist, Lotic Hydrological— Kristen asked me to talk with you about data quality, how data is collected and analyzed. Mr. Mason displayed a map showing water quality data collection locations. Gray dots are historical, green dots are consistently collected (currently). Data collected includes macro invertebrate (bugs) and water quality collection sites. We coordinate samples with other agencies that also collect samples and create data. There is a lot of work done every year to make sure we are collecting the best data for the watershed. Gillette — Is there overlap where more data collection is not needed? Mason- There are groups that discuss data collection to ensure there is the least amount of overlap possible. Gore Creek is not the only place being looked at. He showed the location of data collection sites. Data collected is analyzed, interpreted, compared to State of Colorado data, and used to create a water quality report card. Dave will speak specifically about macroinvertebrate data and conditions collected. David Rees, Aquatic Biologist and owner of Timberline Aquatics, Inc— Macro -invertebrates are surrogates to test the health of waters in the west. Different types of bugs are collected in the water samples and separated out. Above the Black Gore Creek confluence with Gore Creek, we get healthy scores, but the creek is impaired below this area. Scores below 50 starts to indicate problems. Below 40 means there is impairment. Below this confluence they drop off quickly. Pratt — Please explain the tributaries on the map and where red and green dots are shown on the river. Mason- We had some samples on tributaries collected by middle school students, one year only. Big Horn Creek is the location you are asking about. We suspect there may be a data collection error as a result of this one time student project. We generate our conclusions based on main Gore Creek data collected. Rediker — How many years of collection are we talking about? Mason — 4-5 years. Four sites on Black Gore Creek. Dave Rees — We have consistently had passing scores at the Forest Service boundary, then they drop off. We have consistently had passing scores, then they drop off in East Vail and remain low throughout town. We classify macroinvertebrate data based on function. MMI Scores were reviewed. Last 4-5 years data was reviewed. Black Gore Creek and above were good scores. We had good scores back in 2001. Since around 2009 we have had data showing impairment. Mason — Sampling was much sparser prior to 2008. Time and location collections in 2001 were not consistent. Dave Rees — I think the years we had good data we had higher water flows. That results in lower concentrations. Pratt — The spikes in bug scores in 2011 were pretty clear. This would seem to point to asking why? All fingers we have seen seem to point to East Vail, and that area did pretty well in 2011. Rees — The sites were still low, just higher than the previous year. Ford Park remained low. Other analysis tools allow comparison with spring data. Rediker — Do bug counts around 50 mean its just average? Rees — Score ranges from 0 — 100. Score of 50 indicates some stress to the stream. Below 60 probably indicates some stress on the stream. Mason — These metrics are based on observed, not expected score. Gore Creek might be expected to have a higher score. Rees — There are specific metrics designed to identify specific problems. HBI scores from 2013-2014 are designed to detect impacts from nutrients. HBI Scores above 6 are considered bad impacts from nutrients, we do not see that in Gore Creek, therefore you wouldn't consider nutrients a major issue even though they are a piece of the puzzle, there are a lot of potential sources of nutrients. Rediker— Can nutrient levels be affected by household drains? Rees — Not so much by what you might think of as toxic, but influenced by sedimentation. (Household drains go to the sanitary sewer). Rees went on to explain the EPT metric within the MMI that look at sensitive taxa (bug species) to indicate stressors. Rees — Black Gore Creek and Gore Creek were at scores above 20. 12-15 is considered good. This shows that the sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa are affected by specific pollutants. Pratt — Spring runoff appears to impact macroi nve rte b rates. Rees — Scouring (from high water flows) may have had a minor impact. Rediker — Why would you not do testing in summer? Rees — Some species show up in fall. Usually what is in the river in fall will remain until spring. Some species don't show up until late August. Gillette — If we get a cold snap, will that affect the populations? Mason — Yes, if you get a big emergence, a cold snap could have an impact. Hansen — Do you agree with CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) definition of an impaired stream? Rees — Yes, in general I do. In some cases I think their tools are biased due to elevation. Rediker — 50 MMI score of 50 is not that good if 42 is impaired. Rees — Ideally I would like to see scores above 60. Gillette — Who has a good stream? Who are we compared to? Mason — Gore Creek above the developed area would be a good comparison. Rees — I have seen scores in the 80s above Boulder in the foothills. Rediker— Is it possible to sample (dissect) bugs to see what is killing them off? Rees- Hard to tell what is causing impacts. Looks like there are a variety of things causing impacts. Mason — This kind of testing is very expensive and likely wouldn't result in any more specific data than we already have. Rediker—Are we testing enough? Rees — There may be some additional locations that could be sampled. We take three samples each time. We are trying to get numbers as specific as possible. Gillette — There are pipes discharging into the creek. Can we sample directly at those locations? Rees — Yes, samples could be taken to identify pollutants to identify concentration of pollutants. Mason — Collecting at sources is one of the strategies in the plan. Bertuglia — Not every stormwater outfall has been identified as a collection location. We will test the priority collection locations identified by SGM in their field survey and continue through the list. Mason — We are not looking for one smoking gun. The weighted evidence indicates this is non -point source pollution. There is a finite amount of time and dollars available. Looking for the smoking gun will cost a lot of money and may not result in a solution. You can do a lot of sampling for specific pollutants, but that is extremely expensive. Conclusion of consultant team is that most cost effective approach is more general. Gillette — Frustrated that the issues that are causing problems can't be addressed, like CDOT road maintenance and use of pesticides. Mason — There is a real opportunity to make changes. May take time, investment and education to property owners. Rediker — A lot of different people taking samples. Is there a problem with different entities taking samples? Mason — That is beneficial, and the Town of Vail partners with other agencies, ensuring that samples are collected and tested in the same manner is important. That is occurring now. Mike Goolsby — Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) — Presentation on CDOT Snow Removal Operations. Region 3, Section 2, Utah to Eisenhower Tunnel. Has been responsible for this area for past 8 years. Historically we have used salt/sand mix. We have switched to ice slicer/sand mix. Allows dilution faster. We use magnesium chloride in areas where we don't need a lot of traction. Mad Chloride is a generic term, not necessarily what we use all the time. When CDOT started in liquid deicing, it did include the cost as a decision factor. 27% solution per gallon of water. Equipment we have now is electronic, 2% error rate once they are calibrated. Early 90s Vail Pass we used 40,000 — 60,000 tons per year on Vail Pass. Late 1990s 8,000 — 12,000 tons per year. Vail Area MM 169 -180 2,500 — 3,500 tons. 20% salt in this mix. 2008 changed to ice slicer. Now we are at 1500 - 2300 tons per year. Liquid usage — prior to 2009 about 1,000,000 gallons per year. Transition to cold weather modified products, and reduced usage by 200,000 per year. 15-40 gallons per lane mile. Mag Chloride was 40-60 gallons per lane mile. Martin —Are you testing the material being hauled out? Goolsby — No, just filling it. Greg Hall, Director of Public Works— We have identified some small areas for berms, that could hold a bit of material. But there are wetlands in some of these areas. Pratt — Please explain the liquids that you use. Goolsby- I brought Material Safety Data Sheets to explain what is in the liquids. Cold Weather Modified Products allows freezing temperatures to drop below 18-20 below zero. Causes the mag chloride to freeze at a lower temperature, still a mag chloride product. This uses less product per lane mile. At best salt/sand works at 16-18 degrees. Turnbull — We use CDOT specs on sand/salt mixtures. Gillette — What is better for the creek? Goolsby — Solution depends if you want bare pavement or snowy roads. Salt/sand is probably cheaper and better for the Creek. But you would not have as many skiers in town. Pratt — What happens to the liquid spray? Does it evaporate? Goolsby — Much of the material stays on the road after it dilutes out. It makes the road look black. Once it snows again, it starts to spread out. Martin — What are the differences between West Vail, East Vail and Vail Pass.? Goolsby — More mag chloride is used west of town. On the pass we "pre -wet" with de-icers. We don't need to do that in town. We switch to sand when it's very cold. We need more traction on the pass than in town. Mason — Speed of the creek should not affect macroinvertebrates. Failing macroinvertebrate data indicates a chronic problem, depending on time, not depending on the volume or speed or gradient of the water. Rediker — Do we have any idea how much sediment has been built up over the years? Mason — The TMDL report on the Basin of Last Resort annually can provide that data. Goolsby— I'm not the one to ask. CDOT picks up everything they can get to, we pick up more than we put down, but there is a lot of sand built up down the slopes. Rediker — Is there any way to tell how much the sand basins are catching? Goolsby — Just through visual inspection of how full the basins are (and the TMDL report will indicate how much is removed). Rediker- What are the main components of the de-icers that we should be concerned about? Goolsby- All products used go through a certification process, especially related to heavy metals, by Pacific Snow Fighters (PSF). The specifications are considered good. Chlorides and heavy metals are the primary concern. Gillette- Should we look at alternative deicers to see if they affect stream health? (cost share) Goolsby- There are more environmentally friendly products but they cost $243 per gallon where our current mix costs 28 cents per gallon. It would require someone to pay to go through the certification process for a new product. (cost) Rediker- Is historical sand build up a potential problem waiting to happen? Mason -Town is working with CDOT on collaborative plans related to this. Looking to see if amounts are increasing or decreasing. Jen Klaetsch -Region #3 CDOT-Outlined new technology related to operations and maintenance. Discussed planning and implementation efforts. This includes a SCAP (Sediment Control Action Plan) for Black Gore Creek. Partnerships between the town and CDOT were highlighted. Hansen -Is there a plan for a third lane going up Vail Pass? Hall- No additional funding being put to this project at this time. Some monies put toward this in the past (2010?) Kurz -How do CDOT activities relate to other similar operations in their locations? Goolsby -There are some minor differences but most areas of the state use similar approaches. Some areas can use different applications because of different climate and air quality attainment areas. Martin -How do we compare to City of Jackson, WY that seems to keep snow on the roads? Goolsby -That is not an option on the highway. Will look to the town for further information on that. Hall -Different areas have different priorities. Roundabouts and Frontage Roads take priority vs. back roads where snow packed is permitted until resources allow removal. Pratt -Instead of attempting to catch all the runoff can't we just stock the rivers with bugs? Rees -These bugs have evolved for this particular habitat and that is not an effective option because the stressor that kills the bugs would continue to exist. Pratt -Is the arsenic naturally occurring causing a problem we can't fix? Rees -The data seems to show more localized impacts on bugs where the arsenic impact would be more evenly spread out. Mason -The arsenic is largely a drinking water quality standard, different levels and effects. Rediker-Is there evidence in the stream of sand build up adversely impacting the ability of the bugs? Rees -I have not seen the sand as the problem. Thinks the sand gets pushed out due the high gradient of the stream. Pratt- It seems the creek is much fuller of cobble and does this have an adverse effect? Rees- Has also witnessed this but does not feel it impacts the bugs. Mason- The whole valley is full of river rock so what you are seeing is the stream excavating itself. Kassmel-Through floodplain studies we are seeing the creek rise from cobble moving from tributaries into the creek. The creek changes over time. Pratt -How does it affect the gradient and the bugs? Kassmel-It is cleaned out over time. Rees -It should not affect the bug population. Bertuglia-How does an improper pesticide spraying event affect bugs from one season to the next, as in, how quickly can the communities recover? Rees -The bugs should be able to recover the following season from a spraying event. Kurz- The ten year time frame set by the state starts when? And are there intermediate milestones? Bertuglia- Listing was December, 2011, clock started in 2012. Town Council recommended the plan look at a 5 year plan as opposed to the state 10 year plan. There are project and budget milestones but not a bug level milestone. The MMI score and aquatic life use listing is new and therefore there is not much precedent or model for turning the MMI scores around. Public Comment Lamont -Did Mery Lapin's letter make it into the record? To summarize, Mery is requesting additional setbacks from the streams. Is there a funding mechanism for the monitoring included in the plan? Bertuglia — Yes, ongoing monitoring is an action item and will continue to be performed by the town and through support to the Eagle River Watershed Council — USFS sampling. Hall-CDOT has been contributing to the efforts. Pratt -I anticipate funding being allocated as the plan comes on line. Final Comments Gillette -Good work. Hope the conversations have been helpful. The top actions seem a bit disorganized at first glance to a layman. Wishes it had more structure but it's not for the layman so I can vote for this. Webb -Supports the work done to date. Not point in delaying moving forward. Kurz -Comfortable moving forward. Staff and the consultants have done good work. We are on track. There is no smoking gun or magic bullet. Need to move forward with the recommendations in an expeditious way. Hansen -Appreciates the systematic approach. A lot of science involved. Need milestones. Are we making progress? Supports moving forward. Rediker-Thankful for all the work. Complex situation. Should we combine action items 24-28 or do we need to break them out? I will leave it to staff. A goal for us should be for a score of 60 MMI score or above. Coordination of the sampling methods is important. Might want to consider adding additional language concerning de-icers and their possible impacts. Are the water quality vaults working for this? Should we look at limiting the town's use of this? Should we use less de-icers or different de-icers? Martin -We should be testing the runoff from the sand berm in East Vail. (Klaetsch mentioned there was a study done on the sand in the berms in Summit County, largely found it was just sand but she will forward the study to Kristen). Gillette -Feels maybe the plan should be more general and worry about the details and the hundreds of items. Pratt -Thankful to staff. Thankful to CDOT. Thought the problem had a simple answer but supportive of CDOT efforts. Frustrated that we will throw 6 million dollars in to see if it works. We are still dumping salts and heavy metals into the creek. Pesticides are a contributor but regulating is a problem. All the efforts are good but not sure what the results are going to be. In favor of moving forward. Rediker-We are keeping action item #16 (pesticide applications)? Bertuglia-Yes, even though it has largely been determined that there is not much that can be done. Rediker-Would like Town Council to look more into this. Does not feel the exception provision in the statute has been adequately explained by Counsel. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-813-3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for "Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings" located at 461 Vail Valley Drive, Tract F2, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Specifically, this project includes the installation of parking in the Chalet Road right-of-way and the conversion of the existing tennis courts to pickle ball courts. (PEC150037) - 5 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker Table to January 25, 2016 Motion — Hansen Second — Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for an encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the encroachment of an addition to the Villa Valhalla Building into View Corridor#5, located at 384 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 10/Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150036) — 5 Min Applicant: Jose Pedro Valenzuela Rionda, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Table to January 25, 2016 Motion — Hansen Second — Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 Approval of Minutes December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Motion to Approve Motion- Rediker Second- Kurz Vote: 5-0-1 Hansen recused Informational Update 1. Peer Community Housing Comparison — George Ruther introduced Steve Lindstrom, Chair of the Vail Local Housing Authority. Mr. Lindstrom - Your packet should include a report from Melanie Rees on peer city housing issues. In the past, we have had too many jobs and not enough houses, or the reverse. Trend 15-20 years ago as more low density for -sale housing. Now the trend is higher density for -rent units. Higher density is a way to solve some of the housing problems. Aspen has had a RETT (Real Estate Transfer Tax) tax as a dedicated source for funding housing projects over the past 40 years. Government can't do it all. We can't wait for the government to do everything. We are trying to entice the private sector to take on this task. In the good times, we have required the private sectors to pay fees, but that does not result in many employee housing units getting built. We have met with staff, business leaders and builders to see how we can help to get private sector involved. In Lionshead, the rules were changed and the private sector responded with investments. We are looking at how we can change the rules to get private sector more involved. We need to talk with land owners and private sector to see if these ideas will work. We will work with staff to see if these ideas can make a difference. Some are larger tweaks to existing codes. Examples may be overlay districts, or redevelopment of the West Vail commercial core. We are past the small town problems. These are urban issues we are now facing. We need to start to think of our available land. We need to think that density is our friend. Maybe there are areas of surface parking lots in commercial areas where we can do some projects. Maybe think about tradable development rights to entice the private sector to help with these issues. Maybe the parking issues can be considered. Many developments are driven by the parking requirements. We are just starting this project and will keep you informed. We are welcome to your feedback. George Ruther — Housing Authority has done a lot of great work in this area. Some of the reforms proposed would take a fresh look at the way we have done things. Fundamentally something has to change. Housing Authority is looking to see if they can incent the private sector. Gillette — Earlier we talked about switching from low density to higher density developments. What is the Town looking for? Lindstrom — We see this as a continuum from dormitory style units to for -sale units. There are needs along the spectrum. Sometimes we think of for -rent product as only for party people. We need to think of housing as shelter. There are some people who live for decades in leased housing, but walking into it you would not know the difference. We need to make sure that our rules do not require reinventing the wheel to get projects built. Gillette — All this comes from the community surveys that identify the needs for employee housing. We wanted families to move back to Vail. When I look at Middle Creek with stack -em up rentals, we are just subsidizing Vail Resorts. But building homes for families is developing community; We need to look back at the original goal. Ruther — Like Steve said, we need to look at a variety of options. Every sector of the market is in need of some form of housing. There is not one plug to stop the leakage. We need to make inroads into each sector of the market. I don't think we will ever fully solve the housing problem. We need to look not only at the employee housing needs but also community development needs. Council will be talking about some of these issues tomorrow night. We need to be strategic due to the limited land available. Housing Authority will be in front of you in the next several months to discuss some of these options and ideas. System we have today is setup to get the results that we are getting. If we want different results we may need to change the system. Housing Authority is looking for your help to make some of these changes possible. Kurz — Thanks to Steve for taking on this least favorable position. Thank you for your work on behalf of the town. 2. Update on Employee Housing Policy & Zoning Review 8. Adjournment Motion - Kurz Second— Hansen Vote 6-0-0 Mr. Kurz will not attend the January 25, 2016 meeting. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily January 8, 2016 01), PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION T%V�J OF Vii January 11, 2016, 1:00 AM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow for converting three indoor tennis court into parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150035). - 5 min. Applicant: L -O Westhaven, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) - 120 Min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristen Bertuglia 4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-813-3 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for "Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings" located at 461 Vail Valley Drive, Tract F2, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Specifically, this project includes the installation of parking in the Chalet Road right-of-way and the conversion of the existing tennis courts to pickle ball courts. (PEC150037) - 5 min. Table to January 25, 2016 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for an encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the encroachment of an addition to the Villa Valhalla Building into View Corridor #5, located at 384 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 10/1-ot J, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150036) - 5Min. Table to January 25, 2016 Applicant: Jose Pedro Valenzuela Rionda, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 6. Approval of Minutes December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results 7. Informational Update An informational update about the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) review of the consultant report on Workforce Housing in Mountain Resort Towns: A Peer Community Comparison. Additional update on the VLHA & MPG Consultants efforts to research and recommend potential changes in policy or zoning regulations that could assist in the creation of employee housing units by the private sector. 8. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily January 8, 2016 TO6' d OF V It ` VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, pursuant to Section 12- 9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow for converting three indoor tennis court into parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150035). - 5 min. ATTACHMENTS: Name: n PEC150035 Approval Letter SDD #4 Cascade Parking.pdf D PEC 150035 SDD 4 Cascade Village PLANS. Description: Approval Letter Plans TOWN OF 6 VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com December 31, 2015 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission L -O Westhaven Inc. c/o Director of Finance 1300 Westhaven Drive Vail, CO 81657-3890 Community Development Department 970.479.2138 Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans to convert the indoor tennis courts to parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive #4, Cascade Village, Cascade Club Condo, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150035) Applicant: L -O Westhaven, Inc. Represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Dear PEC members, L -O Westhaven Inc., Cascade Club Association, Mauriello Planning Group, and adjacent property owners: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Town of Vail Staff has approved a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. This approval allows the applicant to convert the indoor tennis courts to parking, and create outdoor parking at the east end of the building. The conversion removes the indoor tennis courts and creates 63 enclosed parking spaces and 14 outdoor parking spaces to be used by the Vail Cascade Resort. The project also includes installation of an access drive, minor changes to landscaping, and installation of sidewalk improvements on the east end of the site. The attached plans, dated November 12, 2015, demonstrate the approved improvements. Staff finds that approval of this minor amendment request meets the criteria in Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code. The amendment does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. The amendment will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood and other uses. There is no change in the total number of accommodation units and no addition to the amount of allowable gross residential floor area. Minor exterior changes, including a garage door, are proposed on the east end of the building to provide access to the parking. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at 1:00 PM on Monday, January 11, 2016 in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2148, or cneubecker(a)vailgov.com. . Best regards, Chris Neubecker, AICP Planning Manager Attachment: Approved floor plans and site plans, dated 11-12-2015 Town of Vail Page 2 ... o,.....N��a 3NI OW133N ON3 00 `1 Idn �o�sa oN e w o SJ_N:IVUAO?JdW1 SS:1001d ON1> Jb'd -�1OH BOVOSVO �NId1�d ,e sNoGIA3a 3Eda ON /s/ a3N�is3a U 0 zap w Wcup �° i - - st a _ MU _ - - - RN Nil OHM - 0 � � H w o Ito icy duo o 01 g1 lowfs = rro �- Via1: r. r_ _ M = 1 n� Ma no. Mao _ao� :o __ . hi a pig E E o _ E ° ^Y Hui J! - _ W TO Q - o - _ _ _ - MC - oE�tl 3NeI4NdWNd33NISN3 OO '11d/N o 101912 ON e r S1N3W3AOJdWI SS300V ONIAJVd 03NJ3 w� w� —IE310H E3(3b':Z)SVO Mdaa S U �NId7`d s� a3N��3a i Z�Z I Ce b Or, 1 V/ r �: ----------- ------------------ I ---- ----- ----- — I ` o \ i-- -- --- ------ -- — �w o a� > am wr , o� ° I Qo �o p - \ - ° o ° _ i ozorc ° w9 6,10 r , 01 71 �w I 4 III ��❑ _ fl III i ° I III I I I I I L I `�JII I 1 1 I I I I i�kt I I 7 I ❑ II II I I I - I I <J �Ne4Nd�NlN? 33NI�N3 OO '-] IVA of 01912 ON e w SNOLIV- MS 1N3n3AOW ONINani03NJ3 =� —lE310H BOVOSVO Mdaa �NId1t� e —IS 3a 3 da ON a3N s3a 0 Ll m J= -- U� UI 0 �NeI4 d�Nl? 33NI�N3 00 '-IIdn 0Z s z e w a �- SNOLIV- NS 1N3n3AOW ONINani 03NJ3 wc� v, �NId7`d —IE310H E3ab'OSVO ;s a3 =3a I i Z I I II I ill I IN�i\v �� v r�° v -_- 'AW i ° o o I 1 o v, I I II I ill I II — 33 00 '-Iidn S3-10Nf/IJl 30Nb'1S14 1HOIS —IE31OH E3ab'OSVO I 0 1 � i I N� ¢oF j U z�z �� V �w v uj � a X00 LL F- 0 0 Z ON�e or L.1 M a3 3 w = U \s\ Nrvv � =No��3a 3vda o� sv a3�o�3a -----_ II � oyi 7 Imo' 1 � i 1 3NeI4NdWNd33NISN3 00 ,-IIdn 0Z1OLSLz ONe w -LnO,l-Ib'-1 ONIAIJdd 03NJ3 w� N �U SNId7`d ��10H Bab'0s V:D -ISI- - - --- - z— — — — o------------ ------------ - - - -_- -_- / \ V 0 I TO6' d OF V It ` VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) - 120 Min. ATTACHMENTS: Name C] PEC150027 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan - CDOT Best Management Practices and Macroinvertebrates 011 - Copy.pdf D PEC150027 Attachment A CDOTpresentation TOV 1 11 16.pdf D PEC150027 Attachment B Lotic PEC 3rd meeting.pdf ❑ PEC150027 Attachment C State of the Rivers 2014 WQ Report FINAL.pdf ❑ PEC150027 Attachment D Gore Creek Strategic Plan Top Actions.pdf ❑ PEC150027 Attachment D part 2 Restore the Gore Action Items graphics v 2.pdf ❑ PEC150027 Attachment E USGS Macro invertebrate Study 011116.pdf Description: Staff Memorandum CDOT Presentation Lotic Presentation State of the Rivers Gore Actions Pt. 1 Gore Actions Part 2 USGS Study TOWN OFVAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Department of Community Development Date: January 11, 2016 Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for adoption of the Restore the Gore; Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan to improve water quality in Gore Creek. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide responses to questions posed by the Planning and Environmental Commission related to the final draft of the Restore the Gore; Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. At this work session representatives from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) will provide a presentation on road maintenance activities and best management practices with respect to water quality. In addition, David Rees, Aquatic Biologist and owner of Timberline Aquatics, Inc. will provide a presentation on macroinvertebrate sampling results, and affects of local road maintenance on these systems. Finally, Lotic Hydrological will discuss data collection across multiple agencies. The Planning and Environmental Commission, serving in an advisory role to the Vail Town Council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the recommendation of adoption of the Plan to the Vail Town Council. II. BACKGROUND Causes of Decline The Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) Key Findings suggest that there are three categories of causes for the decline in water quality in Gore Creek. 1) Pollutants from land use activities 2) Drainage from impervious surfaces 3) Loss of riparian and streamside vegetation Strategic Plan Purpose Statement, Goals and Objectives At the Town Council session held in January 2014, Council affirmed the following: Purpose Statement To ensure that Gore Creek is an outstanding example of environmental quality, recreation and wildlife habitat in a world-class resort community. The Town of Vail is committed to restoring the quality of the water in Gore Creek to ensure it is removed, and is never again listed, on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's list of "impaired" streams. Goals 1. Restore the aquatic insect population to exceed the minimum standard set by CDPHE according to the MMI score within the allotted 10 -year time frame. 2. Ensure Gore Creek water chemistry meets or exceeds regulatory standards 3. Ensure sediment loads meet or exceed regulatory standards Objectives 1. Improve riparian buffer and stream habitat 2. Reduce impacts of impervious cover 3. Reduce pollutants associated with land use activities Over 200 strategic actions have been identified by Town staff and a consultant team led by Lotic Hydrological, listed in the tables within the Strategic Plan, downloadable here: http://www.vailgov.com/projects/restore-the-qore. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS The January 11th work session of the Planning and Environmental Commission will be devoted to a discussion of questions #4, 7, and 9, covering CDOT efforts to protect Gore Creek water quality while maintaining road safety on 1-70, application methods and materials, partnerships, macroinvertebrate results across multiple sampling organizations, and effects of road maintenance on macroinvertebrate communities. In addition, per the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional information related to data, monitoring and study, the State of the Rivers Report (Attachment C) provides a comprehensive review of watershed sampling data, as does the USGS biological assessment (Attachment E), specific to macroinvertebrates. Can the Town of Vail regulate or license pesticide applicators? 2. Can the Town of Vail ban, or otherwise regulate the chemicals that are used to control weeds, pests, insects, etc. in order to improve water quality? 3. How does the Town of Vail manage pests and what are the practices related to weeds, diseased trees, insects, etc.? 4. How is the Town working with CDOT to reduce the use of magnesium chloride and road sand? 5. Can the Town of Vail establish "no mow zones" on private property, or would this constitute a "taking"? (legal counsel is conducting research and will be part of the recommended action list) 6. What is the responsibility of the developer to install, manage and maintain best management practices? 7. Where are the sampling locations that are sending red flags? They need to be consistent, measurable, the same, etc. 8. nuvv wiii Ll IU LUM I c UVdLU P1lVdLU Niuperty education and outreach to the next level? 9. What studies exist on the affect of magnesium chloride on macroinvertebrates? What are the impacts of herbicides on wildlife? ,L). vviia, ait, crit, vaii vurr k.,uuiot, utoc maiiagementpractices? IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the Restore the Gore; Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. Town of Vail Page 2 V. ACTION REQUESTED Should the Planning and Environmental Commission find that the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan is consistent with the adopted goals of the Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan goal #3: Ecosystem Health: Ensure that the natural environment, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, land use and habitat are maintained to current or improved levels of biological health; and furthers the goals adopted by the Vail Town Council in Section II above staff requests the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Restore the Gore; Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, based upon the finding that the actions identified in the Plan are consistent with the adopted Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan goal to ensure that the natural environment, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, land use and habitat are maintained to current or improved levels of biological health; and further the goals adopted by the Vail Town Council to: 1)restore the aquatic insect population to exceed the minimum standard set by CDPHE according to the MMI score within the allotted 10 -year time frame, 2)ensure Gore Creek water chemistry meets or exceeds regulatory standards, and 3)ensure sediment loads meet or exceed regulatory standards. " VI. ATTACHMENTS A. CDOT Presentation — Road Maintenance B. Lotic Hydrological Presentation — Data Collection C. State of the Rivers Report — Aggregated Data D. Updated Top Action Items (graphical) E. Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in the Eagle River Watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 Town of Vail Page 3 O 0 o 0 � �o V AH 0 N 4) • 4-J Ln N a -J V O L O_ C/1 ?' X c f� O 4-J>-.cn QU f� V L QJ �" O V .� O VC/1 1� N On 4J O (10 On f1 o L o O O rq to N (10 +�-+ O >On .x cNi� ^n Q E a_ � .^ O CD .. N N 3 r140 0 0 3 .� _ �� rao �F on CD Ln /1 N O cn O 4 -JO M +�-+ • on C:) C O . � O N (=) 4-J C:) � O Ln 5 � �O J 00 i N ::E- a�4 e f� V) •� C O Ln /1 O •i a.., 0 O 4- O L4--J O N O •C -W V C: 0 E :a u O N .� � O O Ln �- •C:-0 U U C a61 ~ toO E f� •i U L Q .� i i Q N .61 �� N — �o\o O U U .� > +�-� E O" Ln �pt/� U p� > .O .� O F cqu�o� O ra -O O Mo N 0Q)=� O V i, N N V� 0 �E •� O X O Q=E Ln :E N �-J N O O 4-J C) N •p U U O N �-J O on C: C) O O U O Q CD�O O -p O O i N O•^ +JCD CDm CDi OO O +� Q O� ^' O N C:.. N O N r4 I .- • cb C: N 'M i O O O cr U — U U N U O on O O •� o L 0 C U U C: Ln .61 O ,cy, O cn cn N N O .61� O N M ra LD N -p CD O .O��O � O O NCO O .�O r%4 v i N • .N U o m N ,Ora O U Ln J CO 4-J LU CL 1 m 4- 0 ,-04-4-00 Iellde0 Jo iso0 • i (dmb3 Pus slepaleW ao4el 1000 4 slonPoad Pa11 tlJo isoO yowluo0 4 aoueualu!eW dW9 Jo WO n 3Pue sleualeW aoq" 1000 4 aoueualu!eW dW9 J1ls0O # laa. dao yae4uo0 aiotl uo4ela anaa "!J'u! Ined 4o4lp/aapino4S aunyaw45 a ....a ao ulseg yuaw!paS a!e aU ZOZ# '4 u! u an!0 -m uuel0 a palony%uoo ulseg luawlpaS o4wo}saa puepaM X X '.' ,'... •� uawlluo W -w S ss.w4t; X X X X X X X •••H •••••• nueal0 luaw!Pa5 lenuutl lelol '.• •.•.•. 1000 q 1 lenuutl lelol •.• •••••• •H• .. dtl5 lenowai yuawIPM-ale as ois atZ# . suol lenowaa luaw lPaS LOZ# COZ# sayou aa% SWW atZ# 90Z# ZOZ # 9"0 sum 1000 9 ino-ueal0 luawlpaS ua} yoe4uo0 9 yno-ueal0 % wVu!sep'paS suol yowyuo0 9 ealo it. mo S WW 1000 9 IOS LOZ apo0 suol ea10 444 T I! P-5 ..dtlS/SWW ua}aaYaO P!IOS 7ryp•'.•.•.• .K• ...dtlS/SWW 'le a!sO P!n !l .•.4.•.•.• . sC. .. dtl5/SWW alniz!w lle%/Pues suol % ,,qtl P4uOO aol8 enouS sal!W .0w sa4oul Ie}ol IleJmous •'•�•'•'•' uoseaS J%um Ai JMA leos!j ..... . ..................................... ......... ............................ ............. ..... .... ......... ..........O .. .......... ...... t3 Ew & E. OE wo 0-0 Es :6 . 0. W -6 C Ic -5 Ul. Q m: 0, om �C: ro 0: W: 2 wo sc; 0 0, 01 0 0 0i 40 ax ld o W Wi 0: N: .0 tll > 0 O 10 W WO- wm o 0 0 W o NN Er ............. .................. z ........ a ......... .......... z ........ z .............. z ............. ..... ..................... .......... ....... ............... ............. ...................................................................... .............. ............. ..... ..... ......... ....... ........ ............... mo ............. ................... ........ ......... ........... ........ ............... ............. .......... ........ 0: 0. W 0. ............................ ........................ ................................... ........ ............................. ......................................... M 0 0— 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2: 2E: 2E: 2E: 2: 2E: z w m 2 M: M: �o Wl: O CL r�•J V f6 Q� .C� C Ln Ir - CD L E cn >+ c f6 _O V M O i � N C O O 4mJ C: i O O N C: Nu C: O .61 4mJ O N f� Ln Q� 4mJ Ln O V 'L O � O +� M � C f� C (U E QU > > � ^ a -J on N � N '^ Q U .. N V L cerin 0 CO V ' ^ N � m N -0 C E 0 a --J . V ou Q� L- � O f o N J N O U) lotO Lt: LU cm ■ L W 13 UL N 4-J O OO 4-J• O L Q E (� .61 O.61 ■ > E E� V m CYNL O' N .^ Q �--' th aO-+ ate61 � ate -J •Un N V LL OE O m •0 •O > M � Un >% � Un L . j L_0 °- a) � � `1 f6 f6 f6 Vl f6 ■� CY U O N •E 4-J 4-J O O L O *-A L 4-J N N 4-J }' O = U U U O am W M M W 4-J V CY i (�'-� "r N O N N N O V � L Q4-J0 � 4 -Ju O •,--� N O''� C f6 Q ■ ■ N �� �r Q�a Q m 00 �, c � J �Q O f6 tn L •� Q Q • �� a -J Q� ; >E .�> 0 V o .61 C) o O' O'0 V AH � t:r .0 a 4-cl) loo 0 L r� m CfV L � ca O Q U N J .0 U 0 "CIA a v o tuo ._ O (10 +.+ > _ m Q ,� U U .0 a 4-cl) loo 0 L r� L W i .0 O V m 4-0m cn If O O Q cuQ c N c cu -0 a >, cu Lo ^` nVJ, c U (a N i O to (uC:}, O (U +� O O cnU 4-1 CU U O CT =3 � cu cn +-� 0) C: C: C: O (u =3 cn C C O U U C N cn E L O (a - --i c N O cu O C: to O c -0 ca C: C: Q U U 0 0 Q O z mmm _N ■ MMEO .Mll, ■ C/) ■■■ u ■■■ w ME M ■■ N o v w MEN vi ��''��2r Q � W W < = W U a"i O Q o C/)���� a \V'^ 4—i V/ L =3-0 O c O 70 c 4-0 (u }' C/)CU u 70C/)70 4-0 cuL � 0 QJ CO U CU _ C/) O Ln tn 0 Lo M 00 N > (31 X W ca n � °- ° O ■ ■ ■ = no N o L o U.) W CU VI a) CU VI U W 4—i u] o > cum -0 U >cn 0 tn U �0- L a) l L O cu E U i 0 Q cu / 1 V V/ O L C N C O D CU U r� a1 W ca u C U �a i N U 0 CU 0 cu o w a r- 3 -Fu o L- o N cn Q O Q E cc cn cu o C:E US � V o >, cn cu C� m Q cn m Q O z mmm ■ MMEO .Mll, ■ C!] ■■■ ■■■ ME M ■■ L v w MEN ��''��2r �U O � W W < = W U H L 0 W r. 0 0 V m 4-0m 1100 I cn N El cn N E N W N U H i W i O v O V m 4-0m 1100 _O O 07 7 O N (u a) � E 0) cn C: _� cn (ua) C:cn (u cn _ (u CU 4- 0 O Ln ch CU O -6--1Q cn _ Q C: a) (u U}' O U (� _ Q 0) C O cu � U C: O ca a) C:4 -0U ca U cn cn c cn ca C: cUQ. O 4-0 cu O > � Q -0 U 10- 4 ,Q m �G a E C %r W V � 3 S Q 10- 4 ,Q m �G a E 0 p00 g' ncc p O b uolpsodwo0 yu9DJad o ' o IWW aanlJ alBed IV �aed suegdalg lueld luaua;earl I1eA MQlaa lueld luaua}eaJl HEA anogVF �Jcd Paod HEA4sed V2d uJou8ia �aajo ajo:) �oel9 nqV �aajo aJoE) �Ouje cm C) 0 C C'14 LM �i i 0 Q di LM u W L- 0 q 0 0 H c I Q Q 4 4 iT b3 h f0 li1 of M [V rl oicas IWVY CL Ef5 U CL .�1 U cL u V' m co 4t O O O O O O O O f� l0 Ln rn N -4 O $onle/%18H rn rn -A I -i O 0 4t N N ai w co 4t O O O O O O O O f� l0 Ln rn N -4 O $onle/%18H I O O O O O O N O U)O lf7 O $anlel%ld3 U Qi q0 hy t 7 OO �L N 40 (O W 7 t 7 ro u E O U) O Z ° O _ p s c/) W v U) '` o M w O a D ' � O State of the Rivers Annual Water Quality Report 2014 rdi Eagle River Watershed Council The Eagle River Monitoring and Assessment Program aims to objectively engage stakeholders regarding water quality data collected on the Eagle River. The program continually coordinates monitoring and assessment activities, provides data interpretation and technical assistance to stakeholders, identifies data gaps, and suggests actions to remedy perceived impairments. The program pulls together a diverse set of stakeholders to assure coordinated ongoing monitoring and to preserve or enhance the integrity of the watershed. PA Prepared For: Eagle River Watershed Council` Eagle River Watershed Council PO Box 5740 Eagle, CO 81631 Prepared By: i& 16fic hydrological Lotic Hydrological, LLC PO Box 1524 Carbondale, CO 81623 Special Acknowledgments Eagle River Watershed Council coordinates the Eagle River Monitoring and Assessment Program with generous support from Eagle County, Vail Resorts Management Company, Town of Vail, United States Geological Survey, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Homestake Partners, Town of Gypsum, Town of Eagle, Denver Water, Town of Minturn, Battle Mountain/Crave Real Estate, Climax Molybdenum, and Town of Avon. FAC,( F CYOI INTY CRAVE 19 AURORA WATER VAIL RESORTS 4 �USGS science for a changing world TOWN OF VAIL 7 -Own of Aqwtgwr Eagle River Water & Sanitation District HEART of the VALLEY DENVER NATER ® Climax Molybdenum AFfeepc9-!1!v.+VoRan Company UFWAIHIIME0a[1[$]0YYII►1K7 1 PURPOSE STATEMENT........................................................................................................................................................................................9 2 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................................................................10 2.1 DATA SOURCES..........................................................................................................................................10 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 UPDATES TO PREVIOUS YEARS' REPORTING..............................................................................15 2.4 NAVIGATING THE 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT CARD....................................................15 3 QUALITY OF WATERS IN THE EAGLE RIVER SUBWATERSHED................................................................................................... 17 3.1 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS SUMMARIZED BY 305(B) SEGMENT..............................17 3.2 TRENDS AND SEASONAL PATTERNS FOR SELECT PARAMETERS .................................... 24 4 UPPER EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED........................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.1 SEGMENT COUCEA02 6300................................................................................................................. 29 4.2 SEGMENT COUCEA03_6300 (Upper Eagle subwatershed).................................................... 31 4.3 SEGMENT COUCEA04 6300................................................................................................................. 33 4.4 SEGMENT COUCEA05a 6300............................................................................................................... 34 4.5 SEGMENT COUCEA05b 6300............................................................................................................... 37 4.6 SEGMENT COUCEA05c 6300............................................................................................................... 40 4.7 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6300 (Upper Eagle subwatershed).................................................... 43 4.8 SEGMENT COUCEA07b 6300............................................................................................................... 45 5 GORE CREEK..........................................................................................................................................................................................................47 5.1 SEGMENT COUCEA06 6301................................................................................................................. 49 5.2 SEGMENT COUCEA06 6300................................................................................................................. 51 5.3 SEGMENT COUCEA06 6314................................................................................................................. 52 5.4 SEGMENT COUCEA08 6300................................................................................................................. 53 6 MIDDLE EAGLE RIVER...................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 6.1 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6300 (Middle Eagle subwatershed)................................................... 57 6.2 SEGMENT COUCEA06 6302................................................................................................................. 58 6.3 SEGMENT COUCEA06 6303................................................................................................................. 58 6.4 SEGMENT COUCEA09a 6300............................................................................................................... 60 7 LOWER EAGLE RIVER....................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 7.1 SEGMENT COUCEA09c 6300............................................................................................................... 64 7.2 SEGMENT COUCEA10a 6310............................................................................................................... 66 8 BRUSH CREEK....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68 8.1 SEGMENT COUCEA10a 6300............................................................................................................... 69 8.2 SEGMENT COUCEA12 6300................................................................................................................. 71 9 GYPSUM CREEK.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 9.1 SEGMENT COUCEA10a 6300............................................................................................................... 75 10 NOTABLE DATA GAPS................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Monitoring locations within the Eagle River watershed producing data utilized in this report ............................12 Figure 2. Ten digit HUC boundaries and 305(b) segmentation................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3. Example sampling date hydrograph.................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 4. Example water quality assessment results summary graphs.................................................................................................17 Figure S. A -D. Water quality assessment summaries, by Use Class.........................................................................................................18 Figure 6. A & B. Impairment source assessment summaries for non -point and point source pollution ................................ 22 Figure 7. A -C. Seasonal patterns and trends for selected water quality parameters..................................................................... 25 Figure 8. Upper Eagle subwatershed map, HUC 1401000301................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 9. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 2........................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 10. Water quality Indicators summary, Segment 2.......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 11. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 3........................................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 12. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 3............................................................................................................................ 32 Figure 13. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 4............................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 14. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 5a...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 15. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5a.......................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 16. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 5b...................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 17. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5b......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 18. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment Sc ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 19. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment Sc .......................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 20. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6........................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 21. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6 (Upper Eagle subwatershed)...............................................................45 Figure 22. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 7b...................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 23. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 7b.........................................................................................................................47 Figure 24. Gore Creek subwatershed map, HUC 1401000302.................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 25. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6, Reach 6301............................................................................................................. 50 Figure 26. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6301................................................................................................. 50 Figure 27. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6 (Gore Creek subwatershed)................................................................. 52 Figure 28. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 8........................................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 29. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 8............................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 30. Middle Eagle River subwatershed Map, HUC 1401000303.................................................................................................. 56 Figure 31. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6, Reach 6303............................................................................................................. 59 Figure 32. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6303................................................................................................. 59 Figure 33. Sampling dates hydrographs, Segment 9a.................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 34. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9a.......................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 35. Lower Eagle subwatershed map, HUC 1401000306............................................................................................................... 63 Figure 36. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 9c...................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 37. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9c.......................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 38. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 10a, Reach 6310....................................................................................................... 67 Figure 39. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a, Reach 6310............................................................................................ 67 Figure 40. Brush Creek subwatershed, HUC 401000304............................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 41. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 10a.................................................................................................................................. 70 Figure 42. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a....................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 43. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 12..................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 44. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 12......................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 45. Gypsum Creek subwatershed, HUC 1401000305..................................................................................................................... 74 on LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Organizations collecting water quality data in Eagle River watershed...............................................................................11 Table 2. Trends summary for select sites............................................................................................................................................................ 24 Table4. Sampling Locations, Segment 2.............................................................................................................................................................. 29 TableS. Sampling Locations, Segment 3.............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Table6. Sampling Locations, Segment 4.............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Table7. Sampling Locations, Segment 5a........................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table8. Sampling Locations, Segment 5b........................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table9. Sampling Locations, Segment Sc ...........................................................................................................................................................40 Table 10. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Upper Eagle subwatershed).............................................................................................. 43 Table11. Sampling Locations, Segment 7b........................................................................................................................................................ 46 Table 12. Sampling Locations, Segment 6_6301.............................................................................................................................................. 49 Table 13. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Gore Creek subwatershed)................................................................................................ 51 Table 14. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 Reach 6314................................................................................................................................. 52 Table15. Sampling Locations, Segment 8........................................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 16. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Middle Eagle subwatershed)............................................................................................ 57 Table 17. Sampling Locations, Segment 6_6303.............................................................................................................................................. 58 Table18. Sampling Locations, Segment 9a......................................................................................................................................................... 60 Table19. Sampling Locations, Segment 9c......................................................................................................................................................... 64 Table 20. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a_6310......................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 21. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a_6300......................................................................................................................................... 69 Table22. Sampling Locations, Segment 12........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Table 23. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a (Gypsum Creek subwatershed).................................................................................... 75 II DEFINITION OF TERMS BLM: Bureau of Land Management CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CDPHE: Colorado Department of Health and Environment CPW: Colorado Parks and Wildlife CWA: Clean Water Act EPA: Environmental Protection Agency ERIA: Eagle River Inventory and Assessment ERWC: Eagle River Watershed Council ERWSD: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District FFS: Focused Feasibility Study HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation MDEP: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection NWCCOG: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWIS: National Water Information System QAQC: Quality Assurance and Quality Control STORET: Storage and Retrieval System TVS: Table Value Standards USGS: United States Geological Survey USFS: United States Forest Service WQCC: Water Quality Control Commission WQCD: Water Quality Control Division WQIP: Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan WQMAP: Eagle River Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program WQS: Water quality standard E.l INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE STATEMENT This document serves as an annual update to the Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) and its partners, summarizing water quality conditions and trends in the Eagle River Watershed. The data collection, analysis, and reporting required to complete this report are guided and funded, in part, by the Eagle River Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program (WQMAP). The first "State of the Rivers" report published under this program considered water years 2011-2013. This update considers the 2009-2014 water years. Water quality monitoring efforts support scientifically -based decision making by transforming raw data generated from environmental field samples into the information necessary to answer specific questions, aid organizational management objectives, and effectively communicate water quality conditions and/or trends to stakeholders and the public. A functional water quality monitoring program focuses not only on the collection of samples from the field, but also on generating the types of analyses and interpretations necessary to turn raw data into meaningful action. An abundance of data does not, on its own, lead to informed decision-making. Monitoring programs that neglect routine data analysis and reporting of analytical results may fall prey to the "data rich but information poor" trap outlined by Ward et al. (1986). Avoiding this pitfall starts with a sampling design that conforms to well-developed monitoring objectives. However, the utility of results to decision makers depends not only on the alignment of monitoring objectives and data generation activities, but also on a critical evaluation of the intersection between water quality data and natural resource management prior to data analysis and interpretation. Stakeholder groups often struggle with the task of transforming data into the information necessary for guiding efforts to protect or enhance water quality conditions. Water quality data analysis and interpretation must provide the community with timely and relevant information about water quality in the water body(s) of interest within the context of existing regulatory frameworks and local knowledge of perceived or observed water quality stressors. Knowledge gained from analysis of water quality data transfers most readily to decision-making processes through targeted and well-planned communication and reporting efforts. Water quality reporting must convey highly pertinent information to target audiences. The fact that different audiences not only exhibit differing levels of technical understanding, but also utilize results in very different ways complicates this task. Community members use results to enhance their understanding of water quality stressors and inform personal actions. Policy makers use results to support development of projects, programs, or policy affecting water quality. Resource managers use results to better understand the effects of various management alternatives and to develop or modify resource management plans. Thus, the mechanism(s) selected for communicating results of water quality data analysis must provide each target audience with discussions and interpretations considerate of their respective levels of technical expertise. The paradigm outlined above applies equally in the Eagle River watershed. A need exists for consistent synthesis and reporting of the wealth of water quality data collected across the watershed each year. To provide the greatest utility to local stakeholders and the general public, such reporting must: • Align with State and federal regulatory frameworks, • Utilize data produced by numerous agencies and organizations, • Provide adequate analysis to help stakeholders understand relationships between current water quality conditions and a range of possible water uses, and • Present analysis results and interpretations to a diverse audience in an easy -to -understand format. 6.1 The Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC), through its coordination of the Eagle River Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Program (WQMAP), strives to accommodate these needs and produce annual water quality reports of high value to both WQMAP program partners and members of the general public. Water quality reporting for the Eagle River watershed generally corresponds to Colorado's 305(b) and 303(d) assessment and reporting requirements outlined in the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) administers the CWA in Colorado. WQCD delineates and classifies all waters in the State according to existing or potential beneficial uses. 305(b) stream segmentation and corresponding water quality standards reflect streams and rivers geographical orientation, ambient water quality conditions, expected water use types, and/or impacts from one or more water quality stressors. WQCD uses data produced by ongoing water quality monitoring to determine whether or not water bodies continue to retain a level of quality necessary to support the beneficial use(s) assigned to it. For a full discussion of 305(b) and 303(d) reporting requirements, please refer to the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (CDPHE, 2012). The water quality regulatory framework defined by the CWA provides a convenient construct for reporting on observed water quality conditions for segments of the Eagle River and its tributaries as it provides quantifiable benchmarks of water quality for data comparison. Assessment of collected data against WQCD standards for water quality also allows stakeholders to anticipate future regulatory action under CWA on a given water body where water quality measurements fail to meet standards. Evaluation of water quality monitoring results in this report generally follows the guidelines established in CDPHE Regulation #93: Section 303(d) Listing Methodology, 2012 Listing Cycle. The largest difference between water quality reporting conducted here and that performed by WQCD resides in the handling of water quality parameters relevant to multiple designated water uses. Common WQCD practice dictates evaluation of data collected for a given parameter against only the most stringent water quality standard adopted on a given water body. For example, the WQCD defines different standards for arsenic for multiple designated water use types. The chronic arsenic standard for aquatic life use attainment is much higher (150 ug/1) than the standard for domestic water supply use attainment (0.02-10 ug/1). In such a case, WQCD may elect to evaluate arsenic data only against the domestic water supply use standard. ERWC elected to evaluate data against all applicable standards for each stream segment in the watershed, as defined by their designated water uses and the relevant standards defined in CDPHE Regulation #31. This approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of water quality conditions across the watershed. Generally, the reporting template utilized here strives to distill large amounts of water quality sampling data using a set of methods justifiable to the scientific and regulatory communities, while presenting interpretations in a highly visual manner. Aggregation and distillation of recently collected water quality data in a context relevant to resource management decision-making processes (i.e. CWA regulatory framework) allows decision makers to quickly 1) better understand existing data gaps, 2) assess the effectiveness of water quality protection/improvement programs or policies, 3) evaluate the effects of various land use practices on water quality conditions, and 4) anticipate regulatory action from state or federal agencies. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 DATA SOURCES Multiple agencies and organizations collect water quality data across the Eagle River watershed (Table 1). Insufficient metadata may lead to inappropriate data use, or misinterpretation of results and represents a significant barrier to data analysis. The existence of multiple non -standardized data formatting approaches represents another barrier to data analysis, as reformatting data sets may require a significant time investment. Therefore, selection of data sources that minimize formatting concerns and provide adequate data annotation represents a critical step when conducting 10 water quality evaluations. To this end, ERWC aggregated only a subset of the data produced by active data collection efforts in the watershed for use in this report (Table 1). Table 1. Organizations collecting water quality data in Eagle River watershed. Entities that produced data utilized in the generation of this report indicated in bold font. ID Organization Primary Contact Contact Details ARRA Adams Rib Ranch Matt Shoulders mshoulders@adamsribranch.com CBS CBS Broadcasting Inc. via Newfields Inc. Dave Hinrichs dhinrichs@newfields.com CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation Mike Vanderhoof michael.vanderhoof@dot.state.co.us CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Amiee Konowal aimee.konowal@state.co.us CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife Kendall Bakich kendall.bakich@state.co.us EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Karl Hermann hermann.karl@epa.gov ERWC Eagle River Watershed Council via Colorado River Watch and Timberline Aquatics Holly Loff loff@erwc.org ERWSD Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Leah Cribari lcribari@erwsd.org TOE Town of Eagle Daron Dericksen daron@townofeagle.org TOG Town of Gypsum Jeff Shreeve jshreeve@townofgypsum.org TOV Town of Vail via Colorado RiverWatch Kristen Bertuglia kbertuglia@vailgov.com USFS United States Forest Service Matt Grove magrove@fs.fed.us USGS United States Geological Survey David Brown dsbrown@usgs.gov To ensure that readers of this report retain the ability to cross-reference statistical summary information against raw data from the selected data source(s), ERWC utilized only data stored in public electronic data repositories. All data utilized for analysis in this report came from either the USGS NWIS database, or the EPA STORET database—both accessible through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council Water Quality Portal (www.waterqualitydata.us). Use of these electronic repositories greatly simplifies data formatting concerns during analysis. Additionally, the requirements by the NWIS and STORET repositories for storage and publication of minimum metadata sets with any stored water quality data value provide an avenue for evaluation of data reliability. The fact that not all data collection entities across the watershed store data in either NWIS or STORET and because some data entry into STORET experiences a significant lag time between data collection and publication (e.g. Colorado Watershed Assembly River Watch data) there are some inherent disadvantages to using the selected data sources. 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS Data used in this report was derived from surface water samples collected along 305(b) stream segments in the Eagle River watershed over five water years spanning the time period between October 1St, 2009 and September 30th, 2014. The resultant data set contained 34,687 individual data points collected from 65 sampling locations by USGS, Adam's Rib Ranch, Newfields/CBS, and Colorado Watershed Assembly River Watch volunteers (Figure 1). Prior to analysis, water quality data was grouped according to three nested spatial scales: 10 -digit HUC watersheds, 305(b) stream segments, and individual sampling locations. Organization by 10 -digit HUC watershed aids in the interpretation of analysis results since unique patterns of land use exist in each of the watershed's six 10 -digit HUCs. Data aggregation according to the 305(b) segment aligns with the State of Colorado's assessment methodology for identification of impaired waters. Where segments existed in more than one 10 -digit HUC, segment conditions were described by aggregating data from only those monitoring locations that fell along the segment of interest and within the 10 -digit HUC. Assessment of data produced at individual sampling locations provided important information about the specific locations driving water quality assessment rankings at the 305(b) segment level. Data did not exist over the time period of interest for all 305(b) segments in each 10 -digit HUC. This resulted from either a lack of recent sample collection at some locations, or the lag -time between sample collection and data publication noted above. 11 Figure 1. Monitoring locations within the Eagle River watershed producing data utilized in this report. Analysis of data collected for each chemical water quality parameter produced summary statistics useful for qualitative interpretation and ranking. Summary statistics included the minimum observed value, the median value, the maximum value, the date when the maximum was observed, the 15th percentile of the data, the 50th percentile of the data, and the 85th percentile of the data. Where a sufficient number of observations existed and were evenly distributed over the review period, a non -flow corrected Seasonal Mann -Kendall trend test identified significant trends in specific parameter values over the past 5 years. In order to conduct this analysis, data were initially binned according to season (e.g. December -February, March -May, June -August, and September -November). This binning strategy reflects with typical hydrologic milestones observed in the Eagle River watershed. Trends analysis results identified statistically significant (at the 95% significance level, or p -value < 0.05) monotonic upward or downward trends. Assessment of water quality conditions relied on comparison of collected data to WQCD water quality standards for particular water uses on a given water body. Data analysis utilized EPA recommendations for water quality parameters where no WQCD standard exists. Water uses and associated water quality standards for a given segment corresponded to 305(b) water use type classifications and narrative or numeric standards outlined in CDPHE Regulation #31 and Regulation #33. Aggregation of data for a particular 305(b) segment did not attempt to distinguish differences in water quality conditions between multiple data collection locations on that segment. Quantitative analysis of numerical data relied on the R statistical computing environment (http://www.r- project.org/). 12 Lower Eagle Watershed 305(b) Segments COUCEA09b COUCEA9c COUCEA10a COUCEA11 Middle Eagle Watershed 305(b) Segments COUCEA01 COUCEA06 — COUCEA09a COUCEA09b COUCEA10a Gore Creek Watershed 305(b) Segments COUCEA01 — COUCEA06 COUCEA08 Gypsum Creek Watershed I 305(b) Segments Brush Creek Watershed COUCEA10a 305(b) Segments COUCEA01 COUCEA10a — COUCEA10b — COUCEA12 Upper Eagle Watershed 305(b) Segments COUCEA01 — COUCEA02 — COUCEA03 CO UC EA04 COUCEA05a — COUCEA05b COUCEA05c COUCEA06 — COUCEA07a — COUCEA07b Figure 2. Ten digit HUC boundaries and 305(b) segmentation utilized for data analysis, organization and presentation of results. Methods for data evaluation followed CDPHE Regulation #93 for attainment of water quality standards, as quoted below: Attainment of chronic chemical standards, in both streams and rivers, and lakes and reservoir systems, is based upon the 85th percentile of the ranked data, [..]. Percentile values are calculated by ranking individual data points in order of magnitude. Hardness -based metal standards are evaluated by comparing the 85th percentile against the assigned hardness -based equation using the mean hardness. Total recoverable metals are evaluated against the median value, or the 501h percentile. Dissolved metals are evaluated against the 85th percentile. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is evaluated at the 15th percentile for streams. Minima pH is evaluated against the 151h percentile, maxima at the 851h percentile. [..]" 13 "Sample data that are below detection limits will, in general (except coliform data), be treated as zeroes for assessment of attainment. [..]" "Attainment of the E.coli standard is assessed using the geometric mean of representative stream samples. [..] E.coli data that are reported as less than detect will be treated as a value of one to allow calculation of a geometric mean. [..] Evaluation of the E. coli standard is over multiple fixed two-month intervals. The evaluation intervals are: January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, September/October, and November/December. [..]" "Biological and/or physical assessment protocols may support a determination of non -attainment of numeric standards or, alternately, nonattainment of narrative standards and classified uses. [..] In general, a determination that an assigned aquatic life use is not supported will be consistent with the protocols established in WQCC Policy 10-1, Aquatic Life Use Attainment, Methodology to Determine Use Attainment for Streams and Rivers.'[..]" Calculation of mean hardness values for assessments using hardness -based standards utilized all hardness data collected on a given segment over the entire observation period. Comparison of observed water quality data against water supply use protection standards did not consider the location of the observed arsenic, nitrate, or nitrite data in relation to any drinking water supply intakes. Neither did this assessment attempt to calculate standards for manganese, iron and sulfate using pre -2000 existing water quality conditions. Rather, in keeping with the intention of this report as a coarse -screening tool for assessing water quality conditions throughout the watershed, table value standards (TVS) were used for assessment of water supply use protection on each stream segment. Categorical use -protection rankings were assigned to each parameter evaluated against State of Colorado water quality standards or EPA recommendations. In general, if the ambient levels of a given water quality parameter (defined as the 50th percentile of the ranked data for total metals and the 85th percentile for all other chemical parameters) exceeded the relevant water quality standard, the segment received a 'Poor' use protection rating for that parameter. If the ambient quality did not exceed the standard, but did exceed 50% of the standard concentration and the maximum observed concentration exceeded the standard, the segment or site received a'Concern' use protection rating for that parameter. If neither the ambient quality nor the maximum observed concentration exceeded the standard, but ambient conditions did exceed 50% of the standard concentration, the segment or site received an 'Acceptable' use protection rating for that parameter. A use protection rating of'Good' was awarded when ambient conditions did not exceed 50% of the standard for a given parameter. When the number of censored values in a data set equaled the number or water quality samples, the segment or site received a "Poor Resolution" rating. This ranking system generally aligns with the "Concern levels" adopted for use by the USGS in the Comparison of2011-12 wateryears and historical water -quality data, Eagle River Basin, Colorado (http://co.water.usgs.gov/infodata/eagle-summaries/). Several parameters were not evaluated as described above. In the cases of pH and dissolved oxygen, a 'Poor' use protection rating was awarded when ambient conditions exceeded the standard. All other instances produced a'Good' rating. Parameters evaluated in the field using USGS severity codes did not lend themselves to assessment based on statistical summaries. A 'Good' use protection rating reflected a USGS severity ranking of 'None'. A USGS severity ranking of'Mild' or 'Moderate' garnered a'Concern' use protection rating, while a USGS severity ranking of'Severe' or 'Extreme' produced a 'Poor' rating for a given parameter. Fish tissue advisories producing data outside the expected range received a 'Poor' use protection rating and advisories producing data within the expected range received a 'Good' rating. Macroinvertebrate data produced a 'Poor' rating when results indicated an exceedances of the standard, a "Concern' rating when results fell within the 'gray zone' described in WQCC Policy 10-1, and 'Good' rating for all other conditions. 14 Assignment of a 'Concern' or 'Poor' use protection rating for any given water quality parameter led to subsequent identification of potential, suspected, or known impairment sources. Water quality impairment sources fell into two main categories (point- and non -point source) and several sub -categories. Existing water quality reports, scientific literature, and expert knowledge informed source identification. Importantly, assignment of sources to water quality parameters indicating impairment does not qualify as an official determination of impairment as defined by WQCD. All source assignments should be considered preliminary and likely require further investigation. 2.3 UPDATES TO PREVIOUS YEARS' REPORTING In 2014 the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment made one change to the impaired segments listing within the Eagle River Watershed: "Eagle River Segments 9a and 9b: The lower portion of Eagle River Segment 9a, the mainstem of the Eagle River from a point immediately below Squaw Creek to a point immediately below Rube Creek, was moved to a new Segment 9b to facilitate the adoption of appropriate temperature standards. Segment 9b was renumbered to 9c to facilitate this change" - CDHPE Draft Final Action June 2014 Creation of a new 305(b) segment resulted in a slightly different approach to data aggregation and presentation of results. However, because no data was available for the newly created Segment 9b, water quality conditions on this reach were not evaluated. Although the data utilized in the generation of this report encompasses the water years included in the Annual Water Quality Report: WY2011-2013„ there may be some discrepancy between water quality assessment results and ratings assigned in 2013 and those reported in this document. This is due to a change in the monitoring results sample size. The Annual Water Quality Report: WY 2011-2013 used approximately 13,600 data points. This year's effort utilized approximately 34,700 data points. Specific data points falling between the 15th or 85th percentiles in the previous report may not necessarily fall within those same statistically significant ranges in the larger data set. As a result, a monitoring site that logged a water quality exceedance (i.e. where the value for the 85 percentile of the observations was greater than the WQCD standard) in 2013 may not necessarily produce an exceedance when analysis is conducted on the larger dataset. Conversely, exceedances that occurred prior to 2011 that were not previously reported may now be included in the segment and site assessments. 2.4 NAVIGATING THE 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT CARD The following section presents the general organization of summary information for water quality reporting on various stream segments in the Eagle River watershed. Both the general public and resource managers with some technical expertise in water quality should find this report useful. ERWC strives to strike a balance between simplifying the interpretation of water quality data and providing enough statistical summary information to make a more thorough or detailed evaluation possible. Section 2 presents a summary of water quality conditions across the watershed and an assessment of the stressors related to observed areas of water quality concern. Section 3 reports on water quality conditions observed on the Eagle River and its tributaries as identified by CDPHE in its 305(b) reporting to EPA. Each subsection in Section 3 provides a summary of factors impacting water quality on the reach, the current regulatory status, a brief narrative discussion of water quality conditions of concern, and an evaluation of the quality of available data on which that segment's assessment is based (e.g. length of data set and hydrologic representativeness). The most highly summarized and qualitative interpretations and discussions appear first, while the more data rich sections containing quantitative assessments and statistical summaries appear later. A reader primarily interested in gleaning a high level interpretation of water quality conditions will likely find the watershed overview and summary discussions most useful, but may not delve more deeply into the statistical summaries of data collected on individual 15 segments or monitoring locations. Conversely, a resource manager interested in a particular water quality issue on a water body of interest may quickly review the watershed summary information and spend the majority of his or her time reviewing the assessment of water quality by designated water use or the statistical summaries of collected data. 0 m a -0 Q mLn �Co CA mw E 0 Co N O � 4J N p7 (� C� O U D LO N_ 0 O Dates of water quality samping events Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 3. Example sampling date hydrograph. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from the nearest available or most representative USGS gauging station to the segment of interest. The hydrograph may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling dates, which occur once annually in September, are not included in these figures. Each segment review provides several summary figures and tables designed to aid in understanding the amount and quality of data available for assessment of 305(b) segments. A hydrograph from the nearest streamflow gauging site to the segment of interest indicates the relative timing and magnitude of flows over the 5 -year review period (Figure 3). Dates of sample collection are superimposed on the hydrograph to highlight the timing of sample collection and provide an understanding of how well monitoring activities characterize the typical hydrologic regime. A second figure (Figure 4) summarizes the number of water quality parameters corresponding to each use -protection assessment rating (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, and Data Gap) and each water quality use classification present on the segment. These figures illustrate the quality and breadth of information available for a segment in relation to WQCD standards assessment. Aquatic Life w 7 E2 6 1s ca O 10 o s E Z 0 ❑®—� 0 Q a E g m o 0 o o d o � Q CL 8 Recreation 7 of the 8 water quality Indicators used to assess the 'Recreation' Use Class assessed as 'Data Gap' 2 of the 8 water quality Indicators used to assess the 'Recreation' Use Class assessed as 'Good' a c m a .R 0 m o " K a a o m a 'a CL 4 E m c U `o o a S Figure 4. Example water quality assessment results summary graphs. NOTABLE DATA GAPS 10 is dedicated to the 303(d) segments with significant gaps in data collection and/or accessibility. The Appendices provides detailed descriptive statistics for both aggregated segments and each individual monitoring site. This information will primarily be useful to the reader wishing to discern the specific conditions driving a particular assessment rating for a site or parameter. Provided summary statistics include the number of samples used (n), the median and range of the observations in the review time period, the 15 and 85 percentiles used in standards comparison, whether statistically significant trends exist, the presence of WQCD standards exceedances, along with the qualitative assessment ranking for each parameter using the criteria defined above. 3 QUALITY OF WATERS IN THE EAGLE RIVER SUBWATERSHED 3.1 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS SUMMARIZED BY 305(B) SEGMENT As discussed above, this water quality report summarizes the wealth of data generated from data collection sites across the watershed over the previous five water years (October 2009—September 2014) and, therefore, may not capture long-term conditions or trends for a given water quality parameter on a water body. Additionally, and due to the nuanced nature of water quality reporting presented here, ERWC recommends that all readers refer to the statistical summaries and narrative discussions of perceived water quality impairments on a given segment prior to forming a final impression of the issue or taking any action in response to the summary information presented in various figures or tables. The data quality, number of samples, and number of censored values for a particular parameter are of particular importance when considering water quality use protection ratings. 17 Vf ca U A vi ca 7 C ca ca ca 6" ca L. G1 d Ln a� bA W O ca � c � A ca U ca d � O O tDn O O ca �+ C U y O bA U r tDn C 'O i.n ca bA O O U i. � U � C O U Vf O CU >j O bA U � 'h O fa y C h ..w � C O bA CL W ani C o y U i bA O CL � O '.y U N O O O M U C ca vOi ca C 'C Zn C � C c O � O caca �+ 6" 'O C ca O O� d U � Ln ca O Wca U W O ca a ®■_.■:: µ>.■■■■■■■■■■li�■_.■■■_SWI■■■■■Iu■�■ ■■■ MMMMI�■ 7■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMO MEME II�Mmm ■I■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ MEMO � MEMO � ■„I■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■■ MEME M= ■.Y■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ MEME M= MEME ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■''■ a O ca � c � A ca U ca d � O O tDn O O ca �+ C U y O bA U r tDn C 'O i.n ca bA O O U i. � U � C O U Vf O CU >j O bA U � 'h O fa y C h ..w � C O bA CL W ani C o y U i bA O CL � O '.y U N O O O M U C ca vOi ca C 'C Zn C � C c O � O caca �+ 6" 'O C ca O O� d U � Ln ca O Wca U W O ca a PAIN alis � lualas E N a1u1!N N -MlIN PAIIN nuopgAloyy Ain �a yy ► a ue8ueyy � peak oil 3 apuonlj !lo3 j ua8Ax0 panlosslp aplueA7 jaddo7 IA w wWy7 III w wW47 apuol47 nlwpe7 wnllltiae nueg O z ®0❑ s1uel2R-uelsnN 0 .Q d D 3 o « w 3 !A. M 3 3 o 3 3 3 a l act??m'a'ititit3 3 3 8 a 7 O Dania alSe3 jaddn IN O ca a .� A � d a� y 'C O O ca O caU ca U 0 O 'O L. a� O. U U U � O bA U � t ° i.n � U O O U r) w O W vi O U y In y fa > C CU O � U 'h Ld CL v h � O C O t h � t Ci O C 0 ..+ O In O O U M � a tm Gi v � h h � h. O ca C ri. O 7 ca 6" 'O C ca O O .0 ca tm U W 0 Q) U ca d � .n y ^O ca O O ca C ca O CU ca w U O �tm CL O bA C C � L. ca bOA CL � O C +, U O U W Vf O h CU > O -- U , +�+ CU O y L. CL v h C ^O � O ami y O O O C L. O U N O O U M � C c h O ^O h C � C vi O ca y ca 7 ca C ca O ca � O O � GS y Ln ca O Wca U W O ca O N MENOMONEE �MENOMONEE �M0116smmmmm■ NONE"°W■■■■■ NONE NONE ■■■ I■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■tlll■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ®ME` MENNEN ®r �II ■■■■■■I•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ �i�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■IIf■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ®IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ��������������������������� IN MEWWOMMEWIFEEME ■■■■■ mi�� IMOMMEME NONE I■■■■■■■■■■■ ���I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ NEM NONEI■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■UMME■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■MIND■■W NONE I■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■ISI■■■■■■" NONE I■■■■■■ ■■■■ U ca d � .n y ^O ca O O ca C ca O CU ca w U O �tm CL O bA C C � L. ca bOA CL � O C +, U O U W Vf O h CU > O -- U , +�+ CU O y L. CL v h C ^O � O ami y O O O C L. O U N O O U M � C c h O ^O h C � C vi O ca y ca 7 ca C ca O ca � O O � GS y Ln ca O Wca U W O ca O N NONSENSE ■■iiiiiii■■■■■iiiiiii■i■■■ MEMO ■i■■ii■■i■iiiiiiiiiiiiiii �< ®■■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ®■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m,,■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ �I MEMO MEMO MINE ■■■■■■■■■■■E MEMO MEMO ■MEMO■■■■■■■■I■■■■MINE 0, I'M ■■■■■■■■■ ..,''■■■■..... MEMO■■■■ ®■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ MEMO■■■■ I�I■■■■■■■■.'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ivl■■■■■■■■h"'■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMO ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ME■■■,■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ��■■■4�Yu■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ mill"■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■mill■■■MINE MOM ■■■■■■ MENNOM■■■MEMO MINE ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■MOON■■I■■■■MINE MINE �P!'■■■ NMI c ao °' � do > o o � c 0 c Ccd U � U C O � y ^O y U � ID bA U f6 U .moi S.n U f6 •O C ^O O C O O � Q" O O � y C O O O c.v ++ O O O O U CL vi C y O L. C L. bOA w�, W CU O w O � y O � � E Vf U �••� O O O 7 U U C O a3 c a� ca > al oo . u O O •�n L. CIO CL U U O � O c0 CL � � � U O f0 W U CL N N I�lI��IlIl1111A11 11ss-::�1�1�1111111 c ao °' � do > o o � c 0 c Ccd U � U C O � y ^O y U � ID bA U f6 U .moi S.n U f6 •O C ^O O C O O � Q" O O � y C O O O c.v ++ O O O O U CL vi C y O L. C L. bOA w�, W CU O w O � y O � � E Vf U �••� O O O 7 U U C O a3 c a� ca > al oo . u O O •�n L. CIO CL U U O � O c0 CL � � � U O f0 W U CL N N a ca bA0.L. w rA U f0 U C O U tDn ca tDn ^� 4% i.n Lw E co L. � O U C O O CL ca y U U tb h U h U f0 O U O ° C � � O ca O E ^O L. �n C O � O O O �n U +� vi n y w aoi b�A h O ca y w � W u O O o � a ca CU L. � � O y � C O L. U C � o O" co C 2c0 �j O � O � Ld � � O U h M N (s)Iaw_UaAi;:)y x x x x O O O O O N E — — — — � ' E 0 o c o 0 0� av as!-7(p)EoEj;:))Ja;erypueajD E v v v v v m u d d w d d d m � u u u u u N C7 � f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 O. Q Q Q Q Q r uoi;enleA]7PUWouuo;iuoyy E c of of 3 Q Q Q `r aBJeyxicEJa;ejypsui100D aBJ eyxicEJa;eMa;sejvu1ejasnpu I �j K MOj;.IaA®JaMa%jpau!gwoD � r W a;sAS]Ja;eM W JO;%]a;eJ eda5 �5 � m a z O 'c a uoi;�auuo�7JaMa�;l�lIII � MOjJJaA(jJaMagy(Je;iue5 a2lJ eyxiCEJa;eMa;seNjaled pi un yy w v � o w o 0 w g 12 `o a o m o 0 d E5 o d u ° E5 E5 ti w on b o ® E t 0 w t w t o ° °' d> o W o E o tl r¢ N z F C w v m E9 o LTJ w d b d 0 > O a w O E ° ® Q z O Q Vw1 -° P L m g L 'aj °° 9 O tl L*7 N p `" o L7 Y N a O z U o 0 ° ° '6 d O E t O w w °® 2 LL °° o L7 w o o® L7 E t o E5ti 11�1� t -6 `^ d o d m o o o N d ° E > C N N N 0 > g o O w 3° g o °tl O O O E5 > > d> d d w >w > oo — w E E w o ° E w E E E° w E oma`, o f E E '° E E w w 9 > 9 9 N N O 9 N O w N 9 w w N > N > O 9 w N N > w N O 9 E O 9 N ; E f o o o v a a x a b b a m=v r m a s a a a 0 D 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 m N O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O C 0 © O m O m O m O m m io m m io O m m io m 0 m 0 m .� m O m O m O m O m m io m m io O m O m m O m m io m 0 m O r + N N m 0 N N N 0 r r 0 0 0 c0 0 0 m O ci O N O 9 O ci •O H E 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O ci ci ci ci ci ci ci c b9 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V ? ?d. C 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 V 0 U.U.U. 0 0 0 V 0 V 0 V u� N 3 > o o o o Y �go mo w nn w v N i > d W 3 3 o x a `o 3iR a a � l7 O a ca bA0.L. w rA U f0 U C O U tDn ca tDn ^� 4% i.n Lw E co L. � O U C O O CL ca y U U tb h U h U f0 O U O ° C � � O ca O E ^O L. �n C O � O O O �n U +� vi n y w aoi b�A h O ca y w � W u O O o � a ca CU L. � � O y � C O L. U C � o O" co C 2c0 �j O � O � Ld � � O U h M N Generally, water quality conditions across the Eagle River watershed remain within the recommended limits established by WQCD or EPA. Notable exceptions occur in the vicinity of the Eagle Mine where continued loading of trace metals sourced from drainage of the mine workings or from waste rock repositories elevate concentrations of iron, cadmium, zinc and manganese above water quality standards established for the protection of aquatic life, water supply, and agricultural uses. These impacts affect the mainstem of the Eagle River adjacent to the Eagle Mine superfund site, as well as several downstream segments. Natural geological weathering likely produces the high turbidity observed on numerous segments during snowmelt and late -summer monsoonal activity. Weathering of some surficial geological deposits may also contribute to the elevated arsenic concentrations observed in the upper portions of the watershed. Urban land use activities and degradation of the riparian corridor are suspected causes of macroinvertebrate impairments on Gore Creek. Indicators of weakening macroinvertebrate community resilience on Segment 9a suggest similar processes may be at work on the Eagle River mainstem near the town of Avon. The proceeding report subsections discuss water quality conditions on each 305(b) reporting segment. Segments are grouped by 10 -digit HUC designation and thus generally appear in the same order as seen in the report card overview. The only exception is made for stream segments characterized completely as a "Data Gap." Discussions of those segments appear in Section 4. 3.2 TRENDS AND SEASONAL PATTERNS FOR SELECT PARAMETERS The Seasonal Mann -Kendall test is non -parametric trend test that detects monotonic positive or negative trends. A limited number of sites displayed statistically significant trends (> 95% confidence level) in the watershed. Additional trends may exist but without more years of the data (ideally, 7-10) and better association with a gauging station to allow for flow correction, the ability to successfully detect these by the Seasonal Mann -Kendall test is limited. Notable trends include a decrease in some dissolved and total metals at 4 sites below the Eagle Mine; providing evidence of continuing improvements from ongoing clean-up, remediation, and water treatment actions at the Superfund site and other mine -impacted lands upstream of Minturn near Belden and Gilman (Table 2). Copper and zinc both showed decreasing trends at sites on Segments 5a and 5b. Although no standards exceedances caused a use class protection rating of 'Concern' or 'Poor' for either of these parameters, water quality standards are already less stringent than elsewhere in the watershed due to potentially perpetual mining impacts on the river in the Belden and Gilman areas, therefore continuing decline of trace metals is a positive occurrence. Table 2. Trends summary for select sites. Site Code Site Name Parameter Fraction Units Slope p -value USGS-09063000 EAGLE RIVER AT RED CLIFF, CO Selenium Dissolved µg/1 0.0083 0.0058 CORIVWCH_WQX-950 TIGIWON GAUGE Copper Dissolved µg/1 -0.9375 0.0332 CORIVWCH_WQX-950 TIGIWON GAUGE Copper Total µg/1 -1.0500 0.0164 CORIVWCH_WQX-3289 ABOVE TWO ELK CREEK Copper Dissolved µg/1 -0.7750 0.0372 CORIVWCH_WQX-3291 USGS BONEYARD Zinc Total µg/] -13.458 0.0306 USGS-09065500 GORE CREEKAT UPPER STATION, NEAR MINTURN, CO Manganese Dissolved µg/1 -0.1013 0.0136 USGS-09066510 GORE CREEKAT MOUTH NEAR MINTURN, CO Copper Dissolved µg/1 0.2883 0.0112 USGS-09067005 EAGLE RIVERAT "ON, CO Copper Dissolved µg/] 0.0875 0.0345 USGS-09067005 EAGLE RIVERAT "ON, CO Manganese Dissolved µg/1 -6.5138 0.0048 USGS-09069000 EAGLE RIVER AT GYPSUM Oxygen Dissolved mg/1 -0.1750 0.0181 USGS-09069000 EAGLE RIVER AT GYPSUM Cadmium Dissolved µg/] -0.0040 0.0061 USGS-39422010643150 EAGLE RIVER BELOW MILK CREEK NEAR WOLCOTT, CO Cadmium Dissolved µg/1 -0.0037 0.0131 USGS-39422010643150 EAGLE RIVER BELOW MILK CREEK NEAR WOLCOTT, CO E. Coli cfu/100 ml 4.2500 0.0483 USGS-09068500 BRUSH CREEKAT EAGLE, CO Iron Total 11g/1 16.092 0.0318 24 USGS samples at the top of Gore Creek indicated a decrease in manganese over the review period. Manganese decreased on the Eagle River in Avon as well. This parameter received a 'Poor' Use Protection rating in the human health/watery supply use class for the Eagle River from Gore Creek to Squaw Creek 305b segment. A suspected source of manganese in the Middle Eagle watershed is metals from the Eagle Mine area transporting downstream. Unlike the seasonal cycles of copper and zinc near Minturn, whose concentrations peak in April during first flush, manganese at the Avon site remains relatively higher throughout the low -flow winter period when little dilution is available (Figures 7 A -C). Slight upward trends in E. coli at Wolcott could represent a large number of possibilities: an increasing signal from the Edwards WWTP, changes in the location or intensity of grazing land uses on tributary watersheds in the Middle Eagle, signals from individual onsite waste treatment systems (septic tanks), or increased recreational and pet visitation upstream or locally at the BLM picnic area just upstream of the sampling site. Figure 7. A -C. Seasonal patterns and trends for select water quality parameters. Zinc, Total Site: CORIINVCH WQX-3291 JSFS BONEYARQ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Number of Samples = 37 Theil-Sen's slo e: -13.458 u9il P-val: 0.0306 0 Oo O O O O 00 00 ° 00 00 ° ° o pO ° pO 0 o °° ° ° o o O o 0 2011 2CI12 2013 Figure 7A. Seasonal patterns and 5 year trend for total zinc at Site CORIVWCH_WQX-3291, Segment 5b, Upper Eagle River subwatershed. 25 peer, Dissolved Site: CORIVWCH_WQX-959 TIGIWON GAUGE Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec IYum,uer uT Jam les = 43 I nell-Jen s slope:-u.7jr❑ ul.4ii Y -val: u.u3dL 0 O O O 0 ° 0 ° o ° O O 0000000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2ii1a Figure 7B. Seasonal patterns and 5 year trend for dissolved copper at Site CORIVWCH_WQX-950, Segment 5a, Upper Eagle River subwatershed. Manganese, Dissolved Site: USGS-09067005 EAGLE RIVER AT AVON, CO Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Number of Samples = 2! 1 hell -Sen s slope: -6.5138 u fl P-val: 0.0048 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0° 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 7C. Seasonal patterns and 5 year trend for dissolved managanese at Site USGS-09067005, Segment 9a, Upper Eagle River subwatershed. 26 0 v 0 o p o m 0 m 0 v N Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Number of Samples = 2! 1 hell -Sen s slope: -6.5138 u fl P-val: 0.0048 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0° 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 7C. Seasonal patterns and 5 year trend for dissolved managanese at Site USGS-09067005, Segment 9a, Upper Eagle River subwatershed. 26 4 UPPER EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED The Upper Eagle River subwatershed, designated by USGS with the hydrologic unit code (HUC) 1401000302, includes the headwater reaches above the Camp Hale Military Site and terminates at the confluence of the Eagle River and Gore Creek below Minturn. Most tributaries in this area feature undeveloped lands and high water quality. Historical military operations in the Camp Hale area led to the channelization and entrenchment of the Eagle River mainstem above Red Cliff. Subsequent hydrological and ecological impacts include disconnection of ground and surface water hydrology and loss of riparian habitat along this reach of the river. Segments of the Eagle River flowing through the towns of Red Cliff and Minturn underwent significant geomorphic alteration during urbanization. Reclamation and active water treatment from the Eagle Mine site limits dissolved metals loading to the river above Minturn. However, the reach extending from Belden to the Gore Creek confluence still suffers from impacts associated with historical mining activities in the vicinity of Gilman. This reach often does not meet aquatic life use attainment standards for zinc, copper, and cadmium during spring runoff. Continuing impacts from the Eagle Mine are the primary water quality concern in the Upper Eagle subwatershed. Potential for significant changes to land cover such as catastrophic fire in the large areas of beetle -kill forest, development of moderate to high-density commercial and residential land uses south of Minturn, and flow regime alteration from increased development of water rights constitute important future water quality concerns. Trans - basin diversions from Homestake Reservoir divert water from the Upper Eagle subwatershed to the Arkansas River basin. Such diversions alter hydrologic patterns in this part of the drainage, potentially affecting water quality by altering chemical residence time distributions in the water column and modifying habitat quality and availability for aquatic species. The surficial geology in this subwatershed does not present any significant water quality concern; although, it may contribute somewhat to observed background arsenic loading. Sandstone deposits in the Minturn Formation on the eastern portion of the drainage may contribute to elevated suspended sediment loads in some tributary streams. *A LO `V o cn UUUUUUUUUU 28888888888 U U U U U U U ��OV,OOOOOQO� ISI V !I U N d M w M 0 0 M W 7 ? W 0 .E LO 0 4.1 SEGMENT COUCEA02_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from the source to the bridge at Belden Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.1.1 Summary Segment 2 of the Eagle River drains high -elevation headwaters in the southeastern portion of the watershed. Little residential or commercial development exists along the majority of this segment and water quality conditions generally rank among the best in the watershed. Natural geological weathering appears to limits water quality conditions to a degree by contributing arsenic loads large enough to exceed State water supply standards. The Camp Hale area above Red Cliff receives moderate to heavy recreational use throughout the year. This activity, coupled with historical channel modifications, reduced habitat complexity, lowered the water table, and severely limited the extent of the riparian buffer thereby making Segment 2 vulnerable to future land or resource use changes. High-density residential development in the town of Redcliff and impacts associated with historical mining activities at Belden contribute to this vulnerability at the lower terminus of the segment. Potential also exists for future impacts from upstream mining activities at the Climax Molybdenum Mine complex, restoration of meanders and wetland complexes in Camp Hale, resort development plans on Battle Mountain, and potential water development projects tied to the Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding. Table 3. Sampling Locations, Segment 2. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -E- 3 Eagle River Above Belden 11 CORIVWCH_WQX-3285 Above Belden (1.9) CORIVWCH_WQX-744 Red Cliff USGS-09063000 Eagle River At Red Cliff, Co. 55 4.1.2 Regulatory Status CDPHE classifies Segment 2 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 4.1.3 Water ouality parameters of interest Arsenic At least one field sample collected on Segment 2 produced arsenic concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water plus fish use protection. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded the chronic standard. Concern over arsenic concentrations is abated by the fact that no drinking water facilities treat and distribute water sourced from Segment 2. Thus, while the ambient conditions violate the arsenic standard for water supply and fish plus water, Segment 2 is not considered water quality impaired by CDPHE. Elevated arsenic concentrations are most likely related to natural geological weathering. Turbidity Segment 2 produced observations of moderate turbidity. Natural increases in turbidity known to follow snowmelt and late summer storm events likely explain these observations and reduce the overall concern associated with them. PAIJ 4.1.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 2 came from multiple sources: USGS, CBS, Inc., and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into questions the reliability of this data. Most data analyzed for Segment 2 came from USGS, which bolstered overall data quality scores for all parameter groups. O 0 LO O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 9. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 2. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) in segment COUCEA02_6300 of HUC 1401000302 are superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09063000. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. Additional data collected on Segment 2 by USFS, ERWSD, or CPW may provide a deeper dataset for characterizing water quality conditions. A long-term USGS data set collected at a single location near Red Cliff represents the bulk of the data used in this assessment. Sampling dates adequately capture baseflow conditions and the initial rise of the hydrography that potentially targets the 'first flush' of dissolved solids during spring. Peak flow sampling events are relatively sparse in the 5 year time period. Turbidity and arsenic concerns occurred at the Red Cliff site, which has little development upstream since the removal of Camp Hale structures in the late 1960's. This supports natural watershed processes and background geological conditions as the most likely sources for these concerns. till Figure 10. Water quality Indicators summary, Segment 2. For segment COUCEA02_6300 within HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 4.2 SEGMENT COUCEA03_6300 (Upper Eagle subwatershed) Reach Description: All tributaries to Eagle River from the source to Belden Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.2.1 Summary Segment 3 of the Eagle River contains largely undisturbed headwater catchments. Exceptions exist in the Camp Hale area where some tributaries may be impacted by road use. Understanding conditions on these streams may help inform future land use management approaches adopted by USFS and other area stakeholders. Little residential or commercial development exists along the majority of this segment and water quality conditions generally rank among the best in the watershed. Monitoring efforts on the East Fork of the Eagle River currently show good water quality conditions but the region is subject to potential impacts from future changes in management activities at Climax Mine and Eagle Park reservoir. Table 4. Sampling Locations, Segment 3. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples USGS-09063900 MISSOURI CREEK NEAR GOLD PARK, CO 2 USGS-392511106164000 EAST FORK EAGLE RIVER NEAR RED CLIFF, CO 12 21COL001_WQX-12564 HOMESTAKE CK @ FR703 @ GAGE 3 4.2.2 Regulatory Status CDPHE classifies Segment 3 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 4.2.3 Water quality parameters of interest No parameters of concern currently occur on Segment 3 tributaries. 31 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 14 6 20 E95 6 10 4 75 5 `6 6 8 m 9 70 4 6 3 2 `0 4 5 2 �— Z' o LJ C — o —E]— 0 --- a o m $ $ m c oy c b (7 �Q U f1 C7 d C7 u d C7 8 I1 d `�V D_ Q 0 O U K Q 0 O q 0 a: G 0 Figure 10. Water quality Indicators summary, Segment 2. For segment COUCEA02_6300 within HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 4.2 SEGMENT COUCEA03_6300 (Upper Eagle subwatershed) Reach Description: All tributaries to Eagle River from the source to Belden Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.2.1 Summary Segment 3 of the Eagle River contains largely undisturbed headwater catchments. Exceptions exist in the Camp Hale area where some tributaries may be impacted by road use. Understanding conditions on these streams may help inform future land use management approaches adopted by USFS and other area stakeholders. Little residential or commercial development exists along the majority of this segment and water quality conditions generally rank among the best in the watershed. Monitoring efforts on the East Fork of the Eagle River currently show good water quality conditions but the region is subject to potential impacts from future changes in management activities at Climax Mine and Eagle Park reservoir. Table 4. Sampling Locations, Segment 3. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples USGS-09063900 MISSOURI CREEK NEAR GOLD PARK, CO 2 USGS-392511106164000 EAST FORK EAGLE RIVER NEAR RED CLIFF, CO 12 21COL001_WQX-12564 HOMESTAKE CK @ FR703 @ GAGE 3 4.2.2 Regulatory Status CDPHE classifies Segment 3 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 4.2.3 Water quality parameters of interest No parameters of concern currently occur on Segment 3 tributaries. 31 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 11. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 3. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A03_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09064000. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.2.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 2 came from multiple sources: USGS, and CDPHE. Sample collection conducted these organizations adhere to the strict quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) protocols and earn high data quality ranking. Additional data collected on Segment 3 by USFS may exist and provide a deeper dataset for characterizing water quality conditions; however it is either not available or not utilized in reporting at this time. Overall, data is sparse for Segment 3. Sample collection dates between 2009 and 2014 feature gaps over a year in length and fail to capture important seasonal milestones in the stream hydrographs such as spring ascension, peak flows, and recession. This can be partially explained by the difficulty of access to many tributaries on Segment 3 during the winter. Figure 12. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 3. For segment COUCEA03_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. Cyi Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 7 12 6 30 12 10 > 5 25 10 88 20 $ Cs m 6 3 15 8 4 2 70 4 E ❑ • 0 - - G - - - - 0 0 - - 0- mt c� ° a n m o d a c o 5 °3 a n R o c t a m °`_ � c t TO ° °m o a ° a o ° ° a o ° a ° is ° o a o a m m ° o a `° n. Figure 12. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 3. For segment COUCEA03_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. Cyi 4.3 SEGMENT COUCEA04_6300 Reach Description: Homestake Creek from confluence of the East Fork to the Eagle River. Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.3.1 Summary Segment 4 begins just below the outlet of Homestake Reservoir and drains tributaries in the Holy Cross Wilderness which is largely undeveloped. Management activities related to Homestake reservoir potentially impact the hydrologic regime and water quality of this segment, including short-term impacts from recent refurbishing of the dam and associated construction work. Very little data exists for this segment, with one USGS site providing data. Impacts from future water development projects associated with the Eagle River MOU are a potential concern. USFS and CPW may have additional datasets for aquatic life conditions not available or not utilized in this report. Table S. Sampling Locations, Segment 4. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples USGS-09064000 Homestake Creek at Gold Park, CO 2 4.3.2 Regulatory status CDPHE classifies Segment 3 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 4.3.3 Water quality parameters of interest No water quality concerns observed. Figure 13. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 4. For segment COUCEA04_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 33 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 7 14 _o 25 6 12 20 5 39 10 15 4 20 6 3 6 10 2 10 4 m 5 12 z' o ago-- a —■--- o o ---- n `v °a a `m on o a °o a 2 n v °o m o a o m b CL a o ._ q . a o a o "5 r,� 9 o a m o a o U 0 O 0 a V O 0 Q V 0 O 0 V `o 0 Figure 13. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 4. For segment COUCEA04_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 33 4.3.4 Data duality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 5a came solely from 2 USGS samples, for which only a limited number of parameters were reported. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. The data set used to characterize water quality conditions covers neither a full suite of regulated water quality parameters nor a variety of hydrologic conditions. Understanding of baseline conditions on Homestake Creek suffers from this large data gap. 4.4 SEGMENT C0UCEAOSa_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from bridge at Belden to Hwy. 24 Bridge. Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.4.1 Summary Continuing water quality impacts from the Eagle Mine superfund site remain a significant issue of concern on Segment 5a. Land reclamation and active treatment of water from the mine workings at Belden reduce dissolved metals loading from the site. However, Segment 5a and several downstream segments still suffer impacts related to historical mining operations and occasionally exceed seasonal standards for zinc, copper and cadmium. The 2013 Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) attributes 18 percent of the zinc loading, 25 percent of the cadmium loading, and 85 percent of the copper loading on Segment 5a to background or upstream sources (Newfields, Inc., 2013). The FFS also postulates that the majority of the metals loading within Segment 5a associated with exceedances of water quality standards (WQS) derives from rising groundwater elevations at the onset of spring snowmelt, known as the 'first flush' phenomenon. Elevated groundwater within the mine workings produce hydrological connections between the mine and the river, which, in turn, allow metals laden groundwater to move into the Eagle River. The FFS also identifies surface drainage around historic and existing waste rock piles as a minor source of trace metals loading. Table 6. Sampling Locations, Segment 5a. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -E-10 Eagle River Above Rock Creek 15 CBS -E -12A Eagle River Below Old Tailings 18 CORIVWCH_WQX-3286 At Belden (2) 2 CORIVWCH_WQX-950 Tigiwon Gauge 43 USGS-09064600 Eagle River Near Minturn, Co 51 Water quality standards for trace metals on Segment 5a are less stringent than on other area streams and rivers. WQCC relaxed water quality standards on this segment for zinc, copper, and cadmium in anticipation of continued and irreversible impacts to the river from the Eagle Mine. WQCC adopted standards deemed appropriate for supporting a healthy brown trout fishery on the segment. Thus, it is important to consider the different benchmarks established for water quality use protection on different segments in the watershed. Development of a new Consent Decree, implementation of a new water quality remedy, and the completion of the latest CERCLA 5 -year review for the cleanup process will affect future water quality conditions and corresponding monitoring decisions. Uncertainty regarding the exact location(s) of contaminant sources to the Eagle River, technological limits to water quality improvement measures, loading of trace metals from natural geological 34 weathering and from numerous abandoned mining operations in the vicinity of the Eagle Mine that are not addressed under CERCLA cleanup efforts likely limit realization of long-term improvements in water quality on this reach. 4.4.2 Regulatory status A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulation exists on this segment for both zinc (total waste load allocation of 43.2 pounds per day (lbs/day) and copper (total waste load allocation of 1.1 lbs/day). Justification for, and details associated with, the TMDL can be found at EPA's online tracking and information system: httD://ofml2ub.el2a.gov/waters10/attains impaired waters.tmdl report?p tmdl id=37659 0 0 iu v o 22 o 0 ma o E C m D i 2 d) N n N q l0 0 Ln U N � 0 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 14. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 5a. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_AO5a_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge USGS-09064600. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.4.3 Water quality parameters of interest Cadmium At least one field sample collected on Segment 5a produced cadmium concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. Thus, this data set would not trigger regulatory action by WQCD. Elevated cadmium concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. Iron At least one field sample collected on Segment 5a produced iron concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. The 85th percentile of dissolved iron values did exceed the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. However, no drinking water treatment facilities draw water from this segment. The fact that no drinking water is sourced from Segment 5a reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated iron concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. 35 Manganese At least one field sample collected on Segment 5a produced manganese concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for agricultural use protection. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded the standard for human water supply use protection. The fact that no drinking water is sourced from Segment 5a reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated manganese concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment 5a. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt and following late summer storm events reduces the overall concern associated with these observations. 4.4.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 5a came from multiple sources: USGS, Colorado River Watch, CBS, Inc., and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers can reduce the reliability in the data. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into question the reliability of this data. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. The relatively large data set used to characterize water quality conditions over the period of interest on Segment 5a captures a large range of hydrological conditions. Water quality concerns are identified primarily at the downstream sampling USGS and River Watch sites in Segment 5a near the mouth of Gilman Gorge and Maloit Park area. This may be an artifact of the larger dataset for these sites. Data from the two CBS sites reported in the canyon is incomplete for many parameters of interest in the trace metal group, and contributes to poor understanding of the spatial and seasonal arrangement of impairment in the segment. A continued emphasis on fully bringing private -party datasets into public -housed storage and hosting such as EPA's WQX STORET should be a focus. Figure 15. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5a. For segment COUCEAO5a_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 001 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture z 20 6 10 15 5 $ 4 6 10 3 0 --- 0 --- a o a c 3 .2a °o a n v °° a -6a d2 ° m ° ° ° m N W ° O Figure 15. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5a. For segment COUCEAO5a_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 001 4.5 SEGMENT COUCEA05b_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from Hwy. 24 Bridge to Martin Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.5.1 Summary Continuing water quality impacts from the Eagle Mine superfund site remain a significant issue of concern on Segment 5b. Recent land reclamation and active treatment of water from the mine workings at Belden reduce dissolved metals loading from the site. However, Segment 5b still suffers impacts related to historical mining operations and occasionally exceeds seasonal standards for zinc, copper and cadmium. Controlled and uncontrolled discharge from the water treatment plant and the consolidated tailings pile associated with the Eagle Mine continue to produce episodic water quality concerns related to loading of trace metals. Water quality standards for trace metals on Segment 5b are less stringent than on other area streams and rivers. WQCC relaxed water quality standards on this segment for zinc, copper, and cadmium in anticipation of continued and irreversible impacts to the river from the Eagle Mine. WQCC adopted standards deemed appropriate for supporting a healthy Brown trout fishery on the segment. Thus, it is important to consider the different benchmarks established for water quality use protection on different segments in the watershed. Development of a new Consent Decree, implementation of a new water quality remedy, and the completion of the latest CERCLA 5 -year review for the cleanup process will affect future water quality conditions and corresponding monitoring decisions. Uncertainty regarding the exact location(s) of contaminant sources to the Eagle River, technological limits to water quality improvement measures, loading of trace metals from natural geological weathering and from numerous abandoned mining operations in the vicinity of the Eagle Mine that are not addressed under CERCLA cleanup efforts likely limit realization of long-term improvements in water quality on this reach. 4.5.2 Regulatory status A TMDL exists on this segment for both zinc (total waste load allocation of 44.7 lbs/day) and copper (total waste load allocation of 0.67 lbs/day). Justification for, and details associated with, the TMDL can be found at EPA's online tracking and information system: httl2://ofml2ub.el2a.gov/waters10/attains impaired waters.tmdl report?p tmdl id=37661 Table 7. Sampling Locations, Segment 5b. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -E-13 Eagle River Above Two Elk Creek 10 CBS -E -13B Eagle River Above Cross Creek 4 CBS -E-15 Eagle River Below Cross Creek 34 CORIVWCH_WQX-3289 Above two Elk 41 CORIVWCH_WQX-3290 Above Minturn (4) 2 CORIVWCH_WQX-3291 USGS Boneyard 38 21COL001_WQX-12504 Eagle R. @ Minturn 8 Ci►/ C> O !f2 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 16. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 5b. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_AO5b_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge USGS-09064600. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.5.3 Water quality_ parameters of interest Cadmium At least one field sample collected on Segment 5b produced cadmium concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. Thus, this data set would not trigger regulatory action by WQCD. Elevated cadmium concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. Iron At least one field sample collected on Segment 5b produced iron concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. The 85th percentile of dissolved iron values did exceed the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. However, no drinking water treatment facilities draw water from this segment. The fact that no drinking water is sourced from Segment 5b reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated iron concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. Manganese At least one field sample collected on Segment 5b produced manganese concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for agricultural use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. The 85th percentile of dissolved manganese values did exceed the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. However, no drinking water treatment facilities draw water from this segment. The fact that no drinking water is sourced from Segment 5b reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated manganese concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses near Belden. Zinc At least one field sample collected on Segment 5b produced zinc concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. Zinc is detrimental to aquatic life and fisheries health. Because the long-term remediation goal for the ffeV mining -impacted areas near Gilman and Belden is to sustain a brown trout fishery, zinc remains an important parameter for monitoring and reduction activities. 4.5.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 5b came from multiple sources: CDPHE, Colorado River Watch, CBS, and ERWC/Timberline Aquatics. CDPHE employs a rigorous QAQC plan for environmental data collection and is considered high quality. River Watch sample collection occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers can reduce the reliability in the data. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into question the reliability of this data. Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. The data set used to characterize water quality conditions over the period of interest on Segment 5b is significantly increased from the 2013 Report Card, including many more samples and a wider range of hydrologic conditions, although data from 2014 is lacking and peak -flow sampling events are relatively sparse. Six sites contribute data to Segment 5c's assessment and occur close together. CDPHE and River Watch sites report similar results for individual parameters, especially those of concern: cadmium, iron, zinc, and manganese. The absence of instances of standards exceedances at the three CBS -managed monitoring sites (E-13, E-138, E-15) is potentially explained by differences in sampling times, differences in reporting parameters, a low number of overall samples in the time period, or failure to report all available results to publicly -accessible source repositories. Aquatic Life C3!] Recreation o c3 a `v c C m o d 8J9 a c 8 4 R o 3 c 2 m o o 4 o 25 20 15 10 5 0 Human Health Agriculture m o o c3 a `v c °o a= m o d 8J9 a c 8 t a R o B c o m o o 4 o 0 0 0 0 Figure 17. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5b. For segment COUCEAO5b_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 4.6 SEGMENT COUCEA05c_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from Martin Creek to Gore Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.6.1 Summary Continuing water quality impacts from the Eagle Mine superfund site remain a significant issue of concern on Segment Sc. Recent land reclamation and active treatment of water from the mine workings at Belden reduce dissolved metals loading from the site. However, Segment Sc still suffers impacts related to historical mining operations and occasionally exceeds seasonal standards for zinc, copper and cadmium. Controlled and uncontrolled discharge from the water treatment plant and the consolidated tailings pile associated with the Eagle Mine continue to produce episodic water quality concerns. The proximity of the Highway 24 road prism to the river channel may lead to some impact from transportation activities. However, the signal from this potential stressor is likely overwhelmed by water quality conditions emanating from the Eagle Mine superfund site. Water quality standards for trace metals on Segment Sc are less stringent than on other area streams and rivers. WQCC relaxed water quality standards on this segment for zinc, copper, and cadmium in anticipation of continued and irreversible impacts to the river from the Eagle Mine. WQCC adopted standards deemed appropriate for supporting a healthy brown trout fishery on the segment. Thus, it is important to consider the different benchmarks established for water quality use protection on different segments in the watershed. Development of a new Consent Decree, implementation of a new water quality remedy, and the completion of the latest CERCLA 5 -year review for the cleanup process will affect future water quality conditions and corresponding monitoring decisions. Uncertainty regarding the exact location(s) of contaminant sources to the Eagle River, technological limits to water quality improvement measures, loading of trace metals from natural geological weathering and from numerous abandoned mining operations in the vicinity of the Eagle Mine that are not addressed under CERCLA cleanup efforts likely limit realization of long-term improvements in water quality on this reach. Table 8. Sampling Locations, Segment Sc. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -E-22 Eagle River Above Dowds Junct. 82 CORIVWCH_WQX-3292 Below Minturn (5) CORIVWCH_WQX-866 Blw Game Cr USGS-393627106264000 Eagle River Above Gore Creek Nr. 53 Minturn, Co 4.6.2 Regulatory status A TMDL exists on this segment for both zinc (total waste load allocation of 27.3 lbs/day) and copper (total waste load allocation of 0.6 lbs/day). The segment is also on the 303(d) list for cadmium. Justification for, and details pertaining to, the TMDL can be found at EPA's online tracking and information system: httl2://ofml2ub.el2a.gov/waters10/attains impaired waters.tmdl report?p tmdl id=37662 C> O !f2 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 18. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 5c. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_AO5c_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge USGS-09064600. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.6.3 Water quality parameters of interest Arsenic At least one field sample collected on Segment Sc produced arsenic concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water and fish use protection. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded the standard. Concern over arsenic concentrations is abated by the fact that no drinking water facilities treat and distribute water sourced from Segment Sc. Thus, while the ambient conditions violate the arsenic standard for water supply and fish, Segment Sc is not considered water quality impaired for arsenic by CDPHE. Elevated arsenic concentrations are most likely related to natural geological weathering but may be exacerbated by historical mining activities along upstream reaches. Iron At least one field sample collected on Segment Sc produced iron concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed the standard. The fact that no drinking water is sourced from Segment Sc reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated iron concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses upstream near Belden and tailings repositories in the Maloit Park area. Manganese At least one field sample collected on Segment Sc produced manganese concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply and agricultural use protections. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded the standard for human water supply use protection. The fact that no drinking water or livestock supply is sourced from Segment Sc reduces the overall concern of observed exceedances. Elevated manganese concentrations are most likely related to historical mining activities in and around the Eagle Mine. Taste and Odor USGS personnel observed moderately severe taste and odor issues on Segment Sc. Unpleasant odors may be related to an underground storage tank leak, uncontrolled discharges from the Eagle Mine, or runoff from impervious surfaces 41 along transportation corridors or within the Town of Minturn. A dearth of recent taste and odor data makes it difficult to determine whether the issue is ongoing. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment Sa. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt and following late summer storm events reduces the overall concern associated with these observations. 4.6.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment Sc came from multiple sources: USGS, CBS, Inc., and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. . Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into questions the reliability of this data. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. The relatively large data set used to characterize water quality conditions over the period of interest on Segment Sc captures a large range of hydrological conditions. Data for 2014 is relatively sparse compared to earlier years in the review period. Figure 19. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5c. For segment COUCEAO5c_6300 within HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. Cyd Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture a 12 20 E9 6 10 4 75 5 8 6 3 4 m 6 10 3 � 4 2 0 Ei—M �� UEA-m- oI—E o — o —�� o Z' 1b a v °a n o o n o -S a d °o a 0 v °o m M. a' n c (LR o c a _ s� a U a m o Q 0 o K Q 0 .. N o q 0 O a m o a G 0 Figure 19. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 5c. For segment COUCEAO5c_6300 within HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. Cyd 4.7 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6300 (Upper Eagle subwatershed) Reach Description: All tributaries to Eagle River from bridge at Belden to Lake Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.7.1 Summary Segment 6 of the Eagle River encompasses a wide diversity of tributary streams to the mainstem of the Eagle River, ranging in condition from streams like Rock Creek that drain mine -impacted lands to pristine headwater streams like Gore Creek above East Vail. This inherent diversity produces some difficulty in summarizing water quality stressors and/or conditions for the entirety of the segment. This section focuses specifically on those tributaries in the Upper Eagle subwatershed; Segment COUCEA06_6300 tributaries in the Gore Creek subwatershed are covered in section 3.10 of this document. Several water quality concerns exist for the tributary streams in Segment 6. Historical mining activities at the Eagle Mine Superfund site continue to influence the quality of water in Rock Creek and Bishop Gulch via limited loading of trace metals. Two Elk Creek and Game Creek drain significant portions of Vail Ski Area, which may increase sediment loading to both. Relatively little data exists for many of the tributary streams included in Segment 6. Future data collection efforts may help decision -makers better understand gradients of water quality changes as streams move from pristine headwater catchments, to densely developed river corridors—a pattern not uncommon to streams throughout the watershed. Table 9. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Upper Eagle subwatershed). Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -T-10 Rock Creek At Mouth 15 CORIVWCH_WQX-3287 Bishop G (2.9) 2 4.7.2 Regulatory status CDPHE currently classifies Segment 6 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 4.7.3 Water auality parameters of interest: Specific Conductance On at least one occasion, specific conductance in Rock Creek exceeded the levels recommended by EPA. This is likely related to a high dissolved mineral load from the natural and disturbed geology at the Eagle Mine superfund site. Rock Creek drains land containing several tailings piles and other mining related waste materials. While specific conductance did exceed EPA recommended levels, WQCD has not developed specific conductance standards for Colorado. As a result, no regulatory action by WQCC on Rock Creek is expected as a result of these observations. Temperature On at least one occasion, temperature in Rock Creek exceeded the WQCD standard for mean weekly average temperatures. Little development exists to the east of the Hwy 24 crossing at Gilman, so anthropogenic causes for temperature variations are not expected. Rock Creek may receive some portion of thermally -altered groundwater 43 from mine workings associated with the Eagle Mine site. Further investigation may be necessary to determine the extent and causes of temperature issues on Rock Creek. ttu .0 One or more field samples collected on Segment 6 at the Bishop Gulch tributary produced cadmium concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection, and the 85th percentile of dissolved cadmium values exceeded the WQCD standard as well, resulting in a'poor' rating for use protection. Elevated cadmium concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses in the Belden area. Iron One or more field samples collected on Segment 6 at the Bishop Gulch tributary site produced iron concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for aquatic life use protection, and the 85th percentile of dissolved iron values exceeded the WQCD standard as well, resulting in a'poor' rating for use protection. Elevated iron concentrations are most likely related to historical mining land uses in the adjacent Belden area. 0 N l6 N O O r m CO co 0 E O m c N O N � Ul N O U N N_ 0 N 4 Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 20. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A06_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge USGS-09067000. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.7.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 6 came from multiple sources: CBS, Inc., and River Watch. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into questions the reliability of this data. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers can reduce the reliability in the data. Data collected on Segment 6 characterizes a small number of sites on a select number of tributary streams, currently focused only in the mining -impacted landscape of Gilman. While additional data may assist developing more nuanced water quality assessments, the high cost required to adequately sample hundreds of miles of tributary streams deters such efforts. Collection dates appear largely focused on hydrograph ascension, perhaps to better characterize the 'first flush' phenomenon suspected to contribute to elevated metals during high flows in the mainstem Eagle River. Additional sampling points from baseflows and peak flows are sparse or absent in the period of review. 44 Segment 6 contains a large number of undeveloped tributary streams within and beyond the mining -impacted area of Belden and Gilman. Aggregating the mining -impacted tributaries in the Gilman area with the numerous pristine and undeveloped headwaters tributaries elsewhere in the segment may create a confusing picture of conditions in Segment 6, an issue that could potentially be addressed in the future by additional 305(b) segmenting. Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 7 E 25 & 15 > 5 20 6 m 6 10 4 15 3 4 2 ] � 70 Z o 0 o a --- VN E t � 2 E 8 N E t � N = t b N O D O R O O y O U O 0 a U O Q U O 0 4 U `o o 0 0 0 0 Figure 21. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6 (Upper Eagle subwatershed).. For segment COUCEA06_6300 within HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 4.8 SEGMENT COUCEA07b_6300 Reach Description: Cross Creek from source to Eagle River Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 4.8.1 Summary Cross Creek, one of the largest tributaries to the Eagle River in the Upper Eagle subwatershed, drains pristine wilderness for most of its length. Near its confluence with the Eagle River, the creek flows through areas impacted by historical mining activities associated with the Eagle Mine Superfund site. Subsurface drainage from tailings repositories continues to pose a risk for elevated trace metals loading in Maloit Park. Development of a new Consent Decree, implementation of a new water quality remedy, and the completion of the latest CERCLA 5 -year review for the cleanup process will affect future water quality conditions on Cross Creek. Uncertainty regarding the exact location(s) of contaminant sources to the creek, and technological limits to water quality improvement measures, likely limit realization of long-term improvements in water quality on this reach. 4.8.2 Regulatory status A TMDL exists on this segment for both zinc (total waste load allocation of 3 lbs/day) and copper (total waste load allocation of 0.7 lbs/day). Justification for, and details pertaining to, the TMDL can be found at EPA's online tracking and information system: hUp://ofml2ub.el2a.gov/waters10/attains impaired waters.tmdl report?p tmdl id=37663 45 Table 10. Sampling Locations, Segment 7b. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CBS -T-18 Cross Creek Near Mouth 15 4.8.3 Water quality_ parameters of interest No water quality concerns occurred during the period of observation. 0 0 co O Oct -10 Feb -11 Jun -11 Oct -11 Feb -12 Jun -12 Oct -12 Feb -13 Jun -13 Oct -13 Feb -14 Jun -14 Date Figure 22. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 7b. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A07b_6300 within HUC 1401000302 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09065100. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 4.8.4 Data aualitv and representativeness: Data used in the assessment of Segment 7b came from Newfields Inc. on behalf of CBS. Data collected on behalf of CBS, Inc. is not known to follow any QAQC plan. Incomplete or erroneous metadata records also call into questions the reliability of this data. Sample results from Cross Creek utilized in this assessment are relatively few. A sparse sampling schedule left many components of the hydrograph uncharacterized. The lack of consistent data collection on Cross Creek by any entity suggests that future assessment efforts will be similarly constrained by data availability. Completion of a new Consent Decree between CBS Inc. and EPA may lead to renewed or redoubled data collection efforts on Cross Creek. Data collection dates appear largely focused on hydrograph ascension, perhaps to better characterize the 'first flush' phenomenon suspected to contribute to elevated metals during high flows in the mainstem Eagle River. Additional sampling points from baseflows and peak flows are sparse or absent in the period of review. The number of parameters reported by Newfields for each event is also sparse, including only results for pH, SC, temperature, cadmium, and copper, rather than the full suite of dissolved metals and other constituents typically reported by USGS and River Watch. Figure 23. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 7b. For segment COUCEA07b_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 5 GORE CREEK The Gore Creek subwatershed (HUC 1401000301) experienced rapid land -use change from 1960 to present in conjunction with the development and build -out of Vail, and the completion of Interstate 70 (I-70). Development brought many changes, including the partial or full transformation of undeveloped forested hillslopes, wetlands, and rangeland, to urbanized land cover that includes both low-density residential zones and some of the most densely developed urban spaces in the entire Eagle River watershed. Other land uses include a major ski area, high/low density commercial development, and water supply reservoirs on Black Gore Creek. Most of the development in the subwatershed exists along the valley floors in close proximity to Gore Creek. Problematic water quality and biological stressors identified in the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) include: pollutant loading during winter snowmelt and early spring runoff events; loss of riparian wetlands and vegetation needed to buffer the impacts of streamside development, untreated stormwater runoff from urban and commercial areas, highways, golf courses, parks, and residential areas; stream habitat loss and degradation due to channelization and construction activities; and use of pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides by residents and municipalities (Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., 2013). Black Gore Creek, a major tributary in the subwatershed, experiences impacts related to I-70 road maintenance. Application of road salt and traction sand along the highway corridor during the winter travel season increases sedimentation and chloride concentrations in the creek, producing stress conditions for many aquatic species. Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 25 7 40 15 E 20 a 5 30 O 15 4 70 3 20 � 10 2 5 0 5 10 � 1 ®®—�— Z' o 0 —■--- 0 a c t m c t B m c o S 7Sm c o a m u a° 0 in v U Q 0 O m U Q: q 0 O °' U 4: 4 0 Figure 23. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 7b. For segment COUCEA07b_6300 in HUC 1401000302, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 5 GORE CREEK The Gore Creek subwatershed (HUC 1401000301) experienced rapid land -use change from 1960 to present in conjunction with the development and build -out of Vail, and the completion of Interstate 70 (I-70). Development brought many changes, including the partial or full transformation of undeveloped forested hillslopes, wetlands, and rangeland, to urbanized land cover that includes both low-density residential zones and some of the most densely developed urban spaces in the entire Eagle River watershed. Other land uses include a major ski area, high/low density commercial development, and water supply reservoirs on Black Gore Creek. Most of the development in the subwatershed exists along the valley floors in close proximity to Gore Creek. Problematic water quality and biological stressors identified in the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) include: pollutant loading during winter snowmelt and early spring runoff events; loss of riparian wetlands and vegetation needed to buffer the impacts of streamside development, untreated stormwater runoff from urban and commercial areas, highways, golf courses, parks, and residential areas; stream habitat loss and degradation due to channelization and construction activities; and use of pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides by residents and municipalities (Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., 2013). Black Gore Creek, a major tributary in the subwatershed, experiences impacts related to I-70 road maintenance. Application of road salt and traction sand along the highway corridor during the winter travel season increases sedimentation and chloride concentrations in the creek, producing stress conditions for many aquatic species. GCMHMIN IPi • Monitor ng sites Toms 303(d) Listed segment T. b) Segments 2015 m o` Geek — COUCEA01 COUCEAA06 a� z o �� COUCEA08 Q RSC -FB USGS-09066300, CORIVWCH'WQX-525 RSC-al70 ® ®f e – '® CORIVWCH_WQX 968 CORIVWCH_WWX-969 ® CORIVWCH WQX-970 GCaBGC # USG - 065500 ® CORIVWCH_WQX-967 21 COL001 WQX-000074 USGS-09066510 �_ I Figure 24. Gore Creek subwatershed map, HUC 1401000302. 5.1 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6301 Reach Description: Black Gore Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 5.1.1 Summary Black Gore Creek runs along the I-70 corridor on the west side of Vail Pass. Thirty years of road maintenance activities that included generous application of sand and gravel to the roadway during winter storms resulted in large accumulations of sediment along the stream corridor and excessive sediment loading to the stream itself. Efforts by local stakeholders to address sediment application and cleanup began in the late 1990s and continue today. Significant work to maintain sediment catch basins, control sediment movement across the land surface, repair or replace deteriorating stormwater drainage infrastructure, and reduce the amount of sand applied to roadways continue to improve conditions, but impacts from the highway remain. Future improvements on Black Gore Creek remain limited by the costs of maintenance associated with annual sediment cleanup from the roadway and the logistical constraints imposed by local topography on sediment removal or stabilization projects near the stream channel. 5.1.2 Regulatory status Final TMDL approval for sediment loading on Black Gore Creek is still pending. Until such time, the segment remains on the 303(d) list for sediment and the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) list for aquatic life. Justification for, and details pertinent to, the TMDL can be found at EPA's online tracking and information system: http://ofml2ub.el2a.gov/waters10/attains waterbody.control?p list id=COUCEA06 6301&12 report tyke=T&p cycle= 2010 Table 11. Sampling Locations, Segment 6_6301. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples USGS-09066000 Black Gore Creek Near Minturn, Co. 13 5.1.3 Water quality parameters of interest Sediment impairment relies primarily on narrative/non-standard criteria and monitoring observations are not reported currently in STORET/WQP by CDOT and CDPHE. Additional quality concerns were not observed during the period of review. 101 O LD N O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 25. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6, Reach 6301. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A06_6301 within HUC 1401000301 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09066000. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 5.1.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Black Gore Creek came from USGS. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. Data collected on Black Gore Creek came from a single sampling location and sampling was sparse enough to make characterization of various hydrological conditions difficult. Future assessment efforts should endeavor to include data collected by CDOT, USFS and ERWSD. Recent data (within the last two years) is also absent for this segment. Figure 26. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6301. For segment COUCEA06_6301 in HUC 1401000301, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 50 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 4 40 15 25 n 20 3 39 m 10 CS 15 m 2 20 10 5 0 1 10 m 5 E `v °° ` o n o a °o a 2 n v °° a m n a EL ° m ° o a `° 0 a ° To ° in a o 0 a ° is ° o a o ° a m m ° o 0 `° ° n. Figure 26. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6301. For segment COUCEA06_6301 in HUC 1401000301, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 50 5.2 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6300 Reach Description: All tributaries from Belden to confluence with Lake Creek [Gore Creek subwatershed] Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 5.2.1 Summary This segment contains tributaries from approximately the Eagle's Nest Wilderness boundary to their confluence with Gore Creek, as well as the upper forks of Gore Creek above the Gore Creek / Black Gore Creek confluence, and several tributaries draining Vail ski area. Most feature little development prior to entering the Town limits and flowing through short residential and more -heavily urbanized segments. These lower reaches are subject to the same urbanization pressures as Gore Creek, with expected impacts from development and polluted urban runoff to flow regime, aquatic habitat, riparian cover, and water quality. Tributaries draining the ski area may experience water quality impacts from increased unimproved road density, active forest management, and construction. Table 12. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Gore Creek subwatershed). Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-525 Gauging Station 18 USGS-09065500 Gore Creek at Upper Station, Near Minturn, CO 59 USGS-09066300 Middle Creek Near Minturn, CO 13 5.2.2 Regulatory status CDPHE currently classifies Segment 6 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 5.2.3 Water quality parameters of interest Algae USGS staff noted moderate algal growth on Middle Creek near Minturn on several occasions. This may be a natural condition or may be related to the spread of invasive Didymosphenia geminate (a.k.a. 'didymo' or 'rock snot') algae noted on several other area streams. Information on algae conditions within the last two years is absent. 5.2.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Gore Creek tributaries came from USGS and River. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. Recent data (last two years) is also absent for this segment. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers can reduce the reliability in the data. Many tributaries in Segment 6 have no data or very sparse data available. While additional data may assist developing more nuanced water quality assessments, the high cost required to adequately sample hundreds of miles of tributary streams deters such efforts. Additional datasets collected by USFS and CPW, especially for fisheries and aquatic life information, may be available, but is not utilized here. ERWC conducted extensive macroinvertebrate sampling on many tributaries in 2014, with results anticipated in 2015. 51 Agriculture 7 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health 5 20 12 4 a 10 4 3 15 _a m 8 3 6 1 1 0 m 6 --- � 0 4 2 t m 5 78 00 m — ❑o 0 Z' o —�— o —--- a E og `o 2 E t $ 0 c o 0 a $ a. 0 8 1 a B a° it 0 in 8 0 X 0 Agriculture 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a --- m t m o - 78 00 m — 0 `o 0 a Figure 27. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6 (Gore Creek subwatershed). For segment COUCEA06_6300 within HUC 1401000301, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 5.3 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6314 Reach Description: Red Sandstone Creek from USFS boundary to I-70 Frontage Rd. Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 5.3.1 Summary Reach 6314 of Segment 6 comprises the portion of Red Sandstone Creek within the residential and urban development boundary of the Town of Vail. Similar to Gore Creek, lower Red Sandstone Creek contains negatively impacted macroinvertebrate communities and is likely subject to impacts from development and polluted urban runoff to flow regime, aquatic habitat, riparian cover, and water quality. Table 13. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 Reach 6314. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples ERWC-RSC-FB Red Sandstone Creek Forest Boundary 1 ERWC-RSC_aI70 Red Sandstone Creek above I-70 1 5.3.2 Regulatory status Red Sandstone Creek from the USFS boundary to the north side I-70 frontage road is M&E listed for aquatic life. Red Sandstone Creek from the north side I-70 frontage road to the mouth is 303(d) listed for aquatic life. Because aquatic life use impairment designation does not specify a cause or source, traditional TMDL pollution allocation processes have not been applied to Red Sandstone Creek to -date. 5.3.3 Water quality parameters of interest Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health have preliminarily shown impaired water quality conditions in Segment 6 Reach 6314. Multi-metric index (MMI) scores placed collected data below the impairment threshold at two sites. As noted above, urban runoff and riparian degradation presumably produces observed macroinvertebrate community health 52 impairment. Stakeholders have conducted significant data collection in recent years to determine the spatial extent of impairment. 5.3.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Red Sandstone Creek came from ERWC/Timberline Aquatics. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Macroinvertebrate collection has only been occurring in Red Sandstone Creek for a limited number of years by ERWC. ERWSD collects chemical and biological samples from a number of locations on Red Sandstone Creek. Additional data points over more years and varying hydrogeologic condition may further illuminate the extent of macroinvertebrate impairment issues on the lower reaches above the Gore Creek confluence. 5.4 SEGMENT COUCEAOB_6300 Reach Description: Gore Creek from Black Gore Creek to Eagle River Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 5.4.1 Summary Previous biological health studies by ERWSD and the USGS have identified degraded macroinvertebrate community health conditions on Gore Creek. Additional monitoring by ERWC continues to confirm these conditions. These studies and recent regulatory action by WQCC motivated local stakeholders to identify the causes of observed impairments and suggest potential actions to improve water quality conditions. A stakeholder group dubbed the Urban Runoff Group (URG) began work to develop a Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the Gore Creek watershed in 2011. The multitude of land uses potentially affecting water quality in Gore Creek was considered during development of the WQIP. These land uses include a major interstate highway, a large ski area, high-density residential and commercial development in close proximity to the stream channel, a golf course, and a wastewater treatment facility. The WQIP, completed in late 2013, identified urban runoff and riparian degradation as primary causes of observed impairments. Table 14. Sampling Locations, Segment 8. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-967 Kinicknick Br (6) 20 CORIVWCH_WQX-968 Ford Pk (5) 20 CORIVWCH_WQX-969 E Vail Exit (4) 20 CORIVWCH_WQX-970 Bighorn Pk (7) 20 USGS-09066510 Gore Creek At Mouth Near Minturn, CO 34 21COL001_WQX-000074 Gore Creek At Mouth 8 Recommended actions on the WQIP enjoy a broad base of support among the URG stakeholder group. A water quality Strategic Action Plan currently under development by Town of Vail staff should produce measurable improvements in water quality in the coming years. The nature and orientation of development along the stream corridor may somewhat limit the potential for long-term improvements in water quality in Gore Creek. 53 a M O LO �CO NCO C6 O N W E O O c p m D N N PW (� O U N O U -D LO N_ 0 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 28. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 8. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCEA08_6300 within HUC 1401000301 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09066510. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 5.4.2 Regulatory status Segment 8 of the Eagle River is 303(d) listed for aquatic life due to macroinvertebrate community health impairment. Because aquatic life use impairment designation does not specify a cause or source, traditional TMDL pollution allocation processes have not been applied to Gore Creek to-date.3.12.3 Water quality parameters of interest Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health continue to show impaired water quality conditions in Segment 8. Multi-metric index (MMI) scores placed collected data below the impairment threshold at multiple sites. As noted above, urban runoff, land use practices, and riparian degradation presumably produces observed macroinvertebrate community health impairment (WQIP, 2012). Stakeholders have conducted significant data collection in recent years to determine the spatial extent of impairment. Arsenic At least one field sample collected on Segment 8 produced arsenic concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water plus fish use protection. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded the standard. Concern over arsenic concentrations is abated by the fact that no drinking water facilities treat and distribute water sourced directly from Segment 8. Thus, while the ambient conditions violate the arsenic standard for water supply and fish plus water, Segment 8 is not considered water quality impaired for arsenic by CDPHE. Elevated arsenic concentrations are most likely related to natural geological weathering. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment 8. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt and following late summer storm events reduces the overall concern associated with these observations. 5.4.3 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 8 came from multiple sources: USGS, CDPHE, Colorado River Watch, and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and 54 quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. CDPHE employs a rigorous QAQC plan for environmental data collection and is considered high quality. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers somewhat reduces the reliability in the data. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data collected at the mouth of Gore Creek likely does an adequate job characterizing chemical and physical water quality conditions. However, additional data sources exist and could assist in developing more -thorough water quality summaries. ERWSD also collects chemical and biological samples from a number of locations on Gore Creek, which are not included here. EPA recently completed a focused sampling effort on the creek and will investigate pollution from organic chemicals in 2015. The relatively large data set used to characterize water quality conditions over the period of interest on Segment 8 captures a large range of hydrological conditions. Arrangement of site impairment for macroinvertebrates corresponds with increasing levels of development and urbanization. The most heavily impacted sites, based on MMI scores, are associated with the more -urbanized portions of the Gore Creek valley. Turbidity is only monitored at the mouth of the creek, but as noted above likely relates most -strongly to natural watershed processes. Frequent construction and significant amounts of impervious surfaces may be secondary drivers of turbidity issues at times of the year outside of snowmelt and peak streamflow. 55 Aquatic Lite Recreation Human Health Agriculture r 20 - 15 5 10 1 5 ❑- ❑ 0-- 0 -.- 0 --11111111111111 0 --- t m o d .2 c o R o ' c t m `°- 7 n c t u4 ° a a 5 °3 a _ a _ 9 0 m° °m a ¢ o ° a o a o a Figure 29. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 8. For segment COUCEA08_6300 in HUC 1401000301, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 6 MIDDLE EAGLE RIVER The Middle Eagle subwatershed (HUC 1401000303) extends from the mouth of Gore Creek to the confluence of the Eagle River with Alkali Creek near Wolcott. Extensive urbanization in Eagle -Vail, Avon, Edwards, and Beaver Creek directly contributes water quality effects to the Eagle River and tributaries in this subwatershed. Throughout the reach, the Eagle River also exhibits geomorphic alteration and confinement of its channel. Water quality concerns on the mainstem Eagle River include downstream transport of chemical constituents from Gore Creek and the Upper Eagle subwatersheds. Nutrient loading, an issue of emerging concern as the state develops new standards for in - stream concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous, occurs primarily at point -source discharges in Avon and Wolcott. Plans for significant urban development in the Wolcott area, if and when they should proceed in the future, hold potential to significantly impact water quality conditions in this reach. Lake Creek, a major tributary within the Middle Eagle subwatershed, flows through a broad alluvial valley and receives more extensive development than many area tributaries. Undeveloped headwaters feed the lower reaches, where light and medium density residential and commercial development and limited agricultural activities influence water quality. Dispersed, poorly situated septic systems, and subsequent groundwater pollution vulnerability from continuing development are identified primary concerns. 56 o Monitoring sites Towns and metro districts 303(d) Listed segment 305(b) Segments 2015 — COUCEA01 41 — COUCEA06 — COUCEA09a COUCEA09b COUCEA10a 5 mi I t Figure 30. Middle Eagle River subwatershed Map, HUC 1401000303. 6.1 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6300 (Middle Eagle subwatershed) Reach Description: All tributaries to Eagle R. from Belden to confluence with Lake Creek [Middle Eagle subwatershed] Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 6.1.1 Summary Significant tributary streams in the Middle Eagle subwatershed include McCoy, Buck, June and Berry Creeks. These streams drain undeveloped headwaters, but flow through developed residential and commercial areas near their confluences with the Eagle River, which undoubtedly results in some impact to each stream from runoff over impervious surfaces, spills, and unlicensed discharges. These tributaries are characterized by large data gaps and little understanding of water quality conditions in their lower reaches. Table 15. Sampling Locations, Segment 6 (Middle Eagle subwatershed). Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples ERWC-LC-LWF Lake Creek Lower West Fork 1 6.1.2 Regulatory status CDPHE currently classifies Segment 6 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. Some stream reaches in Segment 6 are on the M&E list or have a provisional 303(d) listing. These reaches have been removed from 6_6300 to their own reach segmentation, notably: lower Beaver Creek (Reach 6303) and lower Lake Creek (Reach 6302). 6.1.3 Water quality arameters of interest No water quality concerns were observed during the period of observation. 6.1.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 6 is provided by ERWC/ Timberline Aquatics, Inc from a single sampling site. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data for tributaries in Segment 6 within the Middle Eagle subwatershed features large spatial and temporal gaps. While additional monitoring may provide a more nuanced understanding of tributaries to the Eagle River in this area, constraints on organizational resources and decision -makers' actual needs for information on these streams will likely dictate additional monitoring activities. 57 6.2 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6302 Reach Description: Lake Creek from confluence of East and West Fork to Eagle River Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 6.2.1 Summary The last 2 miles of Lake Creek feature a variety of land uses from light residential development and agriculture, to meandering floodplain wetlands with high quality riparian habitat. Increased development in recent years may be impacting aquatic life in a similar manner to conditions present on Gore Creek and the Middle Eagle River, resulting in declining stream community conditions. As the remaining agricultural lands experience continued development pressure and potential conversion to more urbanized land uses, this trend may continue. 6.2.2 Regulatory status The mainstem of Lake Creek from the confluence of East and West Lake Creek to the mouth is 303(d) listed for aquatic life. 6.2.3 Water quality parameters of interest Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health show impaired water quality conditions in Segment 6 Reach 6302. Multi-metric index (MMI) scores placed collected data below the WQCD impairment threshold. As noted above, urban runoff, land use practices, and riparian degradation may contribute to observed macroinvertebrate community health impairment, similar to other locations in the watershed. 6.2.4 Data quality and representativeness The dataset CDPHE utilized to 303(d) list the lower reach of Lake Creek is not included in the Report Card. Additional data collection to determine the temporal and spatial extent of impairment is currently underway by ERWC and other stakeholders. 6.3 SEGMENT COUCEA06_6303 Reach Description: Beaver Creek from Wayne Creek to Eagle River Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 6.3.1 Summary The lower mile of Beaver Creek features a variety of land uses including light residential development, a golf course, and zone near the mouth impacted heavily by the Highway 6 road crossing and resort parking and road infrastructure. Increased development in recent years may be impacting aquatic life in a similar manner to conditions present on Gore Creek and the Middle Eagle River, resulting in declining conditions. Table 16. Sampling Locations, Segment 6_6303. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples 21COL001_WQX_12541 Beaver Creek at Avon 8 U.1 6.3.2 Regulatory Status Beaver Creek from the confluence with Wayne Creek to the mouth is M&E listed for aquatic life use. c� 0 C> N O N W E O C CD O dI N EPN O 6 (� U N N N O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 31. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 6, Reach 6303. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A06_6303 within HUC 1401000303 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09067000. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 6.3.3 Water quality parameters of interest Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health show impaired water quality conditions in Segment 6 Reach 6303. Multi-metric index (MMI) scores placed collected data below the WQCD impairment threshold. As noted above, urban runoff, land use practices, and riparian degradation may contribute to observed macroinvertebrate community health impairment, similar to other locations in the watershed. Figure 32. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6303. For segment COUCEA06_6303 within HUC 1401000303, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 59 Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 40 15 E9 E 15 a 5 30 m 4 10 6 10 20 3 2 5 0 5 10 r 1 ■ Z' 0 — — o — — — — o — — — a — — — — — a v : 0 a c 2 E o a o �4 0 ` 0 a ro44 0 E o 10 p [7 _ c M. p�q 10 p C7 M c d R "5 C7 R c d m "5 C7 m c 0. N 0 `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O t 0 Figure 32. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 6, Reach 6303. For segment COUCEA06_6303 within HUC 1401000303, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 59 6.3.4 Data quality and representativeness Data collected on Segment 6 Reach 6303 sources from CDPHE. CDPHE employs a rigorous QAQC plan for environmental data collection and is considered high quality. Reach 6303 has no reported data for the last three years, and updates to the status of water quality conditions, including aquatic life, are needed. 6.4 SEGMENT COUCEA09a_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from Gore Creek to Rube Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 6.4.1 Summary The mainstem of the Eagle River between its confluences with Gore Creek and Rube Creek traverses areas of light, medium and high-density residential and commercial development in the communities of Avon and Edwards. The I- 70 corridor parallels the river throughout this segment, although it is generally positioned on terraces or cut into hillsides well above the valley bottom. Notable tributary inputs include flows from Beaver Creek, draining the densely developed Beaver Creek Ski Resort, and Lake Creek, draining a large catchment that includes wilderness, light -density residential, and agricultural land uses. Potential water quality stressors include upstream effects from the Eagle Mine Superfund site, discharge from two wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff from impervious surfaces, and degradation of riparian zones. Temperature and sediment conditions triggering regulatory action in the lower portion of the segment may be related to natural geomorphic characteristics of the Eagle River near Edwards, rather than a result of human activities on the landscape. Table 17. Sampling Locations, Segment 9a. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-3293 Arrowhead (6) 2 CORIVWCH_WQX-41 Avon 8 CORIVWCH_WQX-955 At School 28 CORIVWCH_WQX-966 Riverwalk Br 1 USGS-09067005 Eagle River At Avon, Co. 36 6.4.2 Regulatory status The segment of the Eagle River from Gore Creek to the confluence with Berry Creek is on the M&E list for sediment. The segment from Berry Creek to the confluence with Ute Creek is on the M&E list for temperature. The segment from Ute Creek to the confluence with Rube Creek is on the 303(d) list for temperature. The segment from the confluence with Berry Creek to the confluence with Squaw Creek is on the M&E list for aquatic life and the 303(d) list for temperature. The segment from Squaw Creek to Rube Creek is on the M&E list for sediment. 101 n 0 0 a C3 r- 0 ti N O O !6 C? M N W E 0- 2 V7 2 O �p O d1 P7 lC (� U 4 y O 0 � 6 Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 33. Sampling dates hydrographs, Segment 9a. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCE_A09a_6300 within HUC 1401000303 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09067020. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 6.4.3 Water quality_ parameters of interest Algae USGS staff noted moderate algal growth on Segment 9a. This may a natural condition or may be related to the spread of invasive Didymosphenia geminate (a.k.a. 'didymo' or 'rock snot') algae noted on several other area streams. Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health continue to show somewhat degraded water quality conditions in Segment 9a. MMI scores placed collected data in the'gray zone' for aquatic life use impairment. However, subsequent assessment of secondary metrics as outlined by WQCD resulted in a passing score for Segment 9a. As noted on Gore Creek, urban runoff and riparian degradation in Avon and Edwards possibly produce observed macroinvertebrate community health impairment. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment 9a. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt events reduce the overall concern associated with these observations. Runoff from impervious and urban surfaces following late summer storms may pose limited turbidity concerns. Iron At least one field sample collected on Segment 9a produced iron concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. The 85th percentile of dissolved iron values also exceeded the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. Because municipal drinking water treatment facilities draw water from this segment, elevated concentrations should remain a concern for water resource managers. Elevated iron concentrations are likely related to historical mining activities in upstream river segments in and around the Eagle Mine. Manganese At least one field sample collected on Segment 9a produced manganese concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. Additionally, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) SI exceeded that standard. Elevated manganese concentrations are most likely related to historical mining activities in upstream river segments in and around the Eagle Mine. Temperature The temperature data used in this assessment, collected by USGS and River Watch, does not contain the resolution for WQCD standards assessment. Temperature datasets from continuous loggers collected by CDPHE and ERWSD are the basis for the 303(d) listing below Berry Creek; those data are not included in the Report Card. The seasonal timing and frequency that temperature issues occur on these segments is under further investigation by area stakeholders including ERWC, ERWSD, and CDPHE. 6.4.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 9a came from the USGS, River Watch, and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers can reduce the reliability in the data. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data collected on Segment 9a cover a large range of hydrological conditions The sampling frequency in recent years is lower than those years in the first half of the review period. The USGS site 0906900 provides and River Watch site 955 provide the majority of data for this segment. These two sites also report a slightly varying and complimentary suite of parameters, further improving the record of conditions. Manganese and iron concerns appear evenly spread among sites, lending more reliability to this information. Figure 34. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9a. For segment COUCEA09a_6300 within HUC 1401000303, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. S►i Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 14 5 20 i 12 •1 10 15 5 8 10 4 m 6 3 E 2 �- ❑•- 5TI E Z 0 0�- D 0 --- 0 --- o o E ` o a En a ° n o o ° a m oo IL m° ° a a `o 0 ° m o a 0 0 ° is o a 0 0 m iu ° o a `o 0 Figure 34. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9a. For segment COUCEA09a_6300 within HUC 1401000303, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. S►i M 0j' .p LO O 116 C M C) C) C) r -I C) r-1 ca U .'7 x a E caca 3 a 0 a� ca W4 a� 3 0 a vi M 7 LOWER EAGLE RIVER The Lower Eagle subwatershed extends from the mouth of Alkali Creek near Wolcott to the confluence of the Eagle River with the Colorado River at Dotsero. Like the upper portion of the watershed, the Lower Eagle experienced extensive land use change over the past 40 years resulting in the conversion of large extents of rangeland to mixed density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Limited aggregate mining still occurs on river terraces and in floodplains along the Eagle River near Gypsum. Natural geological features in the Lower Eagle subwatershed contribute to high sediment loading from tributaries on the north side of the Eagle River below Wolcott. Alkali Creek drains one of the largest drainages on the north side of the Lower Eagle subwatershed. Erosive gypsum and marine shale comprise the bulk of the surficial geology in this drainage. Land management practices on rangelands in these subwatersheds may exacerbate observed sediment loading on Alkali Creek and other nearby tributaries to the Eagle River. 7.1 SEGMENT COUCEA09c_6300 Reach Description: Eagle River from Rube Creek to Colorado River confluence Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 7.1.1 Summary Segment 9c is the most -downstream segment of the Eagle River mainstem in the watershed. Despite numerous water quality stressors in the upper watershed, Segment 9c generally exhibits good water quality. Brush Creek contributes significant tributary inflows to this reach. Potential water quality stressors include upstream effects from wastewater treatment operations, runoff from the I-70 corridor and the Eagle Valley Airport, drainage from agricultural areas in the Brush Creek and Gypsum Creek watersheds, sand and gravel mining operations, an open -pit gypsum quarry, industrial discharges near the Town of Gypsum, and weathering of gypsum formations. Natural geologic weathering of sedimentary formations in the western watershed may contribute increased loads of fine particulate matter and dissolved salts to this reach of the river. 7.1.2 Regulatory status CDPHE classifies Segment 9c of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. Table 18. Sampling Locations, Segment 9c. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples 21COL001_WQX-000052 Eagle River At Gypsum 6 CO RIVWCH_WQX-686 CORIVWCH_WQX-738 USGS-09069000 Hwy 6Br Ambulance Eagle River At Gypsum, Co USGS-394220106431500 Eagle River Below Milk Creek Near Wolcott, CO MI 25 6 31 33 7.1.3 Water quality arameters of interest Chloride At least one field sample collected on Segment 9c produced chloride concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. However, the 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) did not exceed that standard. Natural weathering of geological formations in the middle and western watershed may contribute to increased loads of dissolved salts such as chloride. Application of deicing compounds to the interstate and highway corridors, which parallel the Eagle River throughout this segment, may also potentially contribute to increased chloride loads above natural background levels. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment 9c. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt and following late summer storm events reduces the overall concern associated with these observations. Surficial geologic and soil formations in the lower Eagle River watershed transition to lacustrine and marine deposits that are often poorly consolidated and highly erodible. These can generate more natural turbidity than runoff from forested hillslopes elsewhere in the watershed. C> is o m a L0 �o fA 0 ma E o c o C> ro min rn r� CO O 0 O C) Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 36. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 9c. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCEA09c_6300 within HUC 1401000306 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09067020. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. Data used in the assessment of Segment 9c came from the USGS, CDPHE, Colorado River Watch, and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. CDPHE employs a rigorous QAQC plan for environmental data collection and is considered high quality. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers somewhat reduces the reliability in the data. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data represents a wide range of hydrologic conditions, although high flows are relatively poorly represented, and sampling frequency has decreased significantly in the last two years. 65 Figure 37. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9c. For segment COUCEA09c_6300 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 7.2 SEGMENT COUCEA10a_6310 Reach Description: Eby Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 7.2.1 Summary Eby Creek, Reach 6310 of Segment 10a, drains an area underlain by poorly -consolidated shale, siltstone and mudstone. Natural weathering of these deposits can contribute salts and high sediment loads to surface water bodies. Historical and current livestock grazing activities may exacerbate rates of geological weathering and soil erosion by reducing vegetative cover across the landscape. Residential development and road development/maintenance may similarly elevate rates of erosion, increasing the loading of minerals like selenium to Eby Creek. Table 19. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a_6310. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-739 BLM 10 21COL001_WQX-12520 Eby Creek Near US Hwy 6 2 7.2.2 Regulatory status The 6310 reach of Segment 10a is on the Monitoring and Evaluation list for selenium. 7.2.3 Water quality_ parameters of interest None observed during period of observation for the dataset. CDPHE may have additional selenium data relating to the M&E listing that is unavailable or not included in this report .TO Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture a 12 20 E9 6 S 10 4 _. 15 5 m 8 3 4 6 m 0 10 3 � 2 E ❑— ❑❑— Z p -- p 0 0®— 0 --- a c t m E t $ m c oy c b a. 0 1 d C7 B u d C7 I1 D_ V Q 0 O U K Q 0 O � q 0 O a: 0 Figure 37. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 9c. For segment COUCEA09c_6300 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 7.2 SEGMENT COUCEA10a_6310 Reach Description: Eby Creek Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 7.2.1 Summary Eby Creek, Reach 6310 of Segment 10a, drains an area underlain by poorly -consolidated shale, siltstone and mudstone. Natural weathering of these deposits can contribute salts and high sediment loads to surface water bodies. Historical and current livestock grazing activities may exacerbate rates of geological weathering and soil erosion by reducing vegetative cover across the landscape. Residential development and road development/maintenance may similarly elevate rates of erosion, increasing the loading of minerals like selenium to Eby Creek. Table 19. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a_6310. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-739 BLM 10 21COL001_WQX-12520 Eby Creek Near US Hwy 6 2 7.2.2 Regulatory status The 6310 reach of Segment 10a is on the Monitoring and Evaluation list for selenium. 7.2.3 Water quality_ parameters of interest None observed during period of observation for the dataset. CDPHE may have additional selenium data relating to the M&E listing that is unavailable or not included in this report .TO Q r- d li co O D M O j CO Uj NCO t6 0 N W E O d C m D N N F N N (D CD L N N tlUi 0 � O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 38. Sampling dates hydrograph , Segment 10a, Reach 6310. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCEA010a_6310 within HUC 1401000306 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09066300. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. Data used in the assessment of reach 6310 on Segment 10a came from CDPHE and River Watch. CDPHE employs a rigorous QAQC plan for environmental data collection and is considered high quality. River Watch sample collection occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers somewhat reduces the reliability of the data. The small number of samples (2) on this reach during the time period may fail to provide a representative picture of ambient water conditions on Eby Creek. Figure 39. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a, Reach 6310. For segment COUCEA10a_6301 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. A Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 7 15 a E 25 8 5 20 10 6 4 15 5 2 10 ■ 2 Z' 0 0 — — o — — — — 0 — — — a — — — co $ to m $ a° Q `0 0 a inm K 0 0 v. `� Q O m �' q `o 0 ct O �' U 4 `0 0 a Figure 39. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a, Reach 6310. For segment COUCEA10a_6301 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. A 8 BRUSH CREEK The Brush Creek drainage drains undeveloped lands in the southern portion of the Lower Eagle River watershed before entering highly developed areas adjacent to the Town of Eagle. Erosive gypsum and marine shale comprise the bulk of the surficial geology in the lower portion of this drainage. Like the upper portion of the watershed, the Lower Eagle experienced extensive land use change over the past 30 years resulting in the conversion of large extents of rangeland to mixed density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Potential impacts to water quality include: natural geologic weathering, increased sedimentation associated with grazing activities and irrigated agriculture, chemical entrainment in the water column due to urban runoff, modification of the hydrologic regime resulting from consumptive water uses, and loss of riparian zones due to ongoing residential and commercial development. Cutthroat trout, a state species of concern, exist in the upper reaches of at least one tributary. BRCaER USGS-09068500 o Monitoring sites CORIVW C H_WQX-687. o Towns and metro districts BRCaOL 303(4) Listed segment ,ARR-SWBC-4-,-' ARR-SWSC-20r' 305(b) Segments 2015 ARR-SWBC-3 �.� W ARR-SBC-2 ARR-SWSA COUCEA01 COUCEA10a �� a ARRA WFC -2 C" COUCEA10b CARR-SWFC-1 ARR-SWBC` COUCEA12 0 5 mi �Q. r� d Figure 40. Brush Creek subwatershed, HUC 401000304. M, 8.1 SEGMENT COUCEA10a_6300 Reach Description: All tributaries to the Eagle River from Lake Creek to the confluence with the Colorado River [Brush Creek subwatershed] Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 8.1.1 Summary Segment 10a of the Eagle River encompasses a diversity of tributary streams to the Brush Creek, many of which have little or no available data. This inherent diversity produces some difficulty in summarizing water quality stressors and/or conditions for the entirety of the segment. Adding to this, the lower Brush Creek watershed is very arid, many tributary streams are intermittent, experience losing reaches upon entering the valley, or a subject to significant water extraction. Several known water quality concerns exist for the tributary streams in Segment 10a. Historical grazing activities, coupled with weathering of the natural geology, contribute to loading of salts and sediment to the Eagle River. Other tributaries likely receive runoff from impervious surfaces in residential developments. Future data collection efforts may help decision -makers better understand the diversity of water quality conditions on the numerous tributaries included in this segment and on the aggregated impact of geological weathering of gypsum formations in the Lower Eagle subwatershed on the water quality of the Eagle River mainstem. Table 20. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a_6300. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-687 Treatment Plant 14 USGS-09068500 Brush Creek At Eagle, Co 41 ARR-SWBC-1 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 1 14 ARR-SWBC-2 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 2 14 ARR-SWBC-3 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 3 14 ARR-SWBC-4 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 4 14 ERWC-BRCaOL Brush Creek At Ouzel Lane 1 8.1.2 Regulatory status CDPHE considers all streams on Segment 10a within the Brush Creek subwatershed as fully supportive of designated uses. 8.1.3 Water quality parameters of interest No parameters of concern currently occur on Segment 10a tributaries, although elevated pH has been observed at some sites (still below regulatory thresholds) that may warrant increased scrutiny to attribute causes to natural or human sources. S] O 0 CC) 0 0 �0 0 �I 0 NCO !6 C? N W E O O C O m D 7 N N FM (D o U N N � 0 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feta -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 41. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 10a.. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCEA010a_6300 within HUC 1401000306 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09066300. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 8.1.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 10a (excepting data collected on Eby Creek, which is in Segment 10a but not in the Brush Creek subwatershed) came from Adams Rib Ranch. Sample collection conducted by Adams Rib Ranch does not conform to a formal QAQC plan, but adheres to guidelines that produce acceptable data results. Data is collected on tributaries in specific seasons relevant to golf course land management activities and does not represent the full range of hydrologic conditions experienced seasonally on Brush Creek and Salt Creek. Figure 42. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a. For segment COUCEA10a_6300 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. /LI] Aquatic Life Recreation Human Health Agriculture 0 20 6 30 12 15 5 25 10 4 20 8 m 10 3 15 6 E 0 6 E 2 1 ■ 10 5 4 2 z' 0 r o — — 0 — — — — 0 — — — 0 — — — — a5 a `v o a _ a d 8 o �c a v °° a 5g n a m° ° Q V `0 0 a ° 5 ° O a V 0 0 a ° is ° O 4 V 0 0 a m °m m ° O0 8V `o 0 n. Figure 42. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 10a. For segment COUCEA10a_6300 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. /LI] 8.2 SEGMENT C0UCEA12_6300 Reach Description: Brush Creek from source to Eagle River Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 8.2.1 Summary Brush Creek drains the largest tributary drainage to the Lower Eagle subwatershed. Most of the watershed is undeveloped, federal land. Historically, agricultural activities in the valley bottom along the Brush Creek corridor comprised the majority of human activities in the area. In the lower watershed, much of this agricultural land use has been replaced by moderate and high-density residential land uses in the Town of Eagle. Two golf courses flank the mainstem of Brush Creek, which is also intersected by numerous road crossings. Most historical residential units located outside the Town of Eagle city limits are not served by a wastewater utility and instead rely on septic systems. Potential exists for septic system leaks, runoff from golf courses, residential properties, transportation corridors, and natural geologic formations to impact water quality in Brush Creek. Table 21. Sampling Locations, Segment 12. Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples CORIVWCH_WQX-687 Treatment Plant 14 USGS-09068500 Brush Creek At Eagle, Co 41 ARR-SWBC-1 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 1 14 ARR-SWBC-2 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 2 14 ARR-SWBC-3 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 3 14 ARR-SWBC-4 ARRA Brush Creek Monitoring Point 4 14 ERWC-BRCaOL Brush Creek At Ouzel Lane 1 8.2.2 Regulatory status CDPHE classifies Segment 12 of the Eagle River as fully supportive of all water uses. 8.2.3 Water quality arameters of interest Macroinvertebrates Metrics of macroinvertebrate health generally reflect good water quality conditions in Segment 12. Although multi- metric index (MMI) scores calculated for Brush Creek in 2011 and 2012 placed collected data well above the impairment threshold, a drop in more than 20 MMI points over a one year period resulted in a failing score in 2013. Extremely low flows in Brush Creek during the 2012 water year may have contributed to this significant decline in MMI scores. Macroinvertebrate community health on Brush Creek is currently under targeted investigation by ERWC. Temperature At least one site recorded temperature observations excess of the WQCD MWAT standard for aquatic life use protection. However, temperature exceedances remained below the regulatory threshold for impairment. Temperature concerns may arise from human causes such as reduced flow volumes from water diversions and altered or absent riparian cover. Lower Brush Creek is a relatively lower elevation stream in a warmer and dryer 71 portion of the Eagle River; temperature concerns could potentially indicate a mismatch between stream class and segment standards. Turbidity Moderate turbidity was observed on Segment 12. Natural increases in turbidity during snowmelt and following late summer storm events reduces the overall concern associated with these observations. Sulfate At least one field sample collected on Segment 12 produced sulfate concentrations in excess of the WQCD standard for water supply use protection. The 85th percentile of the data (the ambient water quality) also exceeded that standard. Natural weathering of geological formations containing gypsum, agricultural runoff, or leaks from septic systems may produce elevated sulfate concentrations. Gypsum and gypsiferous soils are composed largely of the mineral calcium sulfate and likely drive elevated sulfate concentrations observed in the stream. Other potential sources include wastewater discharges or agricultural runoff O O l6 O O N S `A h N l6 0 O E O C O n O C� Ul N WN W C7 O U N N N_ "I 0 O Oct -09 Mar -10 Aug -10 Jan -11 Jun -11 Nov -11 Apr -12 Sep -12 Feb -13 Jul -13 Dec -13 May -14 Date Figure 43. Sampling dates hydrograph, Segment 12. Water quality data collection sampling dates (red circles) on the sections of 305(b) Segment COUCEA012_6300 within HUC 1401000306 superimposed upon streamflow measured at USGS gauge 09067200. Observed streamflow (blue line) derived from available USGS gauging stations may not be representative of all sample collection locations for the segment but provides the reader with a general sense of hydrological conditions present during sampling. Macroinvertebrate sampling occurs once annually in September; dates are not included in this figure. 8.2.4 Data quality and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 12 came from the USGS, Colorado River Watch, Adams Rib Ranch, and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Sample collection conducted by the USGS adheres to the strictest quality assurance and quality control protocols and earns the highest data quality ranking. River Watch sample collection also occurs under a QAQC plan. However, long holding times prior to sample analysis and initial data collection by volunteers somewhat reduces the reliability in the data. Sample collection conducted by Adams Rib Ranch does not conform to a formal QAQC plan, but adheres to guidelines that produce acceptable data results. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. F01 Aquatic Life _o 14 12 c 10 CS 8 4 0 n 2 Z 2 —�— B v c� B $ a° `O O a 73 Recreation 0 0 a Human Health 15 I; O R O `o 0 a Agriculture 6 5 4 3 2 1 E t - a° N O O U `o 0 a Figure 44. Water quality Indicator summary, Segment 12. For segment COUCEA012-6300 within HUC 1401000306, the graphs summarize the count of individual parameter ratings in each Report Card assessment class (Good, Acceptable, Concern, Poor, Low Resolution, Data Gap) used to determine attain/impaired rating for Colorado's beneficial use classes. 9 GYPSUM CREEK Gypsum Creek drains undeveloped lands in the southwestern portion of the Lower Eagle subwatershed before entering a region of residential and industrial development near Brush Creek's confluence with the Eagle. The upper reaches of Gypsum Creek contain some low -elevation rangelands. Historical grazing and other land management practices contribute to some riparian habitat degradation in this portion of the subwatershed. However, little historical water quality or quantity information exists which may be used to characterize baseline conditions or current trends for Gypsum Creek. 74 N4onitoring sites Towns and metro districts - 303(d) Listed segment 05(b) Segments 2015 COUCEA10a 0 5 mi I t Figure 45. Gypsum Creek subwatershed, HUC 1401000305. 01�1DEMO IWON CK111L11Dr.1f11 MEIN111111 Reach Description: All tributaries to the Eagle River from Lake Creek to the confluence with the Colorado River [Gypsum Creek subwatershed] Designated Uses: Recreation (E), Agriculture, Aquatic Life Cold (Type 1), and Water Supply 9.1.1 Summary Segment 10a of the Eagle River in the Gypsum Creek subwatershed encompasses a diversity of tributary streams and the mainstem of Gypsum Creek. Many of these have little or no available data. The inherent diversity in stream settings produces some difficulty in summarizing water quality stressors and/or conditions for the entirety of the segment in this subwatershed. Several known water quality concerns exist for the tributary streams in Segment 10a. Historical grazing activities, coupled with weathering of the natural geology, contribute to loading of salts and sediment. In the lower watershed near the developed core of the Town of Gypsum, Gypsum Creek likely receives runoff from impervious surfaces in residential and commercial developments. Future data collection efforts may help decision -makers better understand the diversity of water quality conditions on the numerous tributaries included in this segment and on the aggregated impact of geological weathering of gypsum formations in the Lower Eagle subwatershed on the water quality of Gypsum Creek. Table 22. Sampling Locations, Segment 10a (Gypsum Creek subwatershed). Monitoring Location ID Location Description # of Samples ERWC-GYPCaER Gypsum Creek at Eagle River 1 9.1.2 Regulatory status CDPHE considers all streams on Segment 10a within the Gypsum Creek subwatershed as fully supportive of designated uses. 9.1.3 Water duality parameters of interest Macroin vertebrates At least one sampling event resulted in an MMI score in the grey area for attainment of aquatic life use standards. ERWC and Timberline Aquatics are currently conducting additional investigation into the status of aquatic life conditions in lower Gypsum Creek. Urbanization and development within the Town of Gypsum, with concurrent impacts to water quality, flow regime, and physical habitat, are currently the suspected causes of macroinvertebrate declines. 9.1.4 Data aualitv and representativeness Data used in the assessment of Segment 10a Gypsum Creek subwatershed came from ERWC/Timberline Aquatics from a single site. Samples collected and analyzed by Timberline Aquatics, Inc. follow a QAQC plan and are generally considered very high quality. Data characterizing the physiochemical conditions in Gypsum Creek over a wide variety of hydrologic conditions and years does not exist and should be considered an important data gap in light of continuing development in the Gypsum area. 75 10 NOTABLE DATA GAPS 10.1 SEGMENT COUCEA01_6300 Reach Description: Tributaries within the Gore Range -Eagles Nest and Holy Cross Wilderness Little data collection occurs on streams located within the watershed's wilderness areas. Despite the resultant lack of data, no new data sources are likely needed to assess conditions in these tributary streams. Wilderness areas, by their nature, encompass undisturbed or pristine lands. Headwater streams draining undisturbed areas will generally exhibit conditions that conform to water quality standards recommended by WQCD. In cases where conditions do not meet standards, surficial geology, climate, or natural ecosystem succession likely drive water quality. Therefore, understanding conditions in wilderness streams may help understand cumulative downstream impacts on receiving waters, but will not lead to changes in land or water use management. Personnel with the White River National Forest conducted limited macroinvertebrate and field parameter collection on some reaches, and occasional fisheries data. This information may be available for inclusion in the Report Card in the future. 10.2 SEGMENT COUCEA03_6300 Reach Description: All tributaries to the Eagle River from the source to bridge at Belden Many of the small tributary streams draining to the Eagle River above the Eagle Mine drain largely undisturbed headwater catchments. Exceptions exist in the Camp Hale area where some tributaries may be impacted by road use. Understanding conditions on these streams may help inform future land use management approaches adopted by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The agency is likely the only data collection entity active on Segment 3, therefore future efforts to fill this data gap should first focus on assessing the USFS historical data archives. As part of the Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding, a number of potential water development projects in the Camp Hale and Homestake Creek areas exist in the conceptual or scoping phase. In the event that a particular project concept should proceed, additional data collection, especially better characterization of hydrologic regime and physic - chemical characteristics of these subwatersheds, could be warranted. 10.3 SEGMENT COUCEA04_6300 Reach Description: Homestake Creek from East Fork to Eagle River Inclusion of a data for a limited set of parameters in the 2014 Report Card represents an improvement over 2013; yet many data gaps continue. Homestake Creek drains a relatively large catchment in the Upper Eagle subwatershed. Assessment of water quality data collected on this segment will improve interpretation of water quality conditions on receiving waters, particularly Segment Sa. Potential data collection entities active on Homestake Creek include USFS and the utilities managing operations of Homestake Reservoir. As part of the Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding, a number of potential water development projects in the Camp Hale and Homestake Creek areas exist in the conceptual or scoping phase. In the event that a particular project concept should proceed, some additional data collection, especially better characterization of hydrologic regime and physic -chemical characteristics of these subwatersheds, could be warranted. IL:7 10.4 SEGMENT COUCEA07A_6300 Reach Description: Cross Creek from source to Min turn Middle School No known data collection occurs on Cross Creek above the Minturn Middle School. This section of Cross Creek flows out of the Holy Cross Wilderness. No new data sources are likely needed to assess conditions in upper Cross Creek. Wilderness areas, by their nature, encompass undisturbed or pristine lands. Headwater streams draining undisturbed areas will generally exhibit conditions that conform to water quality standards recommended by WQCD. In cases where conditions do not meet standards, surficial geology, climate, or natural ecosystem succession likely drive water quality. Therefore, understanding conditions on Upper Cross Creek may help understand aggregated water quality conditions in sections of the creek impacted by the Eagle Mine, but will not lead to changes in land or water use management. Data collection entities that may be active on upper Cross Creek include CDPHE, CBS Inc., and USFS. 10.5 SEGMENT COUCEA10a_6300 (Gypsum Creek subwatershed) Reach Description: Gypsum Creek from source to the Eagle River Very little data collection occurs at sites in the Gypsum Creek subwatershed, both on the mainstem of Gypsum Creek and on tributaries. The Town of Gypsum has undergone significant growth and expansion in the last two decades, and more is anticipated. Gypsum Creek is known to experience impacts from ranching and agricultural and ranching land uses in the middle watershed, and macroinvertebrate community samples currently indicate stress in the lower watershed potentially arising from development and urbanization In light of increasing residential and urban development in this watershed, better characterization of current water quality conditions in Gypsum Creek above and below the current development boundaries may aide water resource managers in making informed decisions about the impacts of new development to stream resources. USFS or CDPHE may currently steward limited hydrologic or biological datasets for Gypsum Creek and tributaries. Investigation into any potential existing data sources may allow for better baseline characterization of ambient conditions. 10.6 SEGMENT COUCEA10b_6300 Reach Description: Abrams Creek and all tributaries Abrams Creek drains a small catchment in the lower Brush Creek drainage. The creek flows through federally administered land over most of its length. Land use activities potentially impacting water quality conditions include moderate density residential development near the confluence with Brush Creek, trail use, and maintenance of utility line corridors. Data collection entities potentially active on Abrams Creek include CDPHE and BLM. No new data collection on Segment 10b is needed due to the anticipated nominal impact of Abrams Creek's water quality conditions on downstream receiving waters. Species of concern are present in the fisheries of the upper reaches of Abrams Creek. Abrams Creek may warrant increased scrutiny, even if standards are met, to ensure non -degradation of waters at the regulatory level (regulatory degradation is defined as water quality that remains above standards, but shows a significant decline). rrA 10.7 SEGMENT COUCEA11-6300 Reach Description: Alkali and Milk Creeks Alkali and Milk Creeks drain a relatively large catchment in the Middle Eagle subwatershed. Highly erosive surficial geology coupled with active grazing land uses in these drainages work to produce significant sediment loading to downstream receiving waters during snowmelt and late -summer monsoonal activity. Data collection in these drainages may improve interpretations of water quality conditions in Segment 9b and may aid the development of alternative land management strategies in Segment 11. No data collection is known to occur on either Milk or Alkali Creeks. Limited development activity exists related to several subdivisions in the Alkali Creek watershed. Future monitoring and assessment activities should consider periodic or sustained water quality data collection on these creeks in light of potential future land use changes. ONGOING MONITORING Monitoring results from the 2011-2013 water years suggest continuation of existing monitoring efforts is appropriate for future assessment of water quality conditions and trends in stream segments across the watershed. The Joint Funding Agreement (JFA) sustained by the Eagle River Water Quality Monitoring Assessment Partnership and coordinated by ERWC should form the backbone of any future monitoring program. Other active water quality data collection entities should work to coordinate with USGS sampling schedules whenever and wherever possible to help eliminate duplicative sampling and leverage concurrent efforts against each other to enhance the water quality knowledge base available to resource managers and decision makers. Opportunity exists for bolstering knowledge and/or reducing monitoring costs across the watershed while maintaining the core monitoring objectives established by the WQMAP. A thorough review of historical datasets during the analysis presented here produced recommendations for adjusting the USGS JFA for the 2014 data collection year. Namely, sampling activities at the Eagle River at Red Cliff site were reduced from six to four times per year. The site exhibits relatively stable water quality conditions and the large data set that exists for the site characterizes a wide range of hydrological conditions. Arsenic sampling may be increased from four to six times per year at those locations where exceedances of the water quality standard occur. Increased arsenic sampling may help assist in identification of impairment sources. Data collection on Alkali Creek and Brush Creek should help elucidate the impact that erosive surficial geology and current grazing practices have on sediment and salt loading to the lower Eagle River. Other important tributaries that do not receive frequent water quality monitoring include Lake Creek, Homestake Creek, and Gypsum Creek. Investigation of prospects for opportunistic or sustained water quality data collection on these tributaries should be pursued. Serious consideration should also be given to the duplicative sampling efforts conducted by ERWSD and USGS on the Eagle River above the confluence with Gore Creek. An arrangement that allows for publication of monthly data collected by ERWSD at site E-22 may allow for discontinuation of USGS data collection at that site. Discontinuation would free up funding for additional monitoring efforts at Milk Creek, Alkali Creek, Gypsum Creek, Homestake Creek, or Lake Creek. Efforts related to water quality assessment and conducted in 2015 should focus on procuring and publishing data from third -party data collectors whose data does not appear in this report. Ensuring that data is available for assessment at the end of this year will help fill data gaps and provide additional depth to the dataset available on several stream segments. This action alone will yield greater benefits at a lower cost than pursuit of new data collection campaigns. REFERENCES Bledsoe, B., Meyer, J., Holburn, E., Cuhaciyan, C., Earsom, S., and Snyder, B., 2005. Eagle River Inventory and Assessment: Final Report to the Eagle River Watershed Council, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and Great Outdoors Colorado, 550 p., and appendices. Eagle County Planning Commission. 2013. Eagle River Watershed Plan. 160 p. Katieb, T., Wynn, K., 2010. State of the Rivers Report: Final Report to the Eagle River Watershed Council and Eagle County. Leonard Rice Engineers, Inc., 2013. Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan: Final Report to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Colorado Department of Transportation, Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, Town of Avon, Eagle River Watershed Council, and Vail Resorts. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, 2012. Eagle River Watershed Plan, 208 Regional Water Quality Plan Vol. II. Ward, R.C., Loftis, J.C., and McBride, G.B., 1986. The "Data -rich but Information -poor" Syndrome in Water Quality Monitoring, Environmental Management 10(3), pp. 291-297. Williams, C.A., Moore, J.L., and Richards, R.J., 2011. Assessment of surface -water quantity and quality, Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 1947-2007: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigation Report 2011-5075, 139p. Zuellig, R.E., Bruce, J.F., Healy, B.D., Williams, C.A., 2010, Macroinvertebrate-based assessment of biological condition at selected sites in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5148, 19 /4] m T V7 dc C co V7 dc C co (A ddc C CO Co C M OQ ,� } L v p O O u U fv 4J 7 O O O LJ U to 4J 7 O m C O w U to 4J 7 O Co C O LJ U to 4J 7 O m C O LJ U (v 4J 7 O m C O LJ Ln c O 4� 2 O dA a) cc V 0 � 5 on O C V7 C O 4_ 2 O dA a) cc Ln C O 4� 2 O dA a) C cc Ln C O 4� 2 7 w a) C cc Ln C O 4� 2 O dA a) C cc Ln C 0 4� 2 O w a) C co V7 C 0 4= aJ 2 O to N C m Ln c O 4= 2 O w (1) C co C Ln L C p U C O O +•+ O a� Ln Q ate-1 L 77 aJ E Q Ln 7 1 : co LIn C O O C Ln C L > L } > O aJ pA Ln OL (o CO a) (O L L (o O +J U a) U Ln 3 N aJ LY (0 .0 — Ln X aJ aJ N Q- O O U L > � L CL Ln 0- O Q O O (o }>— U � ) a) L � a) o E -+ m E c p U Q p 0 O O L Ln Ln U Q 4' Ln a 4J L aJ a) a) L N E C 4-1 O U c fl_ O C aJ L 'C +' v n O (o O E `� 4-1 C O L f 6 O Ln co a,,. VI N -0 O O O+`�Ln +J Q aiJ O L O vLn OO O H O ON N > X '' m m U p +, C c Ln cr N iO L Q p V aJ Ln (3)tLoU > (9 _C L L -0 O L c +07 Co C �_ 7 aJ a••+ (B C L a) c Co 4' (o 0)a U V > c U Q 3 co Q d 3 p C c Co L _ L a> >_ O C N 0 ++ EA E Vl — U Ln (.0 Q a 4 _O E (o LU N Q O OLO a) aJ 4J O U O O > C c L pp U n O c w a co +, :La p ai po O °�a Co 0 (0 + cN do LL aO -+' SdQL7A O Q (o0 a) LU •aJ 7 aaJJ —m ° o Lu � aL cc = Q cr- U U c)aw O a> vO -L iV ~C � Q3 M o 'Q N N > U oN 16 E� 4 Ln Q U 4J O C l0 O O 0 aA ° t o U t 6 t aA ' I � Q co ''' E NaJ +N-+ (6 aJ i U U Q Ln O a) - +•+ C a) N (0 S (9 E L f6 c O L aJ U Ln Ln 7 Ln E �_ d O O 1 U •> � �, o � E N �� O � � U aJ m •- U� U N O W aJ U a L v7 L � aJ U L L I 4. m uo L C O ❑- C E O 7 Q O Q c O > -p n c 3 c O O 4� O O O v� O c u L (B ON Q i c Q +J U O N (o (6 E U bA U c O -0 O V7 Q- dA L a) m _ L L E U (6 � c M M O c O t V7 3 Q N C O N O _ }+ C Q z 0 p 7 N co p O o Ln Ln U > o p Q U E L> Ln Q 3 O ~ U (� (9 (o fl_ LL Ln •� L O Ln _ >, aJ LL — aJ M � � C t C > , Q 4, C 4, Co ate.+ (9 N aJ I-- Lw 7> V, LL LO E U Z U > 0 3 0 L 4 J Z) O -- n O m O (B -0 a) Co a) +�-+ 0) m � O aJ L Q O +, 7A 4� � i c Q u p a•.. p � L 41 E � C � > � +J V7 (o N L of a) (o Z t Ln O L c m a) > 3 L� (� � O_ > c (o (0 C U L to u C O U a) aJ aJ C O 4 J O +•+ aJ L iJ C 3 i i O a) : Co W e H � a O 5. Q„ O E co a U u co 3 " a> N U N I L U EO d U Q 3 U 0_ uo n L +• aJ c tr_ O +J pA O co a) '+ - 2 Ln O L O E L U tao in > in O U co m u E N OL -a a) O >_ O aJ •� C _ O N > O 4-1 a t -0 L L 76 _� E c a Q U C +� in V7 (o Ln C Q4-1 7 S? c •C O E C (o U .'~ '(o aJ U C — c aJ C a) C o z t ? aJ L Lr E U E (o f° o a' c p L f° E ULn O E E L t aJ •� > E �C C L a O aJ aJ (Lo OL L Q- L L L a) 4.1 O E Q a-1 (B a) � C a--+ dA L � E Q- E N Q m Ln 7 O a Q 5 E- 4., o a� O a� °J" C a) U L E O — e 3 E OV (moo ia c C c N 3 O 'L vi L (0 •L Uj Q N E in +-' E -O a) E U a••. L O_ (0 1� +J E U L a•.. (� f6 a"' Ll 7 (9 N O c Ln Q V7 3 (v C �' (0 � C ° co L N Q N U (v +' (o U m O i� U L Q to E Q •— p Q cr L O cB U O aL Q Q Q O L U U aJ L O U E p O O> L +, �, O O-0 (o s O > v C Q aJ aJ Ln t}o aJ +.� 7 aJ N L .0 CL 4-1 OL aL.� c0 •l0 c U aJ aJ OL 0 O : lB Ln E O a E 7 aa) p O LlEJ Lci E* � o o a* C7 m o_ a. o U Z:) Q 0 crcr- U a o> v v o 3 # r-I N M LI1 lD I- W O) O —1 N M �t LI1L.0 I� W r-I —i r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I c O 1 7 pA � C 4J c O 22 7 dA N C _N U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 0 d U U 4J 4J U 7 s L 0: 4 U N O L � O U (10 dA O dA O c C (J C V7 C O U L U L L ; 4 4- O L m (3) 41 Q O Q O _00 O CoN \_ CLO \ C Q .\\ Q L > -0 > Q V O N Q w CLOL L S L Co V7 4-.+ 4� W Q CLO N a L U u O O E m .� > O } O Q tM L 4O Q O -0U U O L CO 4J � C O � O � i m 4J Q > L o (v L (6 t (o +J w (O i` i` a) >_ 4 , m t m O O >Ln O m O c0 4" J U > C aA ao 4� c +J t t O O O C Q 4J dA ._ m 4J f9 a..+ —_ >- 4+•4- >- i a E C C " 41 0)� 0) Co C C C •U_ cr Ln �O w m m = w w w t QJ L L O L L +' cdc 4-1 }J }J � Z 4+ .� N O � u U (0 (0 4J 4J 4J 4J 4J CLOL � U U . . . . L V) •L 00 U U U U U �, m � , O V N Q � N �, N Q dA (10 aLJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 4J 4J U O C O C O w w Q w L C C C C O C bn L L 0 0 0 0 C Ln 0_ m m m m L a m 2 3Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln -m CL E w (O N L L CC C CC C L O L L 7 7 7 7 t CL +J O O L 4. f6 Q N Ln N Q4-1 W W W W 4.1 Lnru E-0 Ln L w 7 U U aA an an an aJ C Cz : L = = i i i i > C 4, II) QL _ V7 Ln L L L L L O Q N O O O O N CLO CL Q Ln Ln w w cr- < -0 cg� O * d' d' d' Ol O c -I N M Ln l0 I� W - N N N N N N N N N C::l �0 m� W C:4.1 w Q 0 a� a� 0 D E E O U C H �s 0 0 a� CL s CL �a �U LM O � i H O m 3 bu0 ►: 4.1 Q 0 0 D E E O U C H Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Fc Macroini Condition Colorado Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5148 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Example of mixed site class used to evaluate the effect of land cover on biological condition in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07. Macro invertebrate -Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in the Eagle River Watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 By Robert E. Zuellig, James F. Bruce, Brian D. Healy, and Cory A. Williams Prepared in cooperation with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5148 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Zuellig, R.E., Bruce, J.F., Healy, B.D., Williams, C.A., 2010, Macro invertebrate -based assessment of biological condition at selected sites in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5148,19 p. Contents Abstract...... Introduction Purposeand Scope..............................................................................................................................3 StudyArea..............................................................................................................................................3 StudyMethods...............................................................................................................................................4 DataCollection.....................................................................................................................................4 Macroinvertebrate Sampling.....................................................................................................4 Macroinvertebrate Data Preparation and Comparability.....................................................4 AssigningSite Classes................................................................................................................7 DataAnalysis..................................................................................................................................................7 Macroinvertebrate Predictive Model................................................................................................7 Predictive Model Description and Performance....................................................................8 Applying the Predictive Model to the Eagle River Watershed Dataset ..............................8 Assessing Biological Condition..........................................................................................................9 Comparing Biological Condition Among Site Classes....................................................................9 Annual Variability in Observed/Expected.........................................................................................9 Observed and Expected Macroinvertebrate Taxa Occurrences at Urban Sites.....................10 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition.........................................................10 Site Class and Biological Condition.................................................................................................10 Annual Variability of Observed/Expected.......................................................................................14 Observed and Expected Macroinvertebrate Taxa at Urban Sites..............................................15 Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................15 Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................17 ReferencesCited..........................................................................................................................................17 Figures 1. Map showing land cover and selected streams and cities in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07....................................................................................................2 2. Map showing selected sites and Eagle River watershed subregions, Colorado, 2000-07.........................................................................................................................5 3. Representative photographs of the four site classes used to evaluate the effect of land cover on biological condition in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07.........................................................................................................................8 4. Graph showing summary of observed/expected values calculated from 124 macroinvertebrate samples collected at 73 sites grouped by different subregions of the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 ............................................11 5. Graph showing distribution of macroinvertebrate observed/expected values among undeveoped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, and urbansite classes.......................................................................................................................12 6. Map showing site location, site class, biological condition, and Eagle River watershed subregions, Colorado...................................................................................13 iv Graph showing distribution of observed/expected values collected from 14 sites (6 undeveloped sites, 20 samples; 4 Black Gore Creek sites, 17 samples; 4 Gore Creek sites, 18 samples) representing 3 to 5 years of annual variability between 2000 and 2007..............................................................................15 Graph showing frequencies of observed (0) and expected (E) occcurrence of 19 invertebrate taxa that statistically occurred more or less frequently than predicted or were impartial to conditions at urban sites in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07............................................................................16 Tables 1. Description of sites, data source, sample types, and biological assessments of selected sites in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 .....................................6 2. Site and data description where 3 to 5 years of annual macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 .....................14 V Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Len foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) meters (m) 3.2808 feet (ft) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km') square foot (ft') 929.0 square centimeter (cm') square foot (ft') 0.09290 square meter (m') square mile (mi') 259.0 hectare (ha) square mile (mi') 2.590 square kilometer (km') Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=(1.8x°C)+32 Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C=(°F-32)/1.8 Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. VI Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of variance ARH Adjacent road or highway or both classified site CDLG Colorado Department of Local Governments COOT Colorado Department of Transportation CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ERW Eagle River Watershed GIS Geographical Information System NAWQA National Water -Quality Assessment Program 0/E Ratio of observed (0) taxa to expected (E) taxa OTU Operational taxonomic unit PRISM Parameter -elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model SO Standard Deviation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey FS U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Macro invertebrate- Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in the Eagle River Watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 By Robert E. Zuellig, James F. Bruce, Brian D. Healy, and Cory A. Williams Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colo- rado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), compiled macroinverte- brate (73 sites, 124 samples) data previously collected in the Eagle River watershed from selected USGS and FS studies, 2000-07. These data were analyzed to assess the biologi- cal condition (that is, biologically "degraded" or "good") at selected sites in the Eagle River watershed and determine if site class (for example, urban or undeveloped) described biological condition. An independently developed predictive model was applied to calculate a site-specific measure of taxonomic completeness for macroinvertebrate communities, where taxo- nomic completeness was expressed as the ratio of observed (0) taxa to those expected (E) to occur at each site. Macro - invertebrate communities were considered degraded at sites were O/E values were less than 0.80, indicating that at least 20 percent of expected taxa were not observed. Sites were classified into one of four classes (undeveloped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, urban) using a combination of riparian land -cover characteristics, examination of topographic maps and aerial imagery, screening for exceedances in water - quality standards, and best professional judgment. Analysis of variance was used to determine if site class accounted for variability in mean macroinvertebrate O/E values. Finally, macroinvertebrate taxa observed more or less frequently than expected at urban sites were identified. This study represents the first standardized assessment of biological condition of selected sites distributed across the Eagle River watershed. Of the 73 sites evaluated, just over half (55 percent) were considered in good biological condi- tion (O/E greater than 0.80). The remaining sites were either consistently biologically degraded (30 percent; O/E less than 0.80) or varied annually between good and degraded condition (15 percent; O/E is less than or greater than 0.80). Sites pri- marily affected by urbanization were among the most severely degraded (lowest O/E values) when compared to other site classes. Although most urban sites were among the most severely degraded (lowest O/E values), a few sites had nearly intact macroinvertebrate communities (O/E near 1.0). Similar observations were noted among sites classified as mixed. Thirteen macroinvertebrate taxa were identified that occurred more or less frequently than expected at urban sites. Additionally, six other taxa were impartial (tolerant) to the same conditions. Combined, these 19 taxa provide an oppor- tunity to enhance the interpretation of future studies in the Eagle River watershed, but will require better insight into the responses of these taxa to specific stressors. Understanding the sources of variability affecting biological condition along with why some sites expected to be degraded, but showed other- wise, will have clear implications for mitigation efforts. Inte- grating results of this study with field and laboratory investiga- tions will greatly enhance the ability to identify causal factors affecting biological condition at degraded sites, the logical next step. Information generated from such integrative studies will be imperative for well targeted mitigation efforts in the Eagle River watershed. Introduction Eagle River, a tributary of the Colorado River, drains an area of approximately 970 square miles (mil) in Colorado flowing from the Continental Divide through Red Cliff, Minturn, Avon, Edwards, Wolcott, Eagle, and Gypsum (fig. 1), and continues downstream approximately 6 miles to the con- fluence with the Colorado River at Dotsero. Several environ- mental factors that affect the biological condition of streams have been modified to some degree in the Eagle River water- shed (for example, surface -water hydrology, water quality, land cover, and riparian area disturbance), where changes are expected to intensify in the future (Bledsoe and others, 2005). State and local agencies are concerned about the effects 2 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 Forest land Water Rangeland Wetland Dots ero Continental Divide • City Streams �� 0 5 10 20 MILES 0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS •DENVER 1 Eagle River Colorado River COLORADO Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1983, 1:400,000 Universal Transverse Mercator projection Zone 13 Figure 1. Land cover and selected streams and cities in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07. of increasing urban development and human population on water quality and the biological condition of regional streams (Deacon and Spahr, 1998). Current (2010) and expected future development along the Eagle River and Gore Creek corridors could adversely affect water quality and stream biota (Bledsoe and others, 2005; Wynn and others, 2001). Several local studies have noted site-specific differences in community structure of fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom communities in the upper part of the Eagle River watershed (Wynn and others, 2001; Hydrosphere, 2007; Healy, 2008), but relatively few have made clear connections between observed patterns and specific stressors (Vieira and others, 2005). Even less is known about factors affecting the biologi- cal condition downstream from Avon to the Colorado River. Local entities are interested in better understanding how specific land -management activities affect the biological and water quality of the Eagle River watershed in order to guide watershed -wide water -resource management. In response to these needs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in coopera- tion with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), compiled pre- viously collected macroinvertebrate data from the Eagle River watershed. These data were analyzed to assess the biologi- cal condition (that is, biologically "degraded" or "good") of selected sites. This assessment of biological condition herein differs from what has been done locally in the past because regionally derived biological assessment tools are now avail- able, which facilitates quantitative predictions of the loss of biological diversity in Eagle River watershed streams based on regional reference conditions. This study represents the first standardized assessment of biological condition of selected sites within the Eagle River watershed. Purpose and Scope This report presents a macroinvertebrate-based assess- ment of biological condition using a compilation of macro - invertebrate data collected by USGS and FS from up to 73 sites in the Eagle River watershed between 2000 and 2007. Data were compiled from independent studies; therefore, all data types were not collected in all years at all sites. The objectives of this report were to (1) assess the biological condition of selected sites in the Eagle River watershed using macroinvertebrate communities and (2) evaluate whether the dominant types of land cover were associated with biological condition. Additionally, short-term annual variability (3 to 5 years) in observed taxa to those expected (O/E) values was described and macroinvertebrate taxa that occurred more or less frequently than predicted at urban sites were identified. All macroinvertebrate data evaluated in this report, as well as Introduction some accompanying diatom data not presented in this report, are documented in Zuellig and Bruce, (2010), available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/5021. Study Area Several previous studies provide a detailed description of the Eagle River watershed study area (for example, Bledsoe and others, 2005). In brief, the Eagle River watershed (ERW) drains approximately 950 mil where the river flows north from its headwaters to the confluence of Gore Creek near Avon, then generally west to its terminus where it joins the Colorado River at Dotsero. Major tributaries include Gore Creek, Homestake Creek, Cross Creek, Lake Creek, and Brush Creek (fig. 1). Gore Creek, the largest tributary in the upper part of the watershed, flows through Vail draining approximately 102 mil before it reaches its confluence with the Eagle River near Minturn. Land -surface elevations range from approxi- mately 14,005 to 6,130 ft. The geology of the ERW is highly variable, which dif- ferentially affects water -quality conditions in discrete parts of the watershed. For example, a few tributaries near Wolcott drain highly erosive soils (for example, soils developed within Pierre Shale) that contribute fine sediments to the Eagle River during snowmelt or summertime rainfall events (Bledsoe and others, 2005). Additionally, the southern part of the watershed (roughly the area upstream from Minturn, fig. 1) is part of the Colorado Mineral Belt (Wilson and Sims, 2003), which has contributed to a multibillion dollar mining industry in Colorado (Tweto, 1979). Temperature, precipitation, and streamflow patterns are typical of regional river watersheds in Colorado. Monthly average temperatures typically range from 14 °F in January to 56 °F in July in the Vail area and from 18 °F to 67 °F near Eagle. Precipitation typically ranges from 22 inches per year in the higher elevations to around 11 inches in the lower valleys (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009). Much of the precipitation falls in the form of snow throughout the winter months resulting in a snowmelt-driven hydrograph (Bledsoe and others, 2005). Typically, streamflow increases in early spring as snow melts at lower elevations, peaks around mid June, and slowly recedes throughout the summer months. During late spring through late summer, streamflow is supplemented by a combination of localized high-intensity convective thunderstorms. Base flow is sus- tained by tributary groundwater when thunderstorms diminish in late summer until the snow begins to melt the following spring. Streamflow is intensively managed throughout the watershed by storing and diverting water for municipal and agricultural use, maintaining minimum instream flow require- ments, and snow making for local ski areas. In 2001, approximately 5 percent of the ERW was con- sidered developed (urban or agricultural) and 95 percent was undeveloped (primarily forested) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Most developed lands in the watershed generally occur Macro invertebrate -Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 along stream corridors and can account for as much as 35 percent of land cover of stream -side areas (Bledsoe and others, 2005). Ski tourism and second home development currently are the largest contributors to increases in developed lands in the ERW. Human population in the area is projected to nearly double by 2030 (Colorado Department of Local Government, 2003), which is expected to increase developed lands along stream corridors (Bledsoe and others, 2005). Study Methods One -hundred twenty-four macroinvertebrate samples col- lected from 73 sites (fig. 2) were compiled from various USGS and FS projects in the ERW between 2000 and 2007 (table 1). Data were compiled from various projects and agencies; there- fore, not all data types were collected at all sites with the same frequency. For example, some sites were visited only once; whereas, others were visited annually during a 5 -year period. Therefore by necessity, various combinations of samples and sites were used to address each objective. Site assessments of biological condition were made by applying an independently developed indicator and establishing a threshold value defin- ing biological degradation. Data Collection Macroinvertebrate Sampling The USGS collected semiquantitative-macroinvertebrate samples during 2000 and 2001 following National Water - Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program protocols described by Cuffney and others (1993). In general, five discrete collections were made from riffle areas at each site with a slack sampler equipped with 500 -micron mesh and a 2.69 If, (0.25 ml) sampling grid along a pre -defined stream reach (20 times the stream width Fitzpatrick and others, 1998). The contents of the five collections were composited, elutriated, and poured through a 500 -micron mesh sieve, and preserved with 10 -percent buffered formalin in the field. All samples were transported to Chadwick and Associates in Littleton, Colo., where they were processed using methods described by Klemm and others (1990). All taxa were identified to the lowest practical resolution (genus or species) and enumerated. All USGS macroinvertebrate samples were collected during base -flow conditions during September; some USGS sites were sampled in both 2000 and 2001 (table 1). The FS collected macroinvertebrate samples between 2003 and 2007 using methods described by Hawkins and others (2001) (table 1). In general, eight macro invertebrate samples were collected and composited from four riffle loca- tions within an 8 -ft stream reach (length of stream encompass- ing four distinct riffle areas) using a surber sampler equipped with 500 -micron mesh and a 1 -ft' sampling grid. Macroinver- tebrate samples from each site were composited and preserved in the field and sent to Aquatics Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colo., for sample processing following protocols developed by Klemm and others (1990). Additionally, the FS sampled macroinvertebrate communities from a series of sites along the Eagle River in the upper part of the watershed (table 1, fig. 2, sites 5, 9, 11-12, 17, 22, and 24). At these sites, five replicate macroinvertebrate samples were collected from a single riffle using a Hess sampler (each replicate represents 0.923 ftZ of streambed) equipped with 500 -micron mesh and preserved separately in the field and sent to Aquatics Associates Inc., Ft. Collins, Colo. for taxa identification and sample processing (Klemm and others, 1990). All taxa in each sample were iden- tified to the lowest practical resolution (for example, genus or species) and enumerated. All FS macroinvertebrate samples were collected during base -flow conditions during September. Macroinvertebrate Data Preparation and Comparability Three adjustments were made to the compiled ERW data in preparation for data analysis. First, taxonomic names used by the different laboratories were harmonized. Second, the laboratory results were composited from the five FS Hess samples (Cuffney and others, 1993; Hawkins and others, 2001). Third, the raw data counts were standardized for each sample to 300 by randomly resampling individuals without replacement using a personal computer. Such adjustments to raw data counts can help alleviate the effect of varying levels of sampling effort (for example, area sampled in the field or subsample target counts) on estimates of taxa richness (Peterson and Zumberge, 2006), even when different sampling devices are used (Cao and others, 2005). Fixed -count adjust- ments are necessary even if samples are collected using the same method because standardized laboratory subsampling procedures result in a wide range of individuals extracted from each sample, which differentially affects taxa richness across samples (Vinson and Hawkins, 1996). Although three different protocols were used to collect the macroinvertebrate data compiled for this study, the differ- ences were considered negligible after the adjustments were made as described in the previous paragraph. For example, all methods targeted riffle habitats, collected multiple samples along a stream reach, scrubbed the overlying substrate within a defined area, disturbed the underlying substrate, and used a similar mesh size (425 or 500 microns). The primary dif- ference among field methods was the area of stream bottom sampled (FS Hess sampler, 4.6 It; FS, 8 ftZ; USGS, 13.5 If). Carlisle and Hawkins (2008) recently aggregated data col- lected with different sampled areas of stream bottoms (ranged from 7.8 to 13.5 ftZ) and found that the ratio of observed (0) taxa to those expected (E) (O/E) values for samples collected from smaller areas were negatively biased by 0.06 units (a relatively small amount). Considering the results of Carlisle and Hawkins (2008), the lower end of any bias in O/E values evaluated in this study likely is around 0.06 units, although EXPLANATION Basin subregions Lower Eagle = Gore Middle Eagle © Upper Eagle 0 Site location Streams 58 Number corresponds to site identification in table 1 I 53 52 25 24 0 5 10 20 MILES 0 5 10 20 KILOMETERS i 45 45046 51 47 44 41 43 Figure 2. Selected sites and Eagle River watershed subregions, Colorado, 2000-07. 42 Study Methods 5 39 38 37 29 36 35 34 Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator projection Zone 13 31 33 ( -- 32 6 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 x0 — — — o---< � 2 E 0 o o .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 o .. . . . 0. . . . . . . . . —.6 ............. c Vo 8964 49 Z= 622 26 2 cD cD 1. E N N N N I o o w0 Ow w w wow www w wwwwwwwww— www LL w co VI> > >c6. > > > > > > . . . . . . . 2m o o 66 >� 00 ic ic ic ic -E -E -E -E ic ic ic ic ic ic ic �2 �2 --22-2222 L LL 222 1 2 -2 2 2 'E t! -6-2 -6-2 XX 2 f f U . .-5-5-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . --m ......... ........ 000000— (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D 88888 ......................... —911-111"Inc - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. R nn �2 P In 2 qqn— cp m m --'m O c? c� c� c� c?'? m . m I 1 1. c� c6 r� 4 A A c� c� . mm . . mm �-' �-' Im "m 'm I— mm.m 2z — — c; c; 0 c6 000 w w.0 m2:EgE�-2-�-�Ewwwg�z.o (D.(7(7(7 0 0 O'o w 0 11 1 Mm- -62-22 > nI.I. m <200020odd -0 02 RHM<2 0 IwT—owoo mn��.22'— U U U 0 O o o 18 'o o 1. Io 12 E o. .`mo T E E o E 11 -o Iw 2 o .71 E E .-7 1 >8 Z! o>.F" >8 > mo -- 2 , . So 2 - 2 >o 0 0 �w o o w w -6 -a .110 1w z. . E 1. o 3� -o w >.�� > o o Eo:��.-o. E� -owE06 o�— 2, 6..oE, o Ew 0 0 mw E -T 2-6 E S -& 0 ww —c E o E 2:2 E 6 o I> >G o, -2 2 T & lu �5 E� 0. 6 300 0 w 3: wo w + -w o '119 E� ->mwwo2E== >o . w , 3: a , 'w c� 0 > E E 0 0 wo w'2wo-@E2-%%w68 E-gw— I < b E7E--6' E o m:E E 0 o o wE wEgE_ o�m o w - w E o o R xo�w 3��2 m w o% Io � R ��- 2 - 3 m- m- m- >m > 2 m> o w o m 3� 2 2 3� m � 2 '> .3,.m3,m�xpxp�,.. xo E m w o: o 2 o < 8-3�>If—o > > 2 666 Ew3�>-�oEl b w B m 8 w, mo 'w b 6 b G> D o. o. > o o w 6 >8 -o E' 2- -o 'w E o 0 w e-) e) % I ' YUmo 0 go 6 . . . . . w. 2 2 mmmm mm2 2 2 2'.'. 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 mm 2 .0 w 2116000 'E 2oc 0000 60 _00 OEE 3w:3w:3w:" V E o 2 > w> w> & & N_ -5-5 -5 V 0 0 0 0 -6 -6 w E w w o w o w w w o w w w w w o WW WW o o o o Ej Ej Ej �7 Ej Ej m m �2 't « c'O �2 n' 1, m, 'm n. � n� nn n� n� n. n, mn nm » n' » » m, m, n' m, m, nm I mm c the upper limit of indicator -value bias is unknown. Ideally, data comparability using different methods and laboratories would be evaluated from side-by-side comparisons of samples collected from the same sites at the same time (Taylor and others, 2001). Such data for side-by-side comparisons were not available for this study so based on previous studies, it was assumed that the above adjustments improved the comparabil- ity of these data. Preferably, results from studies such as this one would be generated from data collected using identical field and laboratory methods, which need to be considered for future monitoring efforts in the ERW. Assigning Site Classes All 73 sites were classified into one of four classes (table 1; undeveloped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, and urban) using a combination of riparian land -cover characteristics, examination of topographic maps and aerial imagery, screening for exceedances in water -quality standards, and best professional judgment. Riparian land -cover character- istics were calculated using a geographic information system (GIS) that included watershed -level topographic and land - cover data. Stream networks were obtained from the National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Topo- graphic information and digitized vector polygon watershed boundaries were derived from 30-m resolution USGS National Elevation Data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Land -cover data were derived from an enhanced version of the National Land Cover Dataset (Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001), a 16 -class, 30-m resolution raster dataset derived from multiseason Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 imagery centered on a nominal collection year of 2001. Riparian cor- ridors were delineated with a 100-m buffer around all stream segments upstream from each sampling site and land -cover attributes were calculated. Urban sites initially were classi- fied based on the presence of greater than 1.0 percent urban land cover and no agriculture land cover within the riparian corridor; whereas, sites with both urban and agriculture land cover initially were classified as mixed. Sites with no urban or agriculture land cover initially were classified as unde- veloped. Undeveloped sites also were screened for known exceedances of State and Federal water -quality standards and adjusted accordingly (that is, sites that exceeded water -quality standards were removed from the undeveloped site class). Initial classifications were verified and adjusted by examina- tion of USGS 7.5 -minute topographic maps and aerial imagery for other types of disturbance within two stream segments upstream from each site. Stream segments were defined by the confluence of upstream tributaries. Other types of distur- bance included adjacent roads or highways or both (including native -surfaced roads), unimproved road -stream crossings, hydrologic alteration from reservoirs or diversions, logging, mining, or ski -area development activities. After initial urban and undeveloped site classifications were adjusted, all sites with more than one obvious nearby (that is, within two stream segments) upstream disturbance (for example, mining, Data Analysis channelization, wastewater effluent) were classified as mixed. Final adjustments were made using best professional judg- ment that was based on historical knowledge of each site and FS field notes. The above classification scheme resulted in 18 undeveloped sites, 15 adjacent road or highway sites or both, 26 mixed sites, and 14 urban sites (table 1). See figure 3 for representative photographs of each site class. Data Analysis An independently developed predictive model (Paul and others, 2005) was applied to calculate a measure of taxonomic completeness for 124 macroinvertebrate samples collected from 73 sites in the ERW. The model calculated taxonomic completeness as the ratio of observed (0) taxa collected at each site to the taxa that were expected (E) to occur at each site in the absence of environmental degradation (Hawkins, 2006). Biological condition (that is, biologically "degraded" or "good") was assessed by setting an O/E threshold value to determine biological degradation. Initial assessments were made and summarized across the four subwatersheds of the ERW: Gore Creek, Upper Eagle, Middle Eagle, and Lower Eagle. Biological condition also was summarized across the four land -cover classes (undeveloped, adjacent road or high- way or both, mixed, and urban) and analysis of variance was used to determine whether mean macroinvertebrate O/E values were associated with different land -cover classes. Addition- ally, it statistically was determined which macroinvertebrate taxa occurred more or less frequently at urban sites than pre- dicted using the z -statistic. Macro invertebrate Predictive Model An independently developed predictive model con- structed by the Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems (Utah State University, Logan) was applied to the macroinvertebrate dataset. The predictive model is detailed by Charles P. Hawkins (Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, Utah State University, Logan) in Paul and others (2005). The model can be accessed by requesting a user name and password from the Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems at http://]29.123.10.2401WMCPortall DesktopDefault. aspx7 tabindex=0& tabid= 1. The model measures taxonomic completeness represented as the ratio of observed (0) taxa to the taxa that were expected (E) to occur at a site (O/E) in the absence of environmental degradation (Hawkins 2006). Values of O/E near 1.0 imply that the observed taxa (0) found at a site closely resemble the taxa that were predicted (E) to occur; whereas, O/E values <1.0 implies some degree of biological degradation. The description of constructing and evaluating predictive models are well documented and detailed elsewhere (Moss and others, 1987; Hawkins and Carlisle, 2001; Clarke and others, 2003; Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 Figure 3. Representative photographs of the four site classes used to evaluate the effect of land cover on biological condition in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07. Ostermiller and Hawkins, 2004; Van Sickle and others, 2005), and are not detailed herein. However, a brief summary of the model's performance is provided as detailed in Paul and others (2005), as well as how the model was applied to the ERW macro invertebrate data evaluated in this report. Predictive Model Description and Performance The predictive model (Paul and others, 2005) was con- structed from reference site data collected in Colorado (97 sites) using a variety of sampling methods associated with dif- ferent programs (for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Utah State University Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems Science to Achieve Results program, USGS NAWQA, and CDPHE). The model uses three predictor variables (longitude in decimal degrees, mean annual air temperature in °C x 10, and logo watershed area in km2) to generate estimates of E in which O was com- pared. In general, the model was both accurate and precise, and there was little evidence that the model was biased (under or over predicted E) towards any major river watershed or ecoregion in Colorado (Paul and others, 2005). Overall, model performance was comparable or better than most macro - invertebrate predictive models in use in the United States or other countries (Paul and others, 2005). Applying the Predictive Model to the Eagle River Watershed Dataset Two steps were necessary before the model was applied to the ERW data. First, the macroinvertebrate identifications in the ERW dataset were harmonized with the operational taxonomic units (OTU) used to develop the model. Second, climatological data were added to the GIS dataset described earlier that were obtained from PRISM (Parameter -elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) datasets, which represent 30 -year (1961-90) climate averages (Spatial Climate Analysis Service, 2004). These data were used to calculate the climate -related predictor variable used as part of the model (that is, mean annual air temperature in °C x 10). The appropriateness of applying the model to the ERW data was evaluated in two ways. First, mean O/E and standard deviation (SD) values calculated from ERW reference sites (undeveloped sites, table 1) were compared to the range of values from the reference sites used to develop the predictive model. Because theoretical O/E values from reference sites should equal 1.0, it was determined if ERW reference site O/E values statistically were different from 1.0 using a one - sample t-test (SPSS, 2005) with a p value of less than 0.05. This statistical test determined whether there was significant bias in predictions of E at ERW sites. A second statistical test (chi -squared test as described in Clarke and others, 2003) was used to determine whether the combined predictor variable distributions for each ERW site were within the experience of the model, which provided assurance that the predictive model was appropriate for assessing the biological condition of ERW sites. The model produced unbiased estimates of E when applied to the ERW data, as mean (1.02) and SD (0.07) of O/E values from ERW reference sites were well within the range of mean (1.00) and SD (0.17) values of the reference sites used to develop the predictive model. Additionally, mean O/E values of ERW reference sites were not statistically distinguishable from 1.0 (p = 0.24) and mean O/E reference site values from the model also were equal to 1.0 (Paul and others, 2005). Fur- thermore, of the 73 sites included in this study (table 1), none of the combined predictor variable distributions (longitude in decimal degrees, mean annual air temperature in °C x 10, and logo watershed area in kml) were outside the range of the model; therefore, all sites were considered for further analysis. Assessing Biological Condition The intent of this investigation was to assess the biologi- cal condition of selected ERW sites using macroinvertebrate O/E values; therefore, a threshold was set to define two levels of biological condition: sites where O/E was greater than > 0.80 were considered in "good" biological condition, and sites where O/E was less than < 0.80 were considered bio- logically "degraded." Several methods for setting thresholds to define degraded biological condition have been suggested (Barbour and others, 1999; Hemsley-Flint, 2000; Clarke and others, 2003; Van Sickle and others, 2005). Herein, it was assumed that a 20 -percent loss of expected taxa (O/E < 0.80) was ecologically meaningful, corresponding with the early stages of environmental degradation described by Davies and Jackson (2006). From a statistical standpoint, this threshold (0.80) also was near the 10th percentile of model reference site O/E values (0.79); therefore, sites with O/E values below the 10th -percentile value would be statistically distinguish- able from reference sites (p > 0.01). Using the 10th percentile value as a threshold for assessing biological condition in this study, reasonably balances between type I and type II statisti- cal errors (that is, balances between calling a reference site degraded when it is not, and calling a degraded site reference Data Analysis when it is not) while indicating an ecologically meaningful loss of taxa (O/E < 0.80). It is emphasized that site assess- ments of biological condition ("good" or "degraded") made herein are unique to this study and are not directly compa- rable to assessments made based on other approaches, where degraded biological conditions are defined using different indicators, thresholds, or methods. Biological assessments were summarized by grouping sites into different subregions of the ERW (fig. 2, table 1) as defined hereafter as Gore Creek, Upper Eagle, Middle Eagle, and Lower Eagle. The Gore Creek subregion was inclusive of the entire Gore Creek watershed. The Upper Eagle included the Eagle River and all tributaries upstream from the Gore Creek confluence. The Middle Eagle was defined by the Eagle River and all tributaries between the Gore Creek confluence downstream to Wolcott. Finally, the Lower Eagle included the Eagle River and all tributaries from Wolcott downstream to the confluence with the Colorado River. Comparing Biological Condition Among Site Classes Test statistics (F, p) were calculated from analysis of vari- ance (ANOVA) to determine if site class (undeveloped, adja- cent road or highway or both, mixed, and urban) accounted for variability in mean O/E values using the most recent sample collected at each site (table. 1). Additionally, post -hoc tests of pairwise differences were conducted between site classes based on Bonferroni adjustments of experimental error (SPSS ver. 13.0, SPSS, 2005). ANOVA and post -hoc tests were con- sidered significant if p < 0.05. Annual Variability in Observed/Expected The FS initiated a macroinvertebrate monitoring pro- gram in 2004 at selected sites in the Gore Creek watershed in response to stakeholder concerns related to potential effects of excessive sediment deposition along Black Gore and Gore Creeks (Healy, 2008). As a result, 3 to 4 macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 13 sites annually within the Gore Creek watershed between 2004 and 2007. Four of these sites were previously sampled by the USGS in 2000. Addition- ally, an undeveloped site on Cross Creek was sampled during 2004, 2005, and 2007 by FS. The combination of these annual samples provided the opportunity to examine annual vari- ability in O/E values over a 3-5 year period among 14 sites (undeveloped sites 18, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, adjacent road and /or highway (Black Gore) sites 30, 31, 34, 36, urban (Gore) sites 38, 39, 41, 52). The coefficient of variation (CV = [100 x stan- dard deviation/mean]) of O/E values was used as a measure of the magnitude of annual variability. 10 Macro invertebrate -Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 Observed and Expected Macro invertebrate Taxa Occurrences at Urban Sites Macro invertebrate taxa that were observed more or less frequently than predicted by the model at urban sites were determined following the methods of Carlisle and others (2008) and Carlisle and Hawkins (2008), by recording the occurrence frequencies (Of) of all observed taxa among urban sites, and by calculating expected frequencies (Ef) of occur- rence by summing the predicted probabilities of capture for each taxon among all urban sites. If the null hypothesis was true for a given taxon (Of = Ef), then it was observed as frequently as it was predicted; however, Of> or < Ef indicates which taxa are observed more or less frequently than pre- dicted among sites. Analysis was limited to the most recent sample collected at each of the 14 urban sites (table 1). The null hypothesis was tested for each taxon using the z -statistic, where z — (Of— E ) / Variance(Of) (Carlisle and Hawkins, 2008). Taxa with �zl >1.96 were considered to be tolerant increasers if Of>Ef or intolerant decreasers if Of Er Addition- ally, taxa that were observed as often as predicted (f one site) were considered to be tolerant of the environmental conditions found at urban classified sites. Reported results were restricted to only those taxa that were predicted or observed at one-half or more of the 14 urban sites. See Carlisle and Hawkins (2008) for details to calculate Variance (Of). Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition The number of sites available for assessment varied by subregion as did sampling intensity. The Gore Creek subregion was the most heavily sampled (28 sites, 65 samples), followed by the Upper Eagle (25 sites, 30 samples), Middle Eagle (15 sites, 21 samples), and the Lower Eagle (5 sites, 8 samples) (fig. 4). Overall, 55 percent of sites (40 sites) were considered in good biological condition; whereas, 30 percent (22 sites) were biologically degraded. The additional 15 percent of sites (11 sites) had O/E values that ranged both above and below the threshold (O/E < 0.80) depending on the year sampled, and mean values for six of those sites were below the threshold. Considering these 6 sites, a total of 38 percent (28 sites) were considered biologically degraded. Also note that of the 73 sites, 36 percent (25 sites) have not been sampled since 2000 or 2001, so it is likely that assessments may not reflect current biological condition at some of these sites. Nonetheless, site assessments are considered a screening tool for determining where in the ERW biological conditions are good or degraded until further investigation confirms otherwise. These results may underestimate actual taxa loss and sensitivity of O/E values to biological degradation. Sites were considered biologically degraded when more than 20 percent of taxa expected to occur at a site were not observed (O/E < 0.80). By necessity, the model was constructed with relatively coarse taxonomic resolution (for example, taxonomy used in this analysis mostly consisted of genera, some fami- lies, midges at subfamily, and few species) (Paul and others, 2005). As a result, most taxonomic units represented more than one species, which likely varied in their individual toler- ance to stressors. Such cases can result in O/E models that are less sensitive to some environmental stressors than would be observed if species level data are used (Hawkins and others, 2000). Site Class and Biological Condition Site classes were determined primarily from adjacent land -cover characteristics. Analysis of variance determined that mean O/E values varied significantly among site classes (F = 12.415, p < 0.001) based on the most recent samples collected at each site. Urban (mean O/E = 0.69) and mixed site classes (mean O/E = 0.76) exhibited the most degraded biological condition (that is, the lowest mean O/E values); whereas, sites in the adjacent road or highway or both class (hereafter, ARH; mean O/E = 0.92) were near conditions found at undeveloped sites (mean O/E = 1.02) (fig. 5). In general, most degraded sites were located along the main stem Eagle River and lower Gore Creek; whereas, sites located at the higher altitudes in the watershed were in relatively good biological condition regardless of site class (fig. 6). Addition- ally, results remained similar when urban classified sites along lower Gore Creek were removed from the analysis. In this study, macroinvertebrate communities at urban sites were most severely degraded (that is, these sites had the lowest mean O/E values compared to other site classes), a result that is consistent with many other studies (Paul and Meyer, 2001, and citations within). Carlisle and Meador (2007) and Carlisle and others (2008) reported similar results using O/E and a similar degradation threshold; however, they classified urban sites differently. In those two studies, sites were classified as urban when upstream watersheds had greater than 10- and 25 -percent urban -land cover, respectively. In the study herein, the highest estimates of watershed urban - land cover did not exceed 2.5 percent, yet similar patterns of biological impairment were observed. Most urban -land cover in the ERW is concentrated in or near riparian areas and can account for as much as 35 percent in some segments (Bledsoe and others, 2005). A recent assessment of wadeable streams in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006) indicated riparian vegetated cover disturbance as one of the main stressors increasing the risk of macro invertebrate impairment and taxa loss in the Western United States. Other primary stressors that increased the risk of biological impair- ment in western streams included nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment concentrations. All of these stressors identified in the wadeable streams report (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006) were independently identified by others (for example, Bledsoe and others, 2005) as concerns affecting the biological integrity of streams in the ERW. 1.25 1.00 0 LU C-) 0.75 CL X O LU LU LU W m 0.50 0 0.25 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition Gore Upper Eagle Middle Eagle Lower Eagle BASIN SUBREGION EXPLANATION - - - Degradation threshold of 0.80 Filled circle indicates Observed/Expected value; darker circles represent overlaping values Figure 4. Summary of observed/expected values calculated from 124 macroinvertebrate samples collected at 73 sites grouped by different subregions of the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 (see text for subregion definitions). Although most urban sites were considered biologically degraded, a few sites had O/E values greater than the degraded condition threshold (sites 47, 57, 69, table 1). In a study of streams in the eastern United States, Carlisle and Meador (2007) observed that some urban sites with intact macro - invertebrate communities (O/E > 0.80) had well protected and established riparian corridors. In this study, there were no anecdotal explanations to describe why macroinvertebrate communities were relatively intact at a few urban sites. Unfor- tunately, the urban sites where O/E was greater than 0.80 (sites 47, 57, 69, table 1) have not been sampled since 2000-01, so results may not reflect current (20 10) biological condition as urban development has increased since that time (2000-01) near these sites. If macroinvertebrate communities at these sites are intact under present-day (2010) land -cover condi- tions, then further investigation is warranted to better diagnose why these sites remain in good biological condition. 11 Mean O/E for mixed sites was similar to that of urban sites; however, variation in O/E values was largest when compared to other site classes (fig. 5). This result likely was affected by the inability to isolate the intensity of dominant factors or groups of co-occurring factors that affect biota at these mixed sites in the classification scheme used in this study. Others have suggested (for example, Carlisle and Hawkins, 2008) that variation in biological condition likely is associated with environmental factors operating at differ- ent spatial scales (that is, watershed, segment, and reach). Nonetheless, further investigation into causal factors affecting biological degradation at mixed sites will require better isola- tion of stressors through a well-planned study design. Under- standing why some sites expected to have degraded biological communities (for example, urban and mixed sites), but show otherwise, will have clear implications for managing land use adjacent to streams and ultimately improving biological 0 ------------------------------------------------- r � 28 sites 25 sites 15 sites 5 sites 65 samples 30 samples 21 samples 8 samples Gore Upper Eagle Middle Eagle Lower Eagle BASIN SUBREGION EXPLANATION - - - Degradation threshold of 0.80 Filled circle indicates Observed/Expected value; darker circles represent overlaping values Figure 4. Summary of observed/expected values calculated from 124 macroinvertebrate samples collected at 73 sites grouped by different subregions of the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07 (see text for subregion definitions). Although most urban sites were considered biologically degraded, a few sites had O/E values greater than the degraded condition threshold (sites 47, 57, 69, table 1). In a study of streams in the eastern United States, Carlisle and Meador (2007) observed that some urban sites with intact macro - invertebrate communities (O/E > 0.80) had well protected and established riparian corridors. In this study, there were no anecdotal explanations to describe why macroinvertebrate communities were relatively intact at a few urban sites. Unfor- tunately, the urban sites where O/E was greater than 0.80 (sites 47, 57, 69, table 1) have not been sampled since 2000-01, so results may not reflect current (20 10) biological condition as urban development has increased since that time (2000-01) near these sites. If macroinvertebrate communities at these sites are intact under present-day (2010) land -cover condi- tions, then further investigation is warranted to better diagnose why these sites remain in good biological condition. 11 Mean O/E for mixed sites was similar to that of urban sites; however, variation in O/E values was largest when compared to other site classes (fig. 5). This result likely was affected by the inability to isolate the intensity of dominant factors or groups of co-occurring factors that affect biota at these mixed sites in the classification scheme used in this study. Others have suggested (for example, Carlisle and Hawkins, 2008) that variation in biological condition likely is associated with environmental factors operating at differ- ent spatial scales (that is, watershed, segment, and reach). Nonetheless, further investigation into causal factors affecting biological degradation at mixed sites will require better isola- tion of stressors through a well-planned study design. Under- standing why some sites expected to have degraded biological communities (for example, urban and mixed sites), but show otherwise, will have clear implications for managing land use adjacent to streams and ultimately improving biological 12 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 M "I u� F=12.415, p<0.001 B A A BC O ----------------------------------- O m Undeveloped Adjacent road or Mixed highway or both SITE CLASS EXPLANATION A Statistica l ly different distributions (p<0.05) Distributions with different letters are statistically different 90th percentile 75th percentile 50th percentile 25th percentile 10th percentile O Open circle indicates outlier — — — Degradation threshold of 0.80 18 Number of observations Urban Figure 5. Distribution of macroinvertebrate observed/expected (0/E) values among undeveoped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, and urban site classes. condition in the ERW at selected sites through mitigation efforts. Mean O/E values from ARH sites were expected to be lower than undeveloped sites, but they were found to be indistinguishable (fig. 5). This result was somewhat surprising as many of the ARH sites previously were noted as being affected by sediment deposition associated with FS road networks (Laurie, 2003) or Colorado Department of Trans- portation's road sanding operations during the winter months (December through March) (for example, Black Gore Creek; Healy, 2008). Effects of sedimentation on macroinvertebrate communities are well documented (Waters, 1995 and citations within), causing significant reductions in macroinvertebrate density, biomass, and diversity (Lenat and others, 1981; Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991; Angradi, 1999). The results in this report likely were affected by the inability to quantify the intensity of sedimentation at each ARH site in the classifi- cation scheme used herein. Other factors potentially affecting macroinvertebrate community response include the degree to which adjacent roads were buffered from adjacent streams by riparian vegetation, or whether disturbed areas associated with roads were directly connected to streams (see Wemple and others, 1996); however, neither was quantified in this study. Additionally, O/E measures taxa loss which may not be Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition 45 EXPLANATION 50 46 Basin subregions39 51 47 44 41 Lower Eagle � Gore 38 Middle Eagle Upper Eagle 53 43 37 29 52 42 Site class Good Degraded 36 Urban O 9 25 Mixed 0 24 35 Undeveloped 0 16 34 22 Adjacent road ❑ ■ 15 and/or highway 21 58 Number corresponds to site 17 identification in table 1 streams 20 14 / ' Zone 13 Figure 6. Site location, site class, biological condition, and Eagle River watershed subregions, Colorado. Biological condition was based on the most recent samples collected between 2000 and 2007. 13 14 Macro invertebrate -Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 sensitive enough to indicate the intensity levels of sedimenta- tion that differentially occurred across ARH sites. Further- more, the most recent samples collected at each site were used in this analysis; and therefore, those samples may reflect sediment mitigation efforts implemented at some of these sites the year the samples were collected (for example, sites along Black Gore Creek) or may be a result of a decreased need to apply traction sand during that year (for example, a milder winter with less snow). Annual Variability of Observed/Expected Annual variability of O/E values over a 3- to 5 -year period visually differed between undeveloped sites and sites along Lower Gore and Black Gore Creeks (fig. 7). Assess- ments of biological condition at undeveloped sites consistently were above the 0.80 threshold (mean O/E, 1.01; Standard Deviation (SD), 0.07; Coefficient of Variation (CV), 6.85), indicating that these sites were consistently in good condition and stable over the sampling period; whereas, assessments made along Black Gore Creek (mean O/E, 0.85; SD, 0.017; CV, 20.67) and lower Gore Creek sites (mean O/E, 0.67; SD, 0.14; CV, 20.41) were comparatively variable and year depe- dent (table 2). At lower Gore Creek urban sites (table 1, sites 38, 39, 41, and 52), most of the annual variability (large CV values) can be attributed to differences between O/E values from samples collected in 2000 (O/E near 1.0) and those samples collected during 2004 to 2007 (O/E < 0.80). These results indicate that either sampling error (that is, error because of field sampling, laboratory processing, modeling, or natural variability) or some other unexplained sources of variability affected O/E values, or major changes occurred between 2000 and 2004 along Gore Creek that severely altered macroinvertebrate community structure. Regardless of what affected O/E values between 2000 and 2004 at sites along lower Gore Creek, all but one assessment made during 2004 and 2007 have indicated degraded biological condition as defined herein. Relatively high annual variability also was observed at most Black Gore Creek sites (fig. 7, table 2). Black Gore Creek sites (table 1, sites 30, 31, 34, and 36) used in this analysis were located along the section of stream listed in 2002 as one of Colorado's impaired waters under the Clean Water Act of 1972 (303d) for sediment deposition (Healy, 2008). Although most O/E values calculated from these sites were above the impairment threshold, several were below, and a few were among the lowest observed in this study. Potential factors influencing variability in biological condition among years at these sites is possibly associated with interacting annual differences among the amount of traction sand and deicing chemical applied, timing and maintenance of sediment retention basins, sediment control or stabilization projects, or differences in rainfall, snowmelt, and associated stream hydrology. Identifying the sources of variability affecting assessments of biological condition was beyond the scope of this study; however, understanding assessment variability is imperative to mitigation efforts (for example, sediment control efforts currently (20 10) being lead by CDOT that began in 2002 (Healy, 2008) so that the uncertainty affecting any future mitigation efforts are minimized. Table 2. Site and data description where 3 to 5 years of annual macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07. [ID, identification; O/E, ratio of observed to expected macroinvertebrate taxa, >0.80, biologically good, <0.80 biologically degraded; >, greater than; < less than; CV, coefficient of variation] Site ID (fig. 2) Stream Years of data Site class O/E Mean Mean CV of 0/E 18 Cross Creek 3 Undeveloped > 0.80 1.04 4.03 27 Gore Creek 3 Undeveloped > 0.80 1.14 3.46 28 Gore Creek 3 Undeveloped > 0.80 0.95 7.69 29 Gore Creek 5 Undeveloped > 0.80 1.01 8.76 32 Polk Creek 3 Undeveloped > 0.80 0.94 10.66 33 Polk Creek 3 Undeveloped > 0.80 1.00 6.49 30 Black Gore Creek 4 Adjacent road or highway, or both Year dependent 0.70 26.72 31 Black Gore Creek 4 Adjacent road or highway, or both Year dependent 0.86 13.39 34 Black Gore Creek 5 Adjacent road or highway, or both Year dependent 0.87 35.36 36 Black Gore Creek 4 Adjacent road or highway, or both > 0.80 0.96 7.23 38 Gore Creek 3 Urban < 0.80 0.61 13.32 39 Gore Creek 5 Urban Year dependent 0.76 25.69 41 Gore Creek 5 Urban Year dependent 0.71 26.73 52 Gore Creek 5 Urban < 0.80 0.60 15.90 1.25 C' 0.50 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36 38, 39, 41, 52 32,33 EXPLANATION — — - Degradation threshold of 0.80 Q Unfilled circle indicates sites sampled in 2000 i� Filled circle indicates individual samples; darker colors represent overlap in Observed/Expected values 18 Number corresponds to SitelD in table 1 Figure 7. Distribution of observed/expected values collected from 14 sites (6 undeveloped sites, 20 samples; 4 Black Gore Creek sites, 17 samples; 4 Gore Creek sites, 18 samples) representing 3 to 5 years of annual variability between 2000 and 2007. Observed and Expected Macro invertebrate Taxa at Urban Sites At urban sites, the occurrence of many macroinvertebrate taxa statistically was different than expected (fig. 8). Of the 173 taxa evaluated, 21 were observed or predicted to occur at 7 or more sites (that is, one-half of the total number of urban sites). Of these 21 taxa, 9 were observed less frequently (intolerant decreasers) and 4 were observed more frequently (tolerant increasers) than expected. Additionally, there were six taxa apparently tolerant (nonresponsive) to the conditions at urban sites as they were observed nearly as frequently as predicted. Combined, these 19 taxa provide an opportunity to enhance the interpretation of future studies in the ERW but Summary and Conclusions 15 will require better insight into the responses of these taxa to specific stressors. In general, the patterns of tolerant increaser (hereafter increaser) and intolerant decreaser (hereafter decreaser) taxa are consistent with the findings of other studies. Many of the decreaser taxa observed belong to groups known to be sensi- tive (for example, mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies), and many of the increasers belong to groups known to be tolerant (for example, Oligochaeta, Turbellaria, Chironomidae) to general disturbance (Barbour and others, 1999). It is empha- sized that these results are specific to this study for a vari- ety of reasons (for example, small sample size, taxonomic resolution, and small geographic scale) and should not be applied outside the ERW until they are further studied. None- theless, the list of decreaser taxa (fig. 8) provides a starting point for identifying causal factors at urban sites responsible for degraded biological condition if further effort is made to better understand the ecological requirements of these taxa and their tolerance to more specific stressors. Integrat- ing results of this study with other approaches such as field and laboratory experiments greatly will enhance abilities to identify causal factors associated with degraded biological condition (Clements and others, 2002). Information gener- ated from such integrative studies will be imperative for well targeted mitigation efforts at urban sites in the ERW. Summary and Conclusions Local entities in the Eagle River watershed (ERW) are interested in better understanding how specific land -man- agement activities affect biological communities and water quality in order to guide watershed -wide water -resource use management. In response to these needs, the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the Department of U.S. Agriculture Forest Service (FS), compiled previously collected macroinverte- brate data in the ERW from selected USGS and FS studies from 2000-07. Specific objectives were to: (1) assess the biological condition of selected sites in the ERW using macroinvertebrate communities and (2) evaluate whether the dominant types of land cover were associated with biological condition. Additionally, short-term annual variability (3 to 5 years) in O/E values was described and macroinvertebrate taxa that occurred more or less frequently than predicted at urban sites were identified. Sites were classified into one of four classes (undevel- oped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, and urban) using a combination of riparian land -cover characteris- tics, examination of topographic maps and aerial imagery, O • 0 _--———— ————-- —— ---- Undeveloped Black Gore Creek Gore Creek _ sites sites sites 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36 38, 39, 41, 52 32,33 EXPLANATION — — - Degradation threshold of 0.80 Q Unfilled circle indicates sites sampled in 2000 i� Filled circle indicates individual samples; darker colors represent overlap in Observed/Expected values 18 Number corresponds to SitelD in table 1 Figure 7. Distribution of observed/expected values collected from 14 sites (6 undeveloped sites, 20 samples; 4 Black Gore Creek sites, 17 samples; 4 Gore Creek sites, 18 samples) representing 3 to 5 years of annual variability between 2000 and 2007. Observed and Expected Macro invertebrate Taxa at Urban Sites At urban sites, the occurrence of many macroinvertebrate taxa statistically was different than expected (fig. 8). Of the 173 taxa evaluated, 21 were observed or predicted to occur at 7 or more sites (that is, one-half of the total number of urban sites). Of these 21 taxa, 9 were observed less frequently (intolerant decreasers) and 4 were observed more frequently (tolerant increasers) than expected. Additionally, there were six taxa apparently tolerant (nonresponsive) to the conditions at urban sites as they were observed nearly as frequently as predicted. Combined, these 19 taxa provide an opportunity to enhance the interpretation of future studies in the ERW but Summary and Conclusions 15 will require better insight into the responses of these taxa to specific stressors. In general, the patterns of tolerant increaser (hereafter increaser) and intolerant decreaser (hereafter decreaser) taxa are consistent with the findings of other studies. Many of the decreaser taxa observed belong to groups known to be sensi- tive (for example, mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies), and many of the increasers belong to groups known to be tolerant (for example, Oligochaeta, Turbellaria, Chironomidae) to general disturbance (Barbour and others, 1999). It is empha- sized that these results are specific to this study for a vari- ety of reasons (for example, small sample size, taxonomic resolution, and small geographic scale) and should not be applied outside the ERW until they are further studied. None- theless, the list of decreaser taxa (fig. 8) provides a starting point for identifying causal factors at urban sites responsible for degraded biological condition if further effort is made to better understand the ecological requirements of these taxa and their tolerance to more specific stressors. Integrat- ing results of this study with other approaches such as field and laboratory experiments greatly will enhance abilities to identify causal factors associated with degraded biological condition (Clements and others, 2002). Information gener- ated from such integrative studies will be imperative for well targeted mitigation efforts at urban sites in the ERW. Summary and Conclusions Local entities in the Eagle River watershed (ERW) are interested in better understanding how specific land -man- agement activities affect biological communities and water quality in order to guide watershed -wide water -resource use management. In response to these needs, the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, Denver Water, and the Department of U.S. Agriculture Forest Service (FS), compiled previously collected macroinverte- brate data in the ERW from selected USGS and FS studies from 2000-07. Specific objectives were to: (1) assess the biological condition of selected sites in the ERW using macroinvertebrate communities and (2) evaluate whether the dominant types of land cover were associated with biological condition. Additionally, short-term annual variability (3 to 5 years) in O/E values was described and macroinvertebrate taxa that occurred more or less frequently than predicted at urban sites were identified. Sites were classified into one of four classes (undevel- oped, adjacent road or highway or both, mixed, and urban) using a combination of riparian land -cover characteris- tics, examination of topographic maps and aerial imagery, 16 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 0 LUm LU V) m 0 W LU W U_ 0 m LU m 75 z 16 14 12 10 Diamesinae Baetis Rrachycentrus Orthocladiinae Chironominae Oligochaeta 0 •Simuliidae Turbellaria Arctopsyche 0 Heterlimnius Chloroperlidae 0 Drunella grandis • 0 Drunella doddsii 0 Epeorus 0 Rhithrogena Cinygmula 0 0 CD Rhyacophila brunnea group Rhyacophila sibirica group / \ Zapada 10 12 14 16 NUMBER OF SITES EXPECTED (EF) EXPLANATION 1:1 line to aid interpretation Tolerant increasertaxon that statistically occurred at more sites than predicted . Toleranttaxon that occurred nearly as frequently as predicted, and considered impartial to conditions at urban sites 0 Intolerant decreaser taxon that statisically occurred less frequently than predicted Figure 8. Frequencies of observed (Of) and expected (Ef) occcurrence of 19 invertebrate taxa that statistically occurred more or less frequently than predicted or were impartial to conditions at urban sites in the Eagle River watershed, Colorado, 2000-07. screening for exceedances in water -quality standards, and best professional judgment. An independently developed predictive model was used to calculate a measure of taxonomic completeness for 124 macroinvertebrate samples collected from 73 sites in the ERW, where taxonomic completeness was expressed as the ratio of the number of observed (0) taxa collected to those expected (E) to occur at each site in the absence of environmental degradation. These data were analyzed to assess the biologi- cal condition (that is, biologically "degraded" or "good") of selected sites. Analysis of variance was used to determine if site class accounted for variability in mean macroinvertebrate O/E values. Macroinvertebrate communities were consid- ered degraded at sites where O/E values were less than 0.80, indicating that at least 20 percent of expected taxa were not observed. This threshold also was statistically based as 0.80 was near the 10th percentile O/E value (0.79) of the distribu- tion of reference site data used to develop the model. Also, macro invertebrate taxa that increased (tolerant increasers), decreased (intolerant decreasers), or were nonresponsive to conditions at urban sites were identified. It is emphasized that these assessment results are specific to the models used herein and are not directly comparable to assessments made with dif- ferent indicators, methods, models, or thresholds. This study represents the first standardized assessment of biological condition of selected sites distributed across the ERW Of the 73 sites evaluated, just over one-half (55 percent) were considered in good biological condition (O/E greater than 0.80). The remaining sites either were biologically degraded (30 percent; O/E less than 0.80) or conditions were dependent on the year sampled (15 percent; O/E less than or greater than 0.80 depending on the year sampled). These assessments may not reflect current (20 10) biological condi- tion because 35 percent (26 sites) of these sites have not been sampled since 2000 or 2001. Nonetheless, site assessments are considered a screening tool for determining where in the ERW biological conditions are good or degraded until further investigation confirms otherwise. Sites primarily affected by urbanization were among the most severely degraded (urban sites had the lowest mean O/E values) when compared to other site classes. Although most urban sites were among the most severely degraded (that is, lowest mean O/E values relative to other site classes), a few sites had nearly intact macroinvertebrate communities (O/E near 1.0). Similar observations were noted among mixed classified sites. At least some within -class variability was possibly associated with errors inherent to classifying sites (that is, the inability to equally isolate dominate stressors at each site), especially for sites in the mixed class. Nonetheless, understanding why some sites were expected to have degraded biological communities, but showed otherwise, will have clear implications for mitigating biologically degraded streams in the ERB and elsewhere. Apparent changes occurred in biological condition (that is, from good to degraded) between 2000 and 2004 at urban sites along Gore Creek because nearly all annual samples collected during 2004 to 2007 have indicated degraded condi- tions. At undeveloped sites, biological condition remained stable during 2000-05, whereas conditions were year depen- dent at some adjacent road or highway or both (ARH) sites along Black Gore Creek. Understanding the associated causes of annual variability in macroinvertebrate communities among Black Gore Creek sites, as well as apparent biological deg- radation along Gore Creek, is warranted to effectively target mitigation efforts in the Gore Creek watershed. Thirteen macroinvertebrate taxa were identified that occurred more or less frequently than expected (that is, 4 taxa were tolerant increasers and 9 were intolerant decreasers) at urban sites. Additionally, six other taxa were impartial (tolerant) to the same conditions (that is, they occurred nearly as often as predicted). Combined, these 19 taxa provide an opportunity to enhance the interpretation of future studies in the ERW but will require better insight into the responses of these taxa to specific stressors. As a starting point, developing a better understanding of the ecological requirements and tol- erance to specific stressors of the 9 decreaser taxa can enhance the ability to identify causal factors associated with degraded biological condition, ultimately directing mitigation efforts at urban sites in the ERW. In conclusion, these results represent the first standard- ized assessment of biological condition of selected sites in the References Cited 17 ERW. More than one-half of the sites sampled were in good biological condition; however, nearly one-third of the sites sampled were considered biologically degraded. In most cases, sites in good biological condition were associated with unde- veloped parts of the watershed (higher elevations); whereas, sites primarily affected by urbanization were among the most severely degraded (that is, lowest mean O/E values when com- pared to other site classes). Understanding the sources of vari- ability affecting biological assessments along with why some sites expected to be degraded, but showed otherwise, will have clear implications for mitigation efforts. Integrating results of this study with other approaches such as field and laboratory experiments will enhance abilities to identify causal factors associated with degraded biological condition. Information generated from such integrative studies will be imperative for well targeted mitigation efforts in the ERW. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Colorado River Water Conserva- tion District, Eagle County, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Colorado Department of Transportation, City of Aurora, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, Colorado Springs Utilities, and Denver Water for their continued support of this program. The authors also thank all U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service employees, and others who assisted in collecting field data evaluated in this study. Daren Carlisle (USGS Reston, Va.) and several other reviewers provided useful comments that greatly improved earlier versions of this manuscript. References Cited Angradi, T.R., 1999, Fine sediment and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Appalachian streams—a field experiment with biomonitoring applications: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 18, p. 49-66. Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers—periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish (2d ed.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA -841-B-99-002, variously paged. Bledsoe, B., Meyer, J., Holburn, E., Cuhaciyan, C., Earsom, S., Olson, K., and Snyder, B., 2005, Eagle River inven- tory and assessment: Avon, Colo., Eagle River watershed Council, 319 p. 18 Macroinvertebrate-Based Assessment of Biological Condition at Selected Sites in Eagle River Watershed, CO, 2000-07 Cao, Y., Hawkins, C.P., and Storey, A.W., 2005, A method for measuring the comparability of different sampling methods used in biological surveys -implications for data integra- tion and synthesis: Freshwater Biology, v. 50, p. 1, 105-1115. Carlisle, D.M., and Hawkins, C.P., 2008, Land use and the structure of Western U.S. stream macroinvertebrate assem- blages -predictive models and ecological traits: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, p. 986-999. Carlisle, D.M., Hawkins, C.P., Meador, M.R., Potapova, M., and Falcone, J., 2008, Biological assessments of Appala- chian streams based on predictive models for fish, macro - invertebrate, and diatom assemblages: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 27, p. 16-37. Carlisle, D.M., and Meador, M.R., 2007, A biological assess- ment of streams in the Eastern United States using a predic- tive model for macroinvertebrate assemblages: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 43, p.1194-1207. Clarke, R.T., Wright, J.F., and Furse, M.T., 2003, RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers: Ecological Modeling, v. 160, p. 219-233. Clements, W.H., Carlisle, D.M., Courtney, L.A., and Harrahy, E.A., 2002, Integrating observational and experimental approaches to demonstrate causation in stream biomonitor- ing studies: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 21, p. 1138-1146. Colorado Department of Local Government, 2003, Colorado preliminary population forecasts, forecast program meth- odology: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), accessed June 2004, at http://d`ola.colorado.govldemogl PopulationTotals. cfm. Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods for collecting benthic macroinvertebrate samples as part of the National Water -Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-406, 40 p. Davies, S.P., and Jackson, S.K., 2006, The biological condition gradient -a conceptual model for interpreting detrimental change in aquatic ecosystems: Ecological Applications, v. 16, p. 1251-1266. Deacon, J.R., and Spahr, N.E., 1998, Water -quality and bio- logical community characterization at selected sites on the Eagle River, Colorado, September 1997 and February 1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 98-4236, 8 p. Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., D'Arconte, P.J., Meador, M.R., Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water -Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resource Investigations Report 98-4052, 67 p. Hawkins, C.P., 2006, Taxonomic completeness as a measure of biological integrity: Ecological Applications, v. 16, p.1277-1294. Hawkins, C.P., and Carlisle, D.M., 2001, Use of predictive models for assessing the biological integrity of wetlands and other aquatic habitats, in Rader, R., Batzer, D., and Wissinger, S., eds., Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands: New York, Wiley, p. 59-83. Hawkins, C.P., Norris, R.H., Hogue, J.N., and Feminella, J.W., 2000, Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams: Ecological Applications, v. 10, p. 1456-1477. Hawkins, C., Ostermiller, J., Vinson, M., and Stevenson, R.J., 2001, Stream algae, macroinvertebrate, and environmental sampling associated with biological water quality assess- ments field protocols: Logan, Utah State University, Depart- ment of Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Manage- ment Aquatic Monitoring Center, 23 p. Healy, Brian, 2008, Aquatic habitat and macroinvertebrate monitoring -Gore and Black Gore Creeks 2004-2007: Avon, Colo., Eagle River watershed Council, 16 p. Hemsley-Flint, B., 2000, Classification of the biological qual- ity of rivers in England and Wales, in Wright, J.F., Sutcliffe, D.W., and Furse, M.T., eds., Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters-RIVPACS and other techniques: Amble- side, Cumbria, United Kingdom, Freshwater Biological Association, p. 55-70. Hydrosphere, 2007, Gore Creek algae investigation: Avon, Colo., Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, 23 p. Klemm, D.J., Lewis, P.A., Fulk, F., Lazorchak, J.M., 1990, Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluat- ing the biological integrity of surface waters: Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmen- tal Monitoring and Support Laboratory, EPA -600-4-90-030. Laurie, G., 2003. Stream channel conditions in tributaries to Gore Creek and the Eagle River, Colorado: Silverthorne, Colorado, White River National Forest, 34 p. Lenat, D.R., Penrose, D.L., and Eagleson, KW., 1981, Variable effects of sediment addition on stream benthos: Hydrobiologia, v. 79, p. 187-194. References Cited 19 Moss, D., Furse, M.T., Wright, J.F., and Armitage, P.D., 1987, Taylor, B.W., McIntosh, A.R., and Peckarsky, B.L., 2001, The prediction of macroinvertebrate fauna of unpolluted Sampling stream macroinvertebrates using electroshocking running -water sites in Great Britain using environmental data: Freshwater Biology, v. 17, p. 41-52. Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001, National land cover database for the conterminous United States: Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, accessed October 15, 2008, at http://Www.mrlc.gov/index. php. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009, Parameter -elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) data, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, accessed January 23, 2009, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.govloal ncdc.html. Newcombe, C.P., and MacDonald, D.D., 1991, Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 11, p. 72-82. Ostermiller, J.D., and Hawkins, C.P., 2004, Effects of sam- pling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems - application to RIVPACS-type models: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 23, p. 363-382. Paul, M.J., Gerritsen, J., Hawkins, C.P., and Leppo, E., 2005, Development of biological assessment tools for Colo- rado: Denver, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Monitoring Unit, 58 p. (Also available at http://Www.epa.govlregion8l water/monitoring/FINAL %20Colorado %20DPHE%20 Report 20051014.pdf. Paul, M.J., and Meyer, J.L., 2001, Streams in the urban land- scape: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 32, p. 333-365. Peterson, D.A., and Zumberge, J.R., 2006, Comparison of macroinvertebrate community structure between two riffle -based sampling protocols in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana, 2000-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5117, 12 p. Spatial Climate Analysis Service, 2004, Near -real time monthly high-resolution precipitation climate data set for the conterminous United States: accessed January 2009, at http://Www.prism.oregonstate.edu/docs/metalppt realtime_ monthly. htm. SPSS, 2005, SPSS ver. 13.0 Brief guide, SPSS Inc.: Chicago, Illinois, 231 p. techniques -implications for basic and applied research: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 58, p. 437-455. Tweto, Ogden, 1979, The geologic map of Colorado: Special Publication, The Geologic Map of Colorado, U.S. Geologi- cal Survey, Reston, Virginia, scale 1:500,000 (reprinted). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006, Wadeable streams assessment -a collaborative survey of the Nation's streams: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, EPA 841-B-06-002, 113 p. (Also available at http:// www. epa.gov/owow/streamsurveyl.) U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, The National map seamless server: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed October 15, 2008, at http://Seamless.usgs.govl. Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C.P., Larsen, D.P., and Herlihy, A.T., 2005, A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 24, p. 178-191. Vieira, Nicole, Albeke, S., Rollings, A., 2005, Factors influ- encing brown trout population in mine -impacted reaches of the Eagle River following remediation efforts: Fort Collins, Colo., Colorado Division of Wildlife, 56 p. Vinson, M.R., and Hawkins, C.P., 1996, Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 15, p. 392-399. Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in streams -sources, biological effects, and control: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society, 251 p. Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A., and Grant, G.E., 1996, Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 32, p.1195-1207. Wilson, A.B., and Sims, P.K., 2003, Colorado mineral belt revisitedAn analysis of new data: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 03-046, 7 p. Wynn, K.H., Bauch N.J., and Driver, N.E., 2001, Gore Creek watershed, Colorado assessment of historical and current water -quantity, water quality, and aquatic ecology, 1968-98: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 99-4270, 72 p. Zuellig, R.E., and Bruce J.F., 2010, Macroinvertebrate and algal community sample collection methods and data col- lected at selected sites in the Eagle River watershed: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 502, 81 p. Publishing support provided by: Denver Publishing Service Center For more information concerning this publication, contact: Director, USGS Colorado Water Science Center Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Denver, CO 80225 (303)236-4882 Or visit the Colorado Water Science Center Web site at: http.11co. water. usgs.gov/ ® Printed on recycled paper O W TO6' d OF V It ` VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: Name Description: D PEC Results 122815.pdf December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 28, 2015, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order — Members present Brian Gillette, Webb Martin, John Rediker, Henry Pratt Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan Lockman Members Absent: Kirk Hansen Swearing -In New PEC Member Ludwig Kurz by Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Poll of Board to see if the site visit on the work session (#4) is necessary. The board decided that a site visit is not needed. 2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow for converting an indoor tennis court into parking, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150035). Applicant: L -O Westhaven, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Action: Table to January 11, 2016 Motion: Rediker Second: Kurz Vote: 5-0-1 Pratt recused 3. A request for the review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-713-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio, located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road (Crespelle Restaurant)/Lots A -C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150033) Applicant: 104-6 LLC, represented by Drew Riley Planner: Jonathan Spence Spence: Applicants have worked with their neighbor on a revised site plan layout. Seats will only be in front of the restaurant in winter, in summer it would be similar to the layout from two weeks ago. Lockman: Asked to see the location of the ski racks. Planner Spence showed the revised plans, including a winter layout and summer layout. Pratt asked about the location of the trash elevator. Spence: Per the agreement, the railings must be removed each evening to provide access to the trash elevator. Rediker: Will there be planters, or will this be like Mountain Standard? Spence: The same railing as Big Bear, with planters. Rediker: Do they need to replace pavers if the railings and business go away? Spence: Yes, per the Revocable ROW Agreement. Rediker: Do they need to keep the area free of snow? Martin: What is above this space? Is there potential for falling snow? Spence: This is a pedestrian area now. We are not aware of any snow shedding problems in this area. Rob Glucksman: I represent the ownership group on this application. The situation with the adjacent tenant has been taken care of. Lockman: Is there anything in writing from the neighboring business stating they approve of this design? Spence: No, but the application went through the HOA. Rediker: On the six criteria in the Code, and as the staff memo indicates, I think the criteria are met. Martin: It meets the criteria of the Vail Village Master Plan. This is good for the village. Pratt: Does this Conditional Use sunset or expire? Spence: No, but as a Conditional Use the Board can review this permit at any time. Action: Approve Motion: Rediker Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0 4. A request for a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss properties in the Two -Family Residential (R) District and the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District that were annexed into the Town of Vail with two dwelling units but are now nonconforming uses due to lot size requirements. — 90 min. Planner: Jonathan Spence Spence: This work session is not intended to discuss the minimum lot size for the zone districts. There are 34 duplex properties in Town, annexed after they were platted and constructed in Eagle County. All currently have 2 units, and are on lots less than 14,000 sq. ft. As a result, they are legal, nonconforming and no GRFA can be added to the properties, even if the code calculations allow more GRFA. Premise of nonconforming is that they will eventually go away due to redevelopment. In all practical senses, these uses will not go away. In the past we have allowed 250 sq. ft. additions. As a result of separate ownership and improvements made over time, the possibility of them going away is unlikely. This would create a hardship for these properties. The lots are dispersed in northwest Vail, southwest Vail and a few in East Vail. Sizes range from 8,000 sq. ft. to almost 14,000 sq. ft. We are looking at all these properties as a whole. Goal of this meeting is as stated in the memo. Page 9 shows some of the possible consequences of taking action or no action. Several members of the public are here today, as well as Tom Braun, representing a particular applicant. Gillette: If one the properties burned to the ground, would it need to be developed per the town code? Spence: Code allows rebuilding for replacement in case of fire or total loss, but to the same dimensions. But voluntary redevelopment would require rebuilding as a single family home, not two units. Gillette: If the lot size allows greater GRFA, we would not allow the GRFA to be used, is that right? Martin: In the past, have properties come forward for a variance? Spence: No. Some ways to come into conformance would be to convert two units into one, or deed restricting one of the two residential units as an EHU (Employee Housing Unit). Rediker: Is there no other legal avenue, except to modify the Town Code? Spence: That is true; but a variance is not the right way to go forward, since you would have to argue against the Town Code. Rediker: How did you determine the 34 lots? Spence: Through Town's GIS system. Rediker: Is the Town looking to eliminate Section 12-18-2, or write some other exemption? Spence: More to the latter. We would likely keep Section 12-18-2 in some form. Gillette: Are you suggesting that we allow GRFA based on a larger lot? Spence: No. Gillett: But allow them to use the GRFA? Spence: Yes. Gillette: How would you do this? Create another zone district? Spence: We would like to discuss this with the Town Attorney. We want to make these 34 lots legal. Gillette: Are these in the Primary Secondary lots or Two Family / Duplex? Would you change the zoning? Spence: We see no reason to change the zone district. Pratt: You mentioned that there used to be a 250 sq. ft. addition allowed. Do you know how many of these lots took advance of that allotment? Spence: No Gillette: Would you reset the 250 allotment? Spence: There are some examples of one side of the duplex that took advantage of the 250 conversions, and the other side cannot now do the same. If a 250 was used will not effect the allowable GRFA for the lot. Rediker: What happens if there is one lot that is subdivided? Spence: The zoning code considers the subject lot as one lot for calculating site coverage and G F RA. Martin: Are any lots outside the Transfer Tax boundary? Spence: All are located inside the Town of Vail boundary Public Comment Gene Grace, 1905 West Gore Creek Drive: Purchased our home about a year ago. We have safety issues on our stairs. They do not meet code. We need to push out a wall to rebuild the stairwell. We met with Jonathan a few times. We would be nonconforming to fix the stairwells. There are also longer term issues such as parking. We have to back our car into the street. Garages are very small. We looked at changing the garage entrance. We want to improve the safety and livability and bring up to compliance with Town Code Ken Bridges, Architect: Structure we're working on, there are no options. Dilapidated stairwell is covered and counts as GRFA. If it was a single family home, we could double the GRFA. We want to make it more livable. It would be good for Town and my clients. Any changes to code would help. Tom Braun, representing Mr. and Mrs. Grace: My clients have available GRFA that they can't use. Started working with the Graces in the fall. We knew there were some issues. We knew that the units were not conforming to minimum lot size. I was floored when Jonathan said we could not use the GRFA. Every code has a nonconforming section. Regulations change, that's why you have nonconforming sections of the code. Some codes are strict and have amortization requirements. Can't increase discrepancy; only have to address issues related to the change or addition. But in the density control section of code, it lumps together number of units and GRFA. Density and GRFA are different. Code creates a bottleneck that prohibits the use of GRFA if nonconformity is due to number of units. Purpose of code is to prevent discrepancy from increasing. Not allowing use of GRFA does not address the density or number of units. There are a lot of owners in this position. Not just my clients. About half of the owners of these lots are Vail locals. Town goal is to keep locals in Town. You should keep the nonconforming section of the code, but look at the section where it merges density and GRFA. I have offered Jonathan my services to help staff find a solution to this problem. Gillette: Is it just Section 12-18-5B that we need to address? Mr. Braun: We would like to address the unit per acres section and GRFA. But we need to look at unintended consequences. We have not looked at all solutions Spence: Section 12-18-5B also applies to multifamily properties. It's important to access GRFA, but also to allow a demo -rebuild. John Perkins: Architect: Working with the Grace Family. The design is an extremely weak mirror image duplex. This change would give us an opportunity to address this mirror image, which is discouraged. Final Comments Gillette: We should pursue this. We do not want to create a special circumstance. We should allow them to use the GRFA per the code. Allow the second unit of full ownership. You are on the right track. Martin: Staff needs to move forward with this to allow enhancement of these properties. EHU (Employee Housing Units) solution did not work. Concerns I have are on setbacks and parking, but still allow owners to use the GRFA. Questions: #1, yes, they are acceptable. Staff is on the right path. Rediker: Agree with comments so far. Looking at this issue and the GRFA, this does meet the goals of the Town. Devil's Advocate is that there is a direct link between GRFA and density. In certain situations a variance may apply. In the Grace's situation, the fact that they have to bring the property up to Town code, that would meet criteria for a variance. We should look at this closer. Any other nonconformity that can be remedied should be brought into conformance, including parking and setbacks where possible. Are we looking at allowing full demo -rebuild, as long as it's in compliance with code? Spence: If we would allow a demo -rebuild; at end of day we would have structure that meets setbacks and has same GRFA as a single family that could be built on same lot. Rediker: Agree with that sentiment, demo -rebuild should be considered. Gillette: Would we require a setback to be fixed if new GRFA was added? Rediker: No, just for new construction Kurz: We should go forward to address this issue. Staff found some inequities in code. Allow staff to look at the technicalities. We need more information from staff so we can consider the unintended consequences. This is an opportunity to help keep locals in the community. We should more forward expeditiously. Lockman: This trend will not go away, properties are aging. We would allow people to make revisions to come into compliance with code. We want to keep locals in the community and keep ownership affordable. Allowing more GFRA will increase density. Adding sub -paragraphs to the portion on GRFA could be a solution. We should pursue this as soon as possible. Pratt: The restriction on density in the nonconforming section seems unfair; I would be OK creating a list of these properties in the code. We need to be careful not to create a special windfall for these properties. Mr. Braun mentioned that we cannot increase the nonconformity. Staff is on the right track. Will leave it up to staff on how to approach this issue. Spence: We plan to meet with our legal team to understand how to move forward. Gillett: Also look at how to allocate the GRFA if lots have been subdivided. Our duplex language is not strong enough to prevent conflict among duplex owners Action: Table to January 25, 2016 Motion: Rediker Second: Martin Vote: 6-0-0 5. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019) - 5 Min. Action: Table to January 25, 2016 Motion: Martin Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 Approval of Minutes November 23, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Motion: Rediker Second: Lockman Vote: 4-0-2 Abstain: Kurz, Pratt December 14, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Motion: Gillette Second: Lockman Vote: 3-0-3 Abstain: Kurz, Martin, Rediker 7. Informational Update Mr. Neubecker gave an update on the new planners in the department. There was some discussion on changes to the Building Code. The new codes go into effect for applications submitted after January 1, 2016. 8. Adjournment Action: Adjourn Motion: Rediker Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. ruwN oFvaiL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 11, 2016 Subject: An informational update about the Vail Local Housing Authority Review of the consultant report on Workforce Housing in Mountain Resort Towns: A Peer Community Comparison. An informational update on the progress of the VLHA & MPG Consultants efforts to research and recommend potential changes in policy or zoning provisions that could assist in the creation of employee housing units by the private sector. We are presenting some general concepts today that could help generate more housing by the private sectors or that help simplify the code with respect to regulating employee housing, if eventually implemented. Presenter: Steve Lindstrom, Chair VLHA SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to present an update of the Peer Community Comparison report findings to the Commission. This report examines many facets of the efforts to provide affordable housing for the workforce in high-cost mountain towns. It covers how these programs are similar or contrast, evolving trends and examples of policies and procedures that work well. This report was funded by the: • Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as part of a broader study to evaluate and make recommendation for changes to its Guidelines, which are wide ranging and complicated, with provisions dating back to the mid 1970's; and Town of Vail, as one component of a comprehensive, objective assessment of its multiple workforce housing programs, which have evolved over three decades. The purpose of this work session is also to provide initial concepts of the potential changes in policy or zoning provisions regarding Employee Housing and is certainly not intended as a comprehensive approach. Our focus here is primarily incentive based rather than taking a regulatory or exaction approach to obtaining employee housing. X DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The VLHA requests that the Commission review and consider the information being presented for future reference with regard to applications that may come forward at a later date or as background information to help guide future decisions. BACKGROUND This effort is a prelude to a more thorough and complete review of the entire EHSP and all TOV Housing Programs & Policies to be accomplished by the VLHA with consultant and CD staff assistance over the next several months. ATTACHMENTS A. Workforce Housing in Mountain Resort Towns: A Peer Community Comparison B. MPG Memo 2 C(A E o U 3 J \ 5 a `p OJ F— r 0 ra L O O a w , w a W L � �L U C^ — o .� v 4-f O Ln =oma V c r' o �E" 0 v o 3 O cV a u O N L Q � 3 i v -0C 3: V) 3 C s E p > •� E bA z 3 O ._ V o OQJ L U y U U C 2 QJ L C: a m �g C o Q -0o °1 v v v O ra raE Ln .21 Co C a) an a) Co O Q V7 t C C a) E m C (0 G a) pA vi t C 4-1 > a, > t co 2 LV > -1 4, O C U U Co > V 4�t O •� --140 C U O U co a N >, (O V V7 a L M m 4- a) N O O O 4- Q t w +J ,U N 7 N C: U a) N Q a) a� O E ate- I E w a Q O a C O U C 7 O j O O O > E Z O 0 N U Q an C O O O +J a) O E 0 Q > Lu G J a) m Q C C � t C a) N L a) C > a wN U N t (0 U u �_ m V7 C 7 a) N C •� W 4�m C a)N � _2VI Q O L — U- L O (0 O E a-•+ O Q m N U O L u I� C7 C a) 'N r- C 61 U O L cv -a 4.1 a -• a -• Q -r -0 a) E Cc a) O x a) =5 O a) M Q - 4� C (0 a s Q Q t > O L O v a -• > a) p U a) a) 4O n O 4�a) U '4-1 N t dA U O v N Q a) a Q N o 7 Q � N � U U +J U — (0 O 7 pA C 0 t O 4J C a) -0 co C a) N > CL aJ u m a O N co Q a) -a Ln Q O O C L Q O t O a) co > C Q a) +' M O -0'> C } O (0 O O Q N C O co l0 U > O L co m cin L U a 4� Q C a) Q a� L iJ O N O 4LLn a N Q U V7 L.0 N U_ O 7 7 lB 'E t C a 4J U U Q aL' N O > _ L co 4�L� O O V7 a) >> � Q- O U U U Q a) C Q 4.1 : V7 a) N O � C (Ocr N O a) _ O M U C -0 O C O C p 4J a) 4- 4 O 4 N - C p Q E > a) O U 0 m ('0 .0 C L O c v7 0 O C L >` L 4� C C a) a) N C Q O a O aJ C co v C C a) co C C O (D 7 O C C U 4� 'C � � a-• O -0 Co .' a) > > Q 4N vn 4. U L m ^ M O C N a) .O O L a) cLo C Q U C> 3: Q O U 4' U C O O j a) a_ a) Q > 3: O E 0 0 Q H >, O U d Q Q Q O C +, L Q Q >, +' +� s � M 4� t U 7 Q t a>) aJ Ln .21 Co C a) an a) Co O Q V7 t C C a) E m C (0 G a) N pA vi 4-1 a, > E OLn = 2 U w -0 O > -1 4, O C U 4' =5 -r- O Q co v a) O •� -0 O O U co L O Q a M m 4- a) N C 4J +J ,U a) a) N C: a) N Q a) O E ate- I E w a Q O a C O U C •� O L O 7 •v� O O � a) U Q U -0-0 LJ O L C l0 C:L U 0 Q > a) 7 m Q t C N L a) C > a wN U N O u �_ a) m E dA 7 a) N C •� W 4�m .21 }r N O L 0 : N C O Q m N U O OL C a) 'N ~ 4� a -• a -• O UL x a) =5 O a) M Q - U m Q Q t -0 U O NO co p U n O 4�a) U '4-1 N t t t a) a C N — an C a) � U E C C -32C N L C C N l0 CL a) m a - - O 4J Ln t t t Ln C Q a) +' M t v C L O mu v O co Q > O m cin a) O 4� C N U L Q" iJ O N L `n U V7 4- U_ O 7 7 lB 'E t C =5O LnL N U Q aL' N C C aJ OU O C (0 a) 4�L� O O V7 a) >, U U U c N : V a) 7 L L 0 4 J `^ C (Ocr N O a) O O C O C p 4J a) 4- 4 N CO Q U m ('0 .0 U 4J v7 U C L Q N L U w a 0 m Q o a) c Q O •N L a) O C 4J pA C C C .O O '� 'C � � a-• .� Q o" a- m Q a) a_ a) Q > 3: E � >, a O Q a) C O C +, L Q mLn >, +' +� aJ m 2 L� M 4� t U 7 Q O Q a>) aJ N X (1) Y 0 u 1.4 a) O CO L N N L c > a) > 4J Co a J a�J t c •N L +J p 4� +J x O pp u H 4J a) O +J L O i a) > +J O>} U N " 1 a Q' V7 Ln m cc � a)p c0 +J N L L 4te-1 -J � I— _r_� V7 O C31 aJ dA cco co L L v 4) L O u a) +J 'n L aJC p 1 a) C: — � +' O x O aJ aJ dA C O C V7 c O a�J a) a) co L u} co C p Q +� Q 4� E +J co QC C p > L L L O O +J a) 7 -_ C 4' +J C L V7 O L a) co O > a -J O O U O .� i 5 Q co •o Q 7 O 4' co +J O N N Cr 4O a) C:u p0 cLo p N +J a a) � M a) y/C O +J = V7 N — O C aL,, aJ L ,� L O-0� a) L O O u a) C > co Q a) O co = N of c u a) O.�_ u w L -0 +J 7 O L 7 O m0 LN O a>) ta) tOdA +J U O� L M c Q Q O O N C wEC E u O O 'CO O O C O O Q Q OQ E E L -0 aJ aJ .S OU > u aJ O Q .� E > t Q p O a) co O O C (0 C C a) O N +J aJ +J Q +' a) L vn E Q 4' O C .N Q Ln aJ aNJ p co O •0 u - N a O Ln vp +J O 4 c � Q dA Q 4) Q U +' a) E � c a) C a) 0 +J o O t C 3 L 3 > O p� QL .L U C a-•+ +J V7 a) C a) aj l0 U L L co VI 0 a) t �-•+ � > O C +J a) L +J m V7 E a) (0 t O a) 00 > a' N; C p t p +�J O C N c0 C V7 C (0 O C o a C p m a� c •N L m Q O t +, co Q} Q +J � S a) E p L L +J > a-0 p O O +J +J 0A E O u c co a) a) O '`—' C 'L a) C a) O Ln a) N p v > O O >, t O L w C O O co U .0 a) +J O L u 7 U C +J C O �n +' Q +' �_ O a) N O 7 i C C a) C +J O O dA +J �, — a) — co O C t 7 U O m a) >- Q 0 u a) +J L +J d0 C +J p O +, a) O O > Q 4 W OQ a) Q a) a -0 r W v O O a) L — p O `� a) +J > O O E O �O C O N I a) a) a) p L N L Q L E a) +J dA dA C > +J �O a) +UJ V7 V7 L cv +J C a) > a) L a) p O M7 'a C oO a) O -0 C O x U W 46 O O .� .N � Q ou -c °J `° Z 3) `° o m N t O " i6 a) p � `~ aA > C> O Q i N L a) co +J co +J dA m a) O L � E u C L a) '� Q- OCa Q N CLn a"I vp U L �_ O L O L dA O C +J > L Q- p +J O •C N C .� +J 70 V L 4-J +J L CL L co C C a) _ O O a -J U C V7 U a) U cB > u +' >, O m a) E c yp. u Q p co O co a) LO p .- O u 0 u V7 t a) t > Q u +J � L) +mJ � L J O J 7 .Ea0 O La) N p n p L N +J n UO 7 O +' C .V L t Q N > .L O t C > C C V7 aJ U a) u L C a) O a) 7 V7 u Q 7 L co �, +J O Q U U coUco QL co U a) C O +J +p N t 7 O p a) ~ Q C U �_ C C N m +J L OL +J .� C a) C N L a.J C O m O t t O u Q C +J C 'm- c C m `n p u n E '� u Q t a O E� 3 > N a) N �' O a) O Ln +J u N u 4 o +J N >. +J 4� a) L > co > co C a -J > co L Q- L a) O> C O V) O a -J L O •C `n a) L p a -J o Ln U Q p Q 2 2 m Ln cv 2 O •> 2 O_ t U u a) 0p a) t p +, Q >, C a J O a) (0 L >� 6>> > � L OLn —�� L C {n O U +J Q L p� O s L C m i aJ p O Q C OU a) t w Z 0 c O Ln Ln Q H Ln E o m N ao z 4-1 N V7 C O L Q 4�Q O pA O CL O'O C� •N a) a) L O V7 C L pA C U L .L N Q O C a) C p + s — �' p o t O o U a) s co U4� C N O L.00 p ° s s +' of Q :L-7 L 0 a) s co aJ N O +' N LJ L O a U> L +� 4, s a) C O M °C _� NC °� c O s a +' u 0 v: O 0> O a) L O C O 4� a) a� _ co O-0 ° U a) O Q C C:O O a) 7 d a) s 4J O iii pA V C U O Q- > 'U s +' co s a) s O . co a) 0 O Co O a) Q x a) co — E O Q C C L >> O O O L (o .O pA C C co aJ > (o +, to L O a) O s +J Q • � 4J te } O O c +� 0 EL ° N -0� Q Ln J U L = L Q Q N v7 C cr a) > s � 4� a) co C ° -0 .C: s co �_ C m O V7 � 4� U C c O 4�C `n > ° U •L s to L O U C pA a) O O +J C a) L 4� CL O O s a) 41n 0 C Q � O o Caa))L+ M a) O 4, O , sQa) U L ro Ca) Laadp))AA E Q CL E L Nn O n co a� ) a) , O O U +' a) X_ Q'7 O Q Q Ln 4J > aCa)) aM� C E sa) E C � O U n c L O 4� 4� O m C 4-1 O C a) (B a) s a) Lu L a) a) U OLnLn 7 O � U 4. c) EO a) (A > a) O C s ccLn CL CL Eb Ln L to +•' v7 (o 4cr� co C ° +� °° s v s ' O s 3 U co �° 4J W W O O O 13)a) C > +J C: 4� •i (On c s Q a) L U> co s O 4 O C =5 O Qj+J c Q; a o ° oMUCo + o o Ln o V O C C U a 4= Lo °s w +J E ° > O � a) 3 OU a) .0cr ° C J _O L 0 L O E C Q 1 aA � V7 Q a) L Q s 4. Ln Ic —° c Q c E •pA O O C C +J E C s to 4� H Q E a) � Q O Q m 4 J O_ a) M Ln +J s � E v1 Ln vi to Q oj aj 4' i aJ s }j L n a'.i +� E L 4 J c_ 0 3 1 a L O 0 L M O U L w M cCo a) M O y i vi CL U to (O a U L o C (o " Q E �O � > � s > o o M a � ; � ,_, o 3� O 3 +, 0 y. U� L L o 'c Q •� m E C a) awn — t c 3: m U m c u C Q Oc a a) O z . Q a) C ° a 2> U c a� o 0 +� U u a L7 3 O Ln s � c Cc s c LE s tw c � +J E ° L +J E E s co ou O ao z a) U O L 7 Q � O U t � U C 7 (0 E O E O 4J t w +J C 7 +J O M E (0 4- C aJ O L }J O 4J C N C O � L x V a) C l0 U 3 -Z O (0 •C 'Q ate1 > C C •� O U L }J E a) Q a) E 4J (0 C +' O O -a E U ON +J C lB C N O t > U •U -0 a) C -r ,O aJ 4J a -0 O C m O co Q N L U U t 0A 7 v� O aO — ( N L O � 4 L E O � 0A O O C L Q � � C � •E O N 1 O O 4-•+ v > t Q � C a61 Ln C3 0- E i Q OU cr t an 7 O O L 4- � 4.1 }J N L Q aJ N O a_.� L C Q cB O 7 L C O C � cv � C � O � aJ � Q � L x O O N � a) aJ E U OU aJ •� 4� C .� L Q N Q Q Q l0 Q � N (0 O L 0A O C (0 +J L L> V7 Co O a) L O Q O E 4- C C O m aJ .c -0 O U NO O Q O O L 4J Q a) N -0 .4 LnC . CO 4- C O O a) 4J L E a) a) E E Q � L O C I c m aJ Q � t -0 U V O L L O Ni 3 N O (0 L E t 0A � OOL t a-0 a u c -Q O U N • • • M aJ O O O 4. aJ � L co � V7 Q E E O O �/ U � aJ 0A � C � L L U O � O L O � � i � N U 'N (0 � (0 � L aJ � 7 C .O X U a) O O UO cv co O 7 4� w 4+ a C C � C C O N C O O O 0A O L O C O O pA O c� m E i > 7 L� E co LL O O O C 4J E-0 C C 'L � l0 O N aJ O > O i E a o E C O O � 0 0 a) N N an coLn c •E L f0 I m r_ O OOR Ln �t Ln M all co n CO O O O el Ln L.0 L.0 s N C O r- Ln Ol Ln M O � N O -0 4� aj M � O m CL E O +� a W c O O O O ate-+ O � a) Q -0 O :3 U U X aJ � C LD qt r -I N LD O Lf) Ol N l0 +N-+ 0 > O L 4% L C0 O E O O O Q c M M .N—I c O 'n C 7 Y O C = 7 � O 7 00 I- 't O M r -I 00 U Lr) r -I U c Y N � aJ � Lap Q N * O Q O N M o >- 111doM +� d C� C � N E aJ aJ � -0 Ln U � Ln 00 N ri 00 O l0 I- Ln C ' C c -I 00 � � Lf1 N N M c -I N M � O O � c t E L +' N L O. Q E aJ O Ln L.0 Ln I- I- r -I O O M L f6 l0 Ol N N O UO CL � c CL � Q t Q L aaj ai o a 0 o z v r N u 7 O. N Y — - V1 Q L m � � 4J f0 Ln aJ aJ > O L C aJ L > L L aJ C aJ iJ O U C +J O O> 4 J Q s V7 4 , N s a L O 4J iJ -•i Q - u O }J a) L C ' vii lCo C aJ C O L iJ CO4-1 i O E O U C Co aJ > O co 4 O p Co� L 'O O O `n co O s +' O O aJ aN 'C > > +� E —_ : M `� co L a) OLLI co O O _ aJ aO O v v L E U Q O U L U Q p N {/} N N pA C O EO >, 1, L co 4, v O o o U s X co Q" C Ol C an 7 � H C Q s O C U O O C U C 'N O i L a) 4' 7 s O L 0 Ln tx p L aJ t/� aJ 4. s E s O L U V7 L a) 4- Ca O s O > O a) v O s aJ > s __ v> > m N Co ro s a) •� U a_• 7 U > C pA C U O v� 4J E a' 'L •� 7 O N QC E C O a) uO aJ L a) OC O > +J > C > 7 4L co L +�J U aJ a O> O _ O C s O Q U L a•., V C1 O aJ aJ Q U a) co i� 4� (o a 4. ,••, O Q -a .2 a) i V7 O L ^ L L U O v v co U CL Q U Q L � C co 3 � � s s L E io coU O; > . V C Q aJ `^ E E L Cco v U Q C O E pA C aJ O pA aJ cos an �s �— C 4J C E C > +' C L to O (Q pip aJ O O a C i a) U of O •L 7 Q +J •L co O —_ O O aJ U G Q O aJ aJ aQ- aJ aJ +J O O C O ++ aJ 4E >- v L O +J N N O Ln oj : N y Q m a) O C v °J E v Ln � aJ a L v E U •L E a) �' •� co L a) a) 4- aJ 4• Q = 7 E .— E >� o s - }' C E co w + a 4-n o M X o� EUO E a Ln E U ax, taOO O +J O a 0 vn U O ar U o o cr. > Q w2p s � H t i s C 4-1 E Q > E i to O4-1 co O O co C Q N O 0 E O 7 E U a) c 7 " (6 O > O � 0 4� co O U U p N E s O L 4 L 4. O N N a '� J i E dA + a) O CO p a� L L Ip Q U E C +, o -0 a) U = Q N an C , L s N •= L 4J pA 4� p N > O 7 E v O (N6 O U s C O U OC:a al 4 O 4� C v aJ yI a > O L C '+., +J O a) u+a)•, C E s a) 'n Ln E � a) s o Ln a) L Q U N to aN'' s s aJ } UC +' aJ aJ aJ E L OX N U a) E Q aJ 23)Q E E O E O N a) 4-1 t Q V7 Odo E U } s C a) 'L 7 C Q O 41 aJ `^ Q a) O L L > 7 C U U •N O O s U O C 4' 4• O p co Q +' a) �U N C .a 0 v > 0 N O 13) C O t a C � aJ U iJ C Q a) co co O > s C O 3 O > v Ln Ln N � Ln C O U +� Ln E > o u E }, Ln ,V L " - s O coin Q O -0 a) U-73 C � C L 4� a'' N Q Q t C ,C O C O N 0 L > Q Q O L Q V7 Q E co C L C � co O chi Ln c 4J n a) +J O a C: C O +' (o C a) L J L Q v i 'O o C u 3 L O C O C a)4 J 7 > '� of m= 'u Ln E v� p O 7 O U 4QL 4J Q U 0 Q a0'' C CL E C Q C E a) O E a) O n O t O 4 ' .N a) 4� N 4� aJ pA C U 4p t 4� a) U O L O C m 'L LJ •E C) W 4 c 4J O 0 = U -0 O — Co C ate- Q- 7 CL O N a) of N C oj 7 i 0� U O 0� •Q � a 4� U 4' C N a) O > M U Q O a) +, E t O N v O O Q 4 4, Q C L O C a) > LJ Q O Q C -0 O L 4- (� C }J L `� a) O Ln 4 O a) an Q- 4� aC) a) E L C U — t O .0 an t V1 � Q pA C a) 70— C � C C 4, 0 a) N U i L Q C u E .� a) 33 tx � 4• -- 4f L Q 4- C a) a) .N a) 7 � E '� c o O a 7 u E E t E N E a) O Ln a) U U > E a) O a) 4J O O O OL C C 32 , Q (� L 0 4J to 4, 0 -0 .0 N > a) N O 4 a) co w =5cr t to C O a>' a) 4J C — p v Q j t 7 4' i O U Ln a) a) t E > aUAJ O — a)u Q a) oU N a MI O Q �-•.Q O a) O a) 4, v C O O O C o U 0 0 a) 4- - t O L M C�U C to a) to v7 N 4N C O aN t � E L pA a) t O i C L pA Co vn - : > L Z } � ° > W e OU N O a'.' L a) > N V7 aj N 41 (o L v t co co V a) Q O O y/ Q U > O c +' aN.� C 7 +' a) C _ a) a) O U v� C C Co C 7 Q" O E C C LJ N C O Q C O E O � co O C O a) O C 7 +' O Ln 4 J Q E E (LO � O .� C L O •� Q Q- E (Q/7 N a) C U Co co O O N co 'A O •c a) x O O aJ 0 a) O LL C p co a -• O C O u L Coa) U C M a) WCo� L O C a) C C O � Q .N aQ) � O c H 0 O N O Q X C co 7 O O t L O co w� Q N co a) •N Q .� Q .`^ a -•i (o +J > QC .— C: co N L a) V7 L O C a C 7 LS N O O = `� L " O � •a) +J x co co Ou C E LJ a) SpA n +J } OO O �C co 0 O 7 Q Q Q L C O +J Ln E �o aJ C O C aJ o L 0 U 0 v O a C U a) L O +� a) t E +' ) E 0 m a) L a) aJ + E co 'U m C a) >4' O a) Q L 0 Co N L N Q C �'.+ C >E Q 0 0 4J � � `O OO aZ o o cLo -r-' O OU t Z U U O C a) O (o 4 J to 4 J C ,� v a) a) E Q +, C aC) (o V7 a) C Q� U Q Q M t Q L L a) L OU � Q C C 7 C a) _— fo 4 J a) N> U pp 7 0 pp �O `� Co C Co O L C L +, m Q Q r O ) O N Q N Co a > (o C L 3:+J U C> aJ C V 0 C co O •L 4 J O aJ N 4J 4- U v 0> co 4' O � F co � +' t O� C L O i 4 J u a) > C C Q a) = 4 J 0 O O C a) Co 0 Co Co a) roo Q t42 pA C N a) E 0 O x Ov m � OL a) z a) E a) 0 C 7 7 O 0- t 7 O U C O +•� C pA •v� v� a) a) O C t p Ln u a) C C a 'Q L L a) U O 0 O U '� •L t 7 ' C (o C V7 Q M +J O t V7 C L C pA N E -0 = a) a) t N o E O t L , X p +, L +J C L m O co LO N� Q O a O Q a) V L 7 n p L LF 0 0 F N a) a) C a) U a) O O +J aJ > a) p Q > L o C v Co CLn C a) U C Q Q U a) O a) 4O C 7 O 7 o � N O co co C N O U 0 4 , 4, aJ �aJ O H O aJ � co U Q _ Q O OLn i co C u aJ v U Q co ^ o L 0 Q > U O Q L C U v� a) C a) a) 4J U 4-1 Ln pAC C N U to a) 0 N y. L a) a) a) 0� >, C O vCi E C U U Q U a) U H to 0 0 Ln _ 3 a =5 =5 = 3 .� .� Q r - � L � O 7 a) Y Q V 4- _r_ V L L 4E !E•� O +J O O i Q U +� +� 4' C u M a a) O Mt pA te) Cr cLo 7 LJ a) O Q L O v 4.1 O O L EQ- a) } D O_ C- n O ON a) a 3 L O L a) .v O C i) C O U a) %` V C(o 7 L (B a -•i L Q Q U a� aL• U C a (0 7 — o O a) .Q O v v N > O N O E ° E Q E D 4-;a° _ L 4• U C M Ln_ 7 a to U L to a) O i a) }>j Q Q N a pA cV O O L_ E v v O O a) +' ° of an L O U C =5 O _r_4' O a0A C O •E Q > N co O t 1-•i L� (� a) a•' O EO OU u N E M— > E= U C LJ > +• pA a) O 4J C 4- > i O Ln C a) L� �-• �-• L (o c C O a) Z C = v M O +' E C a) CL CL to u j co " S M O E x Q +� o C L 7 C Q i 7 co C C a) �. O (o o pA N m Q . to 4J }J 7 U V7 to aN C a 1 0 C 0 ,� vA to 7_r_ -6 a) N C C 7 a) L C a) 4-1U N •N Ca > Ln N U V7 E O C O L 7 7 co co O O N L 0 0 L �$ +, a) O O U 4' vn a) O a� v O 1' L N + E L N C O O C E+J O C C} •— L 4• 7 CO E C n3 M a 3 N U M V7 � O O CL O O i t N N co t N co O v .0 4• Q L O O N C N L a) O O L U co — O L +' a CdA � 4' co a) O O D 0 0 O Q> N 4O O L) 7 4J O O L U M V1 4�Ln _ a) C 4.1 M V7 3 O L Ln Q 7 C > N O E an E O C E +� No t N L co a U a) ,� a) M � Q OL � O L _ _ N tco pA .L C:0 O co 7 co v Q E O Ln O C — 4, --a O N "� E O u 4- N z M u 0 C 0 C O O O CL U O Q M co aL-� L i Q '� a•'' C O - O O O O O uU C an E =5L O cc E ° E c ° Ln O -0 M Q O O U U 4 O � O C U L Q co co Q X O E (o N C a) E C V a, N V L Co U> •2 O O U 4 Q V 4J 4. L am O E > > Odu C:A O _ Q > E N f6 L � Q a L +J O U 7 t�: O t L V S L O U } U � C � O O•� EO N U a) 4' C C a) c .a �+ a) U 2 as O L O Q Q Q M C C � � a)O a) N O L u O > E Q t O E C O O > +J O E E E=1 O Q a) > Q 4• �o a) C U t C U a) U C co C C E O vn EO } 4-1 O +J O O N L > O i X+J a) 0 u t O a) a CO U -0u a) N (o o cLo o -0 4- � a) to t (o 4 J Ln N U t (0 7 N 7 4J U O U Q) O O ,N o a)E +J C w-0 O O a) C C Q C Ln M = •S aJ Q U C a) O C a) a) -6 -0 E -a O O L L 0 " w N O O U -0 M an aJ a) U C O a) O L N a) N _Q 4- O Q E L -r N 3 N Q a) E v 7 H C v +, O L c>ou Q E vn O C O O ro 4� LO > i L N Co CL O � � +, C X C M L) O O co -0 co V LLn U Q Co a) Co Q' Q p -0 � dA Co O c to � U a) Q cr FQ Q Q 4- c t>> U L 7 L Q 4• Q a, c a) > L E L a -0 c N VOJ (o 4- CC) ON E L --,e:O U M U O a E —m .E M c_ 0 L a) + O 4 J a) (.0O O L 4 J _ O Q O a) O O 4J Co } co cc O L a) 4- O U O Ln N> cV O E `n co O Q -0 OL C C a) O � 'L Q '� a) O Q L a) O O c co O Q a) E Q Q a•' C a) � (o Q > i) O4� 7 v C O +' E In Ln- Q aJ o \ a) •c +' a) > � O a O +Ln J +J O a) > C O M 7 4O a) (o O U — Ln .0 L a) to co U co U O O a) v C C U o OL C U C +J dA V > L Ln Q i a) L a) E a) OC C L O +' a) -0 p 'a O U O Q O +J 00 a) � C O O C C O L -0 Uc C (6 fo � U � O O CL (D C OO C O 4, V Ln L co E O 4J a) L O-0 +J O L t > L aJ +J a) 4J - 7 vn 'v a) 7 C C �� O L +J O > E C � aJ N aJ io p C Q a) aJ a) aJ � O c m O _ co L C Q aJ E C a) L O L O +' C O '� Q' U aJ >� � a) U N a) t 0 L O '} Q C U 4• O 4 to � 4 J a) C C +J t a) CO O a) �, •C E a) v7 C Q) vi a) > O O p > aJ Q ON Q • , a) O � + t o + +J O u co O O C u 'L S C V O +' C O Cr v� a) L O (o Q n O >, a) U a U � a) L +' C d a 4J Q C co 4 a) > >, 4 J Q a) U v _ u v a)L 4J C C O +J H O L OLn aJ .O co u +J > a)C a) Q' C- Q � O aJ cLo Q E a) a) Q L (� � (O L > C O C O (o co a) � O L N a�j N > a,.i O L L Q a J Q O U a) Q U V C M L 4 J O a) O a) Q a) U +' co t +J v� +J E pU +,> (o 7 O +J N t U C O C O C U v O (o +J +J +J +, -0 C C C N > C C i O to •L U\ L M O aj a) t 4 J 4' O C V7 (n L N a) co co L 4J v > O O L� L N > L 7 aJ c) >% co Co a) > CL MCbio t >O Q- Q- C Q�O C > U f�6 p s L p C C O } o O O aN Q Q aC) m v 4' V\ co > �O � co Ln a) Q > C +J 4 J C t:Lo a) C C O p— O i C > a) N V rl 7 O M +J to a) a) O> U : C (o N t I +' '} C C N ,U Q L > L O 4' (� w H a) co O c O� _ co 4' aJ O O L O Q N 4- U _ u co C) 4J 4J O 7� O v O L Q -L) a, a) n t +J O u a) pA C C a) L Q a) Q L O C E_ O _a) Q O cO Q� N O t a) (o C O-0 to U L N cLo s Ln c O Q `� O pA C 0 C o Ln tw � m C a) w a) — O C t� E m a) L + a O a) Q L •C N C C (o pA Q C 0 00 v� +J O p Q - O co 4J —> C O 7 O o f m O r_ C >- U C 4O CL 7A v c U O t� U a) aJ m Q a) > E t C N a) O O L a) C 4O m 4O 4 J t C \ a) pA +J C a) O O O C 4 ? O� t a) a) O i a) L O � > p L O �_ .L u Co � � t > dA a) � C a) a) � � a) t p N ' �O � a) L Q a Q 0--a > m O E m < m co Q n -r- C +1-+ Q N t 0 �} M O +� i 0j E a +� � (0 > co p Q L E .� 7 L O 7 .0 H O 'n L u 4' a) Q }' Q C 7 LnU a) .may' � O O p o�.� 4-1-� Q �. .� � a) m U-5 Ln OL cLo u.^ Ln a) _ , +- a o o a t O o a o a) C L a) C to LL C O iJ 4-1C O O 0 � O c>o L � (o a. L L O a"' •L L L Co C Co L Q •L C y Q O C }1 L m O ¢ > a) 4-1 C a V co C co aJ Ln O n ,E Q > 4.1 U }J V7 Qi L (B L N a V7 L U >` .L L Q L >` a p L a X Q }r L v 3 �, +J _ Q co a L �r e•� a V Q o, + m> O i O a) L a) co Q L t a) C O N C� a O E a) U-11 N 4.1 N Co 4-•1 L Co C>a) O O N 4J J 0 0 a_•1 OC 41 H Q C `� Q C N O •L a .0cLo LJ a) a) O N O Q N N_ > a-•1 O _ i U L O Ln +� O N O 4 � aj 0 -0L f+ Ln a) U a'1 a) E N N a•-1 L a) .� -0 C L L� O pA m O O 6 C c6 t c CL aA co L 4J �° +� -2 a) c } O O s c an O m (o E O L C a) a„I a) 3 E C o a to L L O L pA C N +J C O U +� O E a, N -a pA _ C +J N� a) O co C M 0)=5 a) L co t °� cL° E N = N O o co U L L O dA aJ v N dA co C O O v > C 13) t c 3 E C O o> `° c a Co a) a) U � - C C O V > to a=1 7 C U C Q p O H Co a N a) C a vLn O L O N L> E }' L_ L C t m S Q L pA a) O C > co w L O C N a) E Q O N E E Q C C O L c4� 4� o 4-1 N E a) O > O� cN6 p O E N C pOp C a) co L a-1 O O a) a) _r_Q" Q `n `� -0 a) N :EC a) t a) Q O a) E Q L .O a) a) a) pA U Lw co > Q M L 7 O Q } _ °n Q O x N u c �_ Q w E 4 , o C L co t N a) C a) a) C C > O +' a) E C a) L E E L L co Q .� L 4 J 1 7 pA co > Q Q +� °c o U a E o JZ - c c +, c Q a) L to L o a� E +� m x� O ->> E o > �, Q Eac)L `� E �, t co E Q C C .� O o cL E a' `° a) +1 C E an NLn � of O a� +' t to �_ L L L N E O _ O a) N~ � 4' > N Q CO .N . co co _ U E L C O U C C 'Q a) C a-1 N O a) C E co O a) 4, C Ln 4J c — a) O Q O p U C W N c > a) t a) C a) co Q E (C4 n5 a) u (L6 (9 �' E O � aJ — aJ E -0 a) n5 c Ln Q- > aJ Q C: c6 O co u a) cco + O Q > aJ Q pA a'� U E'o a,�� Q E a U L� N Q E � E c L co C O U aJ co Q N �, co O 'a c6 4 O `n C L co � C cr 7 U a) pA t C O a) to c 7 E O N OL C E (o a U a -.I .V L Q �_ a� a .� L O co .E V a) C E I L .Q O a m Q c +J co C O L co co U 4, = t •E a) C E co a) U C C U Q- a) 4.1 a) O s .N a) m_ E O a) O L X 3 >, Q 7 U 4, a) Q co 4.1 � L '7 L a) ,n N E � � � Q � v co E 41 a) C - � co L a) m .0 N 7 Q O Q L H L Co a) E C co N >` a) X X E u �' S a) U ° ate--' (6 U L - C 7 � a) a) O a C � (O > IR L � E U 11H >` c " a-.1 a) L L C a) C O C +� L +' .a a� O t a-•1 E ,O CLn O O co a-1 } co O L aJ QJ � `� � co O C C i — VI `~ O Q L Q co aJ aJ +.1 L -0 CU Ln m U Q O -0 `n L CL `n a) a) L a) C m 7 ++ +J O 1} .X E -0 co aJ 0� C a) a) N Z /^_, p U O O p a) N co � a) p O C_ L C L to a) W U a) � .0 U Q •O L •N � � Q � � 41 11 c O > .0 CL a) Ln L Q� a) > co co V7 = 4J co Oa) O aJ a-•1Co O Q co Q t a-•1 (o t �'' t t V7 y> a.l aJ ) (o U � .� i tw Q O.l L a-1 E cu (B Ln O Q 1 L I U • - '61 N d�1 > />� W 0-0 O C N }moi O U ,U_ Q 41 V C L C O — .N o L o N Q S co cam') 4 J 4J N L M EL CaJ O C . A W lJ .S QU +1 .N � U E a N U ,L Q O Q Q a) s L ( a-•1 O U U pA C C a) a) cB O + (0 J co a) s a- N } Emu � U O L O E LLL O N 4 U co u •� � U i C a) c i o l C O u L L Q a) Q s C" � Cr a) L a-•1 N E E O o O o O }O Q °J E o= c L C O 4-1 c E > 0 7 C 0 o •� a) c . —' E 3 m C o E s O a�}1 O V7 N L x m E o a > E a� O m CO s s U 0 c c -I O O > +, c o E a; f6 (0 E a l0 O LJ 7 O Q O C > O O N a) Ln U 41 C 0 N � O O 41 O c a) a) s N m C a-•1 a-•1 N i) j 4L aC+ C O m L O Ln a) Ln a) > O > t C VI cn 7 � M > U 0 OL U -0W a) f6 s a) C ate-+ W .E � J 7 a..1 +' vi E C a) •— C (0 x a) N O 0 7 L> a) Q U O rl C Y > 0 O (0 Q X co l9 L N > Q E Q o Q Ln E > •C_ L O C 4J C O .0 v O L o -O 4J m cLo co a• pA + i C 0 s LJ 4O O O Q U v a) C N O L 0 a O 0 O N s H O Q- U 0 a) 7 N 4; Ln C: 'n Ln =5a) C C C a) X E f6 a) U U NQ a 0 t � c a) 0 .o a Q m d > a) 0) +' �1 �-•1 .O -0 = l V Y }J L `~ O N a • m s U 7 i C 0 `n o 0 J O 4J a) — 'C c O CL C O +' C: co C a) cr `� a) E f6 U Co O L C -r- L) O a) t:Lo-0 (Q •7 N l0 s Ln 3 Co cr >- O a L =+' c 0 ' O pA a) C O vi C Co X a) s .L L N C -0 O a) a) ) W a„1 a) 7 -r-.N 3 ELn n O Q 42 a) o L O I u o a W o 0 0) a Ln 4-1s CL w 3 � O c s U bio — a) m> L — N a)C a)U U O a c a) Q m C wCL co to •� s s a) E •N s v L=5 .Q Q M O E > a) C 0 of N U o� U N CU O 4-1 a) C l9 o a) C O s a-•1 • • O O 0 L a) I� Q c -I C: a' a) Q a) c C o m N aC+ 4.1 > E a) vi E co (0 dA L a C o c N L N a) � O rl C Q 0 0 0 cB (0 Q X co l9 L Q N > C o a n a) v O L o -O 4J m cLo co s v N E 0 a C C pA +' E U O Q s 4' U o OL L m > cr `� a) E a o `� -r- L co s }1 a) O m ,n ±� E O O s 7 dA 0 C C L .o = Q E 3° o a W C Q N'N +•1 O a) s C: a) a)U U Co o 7 co 4, L. c m s v L=5 Q O E > a) C 0 E E N CU O a) C O } o 0 C O 0 M O Q Q L a) U m N E Cz m O� 3 +, o Q c c s 4' N O c c>o a aai 3 t N s a o � o +_ 'a E L o aJ c a) O Q O a a) In Q C L p Q a) 0 � L � O C a) U a) O E O c c a) 7 a) u O 'u 4J C s = v� 0 j � E L C a) ate••+ O 7 C c E C a) s� +, a) o L N 7 a) E .E a E a�nCL — CL 0 •� U a) aEm > c co co E co (0 m O O C c O C a) UL L c .N E Cr a, a� E =5 4-1 E c nz CL E = c co Ln E + a) a, U • 1} .� C x 40 a) E Ln o -a -c 0 > 0 a) O U Q U (O n U a) > a) L a) L O M Q o L a..1 L CO a) -0 0 4..1 0 4•.1 a) C O O c -I a) C a) O C co 0 a) Co C O a O c O Co E a) s a� � an co C: 4O 0 4� O E m O u an m C O a) N a) Z C (o s U a) a) a) O 0 .Q '�"Q 0 .� ,L E Q E Ln a) EEL E L s � Q E X E c:a) L V7 U- U S (o O x E O u N :� (o io 3 0 a) L s (o (o L 4- Q N U a) +� o a) a + E c co a) O s C O aO•+ •C L co co � O aA 4� Ln+,� a) Ln � a'.i U L L E E M Q a � n '� C -a X � N a) �n -a +� C > U C O OU a) O a) -0M �O m °o t '> 0 0 E O o aA O L 4 J Q 4-1•� L cLo ,� co 4- c 7 •— s O N Q a) E X a) C ZCUm c c •� a) a O V V7 o aJ a) a E a) > a) 3 a) o �, v L s c 0 v= O ° 4' L a O �n E +� s W u E" o L o c �' s~.7+ o 0 — N io a E L a E (o L co s +� co a) E c E o L 4• -0 C: a) C -0 4O+ 4.1 � l0 N v7 E C (6 0 '� N L � � a) E C N C i O 0 a) O -O _ O •f6 4O C O a a_•+ >' O .2 C' E pA O E E co co co ,L NC 0 L 0 U U s 0 U = L L Qv= � L 0 (O to 3 a, L ,�, — � >- �O C O O E E N a) �_ L O U a) C c— a) E E Ln s to (o H > U a L U ELn an0 0 U c css a QE uu a) N w � E° `L° � o o 0 7 a) ani c Q +J N Q x M 0 � " E .� " L -0 V Co 0 t. s X 0 c a) 7 s 4J a) C a) E 0 C +' to to m 0 L a) w c a) U s 0^ M w +� o C O O E L O E E� v � +� co E 3co C v M Q an o 0 = as +J a C n� 0 s CL > c 0 coO +1 a) •L 0 L 0 N L +J H C a) Q > Q co a) u .N O E N a > o U C E ECL > L (o 0 O — E L a) N U a) O 4, C � O m C a) c E U c a) c v s LnM U U a) 7 C• a_• a � `) a) � Q � C 3 U a) a) E � a)> > a) -0 ° c w E • a) >- L a 0 E O 4- a 0 E aN = C pp } a) N 0 0 to = E w ,, c� 0 H E Ln co U s 4J C: Q Q E U c 0 wQ E Q co m C N a s U co co O a) C m 0 a L ° 4J co u aU co 0 E a°Jn 4�= c co E E 0 Q M a) .— -0 c CL co to E U L a) N „ c= 4 J —CL E c m N M c� a) ;a a) o — a _� 0 o E, a L M 4J N Z 4J a) �n E v E_ > L �' 0 +� a>) 4J a N E 0 4J 0 E Q a) m a c U a w co +� c E c E OL s v O O a) t w � s a 0 O L E U 4J 0 Q� L C ON a) c s C Q' O Ln O N L a- M 7 — N ^ a0A O > s s — — vO a) C 4J O cC0 Uu a) 4J s Q a) to � 'lo S s a) C v7 (O 1 •C = L > L > 4, dA Q •aJ L 0 0 0 0 o C3Co +) cc U a) C a) O C co 0 a) Co C O a O c O Co E a) s a� � an co 0 N0 E m u an m C O a) O L O a) Z C (o s U a) a) a) O 7 � LJ ,L E Ln c co N (o L N V7 L V7 4 a) •> ~ +' x O a) > O a) a) s E a Q 4-1 s 0 0 a + E an 0 > 4� Ln+,� a) Ln c n3 an O Q a � U -r- 0 N a) 0 > U C U U c N 0 s °o +J c '> 0 0 E O o aA a - 1 s L 0 4-1•� L Q— co � c 7 •— s O L a) pp X a) 4-1 •� a) a O (o V7 C N aJ C c > 4. L s 0 c v= O ° 4' L a u E +� c N o �' 0 — N io L E (o L 0 L L 4• -0 C: a) C -0 c cr Ln o E 0 L 0 ° V Q X a' N i O > 4O pA 4J U a) >' a) +J C' E pA O Q .c ° 0 co ,L NC N U U pA >, � s a, L O �U L E La) E 7 Q N — L O C 7 4,1 a a) a) -0 s +' c— a) a Ln c C Q L4-1 > > C � O ELn O -O U O a E .O uu a) N O L0 0 0 0 7 a) ani c Q +J Q x M 0 � " E -0 0 a) > L C > C Q a) C V a C pA m 0 3 D o c w 0 Ln N O m .4• 0 a) Q C- • = � 0 C +JU a) CL r coO I a) •L (6 Ln s a) L H C � a 'a Q co u .N O a) C6 I Q U C O L ECL C LI)O C 4J to — E zN 4, C � O m C a) c E U c a) c v s LnM U U Q 4 J 7 C• U a) a M i) as � `�0� a)a,s� -0 ° E w co a .0 co n In c c O N a) O Q —_ (7 � — O a 'Q �° o a) L Ca) a) a +, v E O p } O u Q 7 O— a) a) 17 O U U L } a) Ln t N t +.10 Q L �rI�n E L C O N N Q O V � N �-.1 L >` Q a) (B L C O lB Q aJ a) L m >. aJ C O a) O � 4 J l0 +' Q t co n o N t v aJ t Q O — O ate, a-.1 4 J N O� a..1 (o U a) L •C t v V7 O 4J +•1 Co O v > +.1 = t o 4' O Q +.1 U N L L C Q a) +� w >` a) V7 . N L +J C Q _� L C C t O O co co O co co a) ", 4-1•7 N C N C O N C a) m Q CL a) E +Ln Q O 4 J C co a) N U U Q- 1 C O .0 QU +�1 QU C O— N O L a) n O 'N L O a) L L 7 O Nc: p v� C aN.1 E ,} V 4J O> .— co vn .2} c- a) O E c .— p a) O � U C> > s a) L Ln O t v Co ro vn E N L t E> O 7 O 0 O U U a) +, C Co +' (v O Co 1} of Q CU N C -C O E O Ln a) a) m L 7 +•1 t USA > a) 1 UA C C -r to -0, H Cr O 4' C +.1 O L 4-1 U ,C �_ V O E a) 7 a) V a) (0 a) Q E VA u +J N aL Q U m L .0 N Ln1} C O dA O VA O to C 7 VA +, +.1 � a) C C O O L >, co m C7 +O, O C c +' c O n> o U O O +.1 �o _ O c E a) m (o O C a) v� L UI L 7 = U to 4J +, 7 C 7 N U } Q a-•1 t (o Q � (o O O L > QC f6 (o cr a) Q O N C . N Q a) C 4-1 U U�� L U (� C C (0Q COO .}a�L) tte aa)) OC +. +. Nd C - cr a1 Q aU p - a m C C a) +J OL a) UCA O a m E C:O a O O� 0 L o U a) 0 Q 00 H Q O C a) U Q 7 aJ > +' -0i O v a) E L > a) cC6 oO I +J V Q D ri s O O _= Ln O M E m a) a-140 a) a-.1 U a a) � a) a) L� O O C O O C C O y. a-1 O a) a) w +.1 O a) ULA �n C a) N +J (6 O •0 a) a) E a) 7 + C a) L O a) a) a) a N a) aJ C O U O 4 J +, Q Q" O a) a) mQ Q N-0� UN X +J 4� Ln p O LnQ v O O t v a) C C > O to E to O C of -0 (o Q 7 a) Q p O� O m O t fV >� L O VA +•1 a) a) C a) a) a) L L U -p a) t +, C 7 7 a) C �° C E O Q C Ln co C c N a co L O O aJ C I Q a) U O U m v v co `� p O Ln � co U U aJ O L }CL U Q co L Q co 0j aJ — +, OC M L aJ 42 +, O U a) 7 p U L O C Q V Q- L N a L 7 O c (a Z v a VA E O co 1 aA -0 O� M m N °� U to m " _ C" I� Q 'N 3 a Q Q -I acn L? o v� a) U t C U_ s _a L 7 Q to a) f`1 Q C L �+ o Q a) V +.1 N +, co O a H E E a) co O Ln i L Q a V Q C a c 4 a) a-1 M a) N o UL c L o o a c Q O o (O � a) c '� _ a � '� wo a c U aci � L O .m E E a ;° E 2 N 1 a Q U a co > m U O U 1 a m m U U m L m a) m Ln- Q aJ c .+N_-1 C a) Ln E u •Ln • • • • Q l0 i •txo L 0 C v E wo c� C m oil L U +J U 0O a t C pA — 7 a) 4' aJ O 4J N O � L 4- U O L 4 L aJ N C L U O a O p Q 4 J aJ aJ � s N O aJ 4, aJLn +J a) Ln p p +J c0 U t c0 � a) U w Q a) E 4- C N O 'L — C E a) t ° c0 ° ° n 4J a) ° t O ° ° E Q a. 4J � a) O L Q .N E c0 CO O Q~ aJ O� O i= 7 > U Z N 1� O cM o awn U c ° -0 E -a � L � E � o ° a o t cco N o E� ° `�° v a o° c E° N " a' c C " E N �n o f 4� a� " c0 4 c0 t O C C a E°° o° U o c co °' N O v v° Q `° Q O C E o >" N c0 `° 1} E p } > E Q C p Co +, v v c0 O 7 a) i� S? aJ O 7 � `� x N U-0 C � Q C L ° ° S •N aJ +J c0 4- 4- l0 L �O •m N C M C C 4 +J E ° ° u E � o co Q N C N O> co O _r_O +J `� v> >' O-0 a) L C X L Q Q .0 O c0 aJ aJ +� c -0° ° C c C u 4' co C >- E °J > E o o c N° o an a) u a cco C t v c E O Q- CO 'p L O .N p E a) O pn E p ° (o O O O E 4n U QC �n`� t E+,t > " a)co O E C pA Q O ° U aJ U p t p L U c0 >, v� E O a) Ln_ L a� C > v L amj O Q N O} O > O a�j aJ > U N m aJ O L V7 � y/ pA L +� f0 L {n >` v m p c0 a�j p C i Q c0 O L > '� ° L L N 4 C ,n 3 ° L a) E t ° a> O E E o C E aJ L � p O> 4' + a) O U 'N N� L +� ° _ ° +, C ° _ Q L o p +� L O 4J ° � 4 J aJ p -0 C O +' O a) 4' aJ c0 aJ .0 4J � O Ln O Ln U 4 J 7 C: Ua) t aJ O c0 L O > Q v > L x LnO •� O pA 7 n Q t0 t c0 > > v O E � C i O O Q- w t C � l0 II +' O E ° N C aJ pA (0 > >, O O v� Q- +J C •N aJ Q aJ •� = L E co U Ln c < LnN ° c0 U a ° � t 4o E c0 > - n> tx U +J O N U O O y, -p +� O > > p p C O � >' m a) aJ c0 p Sz C X aJ Q L i C t 4J c0 Q L_ _ L E Q E O aJ aJ L C t O a) Q 4J +� pA O c0 C-0 O C E E E> O a) -0 c'n - Q c0 Ln �, c0 +J 4J x � O L 41 aJ c0 0 41 X C O l0 O +, .> 7 O C C � `n � a) aJ � O +J pA °_ 7 M L N a L a, O aA N ° C C p°_� ° N N M� ° Q C C E O° m +� C v a L >4� Ln Co L L (O Q � L O C +� ° � _ ° o C O O +' 'v� v� `n C m CL.0 Q '} C aJ aJ t pA E — O � c0 ° z C ° � c0 co a; V > M > 41 O a > ~ E I _ > O E SU C X t C •N O N C-0 In aJ N l0 aJ a) °j " O p 7 O 4O C O m }L i C a O u O ~ O a) O 7 E Q 4 J O Ov 4 J U aJ E O I aJ u L I +� O p p v� C Q C Q i C c0 4J CO Q- O U aJ U L _ +� L co = ° t 0- I� O O E aJ v Q- `~ aJ O O 2) Z Ov aJ O 4J N C a J y U w N pA +� 4- C pA O U t a 4J U (U 0j Q +J `L° OL 7 C c= -.l OU In E aJ N - 41� C E E O� aJ o � Ov c t v p E O O OU `~ L O t aJ +J -61 • +J O `� 4-' O +� c C O> U a o c"o � .Q 4, C o f n 4J L C E u 7 E 0� i ° '� 'E aU vO '� � a c0 ° o z > ° 3 E° c E ° a z a) � c0 C +, •61 m° a> > N o° o ° L o o L C p a 0 a t 0_C p +J a> L ° 2-0 w 3 c0 I. U m co U co cot E Lu H t 4� U t Q a) Ow L� C 4J L >° Co ° �l N ao z N iY � _� B m F- � .� i O CL CL � � r_ 0 � .E m a E 0 U � � � � E E 0 U � 0 a Q k � 0 � 0 (A � � .� � � 0 � .§ tw � .� � 0 2 0 � 0 � � 0 ( 2 / > ƒ z : [ ( \ § \ = e �� \ \ ƒ u- \0 o/ ± C:- / \ § / k o { = E ° 3 : / e / U k / 4 e / O 3 p § � / ® \ mCL= to _ _ = G e e = / 0 Ln \ � @ � = 0 � } j 6 \ k E \ E Eb / 2 \ / t E k f ¥ § / j ) / / k \ \ \ 3 / t 4 U 2/> \ o / o e 7 \ / / \ / i E L -u CL e 2 � N tLo L c Oin Ln r to L _ Z c l6 OE i in of L N n- on r >• L +� O N Q Z E Q N t �C L i o l6 i O Q N c +, O p CL U a U00 O 3 I > CL nL3 E Q O o o! (D pQ ' C i>n > c Jc •� O 0 1 U O N O >• Nv t E N N� E a E U L > N t N O N O v U a> E v uo e c +t-+ Q E to in ^0 0 c 3 — c E o'� 0 ._ E — co N U C f6 u1 N O of L O >• a, N U V> p mLn s E •L N a--• _ (D i N {n U _ aj s +� >• U p p Q GJL L of > + c L E uo ++ l6 ytj Q = ° o }' L E 3 LDn 0 � Ln c 3 ui ° z ao U _ 2 2 o a L L �--� •�06 c— -0 Np 0 N a p a L N >- a"• E Q Q p \ iO W O N L L a--• m c L m-0 L VI uo N a--• •_aO > (3) c (3)p CL N c m •� .N p N> O O U U (o m VI t E E L .E �c E N 0 Ln fl L O t t��� E� n °N' o > s c +' ate-+ •E C O N N vi w > of N c i O in L N N iii U O O > L -0 Q O -C L +�-+ cp c L a 7 •�. a 3 O Y 'N i-0 a" p N tQo �_ iT E +� ` t +� p O L O m o°� W �_ o U Q 3 `° N EO j O O c N-0 N aN-+ E a O � O N N E c '� (V VI j m co O E 0 i L Q O U c u yr •� c c06 +� O to T p 'N L N10 c c Q _ Q N N > a N •O N .V 6 N +' u aJ 3 v N E +' N O aU-+ d •N aJ _ N ate--+ of O _ O n- ate-+ •L c c d' a _ c m VI m � c (o v CO c E � j c O. >. 0 0 a o Q a t 0 v o Q > E F o 0> a •> U o� U o c : 0° c a 0 E E E c 06 o E > �_ 0 c > co bm L O •O > U> c Q 3 +' of in +' • • • •2 • • a aa0 i 0 a 0 of < C) ov-0rJv a° a T L +'n *' U L ++ O a O 7 p :3N u O p O E aJ > vii > Nv° t >� 3 E O bo NL p c +' E 41 U 7> O n O '+., c '� ON +>aj O U t a..• � > VI � 0Ec �, :3� E N � 7 VI fl. Qi c co 0 }, N Q D M c E 0 � O i ++ .O -0 a--+ -- c O , m N l6 >_ N M n c �a E N U N Q L u O L .� Q Q E to CL O ONCL p E N }' o O CO f U N 3 y� m Cp p co of U 3 T Co in 3 L � O L vi i 0 0 W— t O. O CLin0 of >t i CL O aj (3)O N aJ O _ O co NCL n cp ��., of E L to to a, o O > ao -0 E o .� (07 0 o Q o F > Q 3 — bn UO 1 -0c v °>' 0a; .c N > c ° ao 0 E O 3 41 •� O-0 7 E •c -0 O L 0 0 c = LE a l6 N Q .E L a N L7 m OV i uadsd aspiaual:)aae N m /0 V C m _V .O CL H U N C O = � L -0 0 O t L O a) > p m } N > \ O 4; n3 U C = c l6 Eu •O C NW rl +� E UO in L UO W UO • U a CL O >, O (3) n3 O T L E U+ (3,O p 0 vii c E N E OL uo C }' N _ OL Qj (3)U Q c .N > Q a (OV O CO a/ N E w N O to O uo C G aj a }' � 0 0 0 O C E Q� O ,� aLJ M Ln O c O O •N O L H O C i Nf6 > aJ O C E aJ U N a+ >-O aj t vi C t 7 p O t i m '� 0 O a H N a n o 0 E C u- �--� w(6 m F m aJ L Q> 0 = O 3 ° O C O c -0 U O N O •O Q m W b4 c O y, -0 UO U C ate-+ n3 iJ > p � L aJ E + � c v a✓ a✓ N -0 O aj aJ +i+ aj UO > r N L� }Oi }' — GJ n ns a aJ to o CL O aJ in O a)}' u p CO O uo +-+" w C i (a— U l6 U a--+ a--+ +, aJ E In i C U L n3 ui CL � E = w Ln aj w d M Ln N o > C OU t aj r1i Ln z Naj UO UO O • l6 O i L C i o o > C w C �' n c Z) a E °' D E D > E _ O(V N-0 O(V Q E L Y OU -c- - Gj ba +_ > C aJ >.aj n O i C N L fl L U CO O ca 3 0 0 aj EO 2 C O O ca aj p L C of c- L E n - p L O c t L t t > W3 3> } C 3 a, a o c o CL n3 CL +�+ ^ a) U aJ .} E > c L C l6 O r '`—' N m E c .E c a> >, a) a o C uO :E () •o L ++ -0 i 3 OA O .0 7 i UO 3 . iJ +�-+ N to '� a1 :� C O iJ C > in CL � L > W L Q O � 7-C E L O E CO > i `� f6 Q Q C '� aJ OL d y hO O M O b O U i i to a) > 7 b4 > aJ 2 .E a w r -0 aJ cc -0 �n U t N a) > } N C C O u +' •O C Q UO in a aL-+ C M p GO (Uc—+ (a t6 >, O (3) E in 7 O T U+ (3,O p c aJ c E — E fl - G C }' _ OL Qj (3)U Q > Q Y L CO a/ C C i uo C G 0 0 0 C ?� O 0 O L H S aJ aJ Nf6 5 U U a1 U aj t U d C t 7 p O t i ++ O O 0 0 u �p H N a n o 0 LY C u- �--� w(6 L Q O F � +� aJ L = O 3 ° 3 c (D '� •3 r c TLn ° .E E ao � c v a✓ a✓ W � � r v O a c o L c m > �, O a)}' aJ 0w Q- O }' O 62 aJ m >• t N 0 0 7 C +, �� `n i aJ N E uo N V >O 0> CL C = w E .c 3 w d M Ln N o > C OU t uO5i78r apianllal Hen M uads aspwup,&g uo pe aPwm|ai IeA # / ~ \ u } § > § \ � 2 /z / G > Ln -0{ -E e «e E < E 2 � ± 0 a E { / ° U E E Ln< » = £ \ o/ ) = 7 = e\ u z 7 = 0 E/ s a« 2 / / ° 3 « / / / / e g k < _ § / § ) a _ /c ) \Ln \ > _ = E E 2 % $ $ < < < 0 r4 r,4 § 9 a \ t\ 7 2 k 7 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ \ k o\2 \ \ t / f k E & \ \k� a / / a � � m \ G 3 \ e = \ J \ k tLo 3 Ln #/ \ «\ \ 2 / \ – $ \ a > ° g \ o E g _ a = « « \ / 5 i 5– ƒ [ 2}_] 0CL 2 \ » S > R %� » o % o 00 u % m[ ) f &\# J » 7 2 f CL ® « _ = – ) / u u \ Ln » c 1 ƒ \ § 3 # g » / 0 i \ \ _ 2 \ E \ / / / / \ ] » 2 » § \ ƒ \ ) 2 $ \ 4 - - - - < / / < > _ / \/ / 2 z u 2 » \\ 5 �/ e \ \ \ / ƒ / 14— ` § >— r E � 5 � R S �� 5\ > 4 z\ uads aspwup,&g uo pe aPwm|ai IeA # / ~ \ } § > § \ � /z / G > Ln -0{ -E e «e E < E 2 � ± 0 = O E { / ° U E E Ln< » = f \ o/ ) = 7 = e\ u z 7 = 0 U E/ s a« 2 / / ° 3 « / / / / e g k < _ § / ® % o # ) a _ /c ) \Ln \ > _ = E E 2 % $ $ < < < 0 r4 r,4 m 9 a \ t\ 7 2 k 7 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ uads aspwup,&g uo pe aPwm|ai IeA # uadsd aspiaual:)aae Ln uo C .N O t c N i c O Ln N t c i h0 a� O c - U_ N Q Q U W C 7 Q L i N C N O Ln uo c (3)i :3 41 In O Q O 00 o O N 0 CA N -C Q Q O G1 U ++ U } uo N O c _ c > Y .0 7 b4 O N Q .v N L CL (D -0 (D >- O W '> +-+ Q u v N CL uo c O c O i CA -0 U U c Up •i •N > O .� N C N O CL E 7 = U l6 VI O s Q � �' CA +w+ Ot c i uo •� Ln L in T c O c6 in +�-+ O 0 -Fu cU i N M Co u in uo'Z kn S N Ln +-+ N N b4 •N C 7 w Q O C L E 7 T c U b4 c 7 l6 LL Q U Ln p i -Cd UA N O O c tNi� T O N 41 UO U �, f6 i c y E-6-6 i-0 C c i n c O o O O p c Q r 41 41 p i c 0 i }' c O a p m co t6 N �O \ c 41 v c ._ '� i t i O O U p '6 in c N �n c N 41 p v co 3 N c N- N N O 3> +' in i O c O O T p_ C m m a N U •}, •ho 7 a d ni c t6 w Cp O. in 41 O N m Q N i > 41 co E + O ,c " ++ 7 Q O c +, c c } N c co c E N N O i -0 N C1A c f6 N c N U E CL 7 fl. O- c c i in N O t . � i }' i m n- —_ N uo O 2 -0 c u Q w CA N u O �p - i O O' O i .� app '- N w >, E c6 .� '� .� �^ > N 41 �n r ate-+ v i U >� 0 4- 'U > >> i= Ln i N u - O O O>c6 >y �i 3 Xi 0 E E p pUO Cp c c m c i s •� c( 3 v C cco N 3 co CL c N > `n N 3 CL O f6 O. E p> a i 3 c c ar c n c v, �p O co p •i w -c O O N c on > O N 'a > xC Q uC .S N 0 i a .� p� O c C �' O `� f6 i c OCO i C O C Q Q i O T c 7 Cp Ln M in •N N •O aC X +-+ O N c N n O i O c -0 i" O aC O i N i to C C c N i 41 >' O ON >. co + .0w O w C ) C_ C CL > CL O N c O .0 O p v Q CL O O •O *�' N C U O O c +�-+ in O > >. �_ > a C O. C\ N O w i CL m in 2 2 2 N w in �' .� Q ,� p O VI c N w 7 N 7 Ln 41 >, N y N C `� +�-+ Q Q c O Q= i Q uo l6 c X N UA UA .a_' •f6 i N N O c O c h i }' c i c- M N> ,� X VI —_ QC in QC -a U N � N N Q 3 3 pp C O 41 +-' i C in O i C in C in N '— c p i N p tuo tYo vii i i i c C � i �p O N W p O O U C Z) d W an d W Q d' W W d M J d O G W Co L.L J Z d' d== Q Q .--. O N M Lf) lD I� W 01 O O lli l0 I. W 01 c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I c -I N c -I N M � Lfi lD IZ 00 01 F i"I uadsd aspiaual:)aae Ln S. N OJ 0 in O L U OA Uc onC O (U in r_ +,�+ 0 CL o O O L UO NU Z '2 N .N (U O i S1 C C C Z3 N Y O O f6 O L L 3 3 :3 on O O t (3)J ° c CL O) . O O) (u O) .0 L U 'n 41 O OA OA :3U L N C o O) i 7 .`n aj U i 0 0 E a o N (6 7 -0 J--+ CL bA O J.L.+ t _ C NC L V— O U O i O L (U C0 Q" Y p i +W+ (Lo O U OA O +N-+ O E 3 i E L C U v N W aJ 3 r_ (U a°J X ° c Lcy O " (Cp D 0 CL Q Jam-+ O� N '++ UO c O � C C OL Q r 0 CL C ° 3 'O fL6 Q N O) OJam--+ O) (6 41 (6 Z3 Z3 CL t6 i m in C OO T Z3 C yF O O OT S1 O Jam--+ C O) U rI (U O) — OQ Jam., E Jam-+ i 7 1aj/1 (o > +� +� ++ (o O C f6 OL J--+ (6 n' (6 03 CL 7 (6 � fl. L C U > E S1 O S2 -0 > n- W W U S w Z) U Z) Q w Z) O y q N M c -I N M � Lfi aIZ 00 F-1 r -I c -I r 1 U0spe j o_ (u U (10 (1 N on C O) C Q 3 O s O *' t fl - O U S ++ X _T N + � U Z a£ (u fl- -0 7 r O C 3 " O < N Z C Q _ C O aJ v O + E 41 h0 CL ° (uO £ > CA (0 N QJ 0 w E C CAT O (6 n O Z a eO E i E E O C W - S O — in O -0 r fp (D L C y M W S1 (UM S OA L >' (3) to >' Z E +' ° fl i m c a O O \ (D S O. C (3) (3) -0 O OO CL 0 CL L 3 c f6 on (6 O N C i C O) u •c C J"' y W D S rl N M -zt Ln U apianllal " N C (1) n i O E O) Z O O C n O > (1) OU Y 3 i OQ m O) O N 7 N >. U N Sao E (co (3) -0c c o c O C f6 J--+ Z7 C O Q >. O O) C •C 30 OO C Jam-+ `� +m-� 7 > O) M b4 •— O O m U m U L N U (6 N Z3 L U O) — Z7 U 7 L 7 u >, S1 � •0 Jam-+ O) O in Z7 7 L (6 O U `� N _ -0 b4 Z3 Q U_ V -C ° L Cccru N O S1 vii E :3 cy Z) ON Q a N ° O) OL O U 2 Q w (r N w U�� —i N M �t Ln lD I- 00 m Hee UM D_ J (n ) O O +' D_ f0(3) U 3 j L U Z3 Jam+ � N U O ) '++ OO L C 3 N V j o } > 0 *' n 2 7 C 'a) •(3) OL to - C in J C .0 C ++ S1 -0 O UO O C O j N U OA O Q O J--+ C Z3 ) (L6 L O O)0 i O O Y 3 —uo 0 n- (3)J--+ •}' t 3 (6 L •E OA OO J OO U Z3 t O L 1 j (OO C �O C O j C 'a S1 OA O '+_+ u C O v y~ OU OA D ° J .c 41 (3) C OA 7 O L L (3) S1 Oi O Z7 N J L (U Z E CL > C '� in -0 C E U D U u 114 I- 00 m —1 —1 apianllal " N C (1) n i O E O) Z O O C n O > (1) OU Y 3 i OQ m O) O N 7 N >. U N Sao E (co (3) -0c c o c O C f6 J--+ Z7 C O Q >. O O) C •C 30 OO C Jam-+ `� +m-� 7 > O) M b4 •— O O m U m U L N U (6 N Z3 L U O) — Z7 U 7 L 7 u >, S1 � •0 Jam-+ O) O in Z7 7 L (6 O U `� N _ -0 b4 Z3 Q U_ V -C ° L Cccru N O S1 vii E :3 cy Z) ON Q a N ° O) OL O U 2 Q w (r N w U�� —i N M �t Ln lD I- 00 m Hee UM i i uadsd aspiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianllal Hen n m N N N M l0 + I � o Ln r M o 0 C OCV m I c -I N c -I M m N M M N 0 0 0 0 C co Ln m C14 N M N r -I 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 No ++ O \ Ln �* l0 N a N n 00 00 GJ 0 0 0 0 LnI- N 3 \ Ln a M O m L N1 --i L.0 O Ln O M N m N l0 GJ i 00 M 00 1.0 1.0 w O N M O 00 C l0 l0 Ln c I O ci 00 O I- M M O cI M Ol 00 LI1 M I- fBtA N c I O _ H � uadsd aspiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianllal Hen n J N O O O N ip U c a"' N � 0o Nn c c :3 O N u U U � in c 3 O � � c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O— O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O u O O O O O O O Q N c c0 �n O Lr O Lr O Lr O O> }' O. O N Lr) I, O N u") O u i m r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 N N N p O -u F t/} t/} t/} t/} t/} -u} o -0E c -I N M S Ili ID i\ -Mu, Q N N a E'+_+ c l6 l6 l6 l6 l6 l6 l6 O m m N O vvvvvvvccvLncc z I I = M 2 0 O O C i aJM� CL i E N O N N E cc m ri -0 m II 2 D 00 c 2 c i 0 c L �O O i a M .O c a m -zz co 2 c C3 NN O c " = O uo N u0 CC rl O on D_ CL m U CN 0 E + O U 7 c O c }, O O N Q c -zt 7 O OtV O 00 O OLn O U r-1 tD tD -zt 00 }' Lr r -I r- dl r -:N lV +-+ -zt 00 r-1 M r-1 lD r -I r-1 N Ln M M c v? v? v? N v? v? O l�6 l�6 l�6 l�6 l�6 l�6 lN6 N v v v v v v m cc cc O m c M a cc O c i N O O CL m n M c Q 00 ° o -0 Ni N CL N � c i i N -0 m U O E+�-+ Ln (3) O a c CC m Q i 7 E N O O O N 'v m O N = O c Q E uco -C C O N M E Z a U N Zn a N N ZLn '7 U � c Q >. -0 cI � c c U in O 3 N N in L Ln + V X 0 O -0 - - N U 4J i > j X O O N O - } l�6 O 0 O �0- u E ao z u I rl- uadsd asp ivapaae uosi:)er apianllal HeA O tA ai a cc - --r- E,aJ N FT c 4! v c N OU O -0 � N cc m m M Q �' O (10Q G v >06 Z U o N O O 2. o o O a + O r1 rn r1 a N E O U U a--+ s 11-0 O !n N � O O 0 m O= u u .� •� uo c O Q C � Ln GJ - E N E G Q - E o o o U6o,N E'�� Qo <Cc)—i Ln m ��a QQo > o > of E c a > �QQQ 0 c -I o 0 0 +� 0 o O t a--+ 0/ 00 tin .� c N Q- -0 GJ t Q o 0 0 _ a o 0 0 n O O ' W ON O Ln +N O N c 7 +' O O M CL I� U E O O O O r -I N ZD `� r -I -i N 00 r -I O E r -I r -I N VI VI VI a io 0 M o � t Q O O r 1 r I r I -I vi 00 -1 vi vi vi >. � � o 00 r I I I I I r -I N M Ln lD CL r -I N M +-' O' -0 N C c l6 l6 l6 l6 l6 to \ O O O O lD O O O r-1 N +� +-+ +-+ +� +� +� m m m c0 c0 c0 E L L L N N N +, O c f0 O O Q Qvvvvvwm vi�o00-q -q uuuUUULu ���Q > c z u I rl- uadsd asp ivapaae uosi:)er apianllal HeA tA ai a c --r- E,aJ N N c 4! v c N OU O -0 � N m 1n 3 �' O (10Q G 00 Z U u I rl- uadsd asp ivapaae uosi:)er apianllal HeA J 0 u iii 00 fL U in N — t}o tL t6 }+ U II N i .. C T i CO C C (3)> E c E u N •i o a U t6 t6 N fL c y p O C c ti D_ in i i , Ln II c -I vi fL u i t6 LA N N a Q i Q E (3)E tL N (3)- 0Ln a X Q i ' tL :EC O-0 Q t6 (3)C O C C n UO N Q T O N 3 a p O L L E > f6 a = �, tv N E c '� CL - E c ao co tv rl tv u u E t6 p ai i X c t n U m m w O 3 O E O i fL U `0 fL U a N p fL U a `0 fL co +� O p 3 °N° II i i o c °N' tL o o o N o i ate+^ c i °J u � tv c� o 0 0 �� n u o �v° = Q -0 O U N O a N C II T c6 p CL .c °' 3 N aJ co + E co iJ 3 fL tv .� +� u C •� -C Q N b4 fL ,4 L U C) N m N i u 7 E> p N � ip w C N N aJ y Ln >- in' \ a tL � N N N `� i tL E_ (3' ai v = rl i .N C in a O � Q +-+ fL N fL a u o .i '�' C Q U �7a m i > i O C L N t= O in N E u O N p 'i E 'O 'i M N 7 a O> N rl U 2 O tL ro z Oc U U tL a U a m w > tri ,C n O tvM U O `t C tL N O S in C E N O U O0 O E vN CL S C C Q� C (3)C C p i E N a S U� +� U �' (3)E o s 7 ai E c Ni :+' L E t a p 0 ++ fL E 7 .� fL U •i N O fL fL ai E E s to a s rl Ln E 'i C O fl N C tL o >• U N N °J p w ai E E t *' a— tv � a E a, - t- VS v o E fL o 7 C fL tL w � i to f6 L i C E S E i O N N uo E O +-+ i >' E c 0 `•� +-+ 7 i i C L � in Ln tL T fL c t6 tL O -0 - i U O •C O •i rl i p0 u .Q — N in fL fL tD i E -o >' i i in O 'L C to i 0 'L t6 U N f6 +-+ C N fL Q C 7 +-+ U t6 a--+ CL N i t6 in tL tL CL i Q >• i Q C \ tL fL L iL c toT E ' a > E-0 yd N in i _ OO OO > �_ O (3) U L o -0 m 6 CL M U (3) 6 -0 p� 6 N u1 N a i O N� N N to O aJ f6 u1 cD i � O E }' E c in ° s 4-1 uotv E E tv f6 E E a oE uo uo Q Q t o .E to °-0 a� E o �..ELn a O i O O O i in O E LC L C) N +.+ C O C N E O �O 2 +, o Y i O O N 0 M D tL uo } T p -0 M uo 0 fL 7 L t6 t> o vii (6 > > i to o 3d a>• c c C) -iCL u 0 u p f6 c(3)U E�c ri c O O to in N C i C >. 7aC N fL >• +�-+ in O -0 ate) O to ua U two U n- to p C C CL C U O E N E CL p U E c E i j• N 7 O O vNi O fL E E>• O fL E > 3 U C C) E c c E to puo �G 2 U E ,n ++ (3)O O 2 C CL ai .T) -0N 3 Ln _ U - CL U (6 c -I }' 3 Q `� T O .0 \ fL in CL O N �O Y .? i Q i 7 i o N = E U > a \ i 3 \ E o > O Q' OJ O t u O N O Cu i > W U Q t t U 0 rl L –, in Q: L > t uadsd aspiauapaae uosi:)er apianllal HeA 0 u CQ � v E C C C O C o +� 3 C 1° OL -0 a O v N Q n3 E 3 0 •5 11 c O — > E n3 O a C O E:3 t — i E U 00" a"' O n3 N N C i UL> C O N n3 + T n3 N c + a-+ 0 O O � N O U T v n3 C — n3 3 C O O Q i O +-+ E Q E OJ OJ f0 3 O UX (DC O U OJ OOCJ Vy N C J C >,O p-0> NO *Z O m CO in }O s O E� p � � 'U UO p OO>, G Ln u O E O } C 7 OJ -0 -0V•Y�C X Q (p UO UOU C a n3 O L +-+ 'Q O 'Q O E CO " •� �+ c Q CL �' C Q o p> u c •O N E >. C C Q C a E C N U U n3 U i OJ O t N U O l6 U X O W U Q C m X W O OJ .� CC > O OJ CC OU U ri O O MC C p Y E u C O � W O N Ln a--+ '� 0 +-+ O U C U i OJ .� O N C n3 C ° C .� n3 N T CL C Cp L C � O N 'T C° — E Q i OJ VI O in Q CL to i i n3 uO C C E C �c O m W O E OU a--+ CO Q aU-+ N U N OU E O vii `.� N N i m C i > OCL 0 N E CC U N 3-, N CO a ° – O > O N O E Oi m O\ C U •� O n3 N N O �n in v> to U OJ a E O E in E -0 S n3 i CL n' i" N 0 C N u E T C v u i OU o O OJ '� OJ E'- T in i C" T �O t O O N E i E N in O N CQ CQ OJ }' OJ2 E 7 � 0 o % a N U N •E = Q- C� +�-+ QJ E C l6 \ x C) N Q 2 C U C C O C Z 3 cp F p O 4 E C _ E C i +�-+ fl- C U N U C C OJ C E C O OJ O co U c c �--� N O +.+ Q Q O +-+ co m �u 0 n3 O cc O p Q l6 L Q U a 06 O U OJ aaoi Y p — CO N — Q �_ °�' ° o U_ Coo C co n cy O n O _ co in N O ° CL E E CL OJ O vi M 0O Z (p N= C CL ° +�-+ n3 L L N j. C S O OCL S t6 `,� •C N 0 60 i C t6 i OJ OJ E in ON i i C 'i m to E 2 O cL '+_+ E `.� +-+ O N CL C G OJ CL OJ E SCO CL C U N i n3 7 .+_+ � Q i n +_+ min v� C O Q C m E> , O M U ? is 7 0 C 7 o° E +�-+ N C C •cn — •> N n3 Vi s N U OJ U Ln= (C6 OJ Q UQ O O n-cO O Q EaQ O v iLn u Q Q ° a" t N0 ° E ° �CO v aE> no a ° oo-0 a Cc a-0 a o -c 0 oo '� Q °LQ C � - N O n +' i (U O � (U ° +' O *' in O co N w }' — OJ a 3 O +' N vii `- Z CL C OJ N a, O C - a, C n- p +-+ n3 1p CL— +' a 7 S E U C LJJ ° _ Ln Q •� N > Ln C iJ O i •+-+ Z tCo Ln � > f6 +�-+ C +�-+ C 3 N .� 3 U •o a, o O OJ 7> °' E NN7 L ° v OLJ vO UO Q m i Q u O C sOyGaJ.o w p O p O N Ln p -0 low:—Q -0 a Q N C n3 a in :3- O ° c ° °' k c c co U a co N n3 °J u �' u o o 3 ° o In 3 u 0 3 CL 0 3 o � a E� .0 � n3 � >, m x o 0 o a O z �' O t .c 2 o a o Q a Lu 3 a- a N C L Z-0 uadsd aspiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianllal hien J aj 00 m 0�0 O 2 i � T C � 3 C 7 C O b4 C N a--+ O C U Q Q C E 3 U (DO > E O N m co o ° +' C ago 3 Ln co co +� - Q - O O c L O U of O O of to of E O N to O .� > n i E a E ao co E—i CO a a O >, N O L O of Q - C t = Q O -0E `� _ >, L �, 0 0 u oma+ X °' o o c E °�' -Q L (3)— E C a a, E d 7C,6 .� 7 U 7 co 0 o 7 O C s 0 O O of +-+ i o0 O O U N N + i O O +-, U N y� w U CL c6 3 N Q c6 Q > U = U l6 > >, OCC co U Z) 7, 0, Z) o J > W J > > > > U > > .L i N C .� > > .� N 0 .� % O N N O Ln Ln Ln O of v OO O > O C E O C 3 C > C Ln 0 2 Q 0 O N O E O E a � X U O 0 p cn rp o Ln ro o O ._ O CL N i i >, Q � m O Q O^ O V = 0 N U ]..l. C U U O ~ p N L O C U O N >. Lr) +, N N +-+ O Ncc 0 O N to U E M +, o O 0) Q i U Q �_ E •CO Q i c L O :3co CL CL x Q of .� (10 L Q CL lu C E • N O m N -0.O 3 X to E Q of C 0 •� N N °J E= o� N 0) E C E tLo o E o E N kn Ln E C N N o o N O U N N 0) O C Cu C N C N u W co uo C N>' n U� w O Q N +' L7 o = u O w-0 o O — o co +� O- o C u O v co O io N +� a co a u v� C O °' -- z C C b4 C CY N uco i O O N o C o C E U N i cCo N l6 up u 3 N +, Z N C C C v\> C N O i -0° ° C a ° - Ln -0 u Eozvo z dSc 3vo voo a.-vo z°� i � a C � 3 C O b4 C N a--+ O C U Q Q C 3 U (DO > -0 O N m co o ° +' C ago 3 Ln co co +� - Q - O c L O of O O of to of E O N to 72E CL .� > n i E a E ao co E—i CO a a O >, N -0 O of Q - C t = Q O -0E `� _ >, L �, 0 0 u oma+ X °' o o c E °�' -Q L (3)— E C a a, E d o CL c .o > T O O o co 0 o � a--, L O X i of > of +-+ i o0 N >, O 0 C .(u O i i i 0 >, C O O +-, +, ---� cn Q O Q +-, 7 of > CL c6 3 N Q c6 Q > U = Q U l6 > >, OCC co ° Z) 7, 0, Z) o J uadsd spiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianlial HeA c -I c -I E LnQ N O c N i > f6 o N a E C U U C 4J O 0 N Q N U L - i T p in Q O NQ O yt O c � U \ N Q (10 b4 S b4 •� (3) Ln co -- O co i LnC—_> E O E --° Z N N a Q m _ U Q 'U > c l6 O N i .T p i 0 7CL X Q -1 -0 -j Q V) M O E a vNi U Cp •Q O faJ6 +`�. > O U x E o Q N p N OU p -C (3) m N E a E in in O }' +-+ O LL rA O � VI L O N o c Q E N to c l6 U O Q = co c= Q E R Z c p c c y—, (n in U a- Q N .2 N 2 OU O CL VI 4 a O O CL O �u'� c Ln o E 0 N O >, o a, O O o Q V 'i U > U 0 + N O p t > U+ + E a o0 7 + co N a tLoN i XN >- > +-+ co � CL u Q c6 +' co N N to c N E o> E E °�' M ,m_ a) C N o Lf) p O O c c N p X U U U Y a N a 3 LI co L m *' U n 3d p vc 0 N �, � � E °o O d dcoJ p mQ J ' t +� +� co +, > O —>O o N o �ao� o - -0 Q U oON ' Ln -0 c 7 a m (6 o U O> Mt o' E -° _a E C -0 > o N o U N QO O0 >(3)O L + E-0O �n , ° E >> u a c > p l6 c N E — O U l6 E o i O i }' in N O O L t E TO O p M O aJ L to i in O vi N O N c t U i p N C o to > >, > N to � > (Yp •= U N O CL O N U in +� -0 co E fl c� w Q +�., U E o O Q N m > vii H ++ > a E c +-' n' c6 > co zs N a Hen a U M Ln u a% Q E ai U Lo c N � i N in W 3 E ate-+ •� Li +, N E o C U c W U os O > os � U 3>> c N � N c> a-0 N >- Q a U O-0 Oi C i Fu O — E -0N c a} �> N a •*' t> uo O N cL E N o E O :3 LnL O i > E b4 L ho O i u c u O W to 3 u CL a to o M N- Ln CL a •Q o t o ,n O }' c � +'' a o co N U +-+ a in 7 N co 'i N Op Ln :3 a m O O N m \ O M V —1 'R —, + Ln :3 U —1 a cc U u) t > a E LnQ N O c N i > f6 o N a E C U U C 4J O 0 N Q N U L - i T p in Q O NQ O yt O c � U \ N Q (10 b4 S b4 •� (3) Ln co -- O co i LnC—_> E O E --° Z N N a Q m _ U Q 'U > c l6 O N i .T p i 0 7CL X Q -1 -0 -j Q V) M O vNi U Cp •Q O faJ6 x E o (A N p N OU p -C (3) m in in O }' +-+ O LL rA O L O N o c Q E N to c O O O Q = co c= Q E R Z c p c c y—, (n in U a- N .2 N 2 OU O mE a ..� �ro �u'� c Ln o E 0 o a, O o E r, M o U 0 H U N O p t > U+ + N o0 7 + co N a tLoN i c co � CL u Q c6 +' co N � t N U O N o> E E °�' M ,m_ a) C N o Lf) p O O c c N vNi X U U U Y a N a m -0 Q 3d p vc :3 Ooo N CL tNo cI d dcoJ p mQ J ' O —>O o N O-0 O > O Q U oON ' Ln p t c U CL E " o U O> Mt 00 N o U N QO O0 Ln O ' E-0O U3 N OhoU O , >> N> tXo •Ncto CL }' ,U c > p N d E o i }' in N O O L U p M O aJ L to i in O vi N O N c t U i p N C o to > >, > N to O N p N >, O CL c E i a CC +� -0 co w Q +�., U E o O Q N m > vii M Z) ro uadsd aspiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianllal Hen N c rp 0 i U L c i n3 in N O in '+_+ 'L O O of O X N X •V X .0 c .i a Ln •V C .0 'lp O E o E E o a n3 a C+ o° c 0) - N N - + E E N .O +E O N of > VI L > �. N 3 L Q L N v — c> -0 N n3 7 E c o Y U� ULn C O N O E •i — L -0 E N E uo (U N L c 7 E O N N c 7 O O N a� —� o� v >-0 o-0 a) +� > ° E t° QCL a o Q �n W c v , c E C o oL Y V > a0_ ) fl 0 a) c _ 'L L I 'O L L L o •c N N w L o •c (O Q a--� O u Oo N u N n c b4 N b0 } N° n +, in c :3 . N N U L U c- u c c •- — +� a 5 O '� N '� O o O 'L O 6 0 7 0 0 0 ° 6 oN n3 Z a a a v- z a z m n z-0 U v-0 z m n Q L L a - Ln :3'N L�Mwow i N c W in t -0 > O LoLn N _ _ 5. CL oLn i N }' L N Q Q 'O 000 OL a"' N n3 N a > L o i >} -0 O O Q m> W LnN L ° c Z x Ln CL E c U L Y Ln = O N to >. L U c to >j uo L O c •– L O •l0 3 — vii of � c L O n3 a +-+ u N O uo E -0 o E O n3Ln E c Ln E o Ln U W '3 L N n3 O cXo C Ln a N v f 6 a c>'o 0 N N U }' N N O TO U = Ln +� O l0 GJ 3 O L a N 7 E +� }-0> b4 O a N Q Q O e°o ° cn0 Q .� o a m °J c uo E t = °n' E c c N N + L N c c 4J N OO uo 0 U -0 a _ c O +-+ O U of ° O O O Co > +�-+ •+�-+ C i c N U E O w •+�'--+ O Q< of 0) }' 7 0 -00 O U ++ > c E •O O Ln L n3 N }' N +-+ N n3 2 N +-+ a Q O N •u0 c E co U ° ° o L F CL c C E `n ate--+ N vii fl- l0 i f6 — l6 c > O U ° c Q -2 Q ° L O o in U Q O O a :+� ° E° 3> 'n L o E = U .E n3 N tD E -0-0 Q a M cc m U N O n O L O Lr) tD u') tLo a c O rn gyri iD r - GJ l6 O I" �t al qt L N N N N N N i/} i/} i/} i/} -L } of on N ++ N O r1i N 0000 C Co c -I al M 41 c c -I c -I c -I c -I E t/} t/} t/} t/} uadsd aspiaual:)aae uosi:)er apianllal Hen L c 7 O E C of U L c N *' of � U QN of of 'L O tLo c U � U in of c � of v L Ln of ,2) i +� O b4 N •l6 +� c � N E 0 ° z .� rail c -I uo Sao � E � � ° o t o `�° 7 +� 7 p N .� O o GO \ 7 ° U 3-0-0 ao +�-+ u c n3 O N _ O n3 Q m a N„ o +� c c} n3 N U U p +� ° O T n n3 N O c O N M m._ '+-, Ln M m m c n3 � c CO U n3 N U Q W n3 c �° in j N OO LnC E O X 'to u o o N o O U >, O vi C — Q l6 >; N a i CO N O c -I U c -I 0 > L t O >• 2 co c +-, O c> O 2 c m c N n3 c O n t}o v N ° O� to UO U > n3 3 E +.+ m N-0� N V� C c N L Ou O C c' 3 n3 — O' j .--. O i O N UO u ZS E O �_ c •� L O O co O -1 O N Q E O> .c E N X° u° a N lh m ro O iii N O O -1 Ln � •� O u Ln N ��- n3 N> m N 'tLo � E O c o c O Y OU C 00 Q b4 u in p Y 0 p c Q p O Q N �-+ c (0 U-0 °U CO (6 •C C3 'N a_+ Z i C N U a"� O 'VI N N L u -C 0 w +.+ N b4 N �O 7 t O N W-0 n3 W 3 m cc- N N E C i E �� a--' N E '+' C O N-0 U N N C N m n3 U O C L 0 M CL C .> •> v N a C 2 O .E O c--+ O-0 N O l6 c 3 N •c � c N N E E CL w� b4 t O U Q c E n E +� i i c 0 0 .^ >° X ,^ j O m N n3 � a", °U a O Ln -0 N X R 3 U 3 i R— — c �./ O C N ZS Q- U O +-+ O U N Q L O : L N N E E .� E Q-0 O V m L N 7 U— m i C m to to -i O a--+ m i L W L Ln V O -0 O m Q uo c _ a, E o a -0 ° o >, U E V ++ U aXi v > co fl a N O a v a c aJE :3°J n3 I X : i > T`� M U -Ln Ln N c 3 N 2 i V O v p i in O O i s O N T ++ in -0a p 7 -0 c 0i c w U -i °U U °U Q N c -I 0 N 0 l6 C: E.° XX X c E vA E E E E E m Co p c cE O O O O OL Ln e» O v}'i 7 � p m O O � O1 N ° E ri E O O i uo LA- E C E ° E O fl- w° Ln .° c m 0 N n3 O p x E O E O 00 O1 �O +-+ .� p p O O OE Ln Ln I\ N N C Q 00 E c � Ln -0 UO0) c r- ri 00 ri C 0 N O N UO }' X C U- E Q c a_' 3° o o c X c X O E E C) o -0 �� -0 o E E E E Co O •c >• O + � u u I L } O O O O O O Ln O � in +-+ ° N Ln Ln Ln r� O O tD 00 tD tD O E c a w a Q s o c X c X c m c 1° ° a, > n3 E E n3 E E E E E `j p O c > Q i >> *' 0 0 O O 0 0 00 M W O N Z O- 7 E M Ln lD a --I a n3 Ln U +' N c � � of Q N CO C c N w � � O 3 QSj } •U M in n3 U in WAD ,t, N m S _ UO O N N N }' 3 O0 U Q D:' m O M M -c- U Ln O Z O Z O Z O Z uadsd asplauapaa8 le;uaa uosper umo uosve f -nllal I1en c -I :3 Qj \ LL 2 � / % k k [ K u 7 /o / 5 » / ¥ -0\ \ \ 2 8 C \ 0 2 > DZ.0 = = _/ " 2"( ® // / m 7a } \ W \ \ � o \ \ \ ƒ ' � u � 0 \ / - _ 3 2 / F \ E \ _ e ' c > / c \ _ / 2 e # \ » c \ \ w w Ln j Z \ i \ \ u f = 2 2 )= _ 2 \� ® � ° © \ ac c ^ ® < ® G a - \ 0 u \ \ ) e $ / E = e _ % ƒ 7\/\\\ 0 \\ t a u0 uoo \ § »> f 2/ S// e ° / CL 0 B c 2 c ® \ / e ' _ .41 \ E » 2 5 / / \ / \ =u=\» CL a k / e e 5 3 CL 7 o\ 0 w\ e _y §\ § \ 7\ t(& g a = a ° 2 0\\ k /� CL 5 { E/ w LL C E>° u 0 z 2 z e% K / » 0 / 7 { u»= a 2% ° _= g m u 7 E / \ \ \ \ \ \ m r- 2 ) ( \ \ / \ « / \ o» o o 0 0_ _ $ $ -0< $ < a » § S=/ 2 z K z 5/ \ t s x 2 \ 2 _\ = o X \ \ /0 3 U \ 7 ® 3 \ 2 2 \ 0 2 / _ § C E TO Q c \ ƒ § \ � \ \ l 2 2 E/ m a z z z z \ \ % 'o \ @ o f y \ :1 . & \ § \ _ \ t [ go ( $ ® @ _ $e _ § 2 \ x e i % » - \ ' S e 2 e ®= c f 2 # . $ 2$ E » o _ = o k / > [ \ / / o / o % o \ E § \ \ o u \ \ E= E \ E \ E \ \ u u == z u e m e m z � e # z= r1i uads a pwup,&g uo i,q apwm|ai ITA K c -I T E E g o 00 T O n3 0 + C C-- n3 O U m i 0O s I uo O 0 1 o O o o 0 CE O O j I- I- —i 00 lD �t M m 00 Q m M O N >- Q � in i —i N O 00 Cl M O t:3 O N O h — O 3 Ln lD N -Zt Z Lr� m �= W a--' a m -Zt M -Zt Zt O MN N C O C 7 N�w _ N N N rl c -I c -I I, LL E Ln = C N U a--+ Y 0 w O Lr)• 3 H O rl Nm i O_ n3 c -I N M � = 0 O � 00 lD � 41 �.. f6 +� l6 +� l6 +� l6 +� l6 +� l6 +� CE —1 l6 C —i 00 0 0 m N � Vi > N 4 � M 41 Q U U U U U U U w v? N O N I� LL U Q i/} —i .� l6 -U F -U F c -I T T O n3 n3 O 0O s I o 1 o O o o 0 Q Q o CL r-4 Q C c o o a3i J c �-+ U U U Oo U U l6 U n3 _ _ n3 � :3 � ,N 3 N U a--+ Y M N Q a--+ Y Q GJ V C 0+ C �_ N i O_ n3 C 0 +, i fl_ u Q J U J U J LL U (0 U Q bA Ln 6 U _ ( i Ln 0 Ln Ln S in }' N C O �O O VI Q O N � N O W N C N C O Z C" a b4 O 3 C C N D_ _`n O = Q C +_++� 7 7 N .in N �n in l0 > 7 l6 L N i > U Q n - C X }' U > N � X N N C N N 0 U 7 W UO l0 fl_ N n N N .� 64 Q N 0 cc C N }' U Ln Q N C o O v� Q m z E uo O E .Q OJ 0 0 Z N O h0 + Q M Q N z 0 N S •+_+ N E .E E x n O L E uo O c C C C vii O — N U E +-+ CL C .v L > N 7 '+_+ C N t E _ ( 0 +-+ N 0) U 'N U u N_ > +�-+ N O b4kn N ° D E a, E a, �, a (3)Z (AQ i •= = 0 b4 O C N U M U n3 . C •Z m N N m l0 N l0 >, }, 0 12 M O N N 4' i O c t0 N (n O +' C E 0) to 0 N :3 C Eco a� co v o i in � n3 Ln E a, o '+_+ � E u 0) N a > C vii = N O U N i O C O N Q v 0 U U +�-+ +�-+ o u O O vii C U 2 7 O U O O Q w Q vii vii Ln o U N OO N O i O— 41 i — Q 0) 0 n o u o O� MFO ON m z M E Ln ~ O CL v U Q O W O w G1 i dj } o > Q N 0(5 N N C - 0 E bo coo U O co O O N .� V _ Y C N 7 40 O O C O O U J Q V� u V E n z L uadsd uosi:)er apianllal HEA c -I c -I t on — L C i O n N u U Q > nO Y L v Q � c 0 +T+>, vii O u 2 Y \ Q u N N i Y p n- 4! U CO O > N >' > N v n3 a 'Y u u E L O N c Y L:3L O c W Y t 3 p o N E Q in O U ,O m Y O >- CCL VI u n3 n3 N (p C iO VI L i Q (3) O�Q Q O p CO i 6 LLiQ_ 0) teCL O N QUO CL !E M Ln N Q O 0) E Ln Q/. L _ V p Vf Ln n I'b.0 > •i a a_+ .3 CO O *' CO E L Q 3 E Iy O N F) a L `L° Y O :3 V a s N c 'N > O N N co E B O L L E ++ c c N ._ N c> Y O in p O a +, co O (A CL Ln -C :3 a O N Y� co p a Y=U O O N p Q E u O c N c = n3 � Ln E +, '3 in +� •� N > O c 0 0 n3 0 E c aO m_ •o - E E �° c}o E a E N �m — o w E rp u — Z o E :3in > L — O t O tLOu LJ p O O c u 7FO -0 CL 0O t a O .0 CO O 7 Y N O O *+ is U O c6 >j Y Y— O N L u L O Y = c cL6 Y O p O i i O N L Q N u n3 v N G1 c - Q ° — e0 aO Q. .o a = U 'n c (3)o N U > � 0 3 E N O Q O .O L UO >, 0 O L N ~ U u N N n *' n c aO E a +� n 0U U ,� � O L Ln 0 c u 0 L .z N a..� 2 Y G n3 c Ln O Y O y U 0 C C�C -0 O L u n3 7 >, O 0 !F3 U Q c 'a C �' c E O l6 l6 � qp `6Z3 � a o a, E> v, Up a N O N pU E E E in J O N Y p •� N w O Yi U Y = J Q = (6 Q a .� Y = .= U U (n U N N L O UO E O �p O t (3) E Y CO 0 0 O C Lp c O 7 N Y> (6 Q Q O O Q to m > U E L .0 N T O D D a E E o(3, E X W L Q Q 7vYi d 2 t N-0 O � c O C p 3 0 UO U h0 E c 3 c (3)UO L CO � � O 0 •� N N N c 'N O> Y E O >b a O O `� X L hD c � N O N n3 7 O M NU ate+ N N Ln YO Yu n3 N O +' O N CL Q N 41 0Y fl- \ in O Q n3 u — 3 O � a O i t E O N E ,� t6 kn n c N o N CO to N N L CLE :3 N 7 .2 L" N p .0 U 00 N +' U L n3 L L E u E E Ln .� a o E N O CO CO O N E O N YO Ln O ON LnLn 0 > L � a u °�° u CO � a L � in � U U N Np E i o N pc `� Y O Q O NLn C N ,+� O U Q n3 N 7 N CO 7 L \> O � :� c U ate-+ O Q Z N in L n3 U c CO L T c CO c n3 CO Y Sao c v, p N CO in N u L O N o co u O c c N o x o p °��z�nvW o o c E c a o ° °J �nU E °v, v, 2=un E�n� Z) z uadsd asp!aual:)aae uosi:)er ap!anllal I1eA c -I r W c -I N � u uo 3 u i N a a, n3 O (D aN N a O M L in O N 2 +-+ +O-+ - O O i a N� Q O N \ \ 3 c > UO C.� N N +�.+ vii •N U O vii O E U> C) M U L N L to N N c n3 u to N L N c c f6 n3 L a M N� °�°� >> o O Q O (3)E aco E O N •+_+ u 7 '+_+ 0 a i u 7 N 'O c N M u N in bn c U= 30 a + U a--+ n3 u p c C N i N N u w c c +, E u n3 .� 0 �_ Q E c°po c— n3 E CL O .� E c a .� .f6 w E E u +� ° c O U c in co :3 -0 m p � E �UpQvfli a C n=CO D a co E cLn Qa2 OLn rj cco uo c u uo c l6 l6 N - U E > C En Q i p N Ns \ c p 7 c a O CL c 0 v° c c c 4= E co N c U 0(3) E\ O 0 E u O in O a}' O c OU Q in C C u a U CO +' in 3 uo (3) n3 N O N (D n3 •� Cuo 3 � .O vi c u W (DO C S U O L .0 Q U c ate-+ c N in n O b4 E N CO .i + n n - Q O L N T� in a..+0 ate--' m 2 `- O u O p O ( n3 N u N co Q 3) c �n 3 E N N =' E *' }' O N E VI ZS O > N O>- O °J t� E t in c N a L L a O Ln ) c E N co in N c M N a a--+ O N +�-+ vii O E M a co > n3 co `•� •O T N O N N u 2 N c N cc O: a O N N Q- O O cc Z) U b4 �' n3 -0 d v Q a a Q O Z) s- u c c c n3 a, 2, a, 0 U wO E Ln 2 p +�-+ p +�-+ uo _ U O c +.+ O a L CL > — m N U m - E to X N 4! O uo -0O b4 N a N a O 0 t> O +-+ in LO •� L L :3 W +-+ n3 Q — U C � C � _ >= c E p °c° � Q a L °J L v�Li 3 l�6 a c c� O Q a a L 7 �, U 2 CL '+_+ c O a O }, N 7 uo N uo -C in p L O rp N uo - N tp UO -0 � N +-+ fC CO p �_ c CL + n } GOO N 1 > } _ E > z E N O(3) N N i Ln E to � c c E a c 3 3 'o a ° 'tLo�o U o aco > CL > o Q E E t*o o -------------- }' > U O O O L c a l6 s E N N c L L cc N a N E N c -0 N cc E-0-0 Q Q L n - a Z) b4 c + uo p n o E U c Q c _ O CL a l6 uo O N >� N c p N L a ate-' i OL N O uo LU N N c a > c O _ LU n O C N Ln - O p O a, a Ln V ouo U U j, E ' " > O o' o E o c — .0 Q N L L U S o Q U i u > a Zo 0-0 U u L u c c O O N ro n3 c u O co U O cUO t+ 3 a 3 0= � �, a a uo UCL :_o E H cn n3 Q— O Q Ln Q uadsd asp!aual:)aae uosi:)er ap!anllal I1en W c -I \ Z k e CO g \ w @ ? E� no rQ A� o o § / C ku o o o ¥ƒ Lm CO � \ c u ■ ■ r � CN � � X02 7 - 2 + + + + + + + - \ % A / ooh■ 0 0 0 § a�� ■ 2§- 2222 22 _ -o % o \\ & n co\ ¥� �oo� �� _ � � o LO \ \>' a ' 2 2 + + + + + + + / k ' - k b % % R \ $ E / � oJ u ■ ■ o = a 0 ' / § Z/o o ' ' / $ 7 7 2 2 3 % / 7 % @ \ §� - m o r o o cq C� 0 f o n 2 \ ¥ 0 I O C-) 2 ®e/ X02 2 \/t �o$-�� ++ ++ ++ + ++ E%� 0 o f ° u $ 2 \ % 7 \ / % Q / \ / a 0 2 0 § a) I ; <E ■ « n A o A_ ¥ / °ch m 9 \ 7 \ q \ \ � \ § _ 2 % / \ / / S \\k t � co @ � / k \ c) g m m ( 7 co a CL +\ �& cq LO/ C) 0) o 5r - CD g / _ N a k\§\OT - \ c ¥ § ; G/f\ o e § / G ¥ G ®°k \ 2 ° ®$ f CL 0 \ O ._ \ O \ o 0 \ § \ 0 \ \ 2 \ \ / \ kam � M\ \/ /\ \w * VM Mauriello Planning Group M E M O R A N D U M To: Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) From: Mauriello Planning Group Date: December 29, 2015 Based on a few of the initial meetings with the VLHA, Mauriello Planning Group was asked to look at potential changes in policy or zoning provisions that could assist in the creation of employee housing units by the private sector. We have put forth some general concepts below that could help generate more housing by the private sectors or that help simplify the code with respect to regulating employee housing. This memo is intended to provide initial concepts and is certainly not intended as a comprehensive approach. Our focus here is primarily incentive based rather than taking a regulatory or exaction approach to obtaining employee housing. The effect of the changes proposed on the actual production of employee units is unknown. Primary Concepts 1. Buildable site area versus total site area. The Town's low density residential zone districts (single-family and two-family) allow total floor area and density to be calculated based upon the "total site area." In the medium and high density zone districts (RC, LDMF, MDMF, and HDMF) the calculation of floor area and density is based upon buildable site area which can be much more restrictive. Interestingly, site coverage, the measure that essentially restricts building footprint is based upon total site area. This disparity could have been intentional as a downzoning, producing fewer units throughout the town with a simple change in the method of calculation. Further, the hazard regulations don't allow development on slopes greater than 40% except that the regulations exempt single-family and two-family zone districts. This further restricts the ability to develop multiple -family zoned properties even further by restricting the location of building footprints. Potential action: Modify the zoning and hazard regulations to allow an "up zoning" of multiple family properties to make them more viable for development or redevelopment. Place a requirement for an additional percentage of the net new density or floor area to be restricted for employee housing. The balance here will be to create enough incentive to develop or redevelop properties with increased density that the employee housing restriction is not overly burdensome. 2. Increase Density and GRFA in Multiple Family Districts 1 Along with #1 above, the density, site coverage, GRFA, and building limitations of the multiple -family districts could be increased to incentivize development or redevelopment of properties within these zone districts. This is similar to what was done in Lionshead prior to its redevelopment which produced substantial results. When the GRFA standards were amended nearly a decade ago, the true beneficiaries of the changes were to single and two-family properties where below grade floor area was exempted and which has significant impacts on a home. Multiple family properties did not benefit to the same degree where only a few units within a building benefit based on their location within the building (i.e., ground floor units). In several districts, building height and site coverage standards have not been modified since they were originally adopted. As with proposal #1, additional free market density/GRFA could be allowed in exchange for a greater employee housing requirement. The inclusionary zoning requirements today, do not apply to LDMF and MDMF districts. The inclusionary requirement could be added to these districts any new density realized due to the changes proposed. Potential action: Modify the zoning standards in these zone districts to allow an "up zoning" of multiple family properties to make them more viable for development. Place a requirement for an additional percentage of the net new density or floor area to be restricted for employee housing. The balance here will be to create enough incentive to develop or redevelop with increased density, that the employee housing restriction is not overly burdensome. 3. Increase Density and GRFA in the CO Zone District The area of town commonly known as the West Vail Commercial area is predominately zoned CC3. The area from Northside Grab and Go on the west to Ace Hardware on the east is comprised of approximately 13 acres of land all zoned CC3. This zone district was applied to the area in 1981 and has been largely untouched as a zone district since that time. The district is highly focused on commercial and retail uses in what can be described as "strip -mall zoning." Free market residential uses are prohibited as are hotels leaving many of the properties nonconforming (holiday inn, residential uses at holiday inn, residential above Ace Hardware, etc.) thus creating a huge barrier to redevelopment of any kind. This is good if you want to preserve the commercial uses and the strip mall that exists. Its bad if you want the area to redevelop and help address Town goals. Employee housing is a permitted use in the district. Building height is limited to 35' (nearly the same as a house), site coverage is limited to 40% (very low), and density is limited to 12 units per acre even though free-market residential uses are prohibited. Potential action: Modify the CC3 zone district by increasing the development standards to a significant degree (i.e., 70' building height?). Consideration should be given to eliminating floor area requirements here entirely and use height, setbacks, and design guidelines to control building mass. Prescribe the types of uses by floor level much like you do in Lionshead or Vail Village, allow for free market residential uses, and require a portion of any new development to be deed restricted employee housing. Require an overall coordinated development plan for the area perhaps in lieu of the Town trying to develop a master plan for a private development site. This west Vail area is probably the are of Town most well suited to employee housing given the access to retail and commercial services and public transit. The balance here will be 2 to create enough incentive to develop or redevelop with increased density that the employee housing restriction is not overly burdensome. 4. Overlay District In lieu of zoning amendments being made to specific zone districts as described above, an "employee housing incentive overlay district" could be created and be applied to certain zone districts much like an SDD. Unlike an SDD, the requirements and allowances could be more prescriptive in order to achieve the desired outcome and as such the process could be reduced to a single hearing or two with the PEC. This overlay district would allow for an increase in floor area and density and a relaxation of other development standards to realize more employee housing units. The overlay district could prescribe different standards for different zone districts or locations within the Town. The CC3 zone district would still require major revisions to allowable uses for this to be applied in this zone district. Other Ideas 5. GRFA Bank Create a GRFA Bank or allow land owners to purchase additional GRFA and use the proceeds to fund employee housing programs. This could be applied to all zone districts with perhaps a limit to what is allowed on any one property (i.e., a maximum of a 20% increase in allowable GRFA). This could be as simple as an amendment to the density control section of each zone district allowing for the increase. The legally of this approach would need to be researched, but it could help produce funds for employee housing. 6. Fee Waivers Waive development related fees for projects that provide a certain percentage of onsite deed restricted employee housing units. The fee waivers could include: review fees, building permit fees, construction use tax, etc. 7. Fast Track Create a fast track review process whereby projects with a certain percentage of employee housing units are exempted from PEC or Town Council review. These projects would be reviewed and approved by the staff and DRB without the need for the public hearing process. Additionally, allow employee housing exchanges (process whereby existing units can be exchanged for offsite units) to be staff approved rather than being subject to Town Council approval. 8. Simplify Inclusionary and Commercial Linkage Commercial linkage requirements are "number of employees housed" while Inclusionary zoning requirements are "square footage." It would greatly simplify the requirements if they both were a simple square footage requirement. This is especially problematic for mixed-use development, which is 3 most typical in the commercial areas of Vail. Simplifying the calculations gives developers a better idea upfront of their requirement and may help with the provision of more units on-site. 9. Eliminate Maximum Square Footage Limitations on EHUs Some EHU types found in Chapter 13 have limitations on the maximum square footage that can be constructed for EHUs (around 1,200 sq. ft.). The limitation seems unwarranted and overly restrictive. This change will likely have little affect on the production of employee housing. 10. Rezoning of Nonconforming Residential Properties There are numerous properties throughout that Town that are nonconforming with respect to use and density. This includes properties that are currently developed with multiple family uses yet zoned two- family residential. This does not allow any significant redevelopment or improvement to these properties. If nothing is done, eventually these properties have the potential to become blighted. The Town could rezone these properties in mass (all at the same time) to make them conforming properties and allow for some additional development potential in exchange for employee housing. New zone districts could be developed, tailored to the property types in question, to facilitate the potential for redevelopment. 12 Ad Name: 11823016A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM 11,201 VJanuary Vail Town Council1 Chambers hammer Your account number is- 1OP2P33 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Vail`7 D�7 1. Call to Order 2 A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade, to Section 12-9A-10, pursuant Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to allow PROOF OF PUBLICATION for converting three indoor tennis court into park - ing, located at 1295 Westhaven Drive/Lot 48, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and setting forth details in re- gard thereto (PEC150035). - 5 min. STATE OF COLORADO } g GrouPen, Inc., represented by Applicant: Planning Mauriello Plannin Group Planner: Chris Neubecker }SS• COUNTY OF EAGLE } 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Water Quality Improvements on Gore Creek. (PEC150027) - 120 Min. I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Kristen Bertuglia representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper 4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-813-3 Conditional printed in whole or in part and published in the County Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the pro- of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation g g visions of Section 12-16 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for "Public parks and active therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously public outdoor recreation areas and uses, exclud- ing buildings" located at 461 Vail Valley Drive, Tract F2, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth de- and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of tails in regard thereto. Specifically, this project in - cludes the installation of parking in the Chalet Road more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first right-of-way and the conversion of the existing ten - nis courts to pickle ball courts. (PEC150037) - 5 publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and min. that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice p q g Table to January 25, 2016 Op - Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Op- and advertisement as requested. penheimer Planner Chris Neubecker 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on an application for an encroach- The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, ment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the en- onlyfor jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home J p g croachment of an addition to the Villa Valhalla Rule Building into View Corridor #5, located at 384 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 10/Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village provision. Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 150036) - 5 Min That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Table to January 25, 2016 Applicant: Jose Pedro Valenzuela Rionda, repre- published in the regular and entire issue of every sented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence number of said dailynewspaper for the period of 1 h 1�er h 6. Approval of Minutes December 28, 2015 PEC Meeting Results consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said 7. Informational Update notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/8/2016 and 1. Peer Community Housing Comparison 2. Update on Employee Housing Policy that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/8/2016 in & Zoning Review the 1SSUe Of said newspaper. 8. Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- laroffice hours at the Town of Vail Community De - In witness whereof, I have here unto set m hand this da y y, ent Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The The is invited to the 01/12/2016. ppuublic attend project orienta- tionand the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re- lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional in- formation. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call General Maner/Publisher/Editor (970)56, Telecommunication g Deviceefor tthhe Deaf (TDD), for information. Vail Daily Community Development Department Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Publishe (11823016) in the Vail Daily January 8, 2016 the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 01/12/2016. G2m4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 Ad Name: 11784498A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Vail Daily hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on January 11, 2016 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. L A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for parking at the existing tennis / pickle ball courts, lo- PROOF OF PUBLICATION il Village ed tFil6ngV5,land lsettting forth details in regard thereto.thereto. (PEC150037) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Op - STATE OF COLORADO } penheimer Planner: Chris Neubecker l SS A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town I Council on an application for COUNTY OF EAGLE } an encroachment into an existing view corridor, pursuant to Section 12-22-6, Encroachments Into Existing View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified encroachment of an addition to the Villa Valhalla Building into View Point #5, representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper located at 384 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 10/Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5, and printed, in whole or in part and published in the County setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150036) Applicant: Jose Pedro Valenzuela Rionda, repre- of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation sented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence theretherein; that said newspaper has been published continuous) in;p y The applications and information about the g propos- als are available for public inspection during office and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop - ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Sign language interpretation is available upon re- that said newspaper has the requested legal notice quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479r Telephone for the Hearing Im- published h q g paired, for information. information. and advertisement as requested. Published December 25, 2015 in the Vail Daily. (11784498) The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 12/25/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 12/25/2015 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 12/31/2015. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 12/31/2015. � 2M 4, & 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019