Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-07-22 PEC
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl July 22, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Rollie Kjesbo Public Hearing 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 30 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the application. Staff has presented these code changes to the Design Review Board, and previously at one work session with PEC. She mentioned that public comment on the proposed code changes had been received. The proposal is to amend the Vail Town Code relating to existing definitions, conflicting or duplicated definitions in the code. There is also some change proposed to policy, which staff will discuss. Clark indicated that changes are proposed to Title 12, definition of Administrator, and definition of Comprehensive Plan. Perez asked about changes to the Comprehensive Plan definitions. Stockmar asked if the intent on landscape permeability was based on where the water goes, and how to redirect the water flow so that it does not go into the creek. Intent is to ensure that contaminated water does not go directly to the creek. Clark — I mpervious surfaces are directly mentioned on the Gore Creek Action Plan. That is one of the reasons staff looked at changing the definitions. Peter Wadden — The more impervious a surface, the more likely and quicker that water and pollutants will be carried into Gore Creek. Permeable surfaces will allow water to flow through the ground which will filter water before going into the creeks Stockmar — I understand the concept of permeability, but isn't there a bigger issue we should be addressing with our codes on construction? We should redesign some of our codes to reduce as much as possible the opportunity for pollutants to get into the creek. Let's focus on the bigger picture. Clark — These are small steps we can take while staff is making updates to the definitions. We would like to have a greater conversation on some of these issues moving forward. Hopkins — Town is 95% developed, so there's only a chance to address 5% of the properties. Is there an opportunity for improvements to the existing developed properties? What else can be done for these projects? Can filters be placed at the intakes to Gore Creek? Wadden — Staff has a list of 44 projects that could be implemented. We are focusing on the projects that will have the most impact. We have a project planned at the Public Works yard. We are taking incremental steps to see what works. Hopkins — We need to discuss the alternatives to how we have been operating to date. Gillette — Let's back up to where we started. Why did staff remove language on retaining walls relating to access on steep slopes? Clark — Staff discussed this with the DRB. Development on a steep lot is already very difficult, so changing the language recommended by the DRB will allow retaining walls on steeper slopes, regardless of the access or driveway. Gillette — Once the code is revised, with the word "access" removed, it will make more sense. Can we discuss the potential concern of making properties nonconforming? Clark — Code has existing language that addresses nonconformity. Nonconformities cannot be made worse. Gillette —Are there other issues, not relating to the new nonconformity that could be impacted if the property becomes nonconforming? Clark — Staff reviewed several landscaping plans in town to determine how many properties might be impacted. She discussed ways that underground rooftops that are landscaped might qualify as landscaping, but depending on the design, some underground parking might not meet the intent of this code change. Lockman — If properties are nonconforming, is it only relating to the landscaping? What is the true impact of the nonconformity? Does it affect other issues of the site? Clark — This issue will only come up on redevelopment. There are also other materials that could be permeable with newer technology and new materials. We have a very active and informed board, and this was reviewed by the DRB and PEC. If this does not work, we can come back to the PEC to fix the definitions. Stockmar — There is still a line that differentiates new construction from remodels and additions. Perez — We did not address situations where a structure is destroyed, as opposed to voluntary redevelopment. Clark — Existing code already addresses damage by acts of God and by other catastrophe. Stockmar —At what point does a remodel trigger compliance with these codes? Clark — If a project has nonconforming landscaping, and an owner replaces the landscaping, then the new landscaping needs to meet the code. Existing code already has a trigger of 500 sq. ft. for additions to require compliance with design standards. Gillette —Additions might still require a nonconforming situation to come into compliance with the new regulations. Clark — Presented an example at the Marriott landscaping plan, comparing pervious and impervious surfaces in the landscaping plan. Staff reviewed 14 landscaping plans to understand how the proposed code changes might impact development and redevelopment. Most of the projects that staff reviewed had excess landscaping, and have wiggle room to still meet the code. There are also other remedies in the code, such as a variance. Stockmar — To what extent do we have a current problem with the existing codes? What would be the real world impact on people in the town who might be impacted by these changes? Clark — We don't know of any applications that are being held back due to the pending landscaping changes, but there are a few proposals on hold and watching closely as it relates to retaining walls. Perez- I would like to use the language that we discussed in the work session. We also have defined terms that use lower case vs upper case which need to be cleared up. We need to be consistent. Gillette — If you have a rooftop with a rooftop deck, it may still be impervious beneath the garden. It really matters most how the water is treated before it goes into the creek. Wadden — Depending on how the rooftops are designed, it could impact the amount of storm water that flows into the creek. A lot of different factors determine how much water flows off a site. Gillette — I would like to see staff meet with Dominic Mauriello to understand his concerns. I think we should table this discussion. Lockman — Would feel better to understand impacts to commercial development and redevelopment. Public Comment — None Final Commission Comments Lockman — Bravo for updating the Town Code to align with our strategic plans. We need to see this across all forms of sustainability. Nice work. Brian Gillette moved to table to August 12, 2019. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.2. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Chris Neubecker presented additional materials that were requested by the PEC at the last meeting, including renderings of the proposed buildings, and sections through the buildings and site. Lockman inquired about the meeting with the wildlife biologists. Matt Gennett discussed the wildlife meeting. Staff will present a summary of their recommendations at the next PEC meeting on August 12. Stockmar asked if there had been any changes to the submitted rock -fall report or traffic report. Neubecker indicated that no changes have yet been made. Staff and the applicant would like to get all feedback and comments from the PEC, then plan revisions will be made and presented at a later meeting. Hopkins asked about a soils report. Michael O'Connor, Applicant, discussed nine soil test pits that have already been explored in regard to soils. Additional detailed soils reports will be provided prior to the building permit. O'Connor provided a presentation discussing the criteria in the Housing District and how the project meets the criteria. He presented slides showing the scale and architecture of east Vail to demonstrate compatibility. Slides were provided to show building heights, landscape buffers, and building perspectives. Hopkins asked about the berm in relation to the renderings. O'Connor discussed the berm design and location in relating to the renderings. Lockman asked about balconies. O'Connor clarified that there are no balconies facing north, but rather at - grade patio areas. O'Connor provided a comparison of the proposal to the standards of the LDMF and MDMF zone districts, including site coverage, landscape area, density and GRFA. He provided a comparison of the proposal to other housing developments that have occurred in the housing district. Gillette asked about bus stop design and the PEC's previous comments concerning this. O'Connor discussed challenges with different locations for the bus stop. Moving the bus stop to the east of the driveway will require retaining walls. Lockman inquired about the wildlife mitigation plan. O'Connor provided information on the biologists meeting and ne)d steps in relation to this item. O'Connor discussed changes to the proposed parking plan for the multifamily component. Additional parking can and will be provided. A comparison with other housing developments in the Housing zone district was provided, including the parking rate on a per-unit basis. Actual parking counts and parking usage rates at similar developments were provided by the applicant. Stockmar-There is a significant difference between this project and other housing developments that are closer to grocery stores. Stockmar reiterated his concern about the lack of pedestrian access under the highway. O'Connor reviewed the request for information from previous meetings and the additional information that has been provided already, and the additional information that will be provided at the ne)d meeting. Stockmar discussed the need for restrictive covenants and enforcement of regulations. Perez -Asked about a traffic study when Vail Mountain School is in session. O'Connor felt the study occurred at a busy time of the winter and that the existing road has significant a)dra capacity to handle additional traffic. Perez requested additional information from staff concerning traffic in the area. Perez -Asked about the GRFA numbers related to the conditional use permit. Neubecker and O'Connor relayed that it is being worked on, but that plan revisions have not yet been made. Public Comment Dave Gorsuch -How did this project get this far? It should have been rejected before it got to this point. The PEC's job is to protect this valley. I- 70 should have game fences. Susan Bristol - I n 1993 there was a conference about Vail and the environment. She also discussed a conference in 2009 on the environment. She spoke about the need to not kill the golden goose. Spoke on the continued need for exceptional standards related to the environment. Spoke to the landslide threat and the need for a comprehensive geology study. Need for more transparency with regard to the various studies. Remaining concerns include dogs, short term rentals, traffic studies and the Vail Pass closure, code enforcement, bus service, wildlife preservation, building massing, berm design. Barbara Keller- Housing Criteria A. Neighborhood compatibility concerns. Architecture and massing should be compatible with the site and adjacent properties. Does not feel the slides shown for compatibility are comparable, not congruent with single family and duplex homes in Booth Creek neighborhood. Significant part of the parking is visible. Architectural design is not compatible with the area. Architecture is substandard. Need enforcement measures. The PEC needs to preserve the sheep. Blondie Vucich-The recommendation of Rick Thompson was to have no dogs. Plan does not do this. Triumph has ignored the recommendation due to the finances. She read from the developer's plans regarding dogs. This project is unacceptable. Tony Ryerson- The town has come along way in regard to environmental measures but is missing the priority of the animals and their importance to the community. Hope that this gets turned down. Jonathan Staufer-Presented a petition with 1,000 signatures for the Town to permanently protect this area. Discussed his concern with the project having no reference to the past. Others have stated that the existing problems with sheep and wildlife relates to existing homes. We need housing, and can help by getting rid of short term rentals, and building housing on land with less environmental impact. If we ruin Vail we will solve the housing problem since no one will want to come here. Ellen Colrick- Older complexes in town are rented or owned by employees. Vail has owned this parcel since the 1961, yet has not paid taxes for 50 years. They only paid taxes starting in 2017. Vail Resorts should not get a variance for this many housing units. Peter Casabonne -Concern with the bighorn sheep. Saw a ewe and Iamb there this morning. None of the experts will say that the plan will save the sheep. What are the odds of the sheep's survival? The threat to the sheep cannot be mitigated. Is the PEC willing to take the risk? This is the last stand for the sheep. Housing is important, but not here. Alternative sites do exist. The Town should negotiate to purchase and preserve the site. Kristy Hintz - Spoke to the enormity of this decision. PEC does not have the collective knowledge to make this decision. PEC is not listening to the experts concerning the wildlife. Mentioned the importance of the sheep. Throwing environmental concerns out the window. The traffic report was done at the wrong time, on a Saturday when VMS was closed. The plan does not even mention Vail Mountain School, or a pedestrian death at this intersection. Concern with parking, pedestrian safety, environmental impacts. Need new parking study. The risks to the environment are just too great. Lu Maslak- The Town has always needed more parking and housing. Don't need housing here due to the risks to sheep. Recognizes the difficulty of the decision. Remember Vail's environmental stewardship Joe Staufer-Spoke to his letter in the newspaper regarding upzoning. The project is totally unsuitable for the location. Spoke to housing challenges. The Town of Vail allowing home rentals results in the loss of employee housing. Need for a study that shows how impactful this has been. This is the wrong project. Gateway impacts will devalue Vail as desirable. Have the courage to say no to this project. Ann Esson - Member of two HOA's, and discussed difficulty enforcing HOA rules. Spoke to the environmental impact report requirement of the code. Spoke to the studies provided. Spoke to the listing of Gore Creek. Easier to protect than to try to fix. Referenced the staff report and the conflicting goals. Cannot mitigate your way out of this. Other locations exist for housing. Kudos to environmental department for bringing in wildlife experts. Charlyn Canada- Spoke to the importance of the sheep and the importance of speaking up for them. We have enjoyed seeing the sheep here for the past 40 years. Liz Schramm - Spoke to the noise pollution resulting from construction. Need to fence the entire project. Elaine Kelton- Spoke to history of Vail and the magic of Vail. Need to preserve and protect because it is what makes Vail special. Gateway concerns for those visiting Vail. Spoke to the importance of writing and speaking about concerns. Pam Stenmark-Referenced her letter submitted. Concerned that some members of the PEC have already made their mind up. Staff needs to thoroughly review all applications and provide expertise. Expressed concerns with the geological issues, including geologic activity to west of Booth Creek neighborhood as recent as 1984. Provided photographs of the existing rock -fall berm, a major scar. Where are the Town Council members on this? Why are they not here today? They need to be here to understand the passion. Don't approve this project. Betsy Kiehl- Spoke to dog issues, and inability to enforce any rules on dogs. Spoke to the VRBO issues taking away employee housing. Not against housing, just housing here. Follow the mission statement. Preserve the sheep. Not the place to develop. Jeff Kissane- Very difficult decision for the PEC. Competing interests with housing and environment. Boils down to the sheep. Taking away their only environment in Vail. Need to find different sites for housing. The sheep will go away. Tom Vucich- Discussed letter that did not make it into packet. Spoke to the dog issues. Spoke to working for Vail Resorts 20 years ago and the Bachelor Gulch neighborhood that prohibits dogs and how it did not impact the finances. Need for a maintenance plan for the berm. Concern with proposed construction dates. Does not match biologists recommendation. Spoke to geological issues. Spoke to the need for details at the next meeting concerning the wildlife plan. Bill Andree- Looks forward to wildlife review report. Spoke to HOAs and covenants and the challenge of enforcement. The Town of Vail needs to be the enforcement, not neighbor vs. neighbor. Spoke to the failure rate of mitigation plans. Plans need to be flexible and have enforcement. The Division of Wildlife is not an enforcement agency. Closures just don't work. Its human nature to recreate out your back door. Mitigation plan is lacking. Concern with cumulative impacts of development. Concern with Public Works housing proposals. Housing has twice the magnitude of impact of anything else, including oil and gas. Mitigation has never been 100% when it comes to wildlife. Gillette asked Andree about the finances of mitigation Andree responded that is costs about $120 per acre to fertilize. Any fertilizing should be as spread out as possible. Burning is much cheaper, but fertilizing and burns can lead to weeds. Gillette commented about mitigation measures. Andree spoke about the role of nitrogen and wildfire burns. Way into 6 figures for a proper mitigation plan. Total cost could be more than $100,000. Spoke to closures of trails near the area and bighorn sheep hunting. Hunting and the proposed closures are not at the same time. Grace Poganski-Spoke to rock -fall and how the berm will only reduce the threat, not eliminate it. Spoke to the geological report. Spoke to the difference between what could be vs. what will be. The loss of the sheep will be a tragedy. Cindy Ryerson- The location for this development is not good. Expressed concerns with rock -fall. Feels that the decision has already been made. Spoke to the importance of the sheep. Peter Feistmann- Spoke to the importance of employees living in Vail. Supports employee housing. Would the Town have rezoned this if it had been zoned Open Space as the community thought? Spoke to the mission statement. Spoke to the effect of approving this project on the environmental ethos of Vail. Spoke to inadequacy of the berm and the risks associated. Kate Cocchiarella- Invested in the community. It's a wicked problem. Lose/lose situation. Need to slow down the review. Study should be spread out over 1 to 2 years. We thought this property was open space for the past 20 years. There are other solutions to housing problems. Public Comment was closed Commissioner comments Gillette -Thought we would be getting more information from the developer today. Looking forward to seeing the changes to the proposal. Would like a member of the US Forest Service at the next meeting to answer questions. Still concerned with the bus stop location, bus stop should be on the east side. Should maybe fence the whole project, or wood fence to screen the project from the west. Questions the site layout. Underpass needs to be fixed for pedestrians. Parking is better but should meet the code. Should be no dogs. No winter construction on western part of the site November 15 to April 15. No blasting November 15 — July 15. Would like to see money better spent on improving sheep habitat. Habitat restoration should be done prior to start of construction. Asked O'Connor how much money proposed for mitigation? O'Connor- Rough estimates about $50,000 to $100,000. Gillette -The sheep need to be preserved through the habitat and mitigation measures. Need to look at the closures on open space and trails. Kurz -Agrees with Gillette but does not want people crossing the street for the bus. Parking is better but may need more. Biggest decision being made by the Town of Vail in a long time. Need to take time with the decision. Looking forward to seeing the results of the wildlife meeting. Perez- Would like to see the mitigation plan and the results of the wildlife biologists meeting. Need more traffic information. Spoke to the process with zoning coming first, then a development plan. This is the first of many difficult decisions. Need to talk about what's the developer's responsibility, and the Town's responsibilities, and the Forest Service's responsibilities. We need to know who has the power and responsibility to close trails and open space. Supports bus stop on the north side of frontage road. Hopkins -Agrees with taking time on this. Wildlife meeting was critical. Concerning with the effects of construction on the geological situation. Lockman- Appreciates the public comment and the many letters. Will take as long as necessary to review this proposal. Dogs do not fit on this site. Short term rentals do not fit. Bus stop needs to be on the north side. Buffering needed. Mitigation plan is needed with a clear outside review. The pedestrian safety is important. Support bus on the north side. Gillette — Concur with Lockman on short term rentals Stockmar- Been on the board for 3.5 years. PEC must act with community interests in mind. Ne)d meeting will be in three weeks. Concerned about the geologic issues. This is different than Chamonix Not sure how people can be kept out of sensitive areas. Traffic study is not remotely adequate. Parking is improved but still inadequate. Underpass is a deadly zone. Crosswalks with flashers are needed in East Vail. Speeds are problem in East Vail and need to be lowered. Tying parking needs at this site vs. core sites does not work. The underpass is dangerous. Need more parking. If we are wrong about the sheep mitigation it will be an a)dinction event. Gillette asked about the effectiveness of the trail closures. Staff will look into it. Karen Perez moved to continue to August 12, 2019. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it Other (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 2.3. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-6I- 120 min. 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker See notes and discussion for Item 2.3, PEC 19-0019; both projects were discussed at the same time. Ludwig Kurz moved to continue to August 12, 2019. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 8, 2019 PEC Results Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kjesbo 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN OF DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance TOWN OF DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Staff memo PEC19 0017 MAU)& Mauriello Letter 6-7.)d MOC Letter.gdf TOV code change 7.15.19.1)df 20190718 TOV CodeAmend Landscaging.gdf Description Stsff Memo Public Comment Letter Mauriello Public Comment Letter_OCONNOR Public Comment Letter—Eagle River Public Comment Letter ERWSD 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend definitions in Title 12 and Title 14 to remove redundant definitions and clarify the code. This ordinance also seeks to update the definition of landscaping to include permeable surfaces and relocate the 20% provision from Title 12 Definitions to Title 14 under landscaping regulations, as guided by the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, "Action Plan". DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for amendments to Sections 12-2-2, 14-2-1, and 14-10-8, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of redundant definitions and update of the definition for what qualifies as landscaping. The proposed changes to the landscaping regulations were developed in concert with the Environmental and Sustainability Department. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Community Development Department proposes the following language to be added to Title 12 and Title 14, respectively, bold is new and is removed - 12 -2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not otherwise defined herein shall be qiven their usual and customary meanings, unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. ADMINISTRATOR: The admipistrat&r director of the department of community development or their designee. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Any surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate rainfall; for example, sidewalks, rooftops, roads, and parking lots. LANDSCAPING: Natural or significant rock outcroppings, native vegetation, planted areas and plant materials, including trees, shrubs, lawns, flowerbeds and ground cover. Impervious surfaces are not counted as landscaped areas. shall be deemed , (29,04) of the PERVIOUS SURFACE: A pervious surface is a surface that allows the infiltration of water into the underlying soil. Pervious surfaces include grass, mulched groundcover, planted areas, permeable paving as well as porches and decks erected on pier foundations that maintain the covered lot surface's water permeability. Underground parking rooftops may be able to meet the standard for a pervious surface. Pervious surfaces do not include any structure or building, any porch or deck that limits the covered lot surface from absorbing water, or any outdoor stairs, on -grade surface sports court, swimming pool, artificial turf, sidewalk or patio constructed of concrete, asphalt, brick, compacted gravel or other material that impedes the infiltration of water directly into the subsurface of the lot. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • • The bedy respeRsible Town of Vail Page 2 The board established by title 3, chapter 2 of this code. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- An Advisory Master Plan for the development of the Town of Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendium of numerous planning documents that are updated, amended and adopted as needed by Vail Town Council. An up-to-date list of adopted plans shall be kept by the Community Development Department and made publically available. ■... email NRA� 11 ON _1111 W-1 M,0-9 WN tole .4 WIL 14 - Chapter 2 DEFINITIONS 14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS: IRWIN Town of Vai I Pagi 1 ► ■ 1 1 1 . r Town of Vail Page 4 Town of Vail Page 5 14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS: A. General: All retaining walls are reviewed by the design review board or the administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to -assess development of a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of 30 percent) and meets the standards prescribed in 14-10-3. Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right of way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the design review board. 14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: L. Pervious core development such as walks, decks, patios, terraces, underground parking structures and like features not occupying more than twenty percent (20%) of the landscaped area may be utilized to meet the landscape requirement. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their review. The Design Review Board (DRB) has no formal review over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Town of Vail Page 6 Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a mannerthat vull conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the follovung more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. Town of Vail Page 7 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect WIdlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by the Vail Town Council March 15, 2016 (in part): EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLAN GOALS AND FORMAT The Gore Creek Action Plan (Plan) provides a framework for Town of Vail initiated actions designed to address current water quality impairments and aquatic health issues affecting Gore Creek and its tributaries. Because these impairments are not attributed to a single pollutant through extensive research by many entities, Plan actions target the three known causes of degradation, including.- - ncluding: • Pollutants from land use activities, commonly referred to as urban runoff, which many times has direct drainage pathviays to Gore Creek or its tributaries • Drainage from impervious surfaces, which multiplies the effects of land use practices, especially in areas where there is little opportunity for infiltration and treatment of accumulated surface pollutants RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Nonpoint source pollution in diverse locations across the vlatershed drives water quality impairments observed in Gore Creek. Unlike a single point source of pollution, individual contributions from residential, commercial orpublic properties (including transportation routes) are probably not significant enough to singlehandedly cause the observed degradation in aquatic health. However, the collective impact of pollution from these 1 Pollutants from Land Use Activities The WQIP indicates that a variety of common land use activities contribute to pollutant loading on Gore Creek. These include: soil disturbance on construction sites, application Town of Vail Page 8 of herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers on residential properties or public spaces,- application paces,application of deicing products to roadviays, deposition of fine metal dust and accumulated hydrocarbons by vehicles on roadviays and parking lots, and use of detergents and solvents for cleaning Wndows and other commercial and residential surfaces (1). Application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to near -stream locations, overhanging vegetation, and landscaped surfaces that quickly drain to stormwater systems contribute varying loads of toxins to the stream ecosystem (25). In particular, many plant and insect pest management chemicals exhibithigh toxicity to fish and aquatic insects (32). Chemical treatments applied to near -stream vegetation may quickly move to the stream during snomelt and precipitation events and eventually find their way into aquatic food webs. Other pollutants like motor oil, cleaning solvents, etc. deposited onto impervious surfaces like roads can also be carried into Gore Creek and its tributaries where they may negatively affect aquatic habitat and water conditions important for healthy macroinvertebrate communities 2 Drainage from Impervious Surfaces The effects of land use practices are multiplied by the amount of impervious surface coverage in the viatershed, and the location of particular activities relative to Gore Creek or connected stormwater infrastructure. Increases in the amount of hardened, impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, parking lots, and pedestrian walkways are one of the most visible impacts of urbanization. Pollutant deposition on these surfaces results from vehicle traffic, airborne deposition, building maintenance, road maintenance, and many of the other activities described above. Due to low surface roughness characteristics and a lack of infiltration, snow melt and intense precipitation events intercepted by impervious surfaces rapidly mobilize accumulated pollutants, moving them toviards Gore Creek and its tributaries. Transport of the generated runoff to rivers and streams occurs via the town's stormvLeter drainage infrastructure or as sheet flow across the land surface. Both pathviays are capable of delivering water loaded Wth excessive sediment, nutrients, hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, detergents, bacteria pathogens, and complex organics like pesticides and herbicides directly to receiving vlaters (3). REGULA TORY CONSEQUENCES OF WA TER QUA LITY DEGRA DA TION Regulatory action by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) in 2012 resulted in the listing of Gore Creek on the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. This listing resulted from application of the WQCC's Aquatic Life Use Attainment Methodology (Policy Statement 10-1) to macroinvertebrate sample data collected at numerous locations along Gore Creek through the Town of Vail. WQCC guidelines describe specific protocols for analyzing and assessing benthic macroinvertebrate data using a Multi -Metric Index (MMI). Between 2009 and the 303(d) listing of Gore Creek in 2012, data collection Town of Vail Page 9 activities yielded twelve failing MMI scores between East Vail and the Eagle River. These results provided WQCC Wth ample evidence of significant water quality impairments on the creek. During the 2012 Section 303(d) listing process, WQCC assigned a "provisional" status to the aquatic life impairments on Gore Creek, indicating that the exact cause of the impairmentwas unknown. CDPHE subsequently initiated a 10-yearprocess to identify and resolve the observed degradation of aquatic life health conditions. Specific pollutant(s) of concern identified through this investigative process vull eventually be targeted by the State of Colorado as the primary source(s) of water quality degradation and subsequently become subject to more stringent controls and permit limitations via implementation of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulatory mechanism (26). If specific pollutant(s) of concern are not identified, no TMDL vull be implemented but Gore Creek W11 remain on the 303(d) list indefinitely or until water quality conditions improve. 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 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Opportunity exists for the Town and other local partners to act on the findings of the WQIP before CDPHE and WQCC conclude their investigative process and, potentially, implement TMDL on Gore Creek. Additionally, waiting for the results of the WQCC effort W11 allow existing causes of impairment to continue unabated and may complicate the task of eventually resolving them. Local action to address water quality impairments has the potential to impro ve conditions, protect existing water uses, and maintain a higher degree of local control in water resource management decision- making processes. This opportunity provides the primary motivation for development of the GAP. A. MAINTAIN SITE HYDROLOGY Increased impervious area associated Wth most urban development can dramatically alter the timing and magnitude of runoff from development sites during precipitation events and snomelt runoff. Effective site planning can help infiltrate runoff and filter pollutants while significantly reducing the size of controls required for retaining runoff and sediment on a development site. Existing Town regulations provide guidance for assessing and designing sites to minimize impacts of impervious surfaces and building footprints. Further clarification of existing regulations wall reduce water quality risks associated Wth post -development runoff by promoting site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate or detain runoff. E. REDUCE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND IMPLEMENT RUNOFF CONTROLS Impervious areas convey significant amounts of runoff, carrying pollutants quickly across Town of Vail Page 10 the land surface or through storm viater conveyance systems to Gore Creek and its tributaries. Pollutant loading from impervious surfaces can be effectively reduced through disruption of the pathviays that link these areas to waterbodies. Routing of urban runoff into bioretention structures, over lawns or through other vegetated areas greatly increases infiltration and opportunities for uptake and transformation of pollutants. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques intend to mimic the natural pre -development drainage patterns and include curbless roads, networks of grassy swa/es to convey runoff, and bioretention areas (Wth drop inlet structures where necessary to convey concentrated floor during larger storm or runoff events) (12). Pervious or porous pavements promote infiltration while providing a hardened surface for pedestrians or vehicles. Use of LID techniques produces discernible improvements to the quantity and quality of urban runoff generated from a property. Current Town regulations require parking areas to be paved. Design standards require runoff generated from impervious surfaces to be directed to natural or improved drainage channels or dispersed to shallow sloping vegetated areas. However, hardscape areas are not well defined as impervious by Town's development standards. Hardscape areas may be included in satisfying the required landscaping standards of any zone district, provided they do not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total landscape area. For many properties - particularly those adjacent to Gore Creek - the existing standard should be reconsidered with an emphasis on the use of LID's to minimize the use of impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed regulation amendment does not have any immediately identifiable environmental impacts. The expectation over time however, is that redevelopment will use more permeable surfaces in place of impervious surfaces which will have a positive impact on Gore Creek by filtering pollutants out before the water enters the creek. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality" This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code by removing repeated definitions and provided one clear Town of Vail Page 11 definition for words used in the code. This added clarity will help to improve customer service as residents will be able to more easily navigate through the code and staff will be more effective in finding relevant sections applying them and answering questions about them. In addition, the text amendment seeks to implement a recommendation from the Action Plan adopted by Vail Town Council in 2016 to reduce impervious surfaces. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will provide the community, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. The Action Plan identified several areas in which the zoning and development code could be amended to better promote Vail's sustainability and environmental goals, especially as they pertain to protecting the health of the creek. The proposed text amendment seeks to achieve this by amending the provision for landscaping to encourage more permeable surface to better filter water and mitigate runoff to keep pollutants from entering the creek. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The landscaping regulations were originally adopted in the late 1980s and have not changed substantively since. As the code is currently written, up to 20% of the required landscaping can be impervious surfaces such asphalt or impervious concrete materials. The existing 20% regulation is no longer appropriate. As evidenced by the listing of Gore Creek on the State's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, the existing zoning and development codes have not sufficiently encouraged development in a manner that is consistent with town goals. While the degradation of the water quality in the creek is not attributed to a single pollutant, pollutants from land use activities and drainage from impervious surfaces have been identified as two main contributors. Town Council's mission is to "Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural environment." The town is committed to taking measures to ensure that Gore Creek is never placed on the 303(d) list again and have outlined a number of strategic actions to restore the water quality in the creek. Removing as much impervious surface as possible was identified as a goal in the council -adopted Action Plan. For these reasons, changing the landscaping requirement is appropriate to better align with stated town goals. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, Town of Vail Page 12 workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing consistency and removing redundancy in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. While there is a concern regarding the creation of nonconforming properties as a result of the landscaping change, the code contemplates these circumstances and allows for legal nonconformities to be repaired and maintained. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed Town of Vail Page 13 regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the July 22, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendmentis consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendmentpromotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Town of Vail Page 14 Ashley Clark From: Dominic Mauriello <dominic@mpgvail.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 5:18 PM To: Ashley Clark; Jonathan Spence; Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett Cc: Matt Mire Subject: Proposed Amendment to Definition of Landscape Area Attachments: Additional_Sheet.pdf, ATT00001.htm Dear staff, PEC, and Town Council We have reviewed the proposed changes to the definitions be proposed by staff. By and large, these look like appropriate changes. I believe much of the confusion in definitions was generated when the Town adopted the Development Standards Handbook, which was intended as more of an assemblage of requirements handed to architects and builders, into the Town Code as Title 14 without removing or cleaning up the text to make it suitable for codification. We believe there is a significant problem with the proposed amendment that changes the definition or requirement for Landscaping. The current definition of Landscaping has been in the Town Code in its current form for at least 25 years and probably longer. The current definition allows that 20% of what is considered landscaping or landscape area be in the form of sidewalks, fountains, retaining walls and other impervious surfaces. Many properties have been developed throughout the Town that comply with this current definition. The proposed definition eliminates the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as these hardscape and impermeable improvements by requiring them to be "pervious surfaces." While in the abstract this seems like a great idea, what this change will do is make many properties in Vail "nonconforming" and restrict an owners ability to make improvements to their property. The provision reduces what is considered landscaping today on every property in the Town. Whether a single-famly lot or a large commercial property in the core, each will automatically be reduced in landscape area. That would severely restrict one's ability to make landscape changes in the future and could have substantial financial implications for relatively minor projects. Based on the trend of the PEC today, I believe it would be nearly impossible to justify a variance to this standard based on the variance criteria so the idea that there is some relief available isn't true in practice. As one example, this change would cause the Vail Marriott Resort property to be nonconforming. The Marriott obtained approval last year to make significant improvements to the landscape and pool deck to enhance this property. The calculation of landscape area on this project was critical and without the ability to count 20% of the landscape requirement as hardscape, the project could not occur. Another issue that this proposed definition does not address is landscaping and hardscape that exists on top of a parking structure or building that is below grade. Many projects in Vail have landscape areas on the surface that are underlain with below grade parking. These areas have always been allowed to be counted toward the landscape requirement, yet the parking structure below is certainly impermeable. Examples include: Arrabelle, Solaris, Sonnenalp, Vail Health, and Vail Marriott. While I understand the goal of reducing the impact of paved surfaces on the environment and specifically on the issue of groundwater recharge, I believe there could be better ways to achieve this goal without rendering a significant number of properties in the Town nonconforming. Maybe there is a carrot method that could be used rather than the stick method like encouraging the use of pervious surfaces by giving a bonus of 5% to the percentage of landscape area that can be pervious surface IF one uses 100% pervious surface materials, or something like that. Our recommendation is to not change the definitions related to Landscaping. Thank you for taking the time to consider our input. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com From: Michael0"Connor To: Ashley Clark Cc: Matt Gennett Subject: Change in definition of Landscaping Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 7:03:48 PM Hi Ashley. I wanted to weigh in on the proposed change to the Landscaping definition as it relates to impervious space. The cost -benefit of this change does not add up to me. I'm afraid we are going to make the approved site plan of so many previously approved projects non -conforming and handcuff them from changes to landscaping, etc. in the future. I believe the Town's landscaping guidelines are first and foremost in place to encourage quality landscaping that is attractive outdoor space. Hardscapes are a very important part of those plans for heavily used areas. The Village Core areas are perfect examples of this. Attractive landscaped areas with very little pervious space. Water quality was a distant second in importance when those guidelines were drawn up - and those guidelines still did a good job of this by committing 80% of landscaped areas to impervious areas. I'm not sure what is driving this change, but the negatives are big - many potential nonconforming uses, discouraging outdoor public gathering spaces and amenities like pools and water features and landscaped areas on top of parking garage, etc. And the positive impact of swapping what amounts to a small amount of hardscape in each project is not going to move the needle from a water quality standpoint if that is the main driver. Let's stick with the current code language which serves us well today. IM61y Michael O'Connor Triumph Development w: 970.688.5057 m: 240.793.6405 12 Vail Road - Suite 700 - Vail, CO - 81657 michael cnr triumphdev.com www.tfiumphdev.com EagleRiver (ij Watershed Council In9 July 15, 2019 Dear Vail Town Council, 330 Broadway, Unit D PO Box 5740 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Advocates for our rivers 970-827-5406 info@erwc.org www.erwc.org Tax ID#:20-4448864 Eagle River Watershed Council is encouraged to see that the Town of Vail is considering revisions to the town code that will further support the efforts you have undertaken with the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan and the Restore the Gore campaign. These efforts are already seeing improvements in bug scores, and will ultimately help to restore water quality, however reducing impervious surfaces is critical and still must be addressed. The Town of Vail has committed $8.5 million dollars to the Restore the Gore initiative over 5 years. The Watershed Council has supported these efforts by selecting projects listed in the Strategic Action Plan for implementation. We have secured additional grant funds, and coordinated project partnerships, design, planning and oversite for several of these Gore Creek restoration projects over the last few years, including Cedar Point, Sundial, and west of the Lionshead Gondola. We plan to continue working with the Town of Vail in this way for years to come. However, these projects are restoring areas that are already impacted. The next step is to reduce the number of areas needing to be restored to begin with- this will require regulatory changes. "Increased impervious surfaces" is cited in the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, adopted by Town Council in 2016, as one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. The Strategic Action Plan specifically calls on town staff to propose changes to code that align your regulations with the goal of improved water quality and overall creek health. The proposed changes to code will support this effort and are the next step in seeing real and long-lasting change. Eagle River Watershed Council supports the code changes proposed by Vail staff, which will remove impervious surfaces from the definition of landscaping. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me directly at loff&erwc.org or 970-827-5406. Sincerely, Holly Loff Executive Director Eagle River Watershed Council is a nonprofit 507(c)3 organization that advocates For the health and conservation of the Upper Colorado and Eagle River basins through education, research, and projects. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION D I S T R I C T July 18, 2019 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Transmitted via email Re: Vail Town Code Update Landscaping Definition Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (District) supports the town of Vail (TOV) staffs recommended amendment to the Vail Town Code regarding the definition of landscaping; specifically, the amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space. The District and TOV staff have worked together closely to improve the water quality of Gore Creek since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado's 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. At the time, seven local entities collaborated to fund the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan. The plan identified, stormwater runoff as a main stressor to Gore Creek. TOV staff subsequently completed the Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, which concluded that "increased impervious surfaces" were one of the three main causes of Gore Creek's impairment. TOV staff has changed the culture within the town through the Restore the Gore campaign. They have done an amazing job with education and outreach, updating best management practices, restoring riparian areas, updating stormwater infrastructure and completing site-specific construction projects to improve drainage and stormwater impacts. One of the last and most challenging efforts will be updating the Vail Town Code to align with the Restore the Gore principles. The Strategic Action Plan outlines numerous high-priority actions, and the second on the list is updating the water quality objective definitions. This recommended amendment is a step in the right direction to improve water quality; however, additional code amendments are needed to meet the TOV's goal to remove Gore Creek from Colorado's list of impaired streams and ensure it is never listed again. The District's Water Efficiency Plan goals may provide a platform for future collaboration between the District and TOV when the town undertakes a more comprehensive land use code update. Besides being the primary source of domestic water supply for the Town of Vail, Gore Creek is the literal and figurative center of the Vail community. As the town's water and wastewater provider, the District fully supports the town's efforts to protect Gore Creek and its tributaries. I erely,o�Brook eral Manager Clean Water. Quality Life,' TOWN OF DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the reviewofa Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0019 Booth Heights CUP Staff Memo 072219.odf PEC19-0019 Booth Heights - Conditional Use Permit - Staff Memo TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) Applicant: Triumph Development Property Owner: Vail Corporation Planner: Chris Neubecker I. SUMMARY Triumph Development has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"). The Conditional Use Permit is required by the Vail Town Code, which allows up to 30% of the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of the proposed development to be constructed as dwelling units (not Employee Housing Units) in the Housing (H) zone district. The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 42 units of rental deed - restricted employee housing (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12 unrestricted townhomes. The 12 unrestricted townhomes require a Conditional Use Permit. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of 12 unrestricted townhomes as dwelling units, within the proposed Booth Heights Neighborhood, which is currently under review by the PEC. The Development Plan for the Booth Heights Neighborhood includes a combination of 42 units of deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12 unrestricted townhomes. The Housing (H) zone districts allows up to 30% of the GRFA of the development to be constructed as dwelling units (not employee housing units) to help finance the development of employee housing on the property. III. BACKGROUND Please see the staff memo for the Booth Heights Development Plan, PEC19-0018, for details on the proposed development plan, background/history and relevant comprehensive plan documents. . IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE I — Housing District 12-61-1: PURPOSE: The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) 12-61-2: PERMITTED USES: (in part) The following uses shall be permitted in the H district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. 12-6/-3: CONDITIONAL USES: (in part) The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and 2 C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. CHAPTER 16 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.100) 12-16-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public hearing on a conditional use permit, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules. B. Variances: A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a variance may be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in chapter 17 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500) 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. 3 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600) 12-16-8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT. Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. (Ord. 12(2008) § 26) 12-16-9: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter, a conditional use shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and requirements of this chapter and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the town. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of a conditional use permit and any other permit or requirement, the more restrictive provision shall prevail. (Ord. 10(l 998) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.900) V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 3700 N. Frontage Road E. Legal Description: Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Lot Area: 5.397 acres / (235,093 sq. ft.) Zoning: Housing (H) District Land Use Designation: Open Space 0 Development Standard Required Proposed Total GRFA Prescribed by PEC Up to 79,000 sq. ft. GRFA— Dwelling Units 23,198 sq. ft. or 30% of 23,310 sq. ft. Total GRFA Please see the staff memo for PEC19-0018 for full details on setbacks, height, site coverage, landscaping and parking. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district: 12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and The proposed dwelling units are created solely to subsidize the creation of employee housing units on the property. The applicant previously discussed with the Vail Town Council the creation of 100% employee housing units on the property through a subsidy from the Vail InDeed program. At the time, the Town Council was not willing to provide a public subsidy to the project. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation of the employee housing units on the property. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire development includes 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of the entire development plan is 77,327 square feet, and the proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 23,310 square feet, equal to 30.1 %, which does not comply with this requirement. The floor plans will need to be adjusted so that 5 Land Use Zoning North: USFS None South: 1-70 None East: Open Space Natural Area Preservation West: Open Space Natural Area Preservation VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district: 12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the planning and environmental commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and The proposed dwelling units are created solely to subsidize the creation of employee housing units on the property. The applicant previously discussed with the Vail Town Council the creation of 100% employee housing units on the property through a subsidy from the Vail InDeed program. At the time, the Town Council was not willing to provide a public subsidy to the project. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation of the employee housing units on the property. The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire development includes 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of the entire development plan is 77,327 square feet, and the proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 23,310 square feet, equal to 30.1 %, which does not comply with this requirement. The floor plans will need to be adjusted so that 5 the GRFA for dwelling units does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property. C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and The dwelling units are proposed to be created in conjunction with employee housing units. In addition to the dwelling units, there are 61 employee housing units (EHUs) proposed, including 42 two-bedroom apartments (for rent) and 19 townhomes. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. The design of the dwelling units is compatible with the deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), with similar massing, similar materials and colors. The buildings are not identical, but use a similar palette of materials and colors. The use as residential dwelling units is compatible with the use of the remainder of the site, which are residential. 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Specifically, the proposed dwelling units will support the development of employee housing units (EHUs), which have been identified as a critical issue in the community. During the development of the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan, participants placed workforce housing as a top priority for the community and government leaders to address. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed conditional use will have minimal effects on light and air, distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There will likely be some minor impacts from the proposed development on transportation facilities, including impacts on local roads, the demand for parking, and transit. The additional residential development will create some impacts on local recreational facilities and trails. These impacts are similar to those that would be expected if the proposed dwelling units were constructed as deed restricted employee housing units. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. A There will be some minor impacts from the proposed dwelling units on traffic facilities, congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These impacts are similar to impacts expected if the proposed dwelling units were constructed as deed restricted employee housing units. Staff finds the proposed dwelling units to have little impact on transportation at the property, and the use itself is minor relative to the proposed EHUs on site. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The dwelling units will blend in with the proposed character of the rest of the neighborhood, including the adjacent employee housing units. The proposed buildings use a similar scale and bulk as surrounding and proposed uses, and similar architecture to the townhomes of the employee housing units within the Booth Heights Neighborhood. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title. The proposed development itself will have impacts on Bighorn Sheep Winter Range, as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. These impacts are similar to the impacts that would be expected if the townhomes were deed restricted as employee housing units. The applicant has proposed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, which includes the improvement of wildlife habitat on their adjacent 17.9 acre parcel, and other best management practices to limit the impacts of the proposed development. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission table this application to the meeting of August 12, 2019, so that the applicant may make revisions to the plan to comply with the GRFA requirements of Section 12- 61-3, Conditional Uses. Motion: Development Plan (PEC19-0019) Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to table this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission tables the applicants' request for a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East1ot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood'), to the meeting of August 12. 2019. (PEC 19-0019). 7 IX. ATTACHMENTS Please see the attachments in the Development Plan for this site, PEC19-0018. TOWN OF DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review ofa Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, fora new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) ATTACHM ENTS: File Name PEC19- 0018 Booth Heights Development Plan Staff Memo 072219.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map - Booth Heights Neighborhood.pdf Attachment B Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment C Arch itectural-compressed.pdf Attachment D Landscaping Plan s-compressed.pdf Attachment E1 - Civil N of 2).pdf Attachment E2 - Civil (2 of 2).pdf Attachment F - Elevations.pdf Attachment G - Survey.pdf Attachment H Ext Parking Analysis.pdf Attachment I Ext Environmental Impact Report.pdf Attachment J Ex3 Wildlife Mitigation Plan.pdf Attachment K Ex4 Wetland Delineation Report.pdf Attachment L Ex5a Geologic Hazards Analysis.pdf Attachment M Ex5b Geologic Hazards Memo.pdf Attachment N Ex5c Rockfall Hazard Stu dy-compressed.pdf Attachment O Ex6 Traffic Impact Study.pdf Photos Combined.pdf Public Comment combined Recd thru 5PM 7-18-19.pdf Attachment R - CGS Letter East Vail Housing Rockfall.pdf Attachment S - CPW Comment Letter.pdf Attachment T - Rick Kahn Wildlife Biologist Reviewpdf Attachment U - EVWHS Gene Byrne Wildlife Review Final.pdf Attachment V - Melanie Woolever Biologist Reviewpdf Description PEC19-0018 - Booth Heights Development Plan - Staff Memo Attachment A- Vicinity Map Attachment B - Applicant Narrative Attachment C -Architectural Plans Attachment D - Landscaping Plans Attachment E - Civil Plans (1 of 2) Attachment E - Civil Plans (2 of 2) Attachment F - Elevations Attachment G - Survey Attachment H- Parking Analysis Attachment I- Environmental Impact Report Attachment J - Wildlife Mitigation Plan Attachment K- Wetland Delineation Report Attachment L - Geologic Hazards Analysis Attachment M- Geologic Hazards Memo Attachment N- Rockfall Hazard Study Attachment O - Traffic Impact Study Attachment P - Site Photos Attachment Q - Public Comment Attachment R- Colorado Geological Survey Letter Attachment S - Colorado Parks and Wildlife Letter Attachment T- Rick Kahn Wildlife Biologist, Independent Review Letter Attachment U- Gene Byrne Wildlife Biologist, Independent Review Letter Attachment V - Melanie Woolever Wildlife Biologist, Independent Review Letter Ifflri 1Alil Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Property Owner Planner: SUMMARY Triumph Development Vail Corporation Chris Neubecker Triumph Development has submitted an application for the development of the East Vail "Booth Heights Neighborhood", located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, near the East Vail 1-70 Interchange (Exit 180). The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 61 units of deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs), (42 EHUs in 3 multi -family apartment buildings, and 19 EHUs in townhomes), plus 12 unrestricted townhomes. A separate application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for 30% of the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) on this site to be constructed as Dwelling Units (not employee housing units) has also been submitted. (Please see the staff memo on PEC 19-0019 for more information.) This 5.4 acre parcel of land is located within the Housing (H) zone district. Within the Housing (H) zone district, development standards including Lot Area and Site Dimensions, Building Height, and Density Control (including Gross Residential Floor Area) are determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of their review of the Development Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Triumph Development, proposes to develop the Booth Heights Neighborhood, located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, near the East Vail 1-70 Interchange (Exit 180). The Development Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units (EHUs): 42 multi -family deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs) 19 deed -restricted employee housing unit townhomes (EHUs) 12 unrestricted townhomes Wildlife Mitigation Plan Along with the proposed development, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (see Attachment 1) that identifies the effects of the project on the natural environment, and is proposing a Wildlife Mitigation Plan (see Attachment J) in an effort to offset these impacts. Key elements of the proposed Wildlife Mitigation Plan, as recommended by the applicant's wildlife biologist, include: • Project timing to avoid the most disruptive construction outdoors during winter range period (November 15 —April 15) • Clustering development to reduce the footprint of the buildings and parking • No sizeable internal parks to minimize development footprint • Wildlife habitat enhancement on the adjacent 17.9 acre Tract A, Natural Area Preservation parcel • Construction of a wildlife fence north of the proposed rockfall berm to prevent wildlife entering the site, but also providing wildlife escape ramps. The fence will also act as a barrier to discourage humans from accessing the wildlife habitat. • Prohibition on construction of trails • Prohibition on dogs in the multi -family building, and requiring small enclosed fenced areas for townhome owners with dogs • Prohibition on operation of drones • Resident education on wildlife issues, and best management practices to reduce impacts to wildlife • Penalties for non-compliance with neighborhood covenant restrictions In order to ensure a thorough review of the proposed Development Plan and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, the Town of Vail has consulted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). The Town of Vail also referred the Environmental Impact Report and Wildlife Mitigation Plan to two independent consultants, Rick Kahn (Attachment T) and Gene Byrne (Attachment U) for review. The geological hazards reports submitted by the applicant have been referred to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) for review, which is also attached (Attachment R). Changes Since Meeting of July 8, 2019 The Town of Vail is helping to coordinate a meeting between the applicant's wildlife biologist and the Town of Vail's consulting wildlife biologists to review the proposed development and wildlife mitigation plans. As of the writing of this memo, these biologists had not yet met to discuss these issues but we expect that they will meet prior to the July 22 meeting. Staff will provide an update on the wildlife experts gathering at the meeting of July 22, 2019. The applicant is preparing renderings of the proposed development to show the massing of the buildings, and will be presenting additional drawings and images of the proposed architecture at the meeting of July 22, 2019. III. REVIEW SCHEDULE The review of the Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan is anticipated to take several meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In anticipation of this thorough review, staff and the applicant have proposed the following review schedule with the PEC: Meeting #1 — June 24, 2019 • Site Visit • Timeline / Review Schedule • General Introduction and the Development Review Process • Site Plan and Architecture • Overview of Development Standards • Parking, Transportation and Circulation • Conditional Use Permit for Market Rate Units (For more information on these topics, please see the staff memo from the June 24, 2019 meeting) Meeting #2 — July 8, 2019 • Environmental Impact Report • Wildlife Mitigation • Rockfall Mitigation • Landscaping Meeting #3 — July 22, 2019 (a continuation of the issues discussed on July 8, 2019) • Environmental Impact Report • Wildlife Mitigation • Rockfall Mitigation • Landscaping • Building Massing & Renderings Meeting #4 — Date TDB (Tentatively scheduled for August 12, 2019) • Plan revisions since meeting #2 • Subdivision Plan • Phasing Plan • Implementation of Developer Commitments IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 12-6I-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the Applicant to demonstrate that the proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional Development Plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) CHAPTER 12 — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS 12-12-1: PURPOSE.- Submission URPOSE: Submission and review of an environmental impact report on any private development proposal or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the environment in the town or in surrounding areas is required to achieve the following objectives.- A. bjectives: A. Availability of Information: To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the town council, the planning and environmental commission, and the general public. B. Environmental Protection a Criterion: To ensure that long term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions. C. Review and Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. D. Avoid Geologic Hazard Areas: To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, floodplains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the planning and environmental commission and the town council. E. Protect Water Quality: To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the town will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 37(1980) § 10: Ord. 19(1976) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.100) 12-12-2: APPLICABILITY: An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the administrator for any project for which such a report is required by federal or state law, or for any project which the administrator determines may significantly change the environment, either during construction or on a continuing basis, in one or more of the following respects.- A. espects: A. Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural landform feature. B. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife habitat, feeding, or nesting ground. C. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover. D. Affects the appearance or character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features. E. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety. F. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter. G. Involves any process which results in odor that may be objectionable or damaging. H. Requires any waste treatment, cooling, or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site. 1. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes. J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or planned sewage disposal storm drainage, or other utility systems. K. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging. L. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant increase in population. M. Preempts a site with potential recreational or open space value. N. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs. O. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this section. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.200) 12-12-3: EXEMPT PROJECTS.- An ROJECTS: An environmental impact report shall not be required for the following projects.- A. rojects: A. Alteration, repair and maintenance of existing structures and site improvements. B. A phase of a project for which an environmental impact report previously was submitted and reviewed covering the entire project, provided that the project was approved and not subsequently altered. C. A project which, on the basis of a preliminary environmental assessment covering each of the factors prescribed in section 12-12-2 of this chapter is found to have an insignificant impact on the environment. The preliminary environmental assessment and the finding on environmental impact shall be made by the administrator. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.300) 12-12-4: STUDIES AND DATA REQUIRED: A. Range Of Studies: The environmental impact report shall be based on systematic studies conducted by the town staff or by professional consultants, as determined by the administrator. The environmental impact report on a public project may be prepared by the responsible public agency or by professional consultants it engages. The range of studies needed to develop the technical data for an environmental impact report includes the following natural systems and other studies: 1. Hydrologic conditions, such as surface drainage and watershed characteristics, ground water and soil permeability characteristics, natural water features and characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. 2. Atmospheric conditions, such as airshed characteristics, potential emissions, and any potential changes or impacts. 3. Geologic conditions, such as landforms, slope, soil characteristics, potential hazards, and any potential changes or impacts. 4. Biotic conditions, such as vegetative characteristics, wildlife habitats, and any potential changes or impacts. 5. Other environmental conditions, such as noise levels and odor characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. 6. Visual conditions, such as views and scenic values, and any potential changes, impacts, or marked contrasts. 7. Land use conditions, such as characteristics of uses, compatibility with officially approved land use and open space policies and objectives, and potential changes or impacts. 8. Circulation and transportation conditions, such as volumes and traffic flow patterns, transit service needs, alternative transit systems, and potential changes or impacts. 9. Population characteristics, such as residential densities, neighborhood patterns, potential displacement of residents or businesses, and potential changes or impacts. B. Summarization: The environmental impact report shall summarize the findings and recommendations of the technical and other supporting studies in terms that can be assessed and evaluated by town officials and the general public. Technical data shall be submitted as supporting documentation. Technical data prepared as a part of any other procedure or requirement of this chapter, or of any other ordinance or federal, state or town regulation, also may be used to support an environmental impact report. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.401) 12-12-5: REPORT CONTENTS.- A. ONTENTS: A. Information And Analysis: The environmental impact report shall contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail and adequately supported by technical studies, to enable the town council to judge the environmental impact of the project and to judge measures proposed to reduce or negate any harmful impacts. B. General Statement; Descriptive Materials: The environmental impact report shall include a general statement, describing the proposed project and its purpose, identifying the owner and/or sponsors, and, if a public project, identifying the funding source and time schedule. Descriptive materials, maps, and plans shall be submitted showing the following information: 1. Project boundaries and boundaries of the area within which environmental impact is likely to be significant. 2. Present and proposed uses of the site. 3. Present and proposed zoning of the site. 4. Quantitative information relative to the project, such as site area, numbers of residential units, proposed height and bulk of buildings, building floor area in square feet, and such other data as will contribute to a clear understanding of the scale of the project. 5. A list of regulatory or review agencies and the specific regulations to which the project will be subject. 6. Copies of subdivision maps, development plans, or other pertinent documents illustrating the proposed project. 7. Proximity to water bodies, the distance from the centerline of live creeks or streams to any proposed structural development within the project: 8. Soil types based upon the National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Service and interpretations of soil types, vegetation shall be described and three (3) masses shown. C. Environmental Inventory: The environmental impact report shall include an environmental inventory, providing complete information on the environmental setting existing prior to the proposed project and containing sufficient information to permit independent evaluation by reviewers of factors that could be affected by the proposed project. The environmental inventory shall include maps, photographs, or other appropriate illustrative material. D. Categorized By Impact Type: Areas categorized according to type of possible impact shall be identified. The environmental inventory shall describe both the physical and biological natural setting, and the manmade setting of the site and its surroundings. E. Analysis: The environmental impact report shall include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact that the proposed project will have on the environment. The analysis shall describe temporary effects that will prevail during construction, and long term effects that will prevail after completion. The analysis shall describe both beneficial effects and detrimental effects. The analysis shall consider primary effects and secondary effects which will result from the project. The analysis portion of the environmental impact report shall fully assess the following items.- 1. tems:1. Adverse effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented. 2. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, including water quality, erosion control and revegetation measures. 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action. 4. Relationships between short term and long term uses of the environment. 5. Irreversible environmental changes resulting from implementation of the proposal. 6. Growth inducing impacts of the project. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 37(1980) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.402) 12-12-6: REPORT; ADDITIONAL MATERIAL.- The ATERIAL: The administrator may further prescribe the form and content of an environmental impact report, setting forth in greater detail the factors to be considered and the manner in which the report shall be prepared, and may require submission of information in addition to that required by section 12-12-5 of this chapter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.403) 12-12-7: TIME SCHEDULE: The environmental impact report required under this chapter shall be prepared within thirty (30) days of the date that plans are submitted for design review as prescribed in sections 12-12-4 through 12-12-6 of this chapter, subject to extension of the time period to a maximum of ninety (90) days by the planning and environmental commission. The time period may be extended to a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) days if seasonal conditions prevent a comprehensive analysis. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.404) `INEW-IMyZIA In the event that the town engages professional consultants to prepare an environmental impact report, the cost shall be paid by the sponsor of the project. The sponsor may be required to deposit a fixed sum in advance to cover the cost of the report, with the unexpended balance returnable to the sponsor. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(19 73) § 16.405) 12-12-9: SUBMISSION OF REPORT TO OFFICIALS.- The FFICIALS: The environmental impact report shall be submitted to the administrator. The administrator shall prescribe the number of copies to be submitted. The administrator shall notify the town council, the planning and environmental commission, and the design review board of receipt of an environmental impact report, and shall transmit copies of the report upon request. Environmental impact reports shall be available for public review in the offices of the town. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 8(19 73) § 16.501) 12-12-10: TIME LIMIT; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Time Limit: The planning and environmental commission shall review the report within thirty (30) days of submission subject to an extension of the time period thirty (30) additional days in order to obtain additional information from the town staff, from the sponsor of the project, or the author of any portion of the report. B. Supplementary Data: The commission may receive additional statements or supporting materials from the sponsor of a project, from the town staff, from professional consultants, or from others. Such additional materials may be considered as supplementary or amendatory to the environmental impact report. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.502) 12-12-11: ACTION BY COMMISSION.- A. OMMISSION: A. Criteria For Decision: Following review of the environmental impact report, the planning and environmental commission shall approve, disapprove, or request changes in the project in writing. The planning and environmental commission shall approve the project unless it finds that either the project will have significant long term adverse effects on the environment with respect to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in section 12-12-4 of this chapter or the project will have short term adverse effects on the environment so detrimental that public health, safety or welfare considerations preclude approval of the project. In the case of either finding, if changes in the project are feasible which ameliorate or avoid the adverse effects on the environment sufficiently to permit approval of the project, the planning and environmental commission, in writing, shall describe those changes and request those changes be made. If the planning and environmental commission determines that the changes are not feasible, it shall disapprove the project in writing, describing the adverse effects on the environment, the significance of the effects either to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in section 12-12-4 of this chapter or to the public health, safety or welfare and the planning and environmental commission's reasons for concluding that no changes in the project are feasible to ameliorate or avoid those effects. B. Design Changes Require Resubmission To Design Review Board: If the planning and environmental commission requests any changes in the project which would alter the design of the project previously approved by the design review board, and the sponsor of the project makes those changes, the revised design shall be resubmitted to the design review board for its approval unless the planning and environmental commission waives this requirement. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.503) 12-12-12: PERMIT ISSUANCE.- A. SSUANCE: A. Conformance To Environmental Impact Report: Upon approval of the project, applicable permits may be issued and the project may proceed, subject to such additional requirements, permits, or authorizations as may be required by this title and by other applicable ordinances or regulations of the town. No permits shall be issued and no authorizations shall be granted which would allow a project to proceed in the event that the planning and environmental commission does not grant approval of the environmental impact report after review. No permits shall be issued and no authorizations shall be granted for any project which does not conform substantially to the description of the project contained in the environmental impact report. B. Exception: This section shall not apply to a project for which an environmental impact report is not required, as prescribed in section 12-12-3 of this chapter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 31: Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 16.504) V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Western Ecological Resources, Inc. The EIR includes an analysis of environmental aspects of the development site including: hydrology; atmospheric conditions; geology and hazards; soils; vegetation resources; wildlife resources; noise; odors; visual resources; land use; access and transportation; and population. The primary environmental impacts identified in the EIR for this site include: wildlife resources, wetlands, geology, and removal of vegetation. The report indicates that site contains no federally listed species that are threatened, endangered or proposed for listing. The EIR also indicates that habitat that could be impacted by the proposed development include those of the bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer and black bear. Wildlife Resources Bighorn Sheep The primary wildlife species of concern identified in the EIR is the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, coinciding with concerns raised in the Vail community. According to the EIR, the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep is on the U.S. Forest Service designated "sensitive species" list, which includes "species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to Federal listing if action in not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable, but limited." Portions of the development site overlap with the mapped bighorn sheep winter range; nearby this site, but not overlapping, is a mapped bighorn sheep winter concentration area. Farther uphill from the site (about 1.6 miles), above the Booth Creek cliffs, is the bighorn sheep production area where ewes will deliver their Iambs. The average sheep winter range period is estimated from November 15 to April 15, per the EIR. These are the dates when sheep are most likely to occupy an area during winter and heavy snowfall. 417 According to the elk winter range mapped by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the subject site does not overlap this mapped area; but this mapping is in error, according to the EIR. The winter range mapped boundary was artificially drawn along the northern and eastern property boundary, and the true winter range should include this development site and the adjacent Natural Area Preservation parcel (Tract A). The EIR indicates that elk use the subject property mostly at night, and primarily when moving back and forth between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages. Based on game cameras, the elk only use the site at night, and only forage in this area at night. Black Bear Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped the black bear summer concentrations in the Vail area, which includes the proposed development site. According to the EIR, the subject lot also includes a moderate density of berry -rich serviceberry shrubs that represent important summer forage for bears. Evidence of bears was also found on the adjacent NAP parcel. Peregrine Falcon In addition to the bighorn sheep and other big game, there is a peregrine falcon nest on the south side of 1-70, about 600 feet above the valley bottom. The nesting cliff is about 0.36 miles from the development site. The proposed development will have no direct impact on the cliffs or the know nests, but development on this site would remove some potential hunting habitat. The EIR indicates that some wildlife, including peregrine falcons, can habituate to chronic but benign human activities. Also, according to the EIR, the young aspen forest on the proposed development site "does not support even moderate concentrations of prey species that would be particularly attractive to peregrines using the adjacent next cliff, but it does support potential avian prey that could contribute to the local pair's prey base." Wetlands There are two small wetland areas on the site that are identified in the EIR. One wetland exists at the west end of the site; it is an ephemeral stream, which is 2 -feet wide, 68 linear feet which crosses the site. There is little wetland vegetation along the creek channel, per the EIR. The proposed access road would impact this drainage by placing the water into a culvert at the new access road. At the east end of the site there is a 705 sq. ft. wetland area, of which 377 sq. ft. occur on this development site. No development is proposed within these wetlands. Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required for any impacts to the wetlands. Due to the small size of the impacted wetlands, no mitigation of the wetlands would be required by the Army Corps, according to the EIR. Geology Rockfall Hazard The entire development site is located within a High Severity Rockfall hazard area, according to the Town of Vail's official rockfall hazard maps. The main source of potential rockfall is an existing exposed cliff face upslope from the development site, at an elevation of 9,040' to 9,080'. Debris Flow There is potential for debris flows on the site, but these are not mapped by the Town of Vail. According to the EIR, "an intense, prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper -concentrated debris flow." Per the E I R, "Rockfall and debris flows can be mitigated with a single barrier system which will reduce but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards. The barrier system would also act as a wildlife barrier and limit human activity in wildlife habitat." WTTMn'.r Historic landslide activity is also mapped in the EIR, but does not impact the development site. Landslides have previously occurred on the adjacent Tract A parcel to the east. According to the attached Geological Hazards Analysis, "Skyline recommends implementing a slope monitoring program during construction or grading activities near the landslide. If development within the extents of the landslide is planned, additional geological and geotechnical analysis should be performed to further characterize the landslide and the potential impact the proposed development would have on slope stability. " Removal of Vegetation The primary vegetation resource on the site is an aspen forest, approximately 2.7 acres of which is proposed for permanent removal. The woody understory of the forest includes serviceberry, snowberry and chokecherry shrubs, plus a mix of mountain maple, mountain big sagebrush, mountain mahogany and common juniper. The remainder of the vegetation includes a mix of grasses and forbs. VI. WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN A Wildlife Mitigation Plan has been prepared by Rick Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist with Western Ecosystems, Inc. and submitted by the applicant. The purpose of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan is to recommend site design features and management activities that can help to reduce the impacts to wildlife, and to offset the impacts of the proposed development through the creation of improved habitat and foraging areas. Project Design Design features of the proposed development, as recommended by the applicant's wildlife biologist to reduce potential impacts, include: • Clustering of the development • No upper level decks facing the wildlife habitat to the north and west. (Some decks are proposed on the south sides of buildings, and small patios are proposed on the townhomes) • No sidewalk proposed within the smooth brome foraging area between the development and the frontage road • Screening of the development site from sheep habitat with existing aspen forest, rockfall berm and new landscaping • No sizeable internal parks, to limit the development footprint • Fencing to block human access from the property into important wildlife habitat, as requested by Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Maintaining an east -west access across the rear of the property for wildlife Construction Mitigation Construction activity is anticipated to last at least two years. During this time, the bighorn sheep would be most affected by construction during winter, when the sheep move to lower elevations and into the winter concentration habitat. The proposed construction would remove 0.3 acres of on-site habitat. Wintering sheep off-site could also be impacted by construction activity, including construction noise and human activity. However, according to the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, "the most obtrusive disturbances from site clearing, excavation, grading and wildlife/rockfall berm construction would not occur outside buildings during the winter range period." Proposed construction methods to minimize impacts to wintering sheep include: • Scheduling construction to avoid the most obtrusive disturbance during the winter, November 30 — April 15 (Site clearing, use of heavy equipment, installation of utilities) • Construction of a physical barrier, either the wildlife fencing and rockfall berm, or substantial impervious construction fencing, prior to bighorn winter range period • Construction only during daylight hours • Installation of fencing to screen construction activity from the sheep habitat to the north and west • Prohibiting construction personnel from bringing animals (i.e. dogs) onto the site • Prohibit construction personnel from feeding or baiting wildlife Management and Enforcement After the development is completed, the ongoing management and enforcement of best management practices to reduce the potential impact on the wildlife and environment will be needed. Human activity on the site, after construction is complete, has a potential for negative impacts to wildlife. In order to reduce the human impacts on the wildlife and environment as much as reasonably possible, the applicant has proposed the following programs and restrictions for the development: • Resident education about the site's sensitive location within wildlife habitat • Prohibiting construction of new trails on private property • Prohibiting dogs within the 42 -unit multi -family building • Prohibiting unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) • Prohibiting community gardens • Penalties for non-compliance, including fines and possible evictions (Enforcement within the 42 -unit multi -family building may include evictions, since tenancy will be a condition of employment at Vail Resorts for many of the residents.) • Enforceability of commitments is proposed through private covenants enforced by the Home Owners Association. Staff is discussing enforcement measures with the Town Attorney to determine which commitments should also be made enforceable by the Town of Vail. A discussion on the enforcement methods and authority is planned for the meeting of August 12, 2019. Proposed Mitigation and Habitat Enhancement In addition to the commitments and design features mentioned above, the applicant proposes a wildlife habitat enhancement plan to improve habitat for bighorn sheep and elk on the 17.9 acres to the east of the subject site. The proposed habitat enhancement would be oriented at restoring 14.6 acres of bighorn sheep winter range by restoring the mountain shrub forage. Proposed habitat enhanced would be achieved through the following: • Removal of vegetation on the adjacent NAP parcel completed before the first winter of construction (Cutting standing aspen, removing jackstraw trees and shrubs) • Burning the slash and log piles, when dry • Re -seeding the treatment area • Fertilizing after spring snowmelt • Installation of a berm and wildlife fencing • A commitment by the applicant to keep the habitat enhancement area free from aspen growth to maintain quality winter range The beneficial effects of the proposed habitat enhancement are proposed through the removal of an ineffective habitat, and replacement with an enhanced habitat area. Removing the standing aspen and jackstraw logs is intended to create a habitat that is normally maintained by periodic wildfires. "While broadcast burning 14 to restore the mountain shrub community could be the most cost effective, quickest, and most widespread treatment option that would best meet the goal of mountain shrub restoration/reinvigoration and nutrient recycling, the approach recommended by the TO would involve cutting and stacking trees and downed logs, cutting shrubs, then burning the slash and log piles when dry (P. Cada and M. Novak, TOV, Jan. 11, 2019 pers. comm.)." According to the applicant's wildlife biologist, "The enhancement would be oriented at restoring bighorn sheep winter range, which has been degraded over the last 30 years by aspen encroachment, fallen aspen, and a mountain shrub community where much of the browse has grown out of the reach of sheep and elk, all effects of wildfire suppression. The enhancement would also benefit elk winter range use and black bear and mule deer summer range use." Also, the proposed mitigation plan "will be one of the most significant wildlife enhancement projects in the history of the Town on private property. " VIII. GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Rockfall The entire development site is located within a High Severity Rockfall hazard area, according to the Town of Vail's official rockfall hazard maps. As a result, the applicant has hired a Professional Geologist to study the geology of the site, to review the proposed development, and to make recommendations on how to minimize the associated risks. Two documents (Cesare Inc. - Rockfall Hazards Study, dated June 19- 2017, and Skyline Geoscience letter and Analysis, dated February 13, 2019) are attached for review. (See Attachment L and Attachment M) Geological hazards addressed in these analyses include rockfall, debris flows and existing landslide. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has reviewed the applicant's geological studies and has provided comment in an attached letter. (See Attachment R) The potential rockfall source is located about 1,240 to 1,280 feet upslope of the development site. Based on the anticipated material, size and shape of potential falling rocks, Skyline estimated the potential energy that falling rocks would create, and compared this to the design of the proposed rockfall berm. In the conclusion of the Skyline report, the Professional Geologist supports the proposed 12' tall rockfall berm, with a design to withstand a maximum impact energy estimate of 2,300 kJ. The report indicates that the face of the barrier should be as vertical as possible, but that a 1:1 slope would be an option. The recommendations of the two geological studies provided by the applicant are supported by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS). Also recommended by CGS is that the Town requires the completion of an avalanche hazard analysis for this site, and that the applicant designs any necessary mitigation prior to approval of the Development Plan. CGS further recommends that any such hazard analysis or mitigation design be reviewed by the Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Rockfall Berm Maintenance In addition to the construction of a berm, Skyline recommends the following ongoing maintenance efforts: • Observation and inspection by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction • Adequate space uphill from the berm for access of equipment for future removal of any rockfall accumulation • Maintenance of the catchment area to keep the area clear of rocks to maintain effectiveness • Surface drainage to be controlled with adequate slope of the ground surface, to avoid accumulation of water behind the berm • Routine inspection of the barrier system to determine maintenance and repair needs of the barrier system. Debris Flow As identified in the Skyline report, the development site is not within limits of the Town of Vail mapped debris flow hazard zone, but that there is a potential for debris flow at the site. This determination was made based on review of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and aerial photography of the site. Evidence of incised channels with flowing water was also used to determine the potential for debris flows. According to the Skyline report, debris flow hazards can be mitigated within a single barrier system with the rockfall hazards. W110000115011731 The Skyline report indicates that the site has potential for landslide, based on studies of the soil and historic landslides in the region, including a landslide on the adjacent 17.9 acre Tract A. Skyline recommends avoiding development within or near the mapped extents of the landslide on the adjacent Tract A. Skyline also recommends the implementation of a slope monitoring program during construction activities near the landslide. IX. LANDSCAPING The existing development site is characterized primary by a young aspen forest. Most of the existing vegetation on the site is proposed for removal for the development and for the construction of the rockfall berm at the north side of the development. Landscaping is proposed near the entrance to the site, north and west of the driveway connection to the N. Frontage Road. Plantings are also proposed along the parking lots, and pedestrian walkways, as well as within the landscaping islands between the driveways at the proposed townhouses. Proposed landscaping includes a mix of shade trees, evergreen trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, grasses and perennial plantings. A small amount of manicured turf/sod is proposed at the townhouses (between the driveways and in the rear yards) and near the community gathering space on the south side of the neighborhood. Wildlife seed mix is proposed along the rockfall berm, and a mix of native grasses is proposed in disturbed areas between buildings, and at the entry to the project. Where retaining walls are required, native boulder dry stack walls are proposed. The Town of Vail's Senior Landscape Architect, Gregg Barrie, has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan and has provided feedback on the proposed planting list mix. Mr. Barrie recommends changes to the seed mixes to include only native seed but also to remove the Crested Wheatgrass which is highly aggressive and could lead to a monoculture. Also recommended is a greater variety of evergreen trees, rather than exclusively Blue Spruce trees. SPECIES COUNT SIZE Shade Trees Lanceleaf Cottonwood 17 2" caliper Quaking Aspen 91 1.5 inch caliper Evergreen Trees Colorado Blue Spruce 26 6' tall Ornamental Trees Shubert Chokecherry 3 2" caliper Deciduous Shrubs Variety 896 5 gallon container Ornamental Grasses 98 1 gallon container Please see Attachment D for more details on the proposed landscaping species mix. The Community Development Department believes that the development could be improved with the preservation of a significant cluster of existing trees along the south side of the proposed development. Many of these trees are proposed for removal due to site grading, retaining walls and other improvements. Existing trees south of the multi- family buildings and the townhomes (Buildings E, F, G and H) would help to soften the visual impact of the proposed development by screening these buildings. Preserving more existing trees south of the new buildings will require changes to the grading plan and removal of some patios and walkways, however, some of the walkways are required for access and egress. X. REVIEW CRITERIA According to Section 12-61-13, Development Standards/Criteria for Evaluation, of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail, the following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed Development Plan complies with all applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Please see the staff memo from June 24, 2019 for a discussion of these issues. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional Development Plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Please see the staff memo from June 24, 2019 for a discussion of these issues. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. The proposed useable open space is limited to a few areas at the rear of the townhomes, and the outdoor picnic areas near the multi -family buildings. Due to the slope of the site, there is not a natural gathering area, or flat area that would easily accommodate useable open space. Also, the required rockfall berm takes up a large portion of the site. Further, due to wildlife concerns, human activity outdoors, particularly during winter, would have greater potential for impacting bighorn sheep and other big game that may use the area. Opportunities to use the adjacent National Forest property to the north will be discouraged through the installation of the berm and the wildlife fencing to reduce conflicts between humans and wildlife, as recommended in the EIR. Landscaping can be improved through the preservation of existing trees, especially along the south side of the development. The existing tree canopy, if preserved, would help to reduce the scale of the development. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from a new curb cut at the west end of the site. The new road is designed to follow the natural contours of the site to minimize cut and fill grades, although some cut and fill, as well as retaining walls, are proposed. Based on the completed traffic study, no acceleration/deceleration lanes or turn lanes are required, and none are proposed. Internal pedestrian circulation is proposed along a new sidewalk on the south side of the new driveway, near the multi -family building. No sidewalks are proposed near the townhome buildings. Walkways are proposed at the south side of the multi -family buildings to provide access to the garden level residential units. A staircase and walkway are proposed at the east end of the site to provide pedestrian access to the existing Falls at Vail bus stop. Pedestrian access to the proposed bus stop at the west end of the development is also proposed. Current plans show a proposed crosswalk to access an eastbound bus stop on the south side of the frontage road; the applicant and Town Engineer are in discussions on how to improve bus service through construction on a single bus stop/turn-around to the west of the new road curb cut. Construction of a bus stop at the west end of the site conflicts with recommendations by Colorado Parks and Wildlife to limit loss of habitat and pedestrian activity at this end of the site. The applicant and Town Engineer have begun discussions about the opportunity to improve pedestrian access at the Exit 180 underpass. As of the publication of this memo, no determination has been made to the feasibility for safe pedestrian access in the underpass. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. By developing this site, several acres of habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, black bear, and other big game species will be permanently eliminated. The applicant proposes to mitigate the impact of the proposed development through the implementation of a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, which includes the improvement to 14.6 acres of wildlife habitat on the adjacent 17.9 acre Tract A, which is zoned Natural Area Preservation. The proposed habitat enhancement was recommended by the applicant's wildlife biologist, and is intended to improve winter range habitat and grazing areas though the removal of existing vegetation and fallen trees, which limit access and are not the preferred habitat for grazing sheep. The area of the proposed habitat enhancement is within the bighorn sheep winter range, but is currently an area that does not have much bighorn sheep use due to the tree canopy and jackstraw fallen trees, according to the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. The proposed habitat enhancement would create new areas that bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer can use for grazing that is away from the development. The increased forage areas are proposed to compensate for the direct loss of habitat from the proposed development. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan recommends prohibiting dogs in the 42 -unit multi -family building. The applicant proposes to prohibit dogs in these units thorough enforcement of HOA regulations. Since dogs have a natural hunting instinct, almost any dog could become a nuisance or threat to wildlife in the vicinity. The Community Development Department recommends that all dogs be prohibited on site, including for owners, tenants and visitors of the townhome units, unless otherwise protected by law (i.e. service dogs and emotional support dogs). The independent reviews of the applicant's Wildlife Mitigation Plan question some of the findings and assumptions in the applicant's proposal. The letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), CPW states "it is unclear if on-site treatments will offset the impacts associated with the direct loss of winter range. In the absence of disturbance, bighorn sheep exhibit strong site fidelity and often occupy ranges because of their openness, high visibility, and proximity to escape terrain over sites with higher quality forage. (Bleich and Wiedmann 2014). CPW encourages the use of treatments to enhance adjacent habitat to the proposed development; however, it remains unclear if it will result in any meaningful winter use by the Booth Creek herd." Other concerns from CPW relate to the location of the proposed wildlife fencing and site access. CPW recommends that the fencing be relocated from the north side of the rockfall berm to the south side to further discourage access by residents and to expand the potential habitat available to wildlife. CPW also recommends relocating the access driveway as far east as possible to reduce the impacts of traffic (vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists), and locating the bus stop and ADA access to the east end of the site. Finally, CPW recommends ongoing maintenance of any new wildlife habitat created, and in particular suggests that the adjacent 17.9 acres of NAP land be placed in a conservation easement. The other independent reviews by wildlife biologists consulted by the Town of Vail share some of the concerns raised by CPW. In general, the Town's other biologists (Kahn and Byrne) question the effectiveness of the proposed wildlife habitat enhancement on the adjacent NAP parcel, and the likelihood that it will actually be used by bighorn sheep. This is based on the fidelity of bighorn sheep, particularly ewes and Iambs, to their historic habitat, and poor pioneering to new, even nearby, potential habitat. The letter from Rick Kahn indicates that the proposed habitat enhancement will, however, likely be used by elk and mule deer. Byrne specifically indicates that "habitat projects focused in areas close to rocky escape cover (Booth Creek cliffs) could have the most positive impact on the bighorns in this herd." Byrne also suggest that the number of sheep estimated in the herd by the applicant's Biologist, Rick Thompson, could be more than double the estimate of 41 sheep, based on the difficulties of accurate population counts. According to Byrne, "It is very possible the sheep population could be more than double this number (41 sheep). There are many reasons for inaccurate wildlife counts especially in a large and rugged area such as the Gore Range where the animals can occur almost anywhere." F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. The Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan is in compliance with many aspects of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and advances the employee housing goals of the Town. The development of employee housing units is supported by the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, the Town of Vail Economic Development Plan, and the Environmental Strategic Plan, and furthers the actions/strategies outlined with the Vail 20/20 Strategic Plan. The proposed private development of 61 deed restricted EHUs will help advance the Town's goals of obtaining 1,000 new employee housing deed restrictions over the next 10 years. By developing more EHUs within Town, total vehicle miles traveled from workers commuting into Vail can be reduced, helping to reduce the Town's green house gas emissions. This development will upgrade the existing employee housing base. The Town of Vail also values environmental sustainability and preservation of the natural ecosystem and wildlife habitat. The natural beauty of Vail and the wildlife that inhabit this valley are some of the reasons why many visitors love Vail, and why many locals choose to live here. Many of the Town's comprehensive planning documents reflect environmental stewardship values and recommend incorporating sustainability into projects, and protecting environmentally sensitive lands from development, or mitigating the impacts of development. The proposed development will have permanent and irreversible impacts to 2.7 acres of existing wildlife habitat, and temporary loss to 2.3 acres of similar habitat for the construction of the rockfall mitigation berm. The applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of habitat through the enhancement of 14.6 acres of wildlife habitat on the adjacent 17.9 acres parcel. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to ensure staff and the applicant have good direction from the PEC and to ensure we provide the right information for the next meeting, we have the following questions: • Does the PEC have comments on the building renderings and massing models? • What additional information, if any, is needed for the PEC to make a decision on the proposed Booth Heights Neighborhood Development Plan? We recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission table this item to the meeting of August 12, 2019. "The Planning and Environmental Commission tables this request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ('Booth Heights Neighborhood'), to the meeting of August 12, 2019 (PEC 19-0018) XII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Booth Heights Neighborhood Applicant Narrative, dated May 28, 2019 C. Booth Heights Neighborhood — Architectural Plans, dated June 24, 2019 D. Landscaping Plans, dated 05/21/2019 E. Civil Plans, date 05/28/2019 F. Omitted G. Survey H. Parking Analysis I. Environmental Impact Report J. Wildlife Mitigation Plan K. Wetland Delineation Report L. Geologic Hazards Analysis M. Geologic Hazards Memo N. Rockfall Hazard Study O. Traffic Impact Study P. Site Photos Q. Public Comment R. Letter from Colorado Geological Survey, June 21, 2019 S. Letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, June 27, 2019 T. Letter from Rick Kahn — Independent Review, July 5, 2019 U. Letter from Gene Byrne — Independent Review, July 5, 2019 V. Letter from Melanie Woolever — Independent Review Vicinity Map - Booth Heights Neighborhood 3=� '.I Fronl age Rd e R 06/20/2019 8:47:19 AM ❑ Town Boundary ❑ Parcels 1:7,644 0 400 800 1,600 ft 0 120 240 480 m County of Eagle, Bureau of Lend Management, Est, HERE, G.rmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS, Eagle County Tex Assessor Department Web App BUllderfor ArCGIS Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS, ERWSD I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS I Eagle C ... ty Tex Assessor Department I Arthur Meersl Schm.... -&A... dates- Nicholas L.mplhs l ArthurMeers(Colorado CGS/DNR) I Federal Emergency M ... gement Agency I Veil GIS I County of Eagle, Bureau of Lend Management, Es-, BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MAY 289 2019 Development Team Applicant Michael O'Connor Triumph Development West, LLC 12 Vail Road — Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Project Architect Mike Foster Triumph Custom Homes, LLC 12 Vail Road — Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Landscape Architect Sandi Gibson Outside L.A. Boulder, CO Steamboat Springs, CO Civil Engineer Matt Wadey Alpine Engineering, Inc. 34510 Highway 6 — Unit A9 Edwards, CO. 81632 Environmental Impact Review David Johnson Western Ecological Resources 711 Walnut Street Boulder, CO. 80302 Wildlife Consultant Rick Thompson Western Ecosystems, Inc. 905 West Coach Road Boulder, CO. 80302 Traffic Consultant Kari McDowell Schroeder McDowell Engineering, LLC PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 Rockfall & Geotechnical Consultant Bill Koechlein Cesare, Inc. 7108 South Alton Way — Building B Centennial, CO. 80112 The Development Booth Heights is an exciting new residential development aimed at creating, maintaining and sustaining community in the Town of Vail ("TOV"). The parcel is the only undeveloped Housing District parcel in TOV. With 73 new homes, the community will make the most meaningful addition to locals housing in the Town's recent history. Triumph Development is under contract to purchase the 23.3 acres East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("EVWHS") located at 3700 N. Frontage Road from Vail Resorts. This purchase contract includes all water rights required for the development. Recognizing both the need for locals housing and nearby critical wildlife habitat, Vail Resorts rezoned the parcel from 23 acres of Two Family Residential to 5.4 acres of Housing and 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation set aside for wildlife, thereby consolidating development onto less than 25% of the overall parcel. This application proposes to develop the 5.4 -acre "Lot 1" of the EVWHS in conjunction with wildlife enhancements and conservation on the 17.9 -acre "Tract A". The latter will be one of the most significant wildlife enhancement projects in the history of the Town on private property. Booth Heights, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing District, will be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70% of the square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHUs") and 30% of the GRFA built as market -rate homes that will generate the financial subsidy needed to develop the neighborhood. To that end, Booth Heights proposes 73 total residences comprised of 42 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes, and 12 market -rate townhomes spread across a total of 11 buildings. The apartments are all 830 square foot two- bedroom homes with surface parking. The townhomes will be a mix of two and three-bedroom homes ranging in size from 1300 square feet to just under 2200 square feet with one car garages, driveways with two outdoor parking spaces in most cases, and private outdoor space at the rear of most units. Each new home will include ample storage, durable long-lasting and fire-resistant building materials such as cementitious siding and stucco, 30 -year asphalt shingle roofs, oversized low -e glazing windows, R40+ insulation, energy star appliances, and long -cycle interior finishes. The apartments will have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor equipment that are so prevalent among Vail residents. There will also be an outdoor community picnic and barbeque area and low maintenance and low water landscaping. This development application includes all all civil drawings, architectural drawings, landscape plan, and consultant's reports required for approval by the TOV Town Code. The proposed development plan requires no variances from the development standards prescribed by the Housing Zone District. Building height and density (including GRFA) are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Housing Zone District allows parking to vary from the typical parking requirements with a parking management plan. Existin! Conditions The Housing parcel is triangular in shape beginning at a point at the west and grows increasingly deeper to the east. The site is more than 1200 feet wide and 380 feet deep at the east side of the property. The site generally slopes from back to front with the natural grade lower and closer to grade of the N. Frontage Road to the west, gaining elevation above the N. Frontage Road as the site moves to the east. The natural grade of the site is less steep and better accommodates development along its southern boundary. The site is the last significant undeveloped Housing parcel in the TOV. There is a relatively young aspen forest across most of the site, and while this private property is included in Colorado Parks and Wildlife's bighorn sheep and elk winter range area, the aspen forest and proximity to N. Frontage Road severely limits the use of the site by either species according to the consultants' reports included with this application. All required utilities are nearby in the adjacent right-of-way and the applicant has confirmed that each utility has adequate capacity to serve the development. The development will be required to bring water rights to ERWSD and the applicant has these water rights under contract from Vail Resorts. Surrounded by TOV property to the west, USFS property to the north, CDOT right-of-way to the south and the applicant's NAP property to the west, there are no contiguous neighbors that will be negatively impacted by the development. The right of way in the front of the property includes a substantial cut slope and setback of between 46 to 90 feet from the property line to the N. Frontage Road pavement. Detailed Zoning Analysis The Housing District is intended to provide housing development opportunities in the Town of Vail. Due the nature and varying characteristics of employee housing, a housing -oriented zone district was specifically developed and adopted in the TOV Zoning Regulations. The stated intent of the Housing District is to ensure that employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of Vail residents, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air and open spaces. The district has a limited number of prescribed requirements that are discussed below. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds all of these prescribed requirements. It should be noted that the analysis is based upon the 5.4 -acre housing parcel and does not include the 17 -acre open space parcel. Permitted, Conditional & Accessory Uses The proposed development program for Booth Heights is outlined in the below table. Total Units # Units Livable SF Garage SF Livable SF EHU - Downhill TH A - 2BR 8 1,300 286 10,400 EHU - Downhill TH B - 3BR 7 1,600 286 11,200 EHU - Uphill TH A - 2BR 2 _ 1,300 275 2,600 EHU - Uphill TH B - 3BR 2 _ 2,000 275 4,000 DU - TH B - 3BR 6 1,975 365 11,850 DU - TH A - 3BR 6 2,170 390 1 13,020 Total For -Sale Townhomes 31 53,070 EHU - Multifamily - 2BR 42 830 - 34,860 Total Development Program 73 87,930 % Livable Square Footage as EHU 71.7% With more than 70% of the proposed livable square footage and GRFA at Booth Heights intended as EHUs, the primary use proposed for the neighborhood is the Permitted Use intended in the Housing District. For the market rate Dwelling Units proposed in the neighborhood, the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning and Environmental Commission as discussed in the Housing District criteria. These Dwelling Units provide the only meaningful financial return in the development of the neighborhood. They will comprise less than 30% of the total GRFA of the neighborhood and will be built concurrent with the construction of EHUs in the proportion allowed by Code. With similar scale buildings, unit sizes and architecture, the Dwelling Units have been designed to be compatible with the mixed -residential neighborhood that will serve a variety of residents. The community amenities such as outdoor and indoor public gathering spaces, laundry and storage are Accessory Uses that are "customarily incidental and accessory" to the permitted EHUs as discussed in the Housing District criteria. Setbacks The required setback in the Housing District is twenty feet (20') from the perimeter of the zone district. All buildings and structures proposed in the plan meet or exceed this setback requirement in all areas. Site Coverage The Housing District allows for a maximum site coverage of 55% of the total site area. The proposed site coverage for Booth Heights is only 38,478 square feet or just 16.4% of the 5.4 -acre Housing parcel as shown on the "Site Coverage Plan" sheet of the application. Landscaping and Site Development The Housing District requires at least 30% of the total site area to be landscaped. The proposed plan for Booth Heights includes landscape areas totaling 136,583 square feet or 58.1% of the 5.4 - acre Housing parcel. Snow Storage The Parking Standards of the Town Code require a minimum functional area for snow storage equaling at least 30% of the total paved area of the site for unheated drives. The total hardscape area of the proposed development plan equals 57,950 square feet and the plan includes more than 22,550 square feet of usable snow storage, or more than 39% of the total paved area, as shown on the "Snow Storage Diagram" of the application Other Development Standards The development standards of the Housing District for lot area, site dimensions, building height, and density control shall be as proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission based on the Criteria for Evaluation that are discussed below. - Lot Area and Site Dimensions — The applicant proposed to develop the 5.4 -acre Housing Parcel as demonstrated on the site development plans. After the Development Application is approved, the applicant intends to subdivide the parcel to create one parcel for the multifamily buildings, and one parcel for the townhome community which will be governed by a Home Owner Association and further subdivided into individual parcels for each townhouse (as generally shown on drawing C3.1). These subdivisions will be completed pursuant to the requirements of the Town Code. - Building Height — The proposed townhome buildings are two -and -a -half stories and the proposed multifamily buildings are three -and -a -half stories, with the half -stories of each building built into the grade of the site. The buildings range in height from 35.5 feet to 51.66 feet. See the "Building Height" sheet of the Application for the calculation of building height for each building. - Density Control — The proposed density for Booth Heights neighborhood is 73 total units with 42 multifamily homes in three buildings, and 31 townhomes in eight buildings. The total GRFA for the neighborhood is 77,327 square feet as shown on the "Site Plan" sheet in the architectural package. If one considers the EHUs as counting towards density/units per acre (in most zone districts they do not) the overall density of the site is 13.5 units per acre. It would be more in keeping with the Zoning Regulations to exclude the EHUs and therefore the resulting density is 2.22 units per acre. Employee Housing Credits The applicant will utilize Sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-7 of the Vail Town Code "Mitigation Bank" for deed -restricted EHUs constructed on the property. As proposed, the application will generate 63,360 square feet of transferable EHU housing credits in a total of 61 EHU units as shown on the application. The project will not create any Employee Housing Credits on the proposed market rate units. Parking Counts, Loading and Parking Management Plan The Housing District, in recognition of the unique nature and characteristics of the employee housing, allows for a reduction in the parking requirements outlined in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations, at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Section 12-6I-8. This reduction is based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Regulations and is subject to a Parking Management Plan. According to the requirements of the Housing District, two of the demonstrated needs for a reduction in parking may include 1) proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including public transit and 2) limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. The applicant understands that the development of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision must be a fully functional project and that the parking provided must be appropriate for its target residents. Given the project's in -town location and proximity to public transit and walkable access to amenities such as outdoor recreation and Sims Market, the design of the project includes a parking count that the applicant believes will adequately meet the needs of residents, while at the same time minimizing the needs for overly generous parking lots that negatively impact the overall site plan and opportunities for open space utilized by wildlife. The wildlife design recommendations also recommend reducing the footprint of parking to reduce impacts to wildlife (see review criteria below). The parking standards of the Zoning Regulations are a generalist set of standards that prescribe parking by the location and size of development. Parking at locations outside of the Town's Vail and Lionshead Villages fall under a requirement known as Parking Schedule B, which calls for 2 spaces per unit for multifamily units between 500 and 2,000 GRFA feet and 2.5 spaces per unit for multifamily units greater than 2,000 GRFA feet. This standard is applied across the board, regardless of the number of bedrooms, and irrespective of location, proximity to transit or walkability to community services. These parking requirements also do not consider the rapidly changing nature of transit and movement towards public and shared transportation, nor do they recognize TOV's recent efforts to encouraging the use of public transit and minimize the number of parking spaces that need to be constructed in the Town core. The proposed development plan would generate a parking need as outlined by Parking Schedule B as outlined in the table below. This table also includes the parking totals as proposed by the applicant as represented on the "Parking Diagram" sheet included in the application: TOV Code TOV Code Parking Units Units GRFA Pkg / Unit Parking Proposed EHU - Downhill TH A - 2BR 7 1,300 2.0 14.0 EHU - Downhill TH B - 3BR 8 1,600 2.0 16.0 EHU - Uphill TH A - 2BR 2 1,300 2.0 4.0 EHU - Uphill TH B - 3BR _� 2 2,000 2.0 4.0 DU - TH B - 3BR 6 1,975 2.0 12.0 DU-THA-3BR 6 2,170 2.5 15.0 Townhouse Total 31 65.0 94 EHU - Multifamily - 2BR 42 835 2.0 84.0 Apartment Total 4 42 84.0 45 Total 73 149.0 139 Overall the parking provided onsite equates to 1.9 parking spaces per unit or a reduction of 10 parking spaces from code. Further detail on the parking reduction is provided below. In preparing this proposed development plan, the applicant has considered each of the proposed housing types separately. While the for -sale homes have been designed to accommodate the parking needs of permanent residents with adequate resident and guest parking on each home's private property, the parking need for the rental apartment units has been based on the needs of the target residents who will live and work in the Town of Vail with jobs that are accessible by public transportation. Most for -sale townhomes have three parking spaces on private property owned by the residents with one garage space and two outdoor parking spaces per unit. There are also three additional guest parking spaces at the east end of the development. There is a total of 94 parking spots compared to the TOV code need for 65 parking spaces for the townhome portion of the development. The parking plan for the rental multifamily units includes 45 parking spaces for the 42 units. This equates to 1.1 parking space per home and allows every household to have a car. It also will ensure that residents are a self-selecting group whose lifestyle meets the Town's goals for using public transit. Also, because the multiple family units will be rental units, the management of the facility has the ability to restrict parking by leases just as TOV currently does in its leases for other Town -owned workforce housing. Management can price parking to help regulate demand versus a condominium where there is less control over parking for individual units. This parking count is supported by the "East Vail Residential Parking Analysis" letter from transportation consultant McDowell Engineering, LLC which includes information on typical parking demands from apartment communities throughout the country, as well as actual parking counts from the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge community (See Exhibit 1). This analysis indicates that a parking demand for rental multiple family units in Vail is consistent with what is proposed at 1.1 units per unit. One of the great benefits to building housing at the EVWHS is its proximity to the regular public transit on the North Frontage Road. Not only does the project have immediate adjacency to the existing Falls at Vail bus stop, but also proposes to build a new bus stop. In addition, the apartment buildings will include adequate indoor and outdoor storage for bikes. To accommodate and control this parking count, the applicant will implement a Parking Management Plan for the multifamily portion of the development that includes the following specific requirements. - All parking spaces will be numbered and assigned as a dedicated parking space as part of the lease for each unit; - Management will structure leases such that residents will know who is allowed to have a car onsite. Residents allowed to have a car will be required to register their vehicles and parking permits will be required to be prominently displayed in each vehicle; Leases will include prohibitions on parking in both assigned parking spaces and guest parking, and will include penalties and towing for violations; and The property manager will oversee enforcement and facilitate these parking controls. The applicant also recognizes that this parking management solution may limit the pool of potential renters to households with only one car whose lives are conducive to Vail public transit, and in -turn the amount of rent that can be charged. Said simply, the applicant believes and has documented that the proposed parking count strikes a careful balance between the practical needs of its intended residents, especially in light of the changing and decreasing needs for parking that are fast taking hold. Booth Heights is an example of a project that - by virtue of its location, its target demographic, and high quality TOV transit system - can fully function with a reduced parking count. Compliance with the Development Plan Standards and Approval Criteria Because of the nature and characteristics of deed -restricted housing that make development difficult under prescribed development standards, the Housing District was created by TOV to provide adequate sites for deed -restricted residential development. To ensure harmonious development that is in keeping with the Town's development objectives, an applicant may propose development standards, as depicted on a Development Plan, for approval by the Town's Planning & Environmental Commission. According to Section 12-6I-13 of the Zoning Regulations, it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with the six Design Criteria discussed below. Given the environmental focus of the development, we have presented these criteria in a customized order to emphasize the role that the Environmental Criteria have played in guiding the proposed plan. Design Criteria E - Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. Applicants Response: Recognizing the importance of the environmental concerns about the EVWHS, the applicant has commissioned one of the most substantial Environmental Impact Reports ever submitted for a development in TOV. Western Ecological Resource's ("WER") report is included as an attachment to this application (See Exhibit 2). The mitigation plans presented in this application identify all the environmental impacts of the project and the substantial efforts the applicant will undertake to ensure that the development not only protects surrounding wildlife habitat, but also provides one of the most substantial wildlife enhancement projects ever proposed on private property in TOV to create a net increase in quality winter range for wildlife. Design Criteria: Prior to Triumph's involvement in the property, Rick Thompson, a biologist with West Ecosystems, Inc. ("WES") was engaged by Vail Resorts to understand the use of the parcel and surrounding properties by wildlife. As part of this engagement, WES prepared a list of design recommendations that would minimize the impact of development on wildlife. These design recommendations have been fundamental in the creation of the proposed plan. A description of these criteria is included in Section 6.0 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan (See Exhibit 3) and include the following recommendations: 1. Consolidate the development's impacted area at the front of the parcel and maximize the remaining open space. This includes minimizing parking lots and community open spaces. a. Parking lots, building footprints, and community open spaces have been minimized. 2. Place vehicular access at the west of the site. a. The access to the site is located on the west end of the site. 3. Utilize existing vegetation to the rear, west and front of the parcel as a visual buffer between the development and surrounding wildlife. a. The proposed developed areas of the site are all screened by moderately dense aspen forest on USFS property at the rear of the site. 4. Create a physical barrier between human occupied space and the surrounding wildlife. a. The proposed rock fall protection barrier and wildlife fencing at the rear of the site will create this separation. 5. Maintain east -west access across the rear of the property for wildlife. a. The uphill portion of the rock fall berm, including a clear relatively flat area in front of the berm, will provide this path. 6. Maintain grazing access to the right-of-way in front of the parcel that is occasionally used by bighorn sheep. a. The applicant is not proposing to place any substantial retaining walls or building structures on this western end of the property to allow wildlife continued access through the right-of-way. 7. Minimize outdoor recreation spaces visible from the surrounding open space/winter range. a. The proposed central picnic and barbeque area has been kept to the center of the development to minimize external impacts. Units will not have any private outdoor space facing north and west above the ground level that will be visible to wildlife. Ground level open space will be screened from the surrounding property by a berm and surrounding aspen forests. 8. Create a series of restrictions on residents to minimize their offsite impacts. a. These restrictions are proposed and are discussed in detail in Section 8 of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan and outlined below. The proposed development plan has taken each of these design guidelines into account and the applicant is committed to making these requirements a component of the approvals for the ongoing protection of the surrounding wildlife. In addition to these design criteria, the applicant is also proposing one of the most substantial wildlife enhancements on private property ever undertaken in TOV as outlined in Section 8.1 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Before explaining the details of this enhancement plan, please note that although the 23 -acre EVWHS is part of the bighorn sheep 1800 -acre winter range, the entire parcel is not high-quality winter range for grazing due to a young, encroaching aspen forest that includes living and fallen "jackstrawed" trees that big horn sheep avoid by their nature. As part of this development application, the applicant will clear and enhance 14.6 acres of the NAP parcel to create quality winter range. In addition to this clearing, the applicant will fertilize and cut back the over -mature shrubs that have grown out of the browse range of bighorn sheep to improve the quality and quantity of winter forage. The applicant will also clear and reseed approximately 0.3 acres at the rear of the Housing Parcel for additional forage. In total, 18.2 acres or 78% of the entire EVWHS is being set aside for open space and wildlife, and 14.6 acres of quality winter range will be created on private property that is currently inaccessible and underutilized today. This new land set aside and enhanced for wildlife exceeds the five acres of impacted development area by nearly a 3:1 ratio. The development will commit to keeping this privately -owned property clear of aspens for quality winter range today and into the future. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria: The last component of our plan to protect wildlife is the Wildlife Mitigation Plan that includes various measures that will be put in place 1) during construction (Section 8.2 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan), and 2) as permanent restrictions placed on the residents of the community (Section 8.3 of the WES's Wildlife Mitigation Plan). The applicant proposes to make these commitments a formalized component of the project's entitlements. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria - Construction During construction, commitments include 1) only performing all significant clearing and mass excavation of the site from April 15' through November 30'; 2) the construction of a physical barrier — either the permanent wildlife and rock fall barrier, or a substantial impervious construction fence — prior to the bighorn winter range period; and 3) clearing and enhancement to the NAP parcel complete before the first winter of construction to create more, quality winter range prior to the first winter that wildlife will be impacted by development activity. Ongoing Wildlife Protection Criteria — Permanent Residents The permanent restrictions on residents include no community gardens, restrictions on pets, significant restrictions on dogs in the community, combined with educational programs to inform residents of surrounding wildlife habitats and the prohibition of access to these areas. These restrictions are bolstered by a series of fines, reprimands for employees, and even eviction from the community for violations. The property's manager and Home Owners Association will be tasked with enforcing these fines for violations, as well as work directly with the TOV to police trespassing onto TOV property to the west and the privately -owned NAP parcel to the East. These specific terms are discussed in Section 8 of Rick Thompson's Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the EVWHS. Wetlands: The final environmental item of note are two small identified wetlands on the development parcel — one an intermittent stream during spring runoff on the western edge of the site, and the other a small collecting area on the eastern edge of the site. Both are small enough in size that there likely will be no remediation required by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant will confirm with the Army Corps that the impacted area is below the threshold for separate mitigation, and if any mitigation is required, it will be done elsewhere on the EVWHS or within a mitigation bank, as required by the Army Corps. The Wetlands Delineation Report by Birch Ecology, LLC is included as an attachment to this report (see Exhibit 4), and is further discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. This applicant's commitment to wildlife protection is a fundamental driver for many elements of the proposed plan. Each of these wildlife commitments will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Development Plan. Design Criteria B - Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Applicant's Response: The applicant has prepared a functional development plan for Booth Heights that balances the physical characteristics of the site, the surrounding open space of wildlife winter range, and TOV's substantial need for housing. The details of sensitivity to wildlife are discussed above, but from a development plan standpoint, the applicant will enhance and set aside 17.9 acres of NAP for permanent wildlife protection and open space. All development has been condensed or consolidated onto less then 3.5 acres below the wildlife and rockfall berm to create 0.3 acres of additional open space at the rear of Housing parcel. This development area is the portion of the site with the least amount of natural grade. Pedestrian and vehicular access onto the site will be from the west to work with natural grade and as recommended by WES's design guidelines. The proposed parking configuration, access to buildings, site amenities, and public transportation will meet ADA requirements, as well as emergency access and staging. The applicant has met with the Vail Fire Department on four occasions and modified the site plan to account for the Fire Department's requirements. The functional site plan includes adequate parking for the apartment units at slightly more than a 1:1 ratio, as well as one garage space and two driveway parking spaces at most townhome units. Retaining walls have been kept to a minimum and almost all will be built with boulders that will be gathered onsite. In a few select locations above the parking lot at the trash dumpster for the apartment buildings, an MSE wall that resembles natural stone (similar to those built at Solar Vail and the new West Vail Truck Chain -up) will be built. Each retaining wall is 6 feet in height or less. A substantial earthen berm has been located at the rear of the development to provide a visual and physical separation between the new development and the surrounding wildlife habitat as well as provide for rockfall mitigation. At the west end of the berm, this barrier will transition to a landscape buffer. This berm and landscaping will be augmented by a wildlife fence that includes jump ramps to allow wildlife to exit the site, and prevent residents from accessing the USFS property at the rear of the parcel. This system, along with signage, is designed to keep residents off the nearby critical wildlife habitat. As the EVWHS is located in a rockfall hazard risk area as mapped by TOV, this berm will be designed to match the berm that is located above Katsos Ranch Road and Booth Falls Court. The rockfall hazard condition for the Booth Heights development is much less severe than the conditions immediately to the west. According to the Cesare, Inc.'s rockfall studies commissioned by the applicant, the design criteria for the 12 -foot berm protecting the neighborhood to the west used a 7 -foot rock that would produces 6,800 kilojoules of energy as the basis for design. Due to less severe slopes and further distance from the cliffs above, the studied condition at Booth Heights would only produce a 3,160 kilojoules of energy from a larger 10 -foot boulder. Nevertheless, the applicant is proposing to match the 12 -foot berm above the entire length of the property where buildings are located. See the details of this study in the Geological Hazard Analysis Report prepared by Cesare, Inc (see Exhibit 5). All buildings have an efficient and functional layout. The three small apartment buildings, each with 14 two-bedroom units, are sited to work with natural grade and include a garden level apartment with storage, laundry and indoor community space on the basement level. These slightly taller buildings have been located on the lower, western end of the site so that the rooflines are in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. A community outdoor space and barbeque area has been located next to these apartments to give the residents an outdoor place to gather and share a meal. The townhomes have been located on the eastern end of the site where natural grade lifts the site as much as 50 feet above the frontage road and I-70. The 31 townhomes in eight buildings flank both sides of a cul-de-sac street. No building has more than four units to keep the massing of the buildings at a human scale. All townhomes have adequate parking for the residents and guests with three total parking spaces at the vast majority of units — one in a garage and two in the driveway — as well as adequate room for landscaping islands that are somewhat rare in Vail's townhome communities. These generous building setbacks and front yards with adequate parking will help create an attractive street with a neighborhood's sense of community. Each of the townhomes will have private outdoor space at grade at the rear of the home. Each townhome will have a private deck on the downhill side of each home (facing away from the surrounding wildlife habitat), embracing the 180 degree up- and down -valley views. The proposed development plan is a functional development plan that looks to create a meaningful housing neighborhood that will serve a variety of residents — both renters and homeowners. There are no negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, not only because there are no contiguous neighbors, but also because the applicant is setting aside more than 78% of the site for open space and use by wildlife. No views of other properties will be blocked, and the views of the Booth Creek cliffs and ridges will not be impacted from public roads. With substantial open space dedications and wildlife enhancement, a development layout that is responsive to the site and minimizes its impacted area, and a development program that includes a meaningful number of new units, the applicant believes and has documented that Booth Heights is a model for responsible development on private property. Design Criteria A - Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and surrounding neighborhood. Applicants Response: Due to the unique nature and challenges of building housing in TOV, the Housing District does not include traditional development limitations and offers the applicant the flexibility to develop the proposed combination of housing types. The building layouts are responsive to the site and surrounding topography. The site is not challenged with needing to relate to any immediate neighbors. This said, Booth Heights will be a mix of housing types that are prevalent through East Vail including both walkup multifamily buildings and townhomes. The conscientious decision to concentrate the density into a small footprint and leave substantial open space leads has driven the proposed density of 13.5 units per acre on the Housing parcel and 3.1 units per acre considering the entire EVWHS. It should be noted that in most zone districts EHUs are not counted towards density and in that case the density of the Housing parcel would be 2.22 units per acre or 0.52 units per acre considering the entire EVWHS parcels. Buildings have been spread throughout the site with generous setbacks and open space to provide a human scale that matches or even improves upon the experience of similar townhome neighborhoods throughout East Vail. Set in the context of the surrounding 600 -foot tall Booth Creek cliffs located above the site, the proposed three and four-story buildings are in context with the geography. Buildings are responsive to natural grade and are built into the hillside with a garden level that daylights onto grade, and the second -floor walking out onto grade at the rear. Consistent with the wildlife design recommendations, the units only have private outdoor space on the ground level and on decks above the ground level that face south. The architecture is mountain modern including traditional forms characteristic of Vail, combined with clean lines and architecture. This architecture and material pallet honors but improves upon the vast majority of multifamily residential inventory throughout East Vail and is similar to the Chamonix Vail locals housing project recently built in the Town. The primary fagades are proposed with a mix of stucco, cementitious siding that resembles natural wood, and wood trim to incorporate the new fire-resistant design recommendations of the fire department, as well as long-term durability. These materials are mixed horizontally and vertically to break up the massing of the buildings, and this variation is complimented with adjustments to the size of windows. Roofs are pitched with asphalt shingles and match other residential development in East Vail. The rooflines of each building step to avoid one continuous roofline. The multifamily units have been broken up into three different 14 -unit buildings to match the scale of the neighboring townhomes. The buildings include varying roof lines and walk-up breezeways that further break the massing of the buildings. The townhomes are a combination of two- and three-bedroom units to provide a variety of housing with several different price points that were so popular at Chamonix. This mix of units provides opportunities for a variation in the roof lines and in most buildings, especially the front from of buildings that will be most prominently viewed from the N. Frontage Road and I-70. The scale of all buildings matches or even improves upon the design and architecture of many of the existing development throughout east vail with no more than 4 units per townhome building, and multifamily buildings of a similar scale. No building exceeds the four stories of occupied space established at other residential projects such as the Pitkin Creek Townhomes to the east. With no contiguous neighbors, the Booth Heights development plan is an opportunity for a rare, locals housing project on the last remaining Housing parcel in TOV. Because of its unique location this meaningful housing project can be built without negatively affecting neighbors. The applicant believes that this type of multifamily housing was contemplated when the development potential of the EVWHS was concentrated onto less than 25% of the overall original parcel at the rezoning. With mountain modern architecture that borrows from Vail's architectural traditions and the material pallet seen throughout East Vail, massing that is spread between eleven buildings, substantial setbacks from the street, as well as an appropriate relationship to the surrounding topography — the Booth Heights plans meets the Housing District requirements for architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation that is compatible with the site and neighborhood. Design Criteria C - Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. Applicants Response: The Proposed site plan has been prepared to preserve and enhancing substantial open space and with mitigation efforts to return it to suitable winter range for wildlife. In total, 18.2 acres or more than 78% of the EVWHS is set aside for open space and wildlife. While development impacts have been concentrated into a small footprint, the landscape plan for the developed portion of Booth Heights is both functional and aesthetic. The intent of the landscape design is to have more manicured planting beds adjacent to the buildings, in parking landscape islands, and at the central public gathering and picnic area. Away from these areas the landscaping will be more native in nature. All landscaping will include regionally appropriate species selected to minimize the need for watering. This design approach not only integrates well with the surrounding natural areas, but also reduces the use of natural resources such as water. Trees have been located away from structures as recommended by the Fire Department. Most retaining walls are proposed to be built with native boulders, which will be harvested onsite. In a few select areas, the grading plan requires an MSE wall. Both of these types of walls will be stepped to create opportunities for both formal and informal planting at each level. An earthen berm has been located along the rear of the site to create a physical and visual buffer between the human space and wildlife. A clear corridor on the north side of this berm will allow for wildlife movement east to west across the site. This physical barrier separating human occupied space from open space will be complimented at the west entry with landscaping and trees, and on the east side of the site with the steep natural grade. The plan includes planting this berm with native grasses and aspen seedlings on the downhill portion of the berm. The central feature of the landscape plan is an outdoor gathering space for the entire community including barbeques, picnic areas, fire pit, and pergola. The location of this functional, centralized outdoor space was derived from the WES's design guidelines. We are also proposing to find creative ways to utilize the fire department staging and turnaround areas for resident recreation — with a community patio next to the picnic area at one location and a basketball hoop at the other. All site amenities will be fixed to the ground to prevent them from being moved into these fire department staging areas. The landscaping at each of the townhome units will including planting beds at the front of the townhome buildings between driveways. The rear of each home will include private open space that includes a small patio and plantings. The applicant is also proposing a fence that would be approved as part of the Design Review process that could be building by residents who own a dog to create privately owned outdoor space that would be one of the only areas of the development for the animal to go outside — further protecting the surrounding wildlife habitat. By design, the project does not propose to connect to the informal trails immediately adjacent to the site to minimize impacts to the surrounding wildlife habitat. Likewise, while the site plan is open and inviting to the residents and public, it is not designed to help the residents and public recreate off-site due to the surrounding wildlife areas. The combination of significant natural landscaping, limited but attractive manicured landscaped areas, community focused outdoor gathering and recreating areas, and substantial enhanced open space make the Booth Heights landscape plan both aesthetic and functional. Substantial buffering to the rear, east and west of the site will discourage unwanted interaction with the open space and wildlife. Design Criteria D - A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Applicant Response: A safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation system that integrates and improves the East Vail public transportation system has been designed for the Booth Heights community. With direct access off the N. Frontage Road and immediate proximity to I-70, Booth Heights will cause minimal impact to East Vail's neighborhood streets. The accompanying Transportation Impact Study by McDowell Engineering, LLC shows the relatively light traffic on the Frontage Road (see Exhibit 6). The development will only generate 290 total trips (145 outgoing and 145 incoming), with only 17 additional peak -hour morning trips and 24 peak -hour evening trips, daily. There is no need for any lane improvements or widening. The vehicular and main pedestrian site access is from the west so as to work with the natural grade. This location allows a gradually sloping driveway that meets the Town's design standards and provides ADA access to the bus stop. It also is the only spot that natural grade would accommodate a 90 -degree driveway entrance at the N. Frontage Road as required by CDOT. The driveway and parking lot is designed to fully comply with the TOV design standards (i.e. width drainage, site disturbance, turning movements, etc.) including emergency access. Due to the substantial length of the driveway, the drive aisle has been oversized to 26 feet to ensure adequate circulation in the event an emergency vehicle is parked in this drive aisle. There are also three fire truck turnaround and staging areas at the request of the Fire Department. Proximity to the East Vail Bus Route is one of the most advantageous aspects of the location of EVWHS for locals housing. With direct access to TOV's public transit system, Booth Heights will cater to residents whose lives are Vail -centric. Recognizing this fact, the applicant is proposing to construct anew bus stop at the west end of the site directly adjacent to the proposed driveway. The proposed design of this new bus stop is a compromise that balances the need for new transit with the desire to maintain wildlife access to the grazing area in front of the site as suggested in the wildlife design recommendation #6 above. TOV Public Works has suggested a desire for new full -movement bus stop that would permit buses to make a 360 -degree movement at the stop that would need to be approximately 50 feet deep. This turnaround would allow a dedicated express bus to service the site if TOV determined that this level of service is preferred. While the applicant understands the operational considerations of Public Works, the wildlife design criteria direct us to preserve wildlife access to and through the right of way in front of the site. Rather than a substantial bus stop, the applicant is proposing to construct a new bus pull off on both sides of the street at the bus stop that will allow the bus to pull out of the main travel lanes. The bus stop will include a standard TOV bus shelter to serve for those waiting to commute into town, as well as a crosswalk that will allow westbound passengers to safely cross the N. Frontage Road. This stop is similar to almost all the bus stops on the East Vail bus route. Public Works also recommended a new pedestrian trail through this right-of-way at the front of the site. As there is not a trail or sidewalk to the west for almost a half mile, this trail would only provide connectivity to the Falls at Vail bus stop. While we are not proposing to build this trail for the same wildlife reasons discussed above, instead we are proposing to build landscape steps for resident leaving the site both to the west and to the east. With the above access and parking configuration, as well as the proposed public transportation improvements, the development plan provides a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. Design Criteria F - Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans The Applicant believes that the proposal is consistent with the following provisions of the Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan, Vail Land Use Plan, 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan, Vail Housing 2027 Plan, and 2018 Open Lands Plan Update: Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan: The Vail 20/20 Strategic Action Plan is a visioning document that begins with a set of values that outline what is truly important to the community. The plan then details land use and development, parks and recreation, environment, housing, transportation, economy, community and public safety topics, including specific vision statements, long-term goals, and actions and strategies over the next 5 years to achieve those goals. LAND USE Goal #2: Land use and development decisions will address environmental sustainability as a priority of the community. • Work with public and non-profit partners to ensure that environmental issues within the town and region are being addressed. • Educate developers and applicants on how to incorporate environmental sustainability into projects. Goal #4: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Address the zoning regulations to provide more incentives for developers build employee housing units. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Goal #2: Energy Management in Buildings and Transportation: Reduce the town's 2007 baseline green house gas emissions. • Support employee housing initiatives in order to reduce trips into Vail. Goal #3: Ecosystem: Improve the health and diversity of the forest and mountain ecosystem while recognizing the interdependence of the wildland urban interface (WUI) corridor within Vail. • Work with non-profit organizations and the Colorado Department of Wildlife to improve wildlife conditions. HOUSING Goal: The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. • Conduct inventory of all sites with development potential and pursue opportunities for acquiring undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. • Update the Vail Land Use Plan and identify more areas for employee housing. ECONOMY Goal #3: Maintain a town -wide workforce in which at least 30 percent of people who work in Vail also live in Vail. • Support the local economy by working with the business community to address future workforce housing needs as they relate to business in Vail. Vail Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. The following goals and objectives support this proposal: Chapter H - Land Use Plan Goals /Policies (in part) 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1. 2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Vail Housing 2027 — A Strategic Plan for Maintaining and Sustaining Community through the Creation and Support of Resident Housing in Vail Ten Year Goal: "The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. " Vision: We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and capitalizing on our unique position as North America's premier international mountain resort community in order to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives. Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community -driven purpose and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for the 21st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant challenge. Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community "We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail. " Policy Statement - Resident Housing as Infrastructure "We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. " 2009 Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan The purpose of this plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Goal #2 — Energy Efficiency: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change. 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. Goal #6 — Transportation — Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. 2018 Open Lands Plan Update The entire 23 -acre parcel is listed in the Action Plan of the document as parcel #23 and states thefollowing: Purpose — Protect environmentally sensitive land from development and or mitigate development impacts on environmentally sensitive land. Action —Acquire parcel if not developed by the land owner. If a development application is submitted and approved, work with the land owner to establish a conservation easement on the approximate 17 acres of Natural Area Preservation property, and further mitigate for wildlife and other environmentally sensitive issues on the approximate 5 acres of developable property. Other Information — If the land owner were to decide not to develop this land at their sole discretion, the Town should take steps to acquire the property or work with the land owner to protect the land from development. This approximately 23 acre parcel is within bighorn sheep range and should be evaluated for habitat and rockfall hazards. The parcel had been incorrectly identified as unplatted open space in the 1994 Open Lands Plan. During the process of updating this plan, the land owner was confirmed, and applied for and received approval for subdivision and rezoning of the parcel to approximately 17 acres Natural Area Preservation and approximately S acres Housing. Conditional Use Permit Dwelling units that are not deed restricted are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the Housing Zone District. In addition to the Conditional Use Criteria, there are four use specific criteria that must be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Conditional Use Permit Criteria: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Applicant Response: As detailed in the response to Design Criteria F above, the development of workforce housing is one of the top priorities and objectives of the Town. Allowing the 12 dwelling units without deed restrictions provides a subsidy to allow the development of the remaining 61 units of deed restricted workforce housing. While the number of unrestricted units is just 16% of the total number of dwelling units, the GRFA is 30% of the total GRFA. The proposal, as demonstrated in the sections above, clearly implements the Town's goals and objectives by balancing the need for workforce housing with the mitigation of impacts to the environment. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. The units are being developed at a density that allows ample separation of buildings to allow adequate light and air. The proposed location of the 12 dwelling units is within the eastern half of the Town and allows for adequate distribution of the population in the Town. The development will bring more ridership on buses allowing the Town's bus system to run more efficiently. The goal of the Town is to have more bus ridership and less cars requiring parking and otherwise impacting the environment. Utilities, schools, and park and recreation facilities within the Town and servicing the site have capacity to accommodate these 12 units. The proposal is consistent with this criterion and has limited impacts on the issues listed. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. While the additional 12 dwelling units will generate minimal additional traffic, the North Frontage Road and I-70 have sufficient capacity to accommodate not only these 12 dwelling units but the entire project as evidenced in the Transportation Impact Study provided with this application. The site plan has been developed to allow for code compliant access and allows for adequate traffic flow and maneuverability. Code compliant snow storage areas have been provided onsite so that snow storage is not impacting the street. Pedestrians paths and circulation have been provided throughout the property allowing for multiple routes for access to the street and transportation facilities. The proposal complies with this criterion. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Applicant Response: As detailed in the responses above to the design criteria, the proposed 12 unrestricted dwelling units will have little additional impact to the issues listed in this criterion. The property is zoned Housing Zone District thus anticipating the development of housing on the property. The overall density of the proposal, including the 12 unrestricted units, is 13.5 units per acre if you count EHUs as part of the density calculation. The density, which relates to bulk and scale is consistent with other multiple family developments in the East Vail area. The character of these 12 dwelling units, is consistent with the character of East Vail and compatible with the immediate topography. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Applicant Response: The other factors and criteria that the commission must address are the specific criteria found in the Housing Zone District when considering the addition of unrestricted dwelling units as listed below: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are critical to the project and provide a subsidy that allows the project to be constructed. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are not the primary use of the property and represent 16% to the total unit count and do not exceed 30% of the total GRFA on the property. C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and Applicant Response: These 12 dwelling units are being developed in conjunction and in proportion to the employee housing. D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Applicant Response: As evidenced from the proposed site plan and architectural drawings and as further described herein, these 12 dwelling units are compatible with the other buildings being proposed and with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Applicant Request of the Planning & Environmental Commission As the last undeveloped, sizeable Housing parcel in TOV, the EVWHS is the most meaningful local's housing opportunity within the Town of Vail today. With 73 new homes, the proposed Booth Heights community will accomplish more than 7% of TOV's 10 -year housing goal as identified in the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan. The project has been designed with sensitivity to wildlife as the fundamental driver in the plan and will include commitments to open space, wildlife enhancement, and ongoing protections for wildlife. Taken in conjunction with TOV's own ongoing wildlife enhancement in East Vail, the development serves as a model project to create much needed housing in an environmentally sensitive manner. In closing, the applicant believes that it has successfully demonstrated compliance with the Development Standards and Criteria for Evaluation for development in the Housing district as illustrated on the proposed plans and through our response to the six design criteria above. Therefore, the applicant requests that the TOV Planning & Environmental Commission approve the development plan for the Booth Heights community. Sheet Index A.000 Sheet Index A.001 Guidelines and Map A.002 Program Summary A.003 Site Coverage A.004 Landscape Coverage A.005 Snow Storage Diagram A.006 Parking Diagram A.007 Lighting Site PlanPlan A.008 Lighting Cutsheets A.009 Building Height Diagram A.100 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.101 GRFA Plan -Deed Restricted Multifamily A.102 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.110 Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.111 Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.112 Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily A.200 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome A.210 Building Elevations - Market Rate Townhome A.300 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) A.310 Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) A.400 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) A.405 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) A.410 Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) A.900 Unit Plans A.901 Unit Plans BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT C1.0 Civil Notes C2.0 Site Layout C3.0 Grading and Drainage Plan C3.1 Grading and Drainage Plan C3.2 Grading and Drainage Plan C4.0 Prelim. Storm Sewer C4.1 Prelim. Storm Sewer C5.0 Water & Sewer Plan C5.1 Water & Sewer Profiles C6.0 Shallow Utility C7.0 Erosion Control Plan L0.0 Existing Tree Removal Plan L1.0 Landscape Master Plan L1.1 Detailed Landscape Plan - West L1.2 Detailed Landscape Plan - East L1.3 Park Enlargement Plan L1.4 Prelim Landscape Enlargement Plan A.000 THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 PROJECT GUIDELINES AND GOALS • Optimize the 23 -acre parcel to balance the community's need for housing with sensitive land enhancements to the surrounding wildlife habitat • Build responsibly given the existing site configuration, topography and environment • Create a vibrant and diverse neighborhood that includes both a mix of rental and for -sale housing as well as a variety of desirable and marketable homes for a wide range of residents • Develoo an architecturally attractive community that combines modern design aesthetic and the Town of Vail's design standards in a manner that is attractive and affordable to locals Sc.WV=1,100'-0" U A.001 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 -- - --- - --- - -- --- t� L 2 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Building Units Livable Builtling 12&3 -Mutt —il EHU Builtling D -Townhome EHU Builtling E -Townhome EHU Builtling 6-Townhome EHU 4 "I Builtling H-Townhome EHU 3 Builtling A-Townhome, 4 8,290 J,JJO Builtling B-Townhome, 4 8,290 7,770 BuiltlingC Townhome, 4 8,290 7,770 Total Dwelling U— 12 24,870 23,310 DU % 1. 28% 3. Total 73 87,930 77,327 PRODUCTTYPE UNIT QUANTITY M MARKET RATE TH 12 M DEED RESTRICTED TH 79 M DEED RESTRICTED MULTI -FAMILY 42 73 TOTAL UNITS i SITE PLAN O stele: r =mo - A.002 ® 6008TH HEIGHTS NEIDGH�BORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO Program Summary SITE COVERA MAX. ALLOWED'. OVERALL SITE: BUILDING COVERAGE: 38,478 SIF V TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12 -2 -2 -SITE COVERAGE Site Coverage: The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte-cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the extenorface of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or desk shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, decker walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eve, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the Water face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. J SITE COVERAGE PLAN O Scale: V A.003 ® SOObHHEIGHTS mittal \\ 24 uNEne IGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION C _VAIL,OPEC Site Coverage Plan LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 58 MIN. REQUIRED: 30 OVERALL SITE: 235,036 SF LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 136,583SF C> LANDSCAPE COVERAGE PLAN O Sc.I. 1" = 40'-0" A.004 ® SOOTHHEIGHTuNEIGHBORHOOD PEC ne Submittal Landscape Coverage Plan -� -- - -- - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SNOW STORAGE REQUIRED SURFACE: 30% OF IMPERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 57,950 SF SNOW STORAGE AREA: .550 SF SNOW STORAGE PROVIDED: 39 SNOW STORAGE DIAGRAM O Sc.I. I" =40'a= A.005 ® SOOTHHEIGHTuNEIGHBORHOOD PEC ne Submittal Snow Storage Diagram 139 SPACES UNITS -- --- - - T- _� - 2-^� 22 4 2 2 �� \ �2 2 2/T2 l 1 .2: 2 PARKINGDIAGRAM O s�ale:1=aoa A.006 ® SOOTHHEIGHTuNEIGHBORHOOD PEC ne Submittal Parking Diagram PARKINGTYPE QUANTITY M GARAGE 31 M DRIVEWAY 60 M SURFACE LOT 45 VISITOR 3 139 SPACES UNITS -- --- - - T- _� - 2-^� 22 4 2 2 �� \ �2 2 2/T2 l 1 .2: 2 PARKINGDIAGRAM O s�ale:1=aoa A.006 ® SOOTHHEIGHTuNEIGHBORHOOD PEC ne Submittal Parking Diagram LIGHTING TYPE ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF LIGHT POLE PO • LIGHT POLE KIMLIGHTING-SIDEMOUNTEDPOLE • 90 DEGREE BLACK CUTOFF BOLLARD 90 DEGREE CUTOFF BOLLARD W FULL CUTOFF KIM LIGDLIGHTBLACK SCONCES AT UNIT • AND BUILDING CUTOFF SCONCE ENTRIES KICHLER-11250 OU"DOOR WALL SCONCE ®FULL ' GUN METAL GRAY LIGHTING TYPE QUANTITY • LIGHT POLE 2 • 90 DEGREE 5 CUTOFF BOLLARD W FULL CUTOFF 42 SCONCES AT UNIT AND BUILDING ENTRIES r Ilb ! 41 "m VVARP9- Ath Pi,,P,i,,' POLE MOUNTED LIGHT REVISED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE TO BE SI M I UR TO THE ADJACENT Fla DEPARTMENT POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES BUT WITH LED I-AMPING AND ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF OPTIONS. COLOR TEMPERATURE TO BE 3000K AND BUCK FINISH. PROPOSED POLE FIXTURE (IN BUCK) BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 11i FlIM 90 DEGREE CUTTOFF BOLLARD REVISED BOLLARD FIXTURE TO BE SIMILAR TO THE TON STANDARD BILURD FIXTURE WITH FLAT TOP AND 90 DEGREE UTTOFF FINNS. COLOR TEMERATURE TO BE 3000K AND BUCK FINISH. PROPOSED BOLLARD FIXTURE (IN BUCK) KICHLEP- 17 PROPOSED WALL SCONCE (IN GUN METAL GRAY) A.008 Lighting Cutsheets D10 --D7- 1.5 D9 D5%D30-4- 1.6 D2 1.4 �1 . 7 1.812.4 &12.4 C7 '2.5 D6- 2.6�D4_ G B C2 B7 ,`3.4 3.5 6' --- -D1 D 2 — 3.6 /7-C6 C5 B3%**- 1.2'1` .1 .2 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 ci B H6' H4 Hl---- " B5 HT G8G6 J L G G4 G1 Z* I r- F8 H5-/ H3 H2 A6 A5 A4' F6 F4 VE 8 F3'1 -2' E 1 , U 10 E9E SITE PLAN A2 i E6 "NOE 1 E2 A.009 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION VAIL,CO PEC S.b.Ml2019 Building Height Diagram Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; aflics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as setforth herein shall then be deducted from the calculator of GRFA. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage: (A) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks U niGRF(ntiface of the L wcontributing GRFA Garden - 7,679 sq ft (includes common space) Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft LEVEL 1 sale: a Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft .3" Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Total = 37.467 so ft GRFA Common Spaces Geduclion GRFA - per TGV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 2,697 sq ft Total = 2.697 so ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 37,487 sq ft Excluded Common GRFA 2,697 sq ft Excluded Basement GRFA 3,839 sq ft - TOTAL GRFA = 30,951 sq ft GARDEN LEN Scale:118" =V-0" ® PEC Sub HEIGHTSune 2C019B0RH00D AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan — Deed Restricted icted p nulti—1 a I ily Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; aflics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as setforth herein shall then be deducted from the calculator of GRFA. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage: (A) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks Unit GRFA (inc. exterior face of the wall)coMributing to GRFA am., Garden - 7,679 sq ft (includes common space) LEVEL 3 Level1 - 9,936sgft 118" =V-0" Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Total = 37.467 so ft GRFA Common spaces Oeduclion GRFA - per TGV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 2,697 sq ft Total = 2.697 so ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 37,487 sq ft Excluded Common GRFA 2,697 sq ft Excluded Basement GRFA 3,839 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 30,951 sq ft LEVEL 2 Scale:118" = V-0" ® PEC Sub HEIGHTSune 2C019B0RH00D AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan — Deed Restricted icted p nulti—1 a I ily Buildings 1, 2, 3 TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation wasx �ocp nei sowsx 6rroaD i. =iAa arnnansexn snse is,ss.s.nna =ss�nna sei.n snse .ss x�F�s arnsncnm Mnana =i,sis atses.eb. GRFA Calculations Common spaces Geduclim GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 2,697 sq ft Total = 2.697 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 37,487 sq ft Excluded Common GRFA 2,697 sq ft Excluded Basement GRFA 3,839 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 30,951 sq ft A.102 ® BAD 0bHHEIGHTC 5une2G9B0RH00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Unit GRFA nine. exterior lace of the wecontributing to GRFA Garden - 7,679 sq ft (includes common space) Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft Level 2 - 9,936 sq ft Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft Total = 37.487 sa ft GRFA Common spaces Geduclim GRFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1 Common Spaces Garden - 2,697 sq ft Total = 2.697 sa ft GRFA Total Building GRFA 37,487 sq ft Excluded Common GRFA 2,697 sq ft Excluded Basement GRFA 3,839 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 30,951 sq ft A.102 ® BAD 0bHHEIGHTC 5une2G9B0RH00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLA STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS BUILDING 03 BUILDING 02 BUILDING 01 WOODTONE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" ELPSMA-SIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES"TAHOE" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; .- "STAMPED CONCRETE" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" A.110 ® BOOPEC bH HEIGHTSmittal \\ 24 NEIGHBORHOODZ0019BORHOOD AT THE EAST NAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _HAIL, CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family QI I ily Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" ELPSMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES"TAHOE" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; .— "STAMPED CONCRETE" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 BUILDING 03 EAST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =1'-0" BUILDING 01 WEST ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" = V-0" A.111 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0 Smittal \\ 24 uneZG9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings 1, 2, 3 BRIDGERSTEEL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" ELPSMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES"TAHOE" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; .— "STAMPED CONCRETE" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 BUILDING 02 WEST ELEVATION BUILDING 01 EAST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =V-0" BUILDING 02 EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 03 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =V-0" A.112 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0 Smittal \\ 24 uneZG9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family Buildings A, B, C TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathingof the extenorwallsnot including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include (i.e.,L 9 ) but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation t .a-- a, ens• u.axn nes•aeen mnm groan a, rva .s. xi,xa ar I .............. GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior face of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 3,247 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,733 sq ft Level 3 - 3,613 sq ft Total Building GRFA 10,593 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft Total = 10.593 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,623 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 7,770 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,200 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.200 sq ft GRFA BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_ VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" A.200 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome s� s u ice= Oil.IM Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" Sc.Ie:118" = V-0" A.200 GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome Buildings A, B, C HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING; HEMLOCK FINISH IN DARK STAIN HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING; HEMLOCK FINISH IN CLEAR STAIN; NICKEL GAP EL BURNISHED SL SHIPLAP PANEL; BURNISHED SLATE STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "STAMPED CONCRETE" MANT EL L—RY DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %P1926658 NORTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" WEST ELEVATION Scale:1R" =Y-0" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1181, =1'-0" A.210 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0 5une2G9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Market Rate Townhome ■ Building D TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA nil � Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation aonm mono ..00sawu. au.•wr.n 000 s. o. nou oe was•aarn mom �rmun 000 s. o. rmu °E ..00sorwn. GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,896 sq ft (includes garage) Level 2 - 3,348 sq ft Level 3 - 1,419 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,663 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,196 sq ft Total = 7.663 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,448 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 5,019 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,196 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.196 sq ft GRFA BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_ VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 LEVEL 3 sc°Ie:118" = V-0" 1 nil � in _ — nr hi Sc°Ie:118" = V-0" GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) Building D STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; +� WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES "KHAKI" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "ELLIE GREY" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 NORTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1,a" SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" WEST ELEVATION Scale: 118" =Y-0" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1181, =1'-0" A.310 ® BOObHHEIGHTS uneZ0NEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill) Buildings E, F, G TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz ens•u.oen zwso.wnz 0� ,�.s•a..n , soom groan GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 1,059 sq ft Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 4,874 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage -1,059 sq ft GRFA Total = 1.059 sq ft GRFA sc.l.:118" = V -o= Y LEVEL 1 sc.l.:118" = V -o= A.400 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS mittal \\ 24 une2tNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) LEVEL 1 sc.l.:118" = V -o= A.400 ® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS mittal \\ 24 une2tNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) Buildings H TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases. storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation + LEVEL 3 © I aoe,x metro aes• aso scale:118" = V -o" nes• aeon soon aewn LEVEL 2 scale:118" = V -o" GRFA Calculations UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the wall) contributing to GHFA Level 1 - 1,766 sq ft Level 2 - 2,542 sq ft (includes garage) Level 3 - 752 sq ft Total Building GRFA 5,060 sq ft Excluded Garage GRFA 752 sq ft Total = 5.060 sa ft GRFA Excluded Basement GRFA 883 sq ft TOTAL GRFA = 3,425 sq ft Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2 Garage - 752 sq ft GRFA LEVEL 1 Total = 752 sq ft GRFA scale:118"=V-o" A.405 ® B00bHHEIGHTS une2tNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill) Buildings E, F, G, H STAINED CEDAR ACCENTS LP SMARTSIDE; LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE; +� WOODTOHE RUSTIC SERIES "WHITE GRANITE" LP SMARTSIDE; BOARD AND BATTEN; NORTHWEST FACTORY FINISHES "KHAKI" STUCCO WITH EXPANSIONS; MEDIUM SAND FINISH; "ELLIE GREY" PORTFOLIO ELLICOT; DARK SKY EXTERIOR LIGHT %FS130125-30 r lj�j - "Imi NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'-O" Sc.I. 118" =Y-0" SOUTH ELEVATION Sc.I. 118" =1'L" EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1181, =1'-0" A.410 ® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0 Smittal \\ 24 uneZG9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome ®® IIIII�jIIjIIiTI1I�I lI1I��lII1V��I1I�IjjIjIII�II�I1I liIII�j!IjII��I1I�I lII1I��ljI1I1�1I1I�I j1IjII�jI�I1l1III�j1IjII�1I1I�I 11I1I��lhI1III�I1I�IlpIjIII lII �1!�C�I�l1 �1Iiy.I,a ji!Il�11l4I�jIj1li1111i "l�l6I�l�1jiij1!lIj11I�Ii1'l�l11iIj111 i111I61111I�11VIiji�1IiEiI�ia�1�11�j.�VI1II1IVIIIII1IIi1I1III1IjI I,1I1i1II�1i1ji� VAIL RESORT MULTI -FAMILY - UNIT PLAN - 830 GSF Scale: veli =kali -� � 111jj��11111jIlj�lill � ;; - ® I��IIIIi�Ij114li1j1111i11�1111111j11111j11111j1111 i11i1111i11i1111i1�1�1111i111i�lill�i�lill�i�lill�i�li � IdliljllGllllli111h!�;i111�11�1pi�lj�. ®�Ij;i�l�l�llil��l�ll�il4�ull�ll�llll�ll�il �� � �®I ■��■ � I 'lll'1'lll'1'I�h1i;;11'�'I Illlllllillllllllll I _ ®® — ® III�IjII�IIIIIIII�Ij�IplVl�lll� 1111111111111111 ■ _r_ ��- ___ ®_! e2 ■ _ _��� �_-� ---1 -- -- --_ —_— __ —__ �_ -- -� � � ' ■..1 11111�I11�11111111111111111111I 1�11�411�11�411�11j1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�111 — 11111, 111111111111111,11 � 1!I14J111111111�4�IIII�111111111j11111111111 1111111111111 �VII�IIII�I�II�I� �III111111111111 I— 111111 �11i11 .. I�Ij�I �Ip4911P111111 11111111 �i11.1i�L,�i11.1i�L1�i — � ��■ � �__h -® _— — �= -=�-. - __- = _- --� � -- 111111111111114 � �11!111!11j1111!11� 1 i�1111111411111141 II�IIII�IIi11111�11�1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�1111�11�11 - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111111111 �114�1��11!1�I��Ii11�1��1j11�1��1�11�1��1�11�1�111�11 � �I161�Id61�1164�111h!1!111!111111 — — I�li�lll�4�lll�l�lll. MARKET RATE - UNIT A PLANS - 2,170 GSF SCx10: 118" =1' MARKET RATE - UNIT B PLANS - 1,975 GSF SCx10: 118" =1' 4.900 ® BOOTbHHEIGHTS uNEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Unit Plans �IIIIIIIIII 'I ��i�1IIIII�i1i411i1!I!I'II'Ii �� I �° . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■ _� � 2: hllh',I�III�II�I��I�lllil��l�ll�l��I�lll�l��ll�il�l��I�lII�III'Ii' A. - f.. VIII IIIIIIIIIIIII!Illlll!I ■.. _ . .. LEVEL02 LEVEL01 LEVEL03 LEVEL02 DEED RESTRICTED -UPHILL -UNIT A PLANS - 1,300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - UPHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 2,000 GSF Sc.Ie:118" =1' Sc.Ie:118" =1' LEVEL01 DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT A PLANS - 1 300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 1,600 GSF Sc.Ie:118" =1' Sc.Ie:118" =1' BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019 Unit Plans Wog. Q =3 EXISTING ASPEN GROVE EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN � T1 O wx i /f RAC X REMOVE EXISTING TREES FOR DEVELOPMENT i _ o J n LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN IZi�ef U scAlE: i•=ao=o SHEET LOA Pa000=M,HIoETR15 zo=- QWw�9 oP�EooaM�.wE6 0=Ii o®oo a8� PwoPo:sn:�R�a: v�osFn�vE wNsas •�.� .4 �M. �.� nn.�eounroersn« Z z v—_ �,✓< �wha ,� r - Lor r 8si+ow��sroa,wne� w t Q �'°, - a-•�. 9i ,�•. ,g �3 y u/ omonu esrcrneo a�c�r� W „ KEaA� \ =No A LUrKo a / � \ .\ Q �� M5; � � $ - � �• `N Tom' tF c F gg LANDSCA E MASTER PLAN SCALE: 1-30' V A, o SHEET <i.� �, 11.0 a, Q� = 9 ro r- 51 w o� Oo Wa 0 v y aso NO"' es \ s , o do . ®� ®�, i I \ J$ / O oa�mE.aE6 �'Ty "� �� U) —, LU o® aoPoSmoaN-a IRI, . f c iwMw.wcesr�omx � �. �: wnus- .mss.me vnmy�s�o usn �� � • s � � � i' wooD— J 8 --- omionuen.kvn D-CING 4 w n DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST��^ SCALE: 1-20'—V SHEET L1.1 W0�- . - -MOM LOT 1L Pso� MwREEH E6 J �' e ,rte »�� '3'`% a F s �`s•. e. »' s, z.�:�'., a�`'� �'� /r,,;, sis�AeeEs+/ Q�zagg ;^s•—'"�,,4 '}`C��,,�s J�gc��,',,.''' rzEeernoNNo 2D17198746eo ocrw.�enru.ee�s �w.§s rd O€om oo°Pao�ossnsxa�as oA,a PRO -1 oaN GR— P"o� so Psas us -"�✓�✓'`�„�.,'� E orm- ' +� a .. � re `Y ?; Yt Lz � seen rurn T, Noa ��� .r -;,, .ati eu N .r Y <� isy", S.r N W S �'2 / L r �...Y�✓h' xK"c? 3 vva eoamu�cH U Z a il, Ns - � . Il.— PA�ws a �: OcasFlNE,— W 0 CL PL P �: �vninux taut rc J J U U) enx Oum"ol 111 j a ? ��t LL W d! or re Ho A" w ��- l v �' umcuuuuwffro f j Nw+r vNo sem' Oosnr-rn c= Y loy a ROgo �9Y 7 �'�OFWAY� � GF h Q �\ .�� DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - EAST, ` a�o E] SCALE: 1-20=o" SHEET 11.2 - �X= Ng Ww. _H ■ ff Z co IL fig' 1 PERMEABLE PAVERS / FIRE' TRUCK PARKING pQ Lu ZU w STEEL FRAME W/ WOOD TRELLIS ` w (` BIKE RACKS BEAR-PROOFTRASH RECEPTABLEf. Q a i / COUNTER W/ 4 �' _ }` Lu GAS GRILLS PICNIC TABLES, IT W/ o a INFORMAL SEATING PERMEABLE PAVERS,�-8408 9 K PLAN LE-11 ENLARGED PAR���' SCALE: i"=so'=o" x...c. , -,ao SHEET 11.3 Wot;. �0= PLANT NOTES: t. NI pbm mrzoialsM1all memsPwfiv3Aomddm Amoacao Aswdatiood PJlplam oore�IP6 eo{s4AN}fm oomberoo<e�ode PJI e<es:Fall be and baAaPPad«<gokalm�e ls shalllmv< all <«othmommimomt —1, ergm f«boAop, removed from truck and root ball of Are plain prorro pbmioy. My<me orskub Floated widen Aaht aa�ro(a«m Poionrodmesard roadway:} drodd be bo,edbervreeo 3.5' and 8' Fa dee.vi<ws. 4. Tien FII be Imed<bw lO Fein roeoy sn.ezmworezPm Tree b 6II be T bm< »z�h all d 1" Locoaoro of all mitiro shall be s�flod o fire FFId poor b ' -d d wt�ha, h � Il be mom<d woobaodw arebela« e. 3.Grades r611 6e wt —11-6p oaeeeway From enact mes. Godes doll ma ow'o>mood waNla: aodbe hee of smhcedebaa bumPx aodden,es:�om. h,, t6 zkll msm<t8mda bidwape Plao's mod-o<md w:d dre Fbreji. othmomsultma i dot,- Propowd gmdoa, sromdm rose,«od«c., P6 omdoes int mo«predode .osmlbaooard mswmaom of laidwap<el<meoam *'s plan. 5. All ski, beds adjaceotw and omes z6116 wised -h wll a:P Rp «app—d epuivab,t Heel 6. NI skub bed areas doll be nwM� vAd. wood bad owkhrnm w<edbamm faMk ro a degh d d'. No wced m,mb and pareas doll bo roald.ed wide a 3' bym cf sb<dd<d badroald. 6mo W—mooale�oar. T. thio. nelbaoo of pbm mm<�<I:, Dees ghat Faveb<eo compxted mdnuked by coo ctiviry zkll be dmmghly loos<rcds ouk«c 7 emrodoreets zkll b<imaporewd et the mm of et lest fiv<(5) <o6cyads pm 10Coaware f«<of lardr�p<am. e.All bodroapeGd- oore.ls eod,9ass)4I b i,,gated wide —di, m Towo of V ilDs so SperoFom�s Tmf and w<dareas.«Il hasrea:p*aywoe, d�mbs will hasrea ddp woeaod perenn el4grouodcmrem (wre of dadnp ecce} will Leve moo jmafuayz wbmeeppropnex. 9. C.—., shall vmfy all mrzo61 a llfl. poor to'—lbaoo. Amod d pbm -66 shall haveP ,—,dm—andeoamwd. 10. All pbmios .III mmPHwid da Toum cf =d 6isireeaos 5<aodeds and sP<6Fcea mcx sfnerl.+rmNc Y I P m' PST si P� sT ya J_. ®.._—_.. ..m .s..00..c. SHEET L1.4 TO%')N OF ,SAIL -GENERAL NOTES . .... ........ .. ... .......... . . . , .. ..... . 1214711 T' . ..... ... GENERAL NOTES ......... . ... ... . . ..... I T I I I I SEINERANDIA—EN-TES n. J, ... . . .. .. 1111, IRI NENTU RNLI N K STRUCTURAL SPECI Fl—IONS . ......... CIVIL SHEET INDEX lITE LA111T 1, 111VE AIIIIALL 111FILE1 — E� IjA I -EN 1— .1 1� INLEI 11.13.1 11 ILL11 ITLINI N- — -1 PROJECT CONTACTS I—ITE 'T T111.11 I-EL1111-T 111- IEL 1 11 L1111111E Al TELT O IDE L.A.— 8AIII 111S, 11 -1 ,NIT -INEE1 I INNE 11NEE-1. 111 1-1 TIAIFII EIIIIEEI I ID IIET E—EE111.1— KAII 1111 -ELL sIHI IEIEI -111 111- -- 11 111L — T111 IIIIET HOLY CROSS ENERGY CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS r SHEET cl.0 PR �LIMINARY ---------- -- �— — — ------- ---- ___ -„ _-- _ - -, —__—___—___— LEGEND vreovErery ewe �. �.. vreoPas�re sPore� s�nEreP Prereva�o rearv�o�re reE.a„�rvre w�� D I �rereva�o �arv�rew�rv�, PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B4> [J]M6 o Z aw=ZOS --- W 00 Q u 777777 ;a�Gare -! �--- SHEET ��� _ C3.0 rr= ` _ RGNT x AGf eA LEGENE ° �\ _ - awoaoso Ms awRsv� xaN wn� a PR U IN- _ .\ NOT POR CONSTRUCTION - 0 m SHEET C3.1 Wiz,%o A, 17 3: rr= ` _ RGNT x AGf eA LEGENE ° �\ _ - awoaoso Ms awRsv� xaN wn� a PR U IN- _ .\ NOT POR CONSTRUCTION - 0 m SHEET C3.1 FILE: DRIVI---C-E—NTERLIIJE 20' HORZONT�L 1-20 . ..... ------ ----- ----- 7PR W z �u --------- -- PROFILE: DRIVECENTERLINE (CONT'D) ----- — -------- — -------- Ld ---------- ------------- 0 0 PROFILE: EARTH kQCKFALL MITIGAT ON BERM VERTIC 1 20 HORIZONIAL 1 -20' EARTH BERM ---- -- ----- PROFILE: EARTH ROCKFALL MITIGATION BERM 7 FRELI _�IINARY NOT �R �ONS�UCTION -id I I I I I I J J J J I ---------------- -- - ---- ---- -- ------- ----------- -- - -- -- -------- -- ------------- -------------- SHEET C4.0 ZOS SHEET C4.0 Ld Ws 4 a�<<acse 00 Po w� •.� `� `� �'�a Z�; uIL171NG `h �� � 6�, r _ �m ` x<x I` \Z\:� 0 p asp v vE _ - r ________ - �,ih_ _ ;�,��`�.' SHEET o� xxr�m war ox,x�`xk, o A _— __— �, \ � NOR? H \ a \ \ a SHEET t ow�ogo,.�wamw QW 4 CO TO 1 J J FRELIMINARtl NOT FOR CON8 RUCTION Q Q< z TRACT A L�> r �' Q 3 W SHEET t PROFILE) SEWER SOUTH PROFILE: SEWER NORTH AMV PROFILE: SEWER BACKLOT MP PROFILE: WATER MAIN SCALE: VERTICAL 1"=36 HORIZONTAL 1"=30' PROFILE: SEWER WEST '2EV PRELIM:N�%RY NOT FOR C.N8 RUCTION PROFILE: WATER WEST U) 0 w Z 0 D 00 IU W 3: w UI > n > z VJ ly QW I - w < 3: SHEET C5.1 w- Vo� \ a\ a\ w d'�ry I �:� 1� SHEET C6.0 eseN 7 E] Z EMINARY NOT ZIU R . CONSTRUCTION 0 1— ju o 7RACT �:� 1� SHEET C6.0 FT — ' \�<C�\�\\`� ��\_ Ron�A.009. Ri O�OOE 9d nd21215.88 alar — —" —_ `'\� '— — —� \\ \ \ El — AFEA OF A09 OF MOFE SLOPE FCS\\\\�—_� \ _ \ \\ \ _—_\ -- �\ \E— � E _ — �\ � ^ \ T\`\� \�701AL AREA WITHIN SETBACKS = 183082 OF = 4.20 AC 0IL0ABLE AFEA 158836 IF 3.65 A (AREA OF 409 OR LESS SLOPE) _ 1 `1 n�--__-moiv T, \W wvv vwvviv v vo <�vvv v -v,A l� v w vv.vY v vv vj1 L� w \ ALPINES /�/EIv I DF , ENGINEERING INC. DF Scale: 3164" = V-0" Scale: 3164" = V-0" A.500 ® BOOTbHHEIGHTS uNEGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Site Elevations A.510 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 22 July 2019 A.511 BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 22 July 2019 I` iy'i 4 ^ilc�H I 'j BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO PEC Submittal \\ 22 July 2019 A.512 SITE SECTION 0 15' 40' SITE SECTION B 7/3/2019 � 4 0 15' 40' 5U1LD1NG "I' SITE SECTION C 1/3/2019 0 15' 40' ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY LOT 1, EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE BO WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.^n^ TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO ���e�.oxxxmrx�e� man .o_Tar, _ ` va� roRoa, xoR��o - v ` j \ \M V A' \ 9_-_ m °°n m�xxne •� m ems® R �, _ \ "� moumwm.�x„= w ,Tnu .orm or vui auwsurx..o vui .orm mve .nig .z. ao-a�m z.. w.o-reo a..ee o cei� o rea °x... m w,eonoso u^xex :a ar„ .. oo-n ar aio-.xaa um.x� n -m ---- --- smouei��m ox omo c�'4 .. ,x�E ux� �vm raou coou< <ra.x wra o-axaosuo-n oxer. e 0eppo R[ �r n�aanax xa. xa�.azzs�, xm o-ee� .a aio. o,�rpt B ewumo-m uaa� mo -x nx °eras raau me oo-rz a o-m�uirenw sxoxx xwmx zo�.�a.ae. o -s sxawx xEv�a, omnw, weeonoeo os.eeew �e.:m. ^. wea°non no. orrse�. w xo LNN�. uo-r ren unax ao-so wox wr oeren ix axis sower ae � � .s. wv.u, um. rt� are o-ssswmn a: vuttx a wausox or aesc� vrcwwv w me rra� '+` � xir<x wo-.m rxo srxno-nox oinxim. o -s �xowem w ixnxuumn xrcowm sn�uem +a �'"”' ' x aurc wo svwwAL e.^,ns wv_ xo�e o-. rzaanax xa. rzo�e�se.^. Moi o-ei� .o vion �wi'i�No`'°� SITE ` j \ \M V A' \ 9_-_ m °°n m�xxne •� m ems® R �, _ \ "� moumwm.�x„= w ,Tnu .orm or vui auwsurx..o vui .orm mve .nig .z. ao-a�m z.. w.o-reo a..ee o cei� o rea °x... m w,eonoso u^xex :a ar„ .. oo-n ar aio-.xaa um.x� n -m ---- --- smouei��m ox omo c�'4 .. ,x�E ux� �vm raou coou< <ra.x wra o-axaosuo-n oxer. e 0eppo R[ �r n�aanax xa. xa�.azzs�, xm o-ee� .a aio. o,�rpt B ewumo-m uaa� mo -x nx °eras raau me oo-rz a o-m�uirenw sxoxx xwmx zo�.�a.ae. o -s sxawx xEv�a, omnw, weeonoeo os.eeew �e.:m. ^. wea°non no. orrse�. w xo LNN�. uo-r ren unax ao-so wox wr oeren ix axis sower ae � � .s. wv.u, um. rt� are o-ssswmn a: vuttx a wausox or aesc� vrcwwv w me rra� '+` � xir<x wo-.m rxo srxno-nox oinxim. o -s �xowem w ixnxuumn xrcowm sn�uem +a �'"”' ' x aurc wo svwwAL e.^,ns wv_ xo�e o-. rzaanax xa. rzo�e�se.^. Moi o-ei� .o vion �wi'i�No`'°� EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 1 Town of Vail Attn: Tom Kassmel 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 May 21, 2019 Re: East Vail Residential Parking Analysis — Affordable Housing Apartments Vail, Colorado Purpose: This memorandum was developed to give a recommendation forthe affordable housing apartments being proposed as part of Triumph's East Vail Residential development project. The recommendation is based upon two methodologies. Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) parking demand data Local parking rates at comparable apartment complexes National Parking Rate: The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual' states that the average peak period parking demand for a mid -rise apartment (Land Use #221) is 1.31 vehicles per dwelling unit. The statistic is given based upon the 9516 Percent Confidence Interval for a nationwide study of 73 apartment complexes. The 951h Percent Confidence Interval indicates that there is a 95% likelihood that the parking demand will fall within 1.26 to 1.36 parking spaces per unit. These rates were taken in general urban/suburban multifamily complexes throughout the United States. These complexes do not necessarily have the same access to transit, employee workforce, and restricted workplace parking that the East Vail Residential residents will likely experience. The Parking Generation Manual does not specify the number of bedrooms for the multifamily units, but given the broad range of studies, it is anticipated that the individual studies contained a mix of 1, 2, and 3 -bedroom units. The statistical analysis on this data set is considered good with a low coefficient of variation of 17%. Observed Local Parking Rate: As stated in the Parking Generation Manual, "The quality and quantity of parking demand data vary significantly by land use code. The Parking Generation Manual should be considered only the beginning point of information to be used in estimating parking demand. Local conditions and area type can influence parking demand. The wide array of data in the manual blends many site conditions and may not best reflect a particular local condition. Therefore, a survey of a site in a comparable local condition should always be considered as one potential means to estimate parking demand." Therefore, local data provides a more accurate representation of parking for Vail's local workforce housing. The Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments in Vail have similar characteristics to the proposed residential apartments. They primarily serve work force housing, have similar amenities, and have direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and 1 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edi ion, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2019 CDOWELL TENGINEERING«C RANSPORTATION ENSINEERINO CONSULTANTS EAGLE 9 BROOMFIELD * GRAND Juxc7 ION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENG.COM amenities. Residents of both properties typically have restricted workplace parking. The East Vail Residential development is proposing to have managed parking, like the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments. The design team performed observations at the comparable Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments on Thursday, February 28 and Friday, March 1, 2019. The data collection included the total number of parking spaces and number of parked cars. It snowed overnight on February 28, therefore there was evidence of vehicles that had been parked onsite overnight but had been moved before 7:15am. These vehicles are included in the overnight count data. 'Data was collected onsite February 28 and March 1, 2019. zit snowed overnight. Therefore, several spaces had evidence of cars parked overnight that had left before the 7:15am data collection. The observed parking rate was 0.73 vehicles per unit in the evening and 1.06 vehicles per unit overnight. Overall, it was observed that the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments have excess parking, as not all the available spaces were utilized overnight. Proposed Parking Rate: The parking rate for this facility is best determined by using local parking data. Triumph Development is proposing to provide 44 parking spaces for 42 affordable housing apartments. This equates to a parking rate of 1.05 per unit. This rate has an insignificant difference to the observed Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge parking demand of 1.06. Therefore, with proper parking management, it is anticipated that a parking rate of 1.05 spaces per unit will be adequate for the proposed workforce housing facility. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC Kari. McDowell S hroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer CDOWELL ENGINEERINGuC ■ TgAMCPOOTATION ENOINCCOINO CONSULTANT■ EAGLE . BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENGCOM Observed Parking' Name Units (du) Parking Spaces Evening Overnight 3/1/2019 @ 2/28/19 @ 6:15pm 7:15am7 Cars Parked 153 189 Evidence of Overnight Parking N/A 33 Open Spaces 94 25 Timber Ridge and Lions Total Parking Spaces 247 247 Ridge Apartments 210 Vail, CO Total Parking Spaces Per Unit 1.18 Observed Parking Rate per Unit 0.73 1.06 'Data was collected onsite February 28 and March 1, 2019. zit snowed overnight. Therefore, several spaces had evidence of cars parked overnight that had left before the 7:15am data collection. The observed parking rate was 0.73 vehicles per unit in the evening and 1.06 vehicles per unit overnight. Overall, it was observed that the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments have excess parking, as not all the available spaces were utilized overnight. Proposed Parking Rate: The parking rate for this facility is best determined by using local parking data. Triumph Development is proposing to provide 44 parking spaces for 42 affordable housing apartments. This equates to a parking rate of 1.05 per unit. This rate has an insignificant difference to the observed Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge parking demand of 1.06. Therefore, with proper parking management, it is anticipated that a parking rate of 1.05 spaces per unit will be adequate for the proposed workforce housing facility. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC Kari. McDowell S hroeder, PE, PTOE Traffic Engineer CDOWELL ENGINEERINGuC ■ TgAMCPOOTATION ENOINCCOINO CONSULTANT■ EAGLE . BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDOWELLENGCOM EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 2 East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Eagle County® Colorado prepared for: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 preparedby. Western Ecological Resource® Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Environmental Impact Report East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado Signature Page prepared for. - Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657 prepared hy.. Gv� David Johnson, kre ident Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 May 2019 Table of Contents Section / Title Page .0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Existing Environment.....................................................................................................................1 2.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................1 2.1.1 Surface Water.....................................................................................................................1 2.1.2 Groundwater.......................................................................................................................1 2.2 Atmospheric Condition..............................................................................................................1 2.3 Geology & Hazards................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 Geology..............................................................................................................................2 18 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards...............................................................................................................3 2.4 Soils...........................................................................................................................................3 2.5 Vegetation Resources.................................................................................................................4 18 2.5.1 Vegetation Types................................................................................................................4 19 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern................................................................................4 2.6 Wildlife Resources.....................................................................................................................5 2.6.1 Habitats Present and Project Setting.................................................................................... 5 2.6.2 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern......................................................................................6 2.6.3 Other Wildlife Groups......................................................................................................12 2.7 Noise....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 17 2.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................17 2.10 Land Use...............................................................................................................................17 25 2.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................17 2.12 Population.............................................................................................................................17 25 3.0 Proposed Project.........................................................................................................................17 3.1 Buildings & Parking.................................................................................................................17 3.2 Natural Area Preservation........................................................................................................17 3.3 Access & Traffic.......................................................................................................................1 7 3.4 Utilities....................................................................................................................................18 3.5 Bus Station...............................................................................................................................18 3.6 Drainage Plan..........................................................................................................................18 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation...................................................................................................................18 4.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 18 4. 1.1 Surface Water................................................................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Groundwater..................................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Atmospheric Condition............................................................................................................18 4.3 Geology & Hazards.................................................................................................................18 4.3.1 Rockfall & Debris Flow..................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Existing Landslide............................................................................................................. 19 4.4 Soils.........................................................................................................................................19 4.5 Vegetation Resources...............................................................................................................20 4.5.1 Vegetation Types.............................................................................................................. 20 4.5.2 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................20 4.6 Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................20 4.6.1 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern....................................................................................22 4.6.2 Other Wildlife Species and Groups...................................................................................24 4.7 Noise.......................................................................................................................................25 4.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 25 4.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................25 4.10 Land Use............................................................................................................................... 25 4.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................ 25 Table of Contents (continued) Section / Title Page 4.12 Population.............................................................................................................................26 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes...................................27 5.1 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................27 5. 1.1 Surface Water...................................................................................................................27 5.1.2 Groundwater.....................................................................................................................27 5.2 Atmospheric Condition............................................................................................................27 5.3 Geology & Hazards.................................................................................................................27 5.4 Soils.........................................................................................................................................27 5.5 Vegetation Resources...............................................................................................................27 5.5.1 Vegetation Types..............................................................................................................27 5.5.2 Wetlands...........................................................................................................................27 5.6 Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................27 5.7 Noise.......................................................................................................................................28 5.8 Odors...................................................................................................................................... 28 5.9 Visual Resources......................................................................................................................28 5.10 Land Use............................................................................................................................... 28 5.11 Access & Transportation........................................................................................................ 28 5.12 Population.............................................................................................................................28 6.0 Figures.........................................................................................................................................29 7.0 References...................................................................................................................................46 Appendix A. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Correspondence — Background Estimates for Air Pollution in Project Site.............................................................................. Al -A2 Appendix B. IPaC Resource List................................................................................................. 131-1310 List of Figures Number / Title Page Figure1. Project Location Map..........................................................................................................30 Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Site..................................................................................................31 Figure3. Wetland Map......................................................................................................................32 Figure4. Geology Map......................................................................................................................33 Figure 5. Official Rockfall Hazard Map.............................................................................................35 Figure 6. Potential Debris Flow Channels..........................................................................................36 Figure7. Landslide Map....................................................................................................................37 Figure 8. Important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel..................38 Figure 9. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 -mile buffer...................39 Figure 10. Elk winter range in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel.......................................................40 Figure 11. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area) .............................41 Figure 12. Proposed Development Plan............................................................................................42 Figure 13. Typical Sections — RockfalI Barrier....................................................................................43 Figure 14. Wildlife habitats affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 -acre East Vail parcel ........................ 44 Figure 15. Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Enhancement......................................................................45 List of Tables Number/Title Page Table 1. Ambient Air Concentration Estimates.....................................................................................2 Table 2. Federally listed and proposed animal species that may be affected by the East Vail Workforce Housingproject......................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project.........................................................13 Table 4. Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis.....................................................26 Table 5. Population Projection..........................................................................................................26 Technical Reports and Supporting Documents Used to Prepare the EIR TR -1. Preliminary Subsurface Exploration, East Vail Housing Rock Mitigation and Geotechnical Study Prepared by William H. Koechlein, P.E., Senior Consultant, Cesare, Inc., 7108 South Alton Way, Building B, Centennial, CO 80112, November 14, 2018. TR -2. RockfalI Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Prepared by Julia M. Frazier, P.G., Senior Geologist, Cesare, Inc., 7108 South Alton Way, Building B, Centennial, CO 80112, June 19, 2017. TR -3. East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan Prepared by Julia M. Frazier, P.G., Owner, Skyline Geoscience, Golden, CO, May 24, 2019. TR -4. Wetland Delineation Report, East Vail Workforce Subdivision Prepared by Heather Houston, Owner, Birch Ecology, LLC, 429 Main Street, Lyons, CO 80540, February 2019. TR -5. Wildlife Monitoring Report for the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, August 2018. TR -6. East Vail Peregrines — 2018 Nesting Attempt to Date Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, June 18, 2018. TR -7. Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision — Architectural Plans Prepared by Triumph Development, 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657, June 10, 2019. TR -8. East Vail Housing —Civil Plans Prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., 34510 Hwy 6, Unit A9, PO Box 97, Edwards, CO 81632, February 21, 2019. Revised May 22, 2019. TR -9. Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential Prepared by Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE, McDowell Engineering, LLC, PO Box 4259, Eagle, CO 81631, February 14, 2019. Revised May 21, 2019. TR -1 0. Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Project Prepared by Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, CO 80302, May 2019. 1.0 Introduction Triumph Development has plans to develop a subdivision on a triangular-shaped undeveloped 23.3 - acre land parcel located immediately north of the East Vail Interstate 70 (1-70) Interchange in the town of Vail, Colorado. The project purpose is to build a new multi -family community and preserve and enhance wildlife winter range. The East Vail Workforce Subdivision would be developed on 5.4 acres on the west end of the parcel, which is zoned H for Housing. The 17.9 acres to the east, which is zoned NAP (Natural Area Preservation), would be preserved and enhanced for wildlife. The triangular-shaped project site is bordered by the White River National Forest (WRNF) to the north and east. Fall Line Drive and North Frontage Road form the southern boundary. A retaining wall with wooden beams extends along a portion of the southern project boundary. The Pitkin Creek Townhomes are located near the southeast corner of the project site. Specifically, the project is located in the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West of the 61" P.M. See Figures 1 and 2. The 23.3 -acre undeveloped project site is located on a south -facing slope that ranges in elevation from a low of 8374 feet on the west end to a high of 8940 on the northeast end of the site. The site has slopes that range from 7 to over 45 degrees. However, the slope of the proposed development area is less than 30 degrees. The elevations of the proposed development area on the west end of the project site range from a low of 8374 feet to a high of 8532 feet. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as per Town of Vail's Chapter 12 Environmental Impact Report Guidelines, describes the existing environment of the project site, presents details of the proposed development plan, evaluates potential impacts and mitigation, and assesses cumulative, long-term and irreversible environmental change associated with the proposed development. Numerous technical reports prepared for the proposed development were used to prepare the various sections of this EIR. These reports are referenced in the text and are available as separate attachments to this document. 2.0 Existing Environment 2.1 Hydrology 2.1.1 Surface Water The west end of the project site is bisected by a 2 -foot wide and 68 -foot long ephemeral stream which conveys snowmelt and stormwater runoff to a 24 -inch culvert located south of the project boundary. This culvert conveys the water south toward Gore Creek. See Figure 3. The perennial Pitkin Creek is located in an incised drainage east of the project site and the perennial Booth Creek is located in a drainage west of the project site. See Figure 1. The area upslope of the development parcel contains a network of erosional drainage channels that convey water from snowmelt and precipitation events toward the project site. See Figure 6. 2.1.2 Groundwater Cesare, Inc. (2018) excavated nine exploratory pits up to 10 feet deep throughout the development area of the project site. None of the pits encountered groundwater. See Technical Report 1 (TR -1). However, soil saturation is present near the surface in a small wetland seep located along the east boundary of the development parcel. See Figure 3. 2.2 Atmospheric Condition The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) provided data on the estimated ambient air concentrations of six air pollutants for the East Vail Workforce Subdivision project site (Chick, 2018). See Table 1. Please note, local air monitoring data do not exist for Vail, Colorado; therefore, Ms. Chick developed best estimates for the general geographic area using available CDPHE data. The analysis concludes that the estimated levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead are below state and federal standards for these pollutants for the area of the project site. The undeveloped project site does not generate any gaseous or particulate pollutants. See Appendix A. Table 1. Ambient Air Concentration Estimates East Vail Workforce Subdivision, Vail, Colorado Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Estimate Data Source Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour Second 35 ppm 2 ppm Grand Junction, Maximum 2015-2017 8 Hour Second 9 ppm 1 ppm Maximum Ozone (03) 8 Hour Fourth 0.070 ppm 0.064 ppm Glenwood Springs, Maximum Feb - Dec 2015 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 99" 0.075 ppm 0.012 ppm RM Steel Print Shop, Percentile Pueblo, 2013 - 2015 3 Hour Second 0.05 ppm 0.008 ppm Maximum Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Mean 0.053 ppm 0.005 ppm Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015 1 Hour 98' 0.100 ppm 0.0333 ppm Percentile Particulate Matter Less 24 Hour Second 150 ug/m3 40 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 10 Microns (PM10) Maximum Feb - Dec 2015 Particulate Matter Less Annual Mean 12.0 ug/m3 5 ug/m3 Glenwood Springs, Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5) Feb - Dec 2015 24 Hour 98th 35 ug/m3 13 ug/m3 Percentile Lead Rolling 3 -Month 0.15 ug/m3 0.006 ug/m3 Denver Municipal Average Animal Shelter, 2009 Data provided by Nancy Chick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. See AppendixA. 2.3 Geology & Hazards Cesare, Inc. (2017) describes the geology and geologic hazards of the project site in the Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, which is appended to this report. Skyline Geoscience's Geologic Hazard Analysis (2019) also documents the geology and the geologic hazards. The geology and geologic hazards described below are taken from these reports. See TR -2 and TR -3. 2.3.1 Geology The site is underlain by surficial units comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and till of the Pinedale glaciation. See Figure 4. The artificial fill is associated with the construction of Fall Line Drive along the southern project boundary. The bedrock underlying with site is mapped as the Minturn Formation (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others, 2011). Landslide deposits cover most of the central portion of the project site, and colluvium occurs along the north project boundary. The western end of the project site where development would occur is characterized by the Lower Member of the Minturn Formation and includes conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, shale, and may contain granite. The eastern end of the project site is characterized by the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation, which is comprised of marine limestone and dolomitic limestone. 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards The Town of Vail's official Rockfall Hazard Map (Figure 5) shows that all of the project site is mapped as a High Severity Rockfall Zone. Vail's official Debris Flow Hazard Map identifies debris flows in the town of Vail, but not on the project site. However, the geologic hazards addressed in the Geologic Hazard Analysis (Skyline Geoscience, 2019; TR -3) include debris flows, rockfall, and an existing landslide on the project site. Cesare (2017) states that rock outcrops, a rockfall source zone, occur upslope of the project site and have the potential to impact the site and the proposed development. The stability of the rock mass is generally influenced by the underlying support provided by the rock mass and the structural nature of the rock, including the orientation and spacing of discontinuities. After a rock dislocates from a rock mass, the controlling factors for how far the rock will travel downslope include characteristics of the falling rock (composition, size and shape), characteristics of the slope (form, length and angle), the presence or absence of obstructions on the slope, and the height of the initial fall. The rocks exposed upslope of the project site contain fractures and thin layers of siltstone and shale. As time passes, cracks can be enlarged by weathering of the rock, accumulation of soil and vegetation growth, and the forces associated with freeze -thawing of moisture within the cracks. According to Skyline Geoscience (2019), there is the potential for debris flows at the site. Review of a detailed terrain surface derived from the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and of aerial photographs of the project site and surrounding area indicates the potential for debris flows. Incised channels with seasonal flowing water are present on the west side of the site (the development area) and on the slopes above, are evidence of active erosive processes. An intense, prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper -concentrated debris flow. Modifications to the existing natural condition my increase the debris flow susceptibility. See Figure 6. Landslide deposits in the area occur on unstable slopes typically underlain by Minturn Formation shale, siltstone, claystone, or glacial till, and are largely considered inactive. Cesare mapped the extent of a large landslide which originates upslope of the project site and encompasses most of the eastern portion of the project site, but does not extend into the development area. See Figure 7. The Gore fault, located about 500 feet northeast of the project, is not considered to be active. See Figure 4. 2.4 Soils Soils at the project area have not been mapped by either the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) nor the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Three soils onsite were described to about 20 inches in depth for the wetland delineation which was conducted on October 24, 2017. The upper horizons of these soils were dark colored (organic rich), fine -loamy, probably deep, and formed from slope alluvium and colluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. The Millerlake soil, which has been mapped by the USFS nearby at Vail Mountain Resort, matches the soils on the project site. The Millerlake soil commonly supports aspen stands, much like those on the project site. The MiIIerlake soil belongs to the fine -loamy, mixed, superactive, Pachic ArgicryolIs family. It is very deep (greater than 60 inches), well drained, and formed from slope alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. Runoff is medium to rapid, permeability is moderately slow, and available water holding capacity is moderate. Typically, the surface layers are very dark or dark brown loam and clay loam at least 16 inches thick, and below that is clay loam and loam. In the project area, the soils likely have some rocks in the deeper profile. 2.5 Vegetation Resources 2.5.1 Vegetation Types The project site is characterized by an Aspen Forest (Pooulus tremuloides) with a variable density of aspen and two small wetlands. Aspen Forest. The Aspen Forest is classified as a Quaking Aspen /Saskatoon Serviceberry— Mountain Snowberry / California Brome ftpulus tremuloides / Amelanchier alnifolia — Symohoricaroos oregohilus/Bromus carinatus) Forest (NatureServe, 2019). The aspen trees in the area of the landslide (Figure 7) have been impacted by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD) and thus, there is considerable standing dead as well as trees on the ground. The Aspen Forest in the area of the proposed development has not been impacted by SAD. The aspen trees in this area are young, healthy and dense. See Figure 2. The woody understory vegetation in this habitat type is typically characterized by serviceberry, snowberry, and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Other shrubs observed include mountain maple (Acer glabrum), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate var. vaseyana), mountain mahogany (Cercocarous montanus), and common juniper (/unioerus communis sso. alnina). Elimination of the overstory trees due to SAD and perhaps some management activities that cut aspen has resulted in an increase in the cover of the shrubs and herbaceous species. The understory shrubs have been heavily grazed by big horn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Common herbaceous grasses in this habitat type include California brome, blue wildrye (Elymusglaucus), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa ,oratensis). Characteristic forbs include meadowrue (Thalictrum fend/erii), geranium (Geranium vikoissimum), sweet -cicely (Osmorhizae berteroi), fireweed (Chomerion angustifolia), American vetch (Vicia Americana), little sunflower (Heliantella uniforma), and peavine (Lathyrus so.). Wetlands. As illustrated by Figure 3, there are two small wetlands on the project site. The eroded channel of the 2 -foot wide ephemeral stream, which bisects 68 linear feet of the west end of the project site, is classified as a wetland. This wetland extends south off the project site for 24 linear feet to a culvert which diverts water south and under 1-70 toward Gore Creek. However, there is little wetland vegetation along the creek channel. A 705 ftz woody wetland occurs along the east side of the development parcel. However, only 377 ftz of this wetlanc occurs in the development area. Major plants in the wetland include willows (Salix bebbiana, S. scouleriana), dogwood (Cornus sericea)and honeysuckle (Distegia involucrata). The herbaceous understory includes a sparse cover of beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), cow parsnip (Herac%um snhondylium ssn. montanum), and monkshood (Aconitum columbianum) (Birch Ecology, 2019 — TR -4). 2.5.2 Federally Listed & Species of Concern The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2019) Information for Planning & Conservation (IPaC) website identified Ute ladies' tresses orchid (S,oiranthes diluvia&), classified as a Threatened plant, as potentially present in the project region. See Appendix B. The Ute ladies' tresses orchid is endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial streams (USFWS, 1995; Jennings, 1990). In Colorado, the elevational range of known Ute ladies' tresses orchid populations is between 4,528 and 7,753 feet (CNHP, 2017). This orchid prefers sites with permanent sub - irrigation such as floodplains where the water table is near the surface throughout the growing season and into the late summer or early autumn (USFWS, 1995; Jennings, 1990). The orchid frequently colonizes early -successional riparian habitats including point bars, sand bars, and low lying gravelly, sandy, or cobbly edges. These preferred habitat characteristics suggest that this species requires early to mid-seral riparian habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains (USFWS, 1995). This plant has been documented as present in Garfield and Eagle Counties (near Carbondale). The project site is elevationally above the range of this plant, and furthermore, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for this plant. 4 Harrington penstemon, a species listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management, is a species of concern in Eagle County. This herbaceous perennial plant occurs primarily in open stands of big sagebrush, or less commonly in pinyon -juniper (Pinus edu/is/uninerus scgnu/orum) woodlands or mountain mahogany (Cercocarnus montanus) shrublands at elevations between 6,800-9,200 feet. Within the sagebrush shrubland, Harrington penstemon is often present on windswept ridgetop habitats with an open shrub layer and reduced vegetative cover. There are known populations of Harrington penstemon in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties (Spackman, et al., 1997). There are populations of Harrington penstemon in the Eagle River Valley from as far east as Avon. However, the aspen community on the project site does not provide habitat for this plant. 2.6 Wildlife Resources 2.6.1 Habitats Present and Project Setting 2.6.1.1 Habitats Present The south -facing, 23.3 -acre, East Vail parcel consists of several seral stages of an aspen and mountain shrub community. The 5.4 -acre development area is dominated by relatively young, pole -stage (30- 35 ft. tall) aspen with a mountain shrub (largely chokecherry and serviceberry) understory. A moderate gradient ephemeral stream bisects the western end of the parcel. The 17.9 -acre NAP portion of the parcel supports a 14.0 -acre, over mature mountain shrub community with sparse sapling aspens and a moderately dense graminoid and herbaceous understory, along with a 3.9 -acre, over mature, but regenerating aspen stand with a dense chokecherry understory. Circa 1998, there was some undocumented management effort on a portion of the NAP parcel's now mountain shrub community in response to the mortality of the former mature aspen stand. Jackstrawed aspen remain on the ground covering a moderate portion of the open space. 2.6.1.2 Characteristics Currently Reducing Wildlife Effectiveness on the East Vail Parcel Some wildlife species using the 5.4 -acre development parcel are negatively affected by existing levels of surrounding development and human activity. The following conditions affect current on-site and off-site wildlife use and will limit, to some extent, the additional, negative, potential development effects to wildlife. 1-70, North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive The parcel's southern boundary is located as close as 122 feet from the westbound lanes of 1-70, one of the major ground transportation corridors across the United States. Locally, 1-70 consists of two westbound and two eastbound lanes with a posted 65 mph speed limit and supporting an average daily traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles (2017).' The East Vail Interchange and the west -bound on and off ramps are located on the opposite side of North Frontage Road from the parcel. There is virtually no location on the parcel where the sights and sounds of 1-70 use are non -discernable 24/7/365. The current average daily traffic volume on the North Frontage Road is approximately 2,200 vehicles per day (vpd) (K. McDowell Schroeder, McDowell Engineering, pers. comm. May 23, 2019) that are greatest during dawn through dusk. Most local wildlife have adapted to this relatively benign and predictable activity. The most acute North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive traffic effects on wildlife are the harassment effects to bighorn sheep that occur when motorists stop to view sheep when they are close to or on the road. Human Recreation There is a level of daily recreational use that occurs along North Frontage Road and Fall Line Drive, some of which extends into the proposed development area, generally via the Booth Creek rockfall berm road and buried electric line corridor. Uses, in order of decreasing frequency, include dog - walking, hiking, jogging, biking, motorcycle riding, and transients camping. This unauthorized use of the parcel occurs year-round, but is greatest from spring through fall when not curtailed by ' CDOT Station 103028, monitoring traffic between the Vail and East Vail interchanges. Data from the CDOT website (http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/TrafficData#ui/2/1/1/station/103028/criteria/070A/175/181/true/true/) accessed Jan. 23, 2019. excessive snow depths. Year-round, low to moderate numbers of primarily hikers also pass by the parcel's eastern flank on the Pitkin Creek Trail extending into the Eagles Nest Wilderness. Fire Suppression and Habitat Deterioration The East Vail parcel is located within an approximate 1,800 -acre polygon of bighorn sheep winter range that extends along the south -facing slopes, north of 1-70. Over the last 20-30 years, aspen forest has encroached onto the East Vail parcel, as it has elsewhere in the local area. While mature aspen stands support some of the highest wildlife diversity values of any local vegetation type, they provide poor quality winter range for the local bighorn sheep herd, which has declined in number over that same time period. Sheep also consider forest stands as restrictions due to their need to visually observe the landscape for predators (e.g., bears, coyotes, mountain lions, dogs, etc.; USFS, 1998). Mature aspen stands have died and fallen, creating jackstrawed deposits of logs that restrict and block sheep and elk movements through the winter range. Lastly, mountain shrubs have become decadent and much of their nutritious foliage has grown out of the reach of wintering ungulates. In 1998, the CDOW and USFS recognized that there was an increasingly limited amount of accessible winter forage (quality and quantity) and nearby escape terrain for sheep in the vicinity of project area (USFS, 1998). By suppressing wildfires on this winter range, the aspen and shrub components had become over mature and in need of vegetative treatment. The USFS (1998) proposed a habitat enhancement plan whose specific purposes were to (1) create a movement corridor (through downed aspen) for the bighorn sheep to be able to travel from Pitkin Creek west to Spraddle Creek, (2) reduce the fuel loading to lessen the risk of wildfire, (3) regenerate shrubland and aspen stands that were over mature, and (4) improve the quantity and quality of forage (shrubs, grass, forbs) for big game (sheep, elk, and mule deer). What is now the East Vail parcel was one of the USFS's proposed treatment areas. In 1998, the sheep population was estimated at approximately 125 animals (USFS, 1998). Without implementation of the habitat enhancement plan, the USFS (1998) predicted that aspen stands would continue to age, disease and insect infestations would increase, and the stands would die. Dead and down timber would further restrict big game movements to winter foraging areas and escape terrain. The aspen and aged shrub communities would not regenerate. The shrub component (vital for wintering ungulates) would continue to mature, die, and be replaced by grasses and forbs. Grass/forb communities that are covered by deep snow are largely unavailable to wintering ungulates. Lastly, the USFS (1998) predicted that without enhancement there would be fewer bighorn sheep as a result of continued habitat degradation. The enhancement project was approved, but not implemented because of community opposition to the use of fire (B. Andree, CPW, Jan. 23, 2018). Although there have been two small scale habitat enhancement projects below the Booth Creek cliffs and on the East Vail parcel, the overall sheep winter range has deteriorated as predicted. Over the 2017-2018 winter, Thompson (2018c) detected a total of 41 sheep largely confined to a small non -forested subset of their former winter range. Availability of effective winter range is arguably the greatest threat to the East Vail sheep herd. 2.6.2 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern 2.6.2.1 Bighorn Sheep Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping Figure 8 shows the important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same area and overlap most (± 75%) of the parcel. Winter range is that part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten, from the first heavy snowfall to spring green - up. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Based on CPW's generic definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of illegally -placed salt and mineral blocks. Al Severe winter range (SWR) is that part of the winter range where 90% of the individual animals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The amounts, quality, and effectiveness of winter range are generally what limit big game populations. For example, "much this this sheep herd was killed off" during severe winter conditions in 2007-2008 (B. Andree, CPW, Vail DWM, pers. comm., Jan. 18, 2018) and the herd has been unable to rebound from that winter die -off (Andree, 2017). The sheep winter range and SWR polygon boundaries are not accurate. In the spirit of the mapping, the polygons were likely intended to extend southeast to the treeline along Pitkin Creek and down to the north side of North Frontage Road. This would include most, if not all, of the East Vail parcel, although, based on the winter sheep study (Thompson, 2018c), only 0.25 acres of the parcel were used for winter foraging. There is no I-70 game fencing in the vicinity of the parcel. Sheep likely used the habitat in what is now the Booth Creek residential area as winter range. Sheep no longer enter the interior of that development and only use peripheral areas when no people are initially present. The winter range and SWR polygons are approximately 1,800 acreS2 and extend west from Pitkin Creek along the north side of I-70 nearly to I -70's Vail exit. This is the only sheep winter range polygon mapped on either side of the Gore Range. Two Booth Creek homes located 107 and 177 feet below the rockfall berm that is heavily used by sheep in winter give some indication of sheep tolerance of nearby residences. Winter concentration area (WCA) is a subset of the winter range where animal densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define the winter range, in the average five winters out of ten. Two WCA polygons occur within the winter range, neither overlapping the East Vail parcel, but habitat effectiveness of the nearest polygon could be influenced by residential development and habitation on the parcel. Bighorn sheep production area is where sheep Iamb. Production areas are defined as that part of the overall range occupied by pregnant females during a specific time period in the spring (May 1 to June 30). The polygon occurs above the Booth Creek cliffs, extends 1.6 miles to the north, and is topographically buffered from residential Booth Creek development below. Based on ewes selecting cliff -like terrain inaccessible to terrestrial predators, it is unlikely that any of the forested terrain shown in Figure 8 is actually used for lambing and most lambing likely occurs farther up the Booth Creek drainage. The effectiveness of production areas could be affected by free -ranging dogs and recreation. A bighorn sheep migration pattern is a subjective indication of the general direction taken by migratory ungulate herds. In the study area, bighorns move downhill on the ridge between Pitkin and Booth Creeks during fall towards their winter range, then move uphill and follow this same general route in spring to their alpine summer range. The bighorn mineral lick shown in CPW mapping (not shown in Figure 8) is defined as a natural site known to be utilized by bighorn sheep for obtaining minerals to meet basic nutritional needs. That lick was mapped in the wrong location. There are two licks (unknown if natural or otherwise) at the top of the rockfall berm cut slope that have been so deeply excavated by the sheep that large rocks forming the tops of the shallow caves are inevitably going to fall. Up to three sheep have been observed under the rocks at one time (Jun1418). If there are sheep under the rocks when they fall they will be killed. Three females in a herd of 41 are important. The Town of Vail (TOV) and CPW are aware that the rocks should come down before they kill sheep and they plan to act when it is safe to do so. There are also mineral and salt blocks that have been illegally deposited by well-meaning z This is a much larger acreage of winter range compared to the approximate 573 acres of winter range mapped by the CDOW in 1995 (CDOW mapping, Sep. 1995) and the <500 acre estimate provided by USFS (1998, p. 1-5), (1) when the entire winter range polygon was contained between Pitkin and Booth Creeks, but where an additional 900 acres of habitat to the west was considered suitable, but unreachable due to dead/down aspen that the sheep would not cross, (2) when the sheep herd was near its peak size of 125 animals (USFS 1998), and (3) shortly before the CDOW and USFS proposed enhancement of approximately 800 acres of winter range to counter fire suppression effects (USFS 1998, p. 1-4). Severe winter range was not designated for the East Vail herd in 1995. This 1,800 -acre number is an update from the 1,880 -acre number used in Thompson (2017 and 2018c). It was derived from updated sampling where measurements ranged from 1,784 to 1,880 acres. 7 sheep enthusiasts.' Whether natural or otherwise, such licks are particularly important for pregnant and lactating ewes. Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study The full East Vail Winter Sheep Study report (Thompson, 2018c; TR -5) is summarized below. The October 13, 2017 to June 14, 2018 wildlife study was primarily designed to detect and characterize winter bighorn sheep use on and in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The study employed five trail cameras (4 on the East Vail parcel, including 3 overlooking the development area, and 1 below the eastern Booth Creek cliffs), winter tracking, and binocular and spotting scope surveys of the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon. Winter severity4 affects spatial and temporal, winter, big game use patterns. Compared to the last nine years, winter 2017-2018 was below average for total snowfall (-35%), total snowfall days (40%), and mean base snowfall depth (-12%), and above average for maximum base depth (+3%). Shallower and less persistent snow in the East Vail project area over the 2017-2018 winter should have allowed sheep to use higher elevation habitats, more forested habitats,' and a larger portion of their winter range than during average and harsher winters. In total, 93 sheep were detected on (n=50 sheep on 3 days) and in the immediate vicinity (n=43 sheep on 2 days) of the 5.4 -acre East Vail development area during winter 2017-2018. This includes 75 animals detected by trail cameras and 18 animals detected by observational surveys. Virtually all foraging on and in the immediate vicinity of the parcel occurred on the smooth brome cut slope above the Frontage Road, most of which is on the CDOT ROW. The south -facing cut slopes above the Frontage Road are non -forested and steeper than the aspen forest portion of the development area, resulting in shallower depths, less persistent snow, and more favorable foraging opportunities. Use of the aspen forest composing the majority of the parcel was limited to escape routes on two occasions. A single sheep was also detected travelling through the NAP portion of the parcel in May, outside the winter period. The distribution of 847 bighorn sheep sightings over the course of the study was mapped in relation to the East Vail parcel and CPW's sheep winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration area polygons. No sheep sightings were made outside of CPW's winter range polygon. That 277 - acre sighting distribution included the 625 sheep recorded by all trail cameras and 222 sheep visually observed during the study. Fifteen percent of CPW's 1,800 -acre winter range polygon was used during winter 2017-2018. That distribution represents a spatial subset of overall habitat use over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter. That may be a function of (1) CPW's polygon reflecting many winters of sheep use, including the 1990's when the herd was at peak numbers (125 sheep, USFS, 1998; 80-100 sheep, B. Andree, CPW, 2017, pers. comm., Jan. 18, 2018), compared to the present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, and (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed I ogs. Sheep were at lower elevations within their overall winter range polygon and used southwest- and south -facing aspects that had the best snow -shedding characteristics, even though it was a mild winter. The cluster of sheep sightings and trail camera results below the Booth Creek cliffs suggests that area ' Who are apparently unaware that their actions are to the detriment of the herd. The sheep's attraction of the salt blocks prolong sheep use of their winter range, well into spring and even summer, putting additional pressure on the vigor and quantity of forage that should be reserved for winter, in a landscape that has deteriorated as a result of wildfire suppression. Concentrated, prolonged, and predictable sheep use of salt blocks may also attract mountain lions that prey on sheep. Not only might the use of salt blocks result in greater sheep predation, but it might also become necessary to kill the lions for public safety. 4 Winter severity is generally an interrelated function of snowfall (standing depths, persistence, and crust presence) and temperature. It only takes one storm with adverse conditions to present severe conditions that may kill big game. 5 Which support deeper and more persistent snow depths than non -forested habitats, all else being equal. is the most heavily used and most important block of winter range within the overall winter range polygon. Four occasions of time lapse images of sheep foraging in the high quality habitat below the Booth Creek cliffs indicated that sheep appeared to select against foraging far into transitional aspen habitat. This "avoidance" behavior was more likely related to the quality, quantity, and availability of forage than to predator detection. Environmental factors explain the greater sheep use of the high quality, mountain shrub -dominated winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs, compared to that on the East Vail parcel. However, all sheep winter range is important, particularly considering the amount of high quality habitats lost to human developments and aspen encroachment. The entire East Vail parcel should be considered sheep winter range. While sheep may use various parcel habitats differently over multiple years, they can access all portions of the property, and that use contributes to the functionality of the overall winter range. With respect to minimum herd size and composition, the maximum number of sheep observed during the study at any one time was 39. Based on sex and age composition of sheep observed over the course of the study, the herd was composed of at least 10 Iambs, 21 ewes, and 10 rams, totaling 41 sheep. The highest number of Iambs seen at any one time was 10 on January 25 and March 14. The 2017, 10:21 Iamb: ewe ratio (0.48%) indicates relatively high productivity. There was no detectable overwinter Iamb or other sheep mortality. Coincident with June 14, 2018 peregrine monitoring, a minimum of 7 Iambs and 12 ewes were observed at the licks on the cut slope above the rockfall berm. Assuming that there was no mortality in the herd since the end of winter, the herd numbered 48 animals at that time. Based on that 2018 productivity, knowing the minimum number of ewes in the herd, and other assumptions, the herd likely numbered at least 53 sheep at that time. The East Vail sheep herd exhibited good productivity in 2017 and 2018. Results of a Meeting with Colorado Parks and Wildlife A May 14, 2018 meeting was held between VR and CPW representatives to discuss the East Vail Workforce Housing project, after the sheep winter range study (Thompson, 2018c) had ended. All biologists agreed that the issue of potential development on the 5.4 -acre parcel related to sheep was not the loss of habitat on the parcel as much as the potential for impacts (i.e., displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness on nearby winter range) from East Vail parcel residents recreating in the high quality sheep winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs and in the NAP area where winter range enhancement is expected. Some mitigation concepts/measures were discussed along with the development of a comprehensive Wildlife Mitigation Plan that covers the entire affected wildlife community as part of the Environmental Impact Report. 2.6.2.2 Peregrine Falcon A cliff south of 1-70's East Vail Interchange has been used in recent years for peregrine falcon nesting. The cliff is located 0.36 miles from the closest point on the East Vail Parcel, on the opposite side of the Frontage Road, 1-70, East Vail Interchange on/off ramps, the East Vail Park and Ride, Vail Trail, Gore Creek, a social trail, and the East Vail Memorial Park. The nest ledge used in 2018 was approximately 600 vertical feet above the valley bottom. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's nesting area polygon is defined as the area that includes good nesting sites and contains one or more active or inactive nest locations (Figure 9). The boundaries are drawn based on professional judgment to include most known nesting habitat in the vicinity. Usually these areas are mapped as polygons around cliffs and include a 0.5 -mile buffer. Viable peregrine falcon nesting sites possess two components: (1) adequate nesting habitat and (2) extensive hunting habitat with an adequate prey base to support the adults and their offspring (Craig 1978). Nesting sites are located on precipitous cliffs ranging in height from 40 to 2,100 feet, averaging 200 to 400 feet tall. Several ledges, potholes, or small caves must be present in the cliff face to function as a suitable nest site. A breeding pair will frequently alternate their nesting activities to different ledges on a cliff face between years, and they will often relocate to adjacent cliff faces. As a result, protective measures must address an entire cliff complex (and potential nesting areas) rather than an individual cliff. Generally, nesting peregrines will not tolerate excessive human encroachment or prolonged disturbance in the vicinity of the nesting cliff. Any activity or development above the nesting cliff will likely cause abandonment. Breeding peregrines can become extremely agitated and may abandon the nest site if disturbance occurs during courtship, prior to the initiation of egg laying. Once birds have eggs or young, they have a strong fidelity to their invested resources. The CDOW (2008) recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." The East Vail peregrines are examples of how wildlife, in general, can habituate to chronic, but benign, human activities, although residential and golf course development along the valley bottom has reduced their prey base. In Colorado, peregrines usually return to nesting cliffs in late February or early March and initiate courtship activities, which continue to mid- or late April when eggs are laid. The young hatch from mid- to late May and fledge (i.e., leave the eyrie) in mid- to late June. The young and adults remain in the vicinity of the nesting cliff up to several months after fledging. Peregrine nest cliffs are, therefore, sensitive to disturbance from approximately late February to late June. Extensive hunting habitat is a second key component of a viable peregrine nest site. Peregrines will frequently travel at least 10 miles from their eyrie to procure prey and they have been documented hunting up to 30 miles away from nest sites (G. Craig, CDOW, pers. comm.). It is, therefore, important to maintain the integrity of important hunting areas within at least 10 miles of the nesting cliff. All habitats within the 10 -mile radius need not be considered essential habitat, since only those areas that attract or support peregrine prey need be protected. The primary prey captured by nesting Colorado peregrines are small to moderately-sized birds, such as blackbirds, doves, robins, flickers, jays, nutcrackers, meadowlarks, and pigeons, but prey as large as waterfowl are also taken. Any habitat that supports or concentrates birds should be considered essential to locally nesting peregrines. Key hunting areas fall into two categories: (1) those habitats that concentrate or support important prey species, and (2) those habitats that expose prey and make them vulnerable to peregrine attack. Peregrines capture their prey through precipitous dives from considerable height above their quarry. Peregrines must, therefore, frequent habitats permitting this type of pursuit. Peregrines do not hunt below the forest canopy, but capture birds flying above forests or across open expanses. Larger prey are raked (with talons) or knocked out of the air and peregrines need open areas on the ground to recover them. Nesting cliffs are generally situated at considerable heights above the surrounding terrain, so peregrines have a broad panorama from favorite hunting perches near the cliff top. Annual (2011-2017, n=5 yrs.) cliff monitoring by Anne Esson (a long time Vail resident) indicated that the pair(s) successfully fledged at least two birds during each of the five years. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2018 indicated that the nesting attempt failed approximately 19 days after incubation was expected to have started (Thompson, 2018b; TR -6). It is unknown why the 2018 nesting attempt failed. Construction of a new sanitary water line on the south side of I -70's East Vail Interchange and the falcons selecting a different nest ledge on the cliff in 2018, compared to prior years, were the only known independent variables that differed from those of past years. There could have been other common causes of the nest failure. Subsequent behavior of the female observed on June 14 suggested that the pair may have been in the process of a second nest attempt. However, cliff monitoring was discontinued for the 2018 season after surveys by Thompson and Esson out to July 1 failed to detect any evidence of peregrine presence at the cliff. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2019 detected at least one peregrine and a pair was suspected of nesting as recently as May 13 (A. Esson, Vail resident, pers. comm., May 13, 2019). 10 The East Vail parcel represents largely intact undeveloped habitat below and within fairly close proximity to the adjacent nest cliff. Its seral and relatively young aspen forest does not support even moderate concentrations of prey species that would be particularly attractive to peregrines using the adjacent nest cliff, but it does support potential avian prey that could contribute to the local pair's prey base. 2.6.2.3 Elk Figure 10 shows one elk seasonal range mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that warrants consideration. The elk winter range definition follows that provided for sheep, above. No elk winter range is shown overlapping the subject parcel, but that mapping is incorrect. The winter range polygon boundary along the north side of 1-70 appears to follow an assumed land ownership boundary. At the time of CPW mapping, the County's and the Town's mapping assumed the East Vail parcel was in CDOT ownership. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appears to have adopted the Town's position and extended the polygon along the USFS property line, rather than bringing it down to the north edge of the Frontage Road and 1-70 where it should be. There are no mapped elk SWR or WCAs in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Results of the winter wildlife study (TR -5) indicated that a minimum of 15 elk' were occasionally present and moving back and forth between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages through the East Vail parcel. Using the spike in the group as a marker, the same group of elk was captured on the three most widely separated trail cameras in the same night. Compared to the sheep, the local elk were more wary of human activity areas. Although some of their movements closely approached I- 70 and the Frontage Road, they only did so under cover of darkness.' Elk were only captured on the trail cameras at night and their movements between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages were initiated and completed at night. Evidence of elk foraging was captured on all cameras except one of three within the interior of the 5.4 -acre development area. Concerted foraging was noted on cameras located below the cliffs and in the NAP area. Foraging in the meadow in the development area's northeast corner was opportunistic as animals were traveling. Although there are areas of the East Vail parcel that may not be used because of terrain and proximity to human disturbances areas, for all practical purposes, the entire parcel should be mapped as elk winter range. The elk winter range on the subject parcel is part of a polygon containing the highest elevation elk winter range in the Gore Creek Valley and some of the highest winter range in the Eagle Valley. This higher elevation winter range is used more during the early part of winters and during milder winters when excessive snow depths have not yet pushed animals to lower elevations down valley. Nevertheless, these winter ranges are valuable because they support animals during portions of the winter when animals would otherwise be further down valley on increasingly smaller, more crowded, and less effective winter range because of collective habitat losses and the effects of human activities. Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable loss of big game winter range to secondary ski area development in the Eagle Valley. Winter ranges generally occur at lower elevations along valley bottoms that are dominated by private lands. Development of those lands has pushed elk further west down valley. In recent years, CPW has increased their hunting permits to increase harvest and reduce the elk and deer populations to levels that the smaller winter range acreage can support. 2.6.2.4 Black Bear Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped two black bear seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that warrant consideration (Figure 11). Black bear summer concentration areas are defined as those parts of the overall range where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during that period from June 15 to August 15. This entire polygon extends along and above the valley bottom ' Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike. ' On the East Vail parcel, elk got as close to 1-70 as the buried electric line corridor. East of Pitkin Creek, elk came down to and grazed up to the edge of 1-70 on several occasions, but always at night. 11 from east of East Vail to west of West Vail. This designation has merit overlapping the subject parcel. During summer, the young, open -canopy aspen stands on the west end of the parcel support a moderate density of berry -rich serviceberry shrubs that represent important summer forage for bears. Bear sign was also detected on the NAP portion of the parcel and on National Forest Service (NFS) lands to the north. A human/bear conflict area is represented by the same polygon along the Gore Creek valley bottom. Such areas are defined as that portion of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CPW investigation, damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc.), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock. 2.6.3 Other Wildlife Groups 2.6.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Federally -listed and proposed animal species that were initially considered in this analysis included those identified by the USFWS's on-line IPaC decision support system for the East Vail project area on February 8, 2019 (Table 2). Humpback chub (G. cypha), bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) were identified. None of these species occurs on the East Vail parcel or in habitats that could be affected by the proposed Workforce Housing project and they are excluded from further consideration in this document for the reasons presented in Table 2. Other listed and proposed species known to occur elsewhere on the WRNF and/or in Colorado were considered, but not analyzed because they were not identified by the USFWS as potentially present in the East Vail project area, their habitats do not occur in the project area, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species' range, and the on - and off-site development effects would have "no effect" on the species, on their habitats, or on designated critical habitat. There are no designated critical habitats in the vicinity of the project area. Table 2. Federally listed and proposed animal species that may be affected by the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common and Scientific Name Status a Rationale for Exclusion from Analysis (Habitat) Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Humpback chub, Gila cypha E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Bonytail chub, G. elegans E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Colorado pikeminnow, Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water Ptychocheilus lUC%Us E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen Excluded. No project -related Colorado River water texanus E depletions not previously considered (far downstream in Colorado River) Greenback cutthroat trout, T Excluded. No suitable on-site habitat. Project outside of Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias historical range (isolated mountain stream headwaters) Mexican spotted owl, Strix Excluded. No breeding habitat present or affected (steep occidentalis T canyons with a Douglas -fir, white fir, ponderosa pine/pinyon-juniper component) Yellow -billed cuckoo, T Excluded. No suitable habitat present or affected (old- Coccyzusamericanus) growth riparian woodlands with dense understories) Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis T Excluded. No potential foraging, denning, or travel habitat (montane and subalpine forests) a Federal status, listed after species, is as follows: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, P = Proposed. Source: List: USFWS's on-line Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaQ decision support system for the East Vail project area, accessed February 8, 2019 and Western Ecosystems, Inc. 12 2.6.3.2 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species The USFS has designated "sensitive species" (USFS, 2015), representing species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to Federal listing if action is not taken to reverse the trend, and species whose habitat or population is stable, but limited. From the updated animal list (Oct. 23, 2015), a subset of sensitive species, including three insects, five fish, two amphibians, 17 birds, and nine mammals (Table 3), was determined to be present or potentially present on the WRNF after consideration of all sensitive species on the list. This subset of species is considered below in phylogenetically ordered taxa (insects, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals) and discussed individually where appropriate. The proposed Workforce Housing project would have no impact on any other sensitive species not on the WRNF list. The East Vail parcel is not on the WRNF, but this list provides a second tier of species (i.e., below Federally -listed species) that are prudent to consider for the East Vail project. Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) INSECTS Western bumblebee, Bombus No habitat (Montane and subalpine meadows) occidentalis Great Basin silverspot, Speyeria nokomis nokomis No habitat (Wetlands supporting violet populations) Monarch butterfly, Danaus No host plant (milkweed) habitat plexippus plexippus FISH Roundtail chub, Gilarobusta robusta No suitable habitat (CO River up through Glenwood Canyon) Mountain sucker, Catostomus No suitable habitat (small to medium streams below 7000'; 4 platyrhynchus populations documented on the Rifle and Blanco Districts) Bluehead sucker, Catostomus No occupied habitat above Alkali Ck. (CO River upstream to discobolus Alkali Ck) Flannelmouth sucker, Catostomus No occupied habitat above the Eagle River (CO River to latipinnis Granby, Milk, Piceance, and Divide Creeks, Eagle River) Colorado River cutthroat trout, No suitable habitat on or below project area (Isolated, Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus headwater streams and lakes) AMPHIBIANS Boreal western toad, Anaxyrus No suitable habitat on or below project area (Subalpine boreas boreas marshes and wet meadows; ponds, margins of streams; adjacent uplands 8,500-11,000') Northern leopard frog, tithobates Outside range (Permanent wetlands) pipiens BIRDS Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis Potential foraging habitat (Closed montane forests > 7,500') Northern harrier, Circus c aneus No habitat (Grasslands, agricultural lands, marshes, & alpine) Ferruginous hawk, Buteore alis No habitat (Plains,grasslands) American peregrine falcon, Falco Potential foraging habitat (Cliffs, habitats concentrating/ peregrines anatum exposing vulnerable prey) Bald eagle, Haliaeetos leucocephalus No habitat (Open water bodies, big game winter range) White-tailed ptarmigan, Lagopus leucurus No habitat (Alpine habitat and upper elevation willow stands) 13 Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to those species. Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals (including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) considers the area, configuration, and function of suitable and occupied habitat affected, home range size and number of individuals affected, size, density, and location of the population, and consequence of negative effects on the species as a whole within the WRNF and within its range. Potential sensitive animal habitats, where a particular species has not been detected, are considered to be occupied, based on the rationale that animals are wide-ranging, that they may be present, but go undetected, and that suitable, but unoccupied habitat can be quickly recolonized. Impacts to such potential, sensitive, animal habitats are considered negative or beneficial effects. 14 Table 3. USFS sensitive animal species that occur on the WRNF and the rationale for potential project effects related to the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Common name, Scientific name Rationale for Potential Project Effects (Habitat Affinity) Greater sage grouse, Centrocercus No habitat (Sagebrush) urophasianus Columbian sharp -tailed grouse, Tympanuchusphasianellus No habitat (Sagebrush and mountain shrub) Flammulated owl, Otus flammeolus Marginal, but potential habitat (Old-growth ponderosa pine and aspen) Boreal owl, Ae olius funereus No habitat (Maturespruce-fir & mixed conifer) Black swift, Cyp5eloide5 n/ er No local nesting habitat (Waterfalls, cliffs) Lewis' woodpecker, Melanerpes No habitat (Ponderosa pine and cottonwoods) lewis Olive -sided flycatcher, Contopus No habitat (Open, upper elev. conifer forests) cooperi Loggerhead shrike, Lan/us No habitat (Plains, low valleys, shrublands) ludovicianus Purple martin, Pro nesub/s No habitat (Old-growth aspen) Brewer's sparrow, S izella breweri No habitat (Sagebrush and other structurally similar shrublands) Saes arrow, Am his iza Belli No habitat (Low elevation big Sagebrush and sage/ reasewood) MAMMALS Pygmy shrew, M/crosorexhoy/ No habitat (Variety of subalpine habitats) Montanus Fringed m otis, M otis th mnodes No habitat (Forests/woodlands to 7,500 ft.; unknown on WRNF Hoary bat (Las/urns c/nereus) No habitat (Mixed conifer and lode ole pine forest) Spotted bat, Euderma maculatum No habitat (Cliffs, arid terrain) Townsend's big -eared bat, Corynorh/nus townsend// No habitat (Structures, tree cavities <9,500 ft.) American marten, Martes No habitat (Conifer forests) americana River otter, Lontra canadensis No habitat (Year-round open water and streamflows of >_ 10 cfs) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Present (High visibility habitat near escape terrain) Ov/s canadensis canadensis Note: Species in bold are potentially present and/or are discussed in the text. Wildlife are listed phylogenetically. Other R2 species are not listed because they have not been found on the WRNF, they have no affinities to project area habitats, the project area is outside of the species' range or elevational distribution. Potential occurrence on the project area, potential for project effects, and habitat affinity is summarized for each species. Source: Forest Service Manual, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO, Chapter 2670 — Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Supplement No: 2600-2015-1, Effective Date: Oct. 23, 2015 0. Austin, USFS, pers. comm., Nov. 17, 2016). Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to those species. Determination of potential project effects to sensitive animals (including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) considers the area, configuration, and function of suitable and occupied habitat affected, home range size and number of individuals affected, size, density, and location of the population, and consequence of negative effects on the species as a whole within the WRNF and within its range. Potential sensitive animal habitats, where a particular species has not been detected, are considered to be occupied, based on the rationale that animals are wide-ranging, that they may be present, but go undetected, and that suitable, but unoccupied habitat can be quickly recolonized. Impacts to such potential, sensitive, animal habitats are considered negative or beneficial effects. 14 Nevertheless, not every acre of potential habitat is necessarily occupied by a particular species, and not every acre of suitable habitat is of equal importance, nor must it be maintained to maintain effective, well -distributed habitat for any particular species across the Forest. Some habitat loss or impact may affect individuals so long as sufficient habitat components exist which maintain population viability across the Forest. In addition, "impacts" and "negative effects" on individuals considered herein do not necessarily equate to the death of those individuals. In most cases, negative effects on NFS lands refer to the displacement of individuals from a small portion of their home range or potential habitat. Boreal Western Toad There is an extant boreal toad breeding site in the vicinity of the project area (M. Grove, USFS, pers. comm., Oct. 29, 2018). It is isolated from the East Vail parcel to the extent that project development (direct effects) and habitation, including potential off-site traffic and recreational activity (indirect effects), should have no effect on that population. This species is dropped from further consideration herein. Northern Goshawk Potential goshawk habitat (i.e., that above the Gore Creek valley bottom) in the vicinity of the East Vail project area is large, mature, closed canopy, aspen and conifer habitats. There are no known active goshawk nest territories present in the vicinity of the project area. It is possible that the aspen forest on the parcel could be used as foraging habitat by individual goshawks, but it is disjunct from continuous quality habitat and within the influence of chronic human activities along the Gore Creek valley bottom. There are no raptor stick nests on or in the vicinity of the subject parcel. Goshawks would not be affected by anticipated East Vail project development and this species is dropped from further consideration herein. American Peregrine Falcon Peregrine falcons are addressed in Section 2.6.2.2, above. Flammulated Owl On the WRNF, flammulated owls have been found in several locations using pure aspen stands and aspen -conifer stands. Most likely, Eagle County habitats are only used by this species during the breeding season, with individuals migrating out for the winter. The East Vail parcel does not support the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat association representing primary habitat that this species is associated with. While the aspen stand in the open space portion of the parcel provides potential nesting structure, it is too small and disjunct to be considered suitable habitat, particularly when superior surrounding habitats are unoccupied. This species is dropped from further consideration herein. American Marten There are no habitats on the East Vail parcel that represent primary marten habitat (upper elevation spruce -fir forest). Marten tracks were detected in the mixed conifer/cottonwood riparian corridor along lower Pitkin Creek in winter, 2017-2018. East Vail parcel development would have no direct or indirect effects on marten and this species is dropped from further consideration herein. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Bighorn sheep are addressed in Section 2.6.2.1, above. 2.6.3.3 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Endangered, Threatened, and Species of Special Concern The current lists of Colorado endangered and threatened species and Colorado species of state special concern (http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx; accessed Jan., 14, 2019) were considered for species that may occur on and around the East Vail project area. Those lists included two mollusks, 23 fish, seven amphibians, 10 reptiles, 19 birds, and 13 mammals. None of the state species contained in those lists occur or have potential habitat that would be influenced by the proposed project, except for those species that have been previously addressed in this analysis. 15 2.6.3.4 Migratory Birds The East Vail parcel supports a low to moderate diversity of largely migratory birds that reach peak numbers during the spring and mid -summer breeding season. The avian community is typical of those associated with the habitats present and is largely uninfluenced by chronic human activity associated with the adjacent Frontage Road and 1-70. 2.6.3.5 Raptors Red-tailed hawks Wuteoiamaicensis) were the only raptor actually observed on the East Vail parcel. No raptor nests are present and the parcel is within the hunting territory of a pair that nested on the south side of 1-70 in 2018. Other raptors observed in the vicinity of the parcel during field surveys that could hunt the parcel include peregrine falcons, golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and sharp - shinned hawks (Acciniterstriatus). 2.6.3.6 Fish The moderate gradient, ephemeral stream bisecting the East Vail development parcel does not support fish. Stream water enters a 24 -inch diameter culvert and flows under the Frontage Road and 1-70 before dropping into Gore Creek that supports a fishery. The culvert's drop prevents Gore Creek fish from attempting to colonize the creek during stream flows. 2.6.3.7. Other Big Game Species Mule Deer The only mule deer seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest mule deer winter range is 8.7 miles to the west, north of 1-70. Low numbers of deer are present on and around the parcel from May through October. Moose The only moose seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest moose winter range is 2.5 miles to the northwest in Spraddle Creek. Moose may occur on or in the vicinity of the parcel, as they may just about anywhere else in Eagle County. Moose is the only ungulate whose population is increasing in the Gore Valley (Andree, 2017). Mnuntain Gnat The closest mountain goat seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range in the Gore Range alpine, 2.3 miles up Booth Creek and 2.8 miles up Pitkin Creek. Goats are dropped from further consideration herein. Mountain Lion The East Vail parcel is located within a large polygon designated as a "mountain lion human conflict area" by CPW that includes all residential areas and trailheads from east of East Vail to west of West Vail. Such areas are defined as areas where mountain lions have been involved in incidents (conflicts with humans that have serious results), an attack on a human, predation on domestic pets or livestock held in close proximity to human habitation. Lion conflicts have increased since 2016 with most encounters involving the public encountering lions while hiking with their dogs (B. Andree, CPW, DWM [Ret.] 2017). In 2016, there were two incidents of dogs killed by lions and one lion was euthanized as a result. Lions are occasionally present on and around the East Vail parcel. 2.7 Noise The undeveloped project site does not generate any noise. The major noise source in the vicinity of the project site includes the 1-70 corridor, which generates noise from vehicular traffic. 16 The undeveloped natural habitat of the project site is not a source of any odors. Furthermore, there are no odor generation sources in the vicinity of the project site. 2.9 Visual Resources Visual amenities of the project site include a landscape dominated by an attractive aspen forest which blends with the larger aspen forest and shrub communities on the south -facing slope of the Gore Creek Valley. The project site affords views to the broad floodplain of Gore Creek which is dominated by attractive woody wetlands, and the steep lower slopes of the 11,816 -foot tall Red Mountain which are characterized by an evergreen forest with patches of aspen. Interstate 70 and the East Vail Interchange are also in the view corridor of the project site, as is the residential development along Gore Creek to the southeast. 2.10 Land Use The proposed development area of the project site, an area of 5.4 acres, is zoned as Housing (H), while the eastern end of the project site (17.9 acres) is zoned as Natural Area Preservation (NAP). Existing land uses of the project site include open space and wildlife habitat. 2.11 Access & Transportation The project site, which is located north of 1-70, is accessed via the East Vail Interchange. Fall Line Drive, located north of 1-70, extends east from the interchange to provide access to the Pine Creek townhomes. The 1-70 North Frontage Road extends west from the interchange to provide access to existing developments west of the project site. Further west this road goes under 1-70 and extends along the south side of 1-70 all the way to the Town Center 1-70 Interchange for Vail. The undeveloped project site does not generate any traffic. 2.12 Population The undeveloped project site has no population. 3.0 Proposed Project 3.1 Buildings & Parking The proposed East Vail Workforce Subdivision would create a multi -family community on the 5.4 acres of the project site zoned H for housing. It would consist of eleven buildings with a total of 42 apartment units and 31 townhomes. The buildings will be a combination of two and three bedroom units. There would be approximately 48 at -grade parking spaces near the buildings, as well as driveways from the Townhomes to accommodate additional parking. See Figure 12, TR -7 and TR -8. 3.2 Natural Area Preservation The applicant intends to enhance a substantial portion of the 17.9 -acre Natural Area to create a movement corridor for wildlife from east to west across the site, and to create grazing enhancements for all wildlife including the East Vail bighorn sheep herd. See Section 4.6. 3.3 Access & Traffic The project would be accessed via the existing East Vail Interchange of 1-70. No road construction or modifications would be required to safely accommodate traffic generated by the development (McDowell Engineering, 2019, as revised May 21, 2019 — TR -9). All improvements, including site access, pedestrian circulation, bus stop, and landscaping will be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 17 3.4 Utilities Water and sewer service would be provided by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. These and all other utilities would be buried within the road system. 3.5 Bus Station A bus station currently exists on the north side of the East Vail Interchange along the southern boundary of the project site. A new bus stop would be located east of the intersection of North Frontage Road and the access road to the development. See Figure 12. 3.6 Drainage Plan Stormwater will be diverted to underground water quality chambers buried within the road system. Water will flow from these chambers via pipes to the pipe that conveys flows in the ephemeral drainage south toward Gore Creek. There will be one at -grade water quality pond located near the entrance to the project site. See Figure 12. 4.0 Impacts & Mitigation 4.1 Hydrology 4.1.1 Surface Water The access road to the development would impact the ephemeral stream via piping and riprap, both on and off-site. A 24 -inch HDPE pipe would convey water across the project site and off-site to an existing culvert which conveys water south and under 1-70 toward Gore Creek. The total length of stream impacted would be 92 linear feet. 4.1.2 Groundwater Based on preliminary subsurface exploration pits conducted by Cesare, Inc. (2018), groundwater would not likely be encountered by project grading and the construction of the roads, buildings and rockfall barrier. 4.2 Atmospheric Condition The proposed development would have a small and immeasurable impact on air quality. There would be a short-term increase in hydrocarbon pollutants and dust during the construction process. With development, there would be small releases of hydrocarbon pollutants generated by activities such as heating the development. The traffic study determined that the project would generate 290 vehicle trips on an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. These vehicle trips would increase the levels of hydrocarbon pollutants. The magnitude of the impact on air quality has not been estimated, but it would likely be small and immeasurable. 4.3 Geology & Hazards 4.3.1 Rockfall & Debris Flow The rock outcrop upslope of the proposed development is a rockfall source zone and incised drainage channels upslope of the development which seasonally have flowing water have the potential for debris flows. Therefore, a Concept Rockfall & Debris Flow Mitigation Plan has been developed by Skyline Geoscience (2019). Rockfall and debris flows can be mitigated with a single barrier system which will reduce but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards. The barrier system would also act as a wildlife barrier and limit human activity in wildlife habitat. As illustrated by Figure 13, an earthen berm and catchment ditch is being considered. A barrier wall with a smaller footprint is also being considered for the area upslope of the proposed development where there is limited space We* between the property boundary and the edge of development. Recommendations for the barrier system include: a) Height — 12 feet. b) Designed to withstand the maximum impact energy estimated = 2,300kj. c) The impact face of the barrier should be as vertical as possible. A 1:1 slope is assumed for the earthen berm option, although a steeper grade is preferred. A vertical face with minimal to positive batter on the upslope side is recommended for the impact barrier wall option. d) Ideal orientation of the barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. If a perpendicular orientation is not possible, a staggered wall geometry may be considered. There shall be no gaps in the barrier system and staggered sections should have appropriate angles and lengths to accommodate coverage of site development. If the angle of the barrier diverges significantly from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, the system must be designed to accommodate for containment of rocks within the property boundaries. The orientation of the proposed barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, except at the western end where the wall deviates about 10 to 15 degrees from the preferred orientation. It is not recommended for the barrier system to deviate more than 20 degrees from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. e) Adequate space uphill of the barrier for catchment and accumulation of rockfall, and for routine access of equipment for removal of accumulated debris. This area should be graded flat. The actual width of the catchment depends on the size of the equipment to be used to remove accumulated debris and the angle of the slope above. The use of explosives or expansion grout can be used to break up large boulders that accumulate in the catchment, creating smaller fragments that can be removed. f) The catchment area must be routinely maintained, and accumulated debris removed. Debris should not be allowed to pile up and thus diminish the effectiveness of the catchment. g) Surface drainage within the catchment should be controlled with adequate slope of the ground surface. Based on proposed development plans available at the time of the study, the ground surface of the catchment slopes down from east to west with a grade of 2%. Water should not be allowed to accumulate or pond in the catchment. Surface drainage and erosion management related to the deeply incised drainages which had flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May and June 2017 must be considered. h) An access road to the catchment area must be designed and maintained. i) Routine inspection of the barrier system must be enforced and will assist in determining the maintenance and repair needs of the system. Inspections should be conducted on a regular basis and immediately following a rockfall or debris flow event. Other construction, maintenance and inspection recommendations may be provided by the wall manufacturer. j) Observation and inspection by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction and upon completion of the rockfall barrier is recommended. 4.3.2 Existing Landslide Cesare (2017) determined that there is a large landslide on the east end of the project site, but it does not extend into the development area. Cesare found no evidence of recent movement, however they recommend avoiding development within the mapped extent of the landslide and monitoring the slope if construction occurs near the foot of the landslide. 4.4 Soils The proposed development would impact approximately 5.1 acres of the Millerlake soil as described in Section 2.4. It is recommended that topsoil from the impact area be salvaged and used in areas that are to be landscaped. Specifically, all of the soils on the 5.4 -acre development parcel, except for 19 the area north of the mitigation berm on the northeast corner and a smaI I area on the southeast corner, would be impacted. 4.5 Vegetation Resources 4.5.1 Vegetation Types The proposed development would impact permanently impact approximately 2.7 acres of an aspen forest. Specifically, all of the aspen forest on the 5.4 -acre development parcel, except for the area north of the mitigation berm on the northeast corner and a small area on the southeast corner, would be eliminated. However, there would be a temporary loss of 2.3 acres of aspen forest cleared for the rockfall berm, but reclaimed to a similar habitat. 4.5.2 Wetlands The access road to the proposed development would impact approximately 92 linear feet of a 2 -foot wide ephemeral drainage, which is classified as a wetland. Specifically, 68 linear feet would be impacted on the project site via a culvert and riprap, and 24 linear feet south of the project site would also be piped. The total estimated wetland impact would be approximately 184 ft2. Specifically, a 24 -inch pipe would be installed under the access road to convey stormwater south toward Gore Creek. A permit would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the wetland impact of the access road. Specifically, a Nationwide Permit 29 for Residential Development would be required. Due to the small size of the wetland impact, the Corps would not likely require any mitigation for the wetland impact. 4.6 Wildlife Resources The proposed Workforce Housing project would have both negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. There will be a net loss of habitat and wildlife displacement from development and human activity areas when 21.5% of the overall parcel is developed. Negative effects will include approximately five acres of direct habitat losses,$ reduced habitat effectiveness of adjacent buffer zones, increased traffic along the Frontage Road and regional highways, and the displacement of wildlife around off-site recreation corridors that will likely be used by housing residents.9 Potential negative development effects have already been somewhat reduced through the rezoning process that concentrated development on 23% of the parcel, as well as further avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (2) on-site habitat enhancement proposed on 14.6 acres of the parcel that will remain undeveloped, (3) the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations, and (4) the implementation and enforcement of the human habitation -related minimization measures in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10). The beneficial effect would be the enhancement of sheep and elk winter range that is not currently effective for sheep because of fire suppression effects. Figure 14 shows wildlife habitats that would be affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint, including the driveway and parking lots, buildings, the rockfall wall, and ancillary facilities, would affect approximately five acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. That area of habitat represents 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78.5% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. 8 i.e., 2.7 acres from direct habitat losses and fencing blocking wildlife access to another 2.3 acres of the parcel. 9 With resident education, fencing/ barriers, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional, incremental recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. 20 Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range. Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel that would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range would result in a moderate -term enhancement and net gain of mountain shrub habitat, whose quality, quantity, and availability to ungulates has declined as a result of wildfire suppression (Figure 15). Proposed enhancement would also result in a moderate -term net gain of 3.9 acres of mountain shrub habitat, as an over -mature aspen stand with a dense chokecherry understory is treated to enhance sheep winter range. Mule deer, elk, and other wildlife with affinities to mountain shrub habitat would also benefit. Using the results of the 2017-2018 wildlife study (Thompson 2018c), additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres, is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands and TOV open space. Most wildlife present in development areas at the time of construction will be displaced to adjacent habitats, some of which will be occupied. Small mammals, the young of cavity nesting birds, and a reptile (garter snake, Thamnonhis e%gans) may be killed, depending on the time of year that site clearing starts. The size of the development area likely supports the home ranges of several to a handful of individual bird and small mammal species. After project development and habitation, the development parcel will support those wildlife species tolerant of human development. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the north, east, and west would be reduced, to a certain extent, by noise, visual, and olfactory disturbances emanating from the development. Distances would vary by species and would be attenuated by screening forest, distance, topography, and the chronic disturbances extending through the parcel from the adjacent Frontage Road and 1-70. Birds and small mammals would be the least affected. Elk would exhibit the broadest avoidance zones. Workforce Housing -related traffic increases may incrementally increase wildlife road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road and along regional highways. Buildout of the East Vail parcel is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (McDowell Engineering 2019). Ten to 20% (29-58) of those contributions would be on the North Frontage Road, while 70-80% (203-232) would be on 1-70. These additional contributions represent and average of 9.9% and 0.8% of the current, average, daily traffic volumes on those respective roads and highways. Increased road -kill probabilities on 1-70 resulting from the additional Workforce Housing traffic would be discountable relative to the low mortality associated with current high traffic volumes and should not affect local big game because they don't cross the highway in the vicinity of the project area. Sheep are occasionally present during winter conditions along the Frontage Road and have been known to lick salt off the road, and a few may even cross the road to forage between the road and I- 70. Increased sheep road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road are possible, but unlikely because of good horizontal visibility along the road, because the sheep are habituated to the traffic, and because most road mortality occurs on roads and highways where posted speeds are >_ 45mph (Gunther et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the site, the North 1-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25 mph eastbound and 45 mph westbound. Resident participation in public transportation would reduce potential traffic impacts. The Mitigation Plan contains a section that would educate residents about this issue. Resident education about the parcel's sensitive location in wildlife habitat and the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10), with significant penalties for violators, should reduce and confine potential habitation effects to the parcel's development area and minimize the potential effects of greatest concern (recreationists and dogs) from extending off-site. Issues specific to individual species and wildlife groups are discussed below under those accounts. 21 4.6.1 Focal Wildlife Species of Concern 4.6.1.1 Bighorn Sheep Workforce Housing would permanently convert approximately five acres of bighorn sheep winter range into non -habitat and unavailable habitat (Figure 14). The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed as mountain shrub and aspen habitat, but it would be unavailable to big game because of the fencing needed to restrict residents from the important surrounding wildlife habitats. The forested habitat composing most of the development area was only used on two occasions and for travel only (no foraging) during the 2017-2018 winter (Thompson 2018c), although that use contributed to the functionality of the overall winter range. Workforce Housing would permanently convert 0.3 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, into non -habitat. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the west, north, and east could also be reduced to a certain extent. Retaining screening aspen forest,10 planting screening trees along the access driveway, and existing topography and distance would reduce those potential indirect effects. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, composed of smooth brome stands on the cut slope above the Frontage Road and largely off-site, would not be disturbed," but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing project. That habitat was used on three occasions during the 2017-2018 winter (Thompson, 2018c), but even that small amount of foraging took foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. After housing has been built and inhabited, sheep may still enter that area to forage under cover of darkness. The effectiveness of sheep winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, although negative effects could be minimized by construction of a screening berm or temporary construction fencing before the first construction season and by planting screening trees (after housing infrastructure, including water for irrigation, is available). The area affected is difficult to quantify, but it could amount to several acres. The level of habituation in the local sheep herd will limit the extent of diurnal displacement. Sheep will likely forage in that area under cover of darkness when humans are not present, as they do now, so the diurnal displacement may have no negative effects. Bighorn sheep lambing should be unaffected by the direct and indirect impacts of the Workforce Housing project because of distance, intervening screening topography, and the implementation of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Current human habitation of the Booth Creek residential development is not thought to be affecting Iamb productivity or survival. To compensate for the direct and indirect impacts to sheep winter range, 14.6 acres of open space on the East Vail parcel would be enhanced to improve the quality and quantity of accessible forage that is normally maintained by wildfires. That enhancement could start in 2019 and the increased forage availability should be available for the upcoming 2019-2020 winter to compensate for the direct and potential indirect winter foraging losses during project construction that could extend over one winter.12 In spring, 2019, the TOV started habitat enhancement on some of their open space. 10 For example, an existing screen of relatively dense, approximately 15 -to 30 -foot -tall, young to medium -aged aspen on the parcel's western tip and extending onto NFS lands to the northwest that is 444-487 ft. wide (see Fig. 8-2 in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, TR -10) would effectively screen all but the upper floors of the housing and, most importantly, all resident activity on the parcel from the high quality, mountain shrub -dominated, bighorn sheep winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs. In comparison, there are two Booth Creek homes with little aspen buffering located 107 and 177 feet below the rockfall berm that is heavily used by sheep in winter. 11 There would be some disturbance to this habitat resulting from the relocated bus station, however, there are currently no siting or design details available to evaluate. 12 Construction would occur in phases that would present differing levels of disturbance to adjacent habitat effectiveness. Phases would be scheduled to avoid the most obtrusive disturbances during any winter. Initial clearing and site work, when heavy equipment is operating and when disturbances would be greatest, will not occur during any winter. The framing through dry -in phase would occur over one winter. Thereafter, the final inside finishing 22 Additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres throughout the winter range polygon as originally proposed in 1998 (USFS 1998), is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands. The need for that widespread enhancement and specific prescriptions that could be implemented near the East Vail parcel was presented to and discussed with TOV, CPW, and USFS representatives on January 11, and February 6 and 8, 2019. Implementation and strict enforcement of sheep -related rules and regulations in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) would further reduce potential impacts to sheep resulting from residents living in the Workforce Housing and should reduce impacts to a level that would not negatively affect the sheep herd. Key sheep -related rules and regulations include resident education, using fencing along the rockfalI berm to restrict residents from hiking out of the development onto important sheep winter range surrounding the parcel, prohibiting resident and guest entry into those areas,13 prohibiting trail development on the parcel's open space, limiting dogs on the parcel and enforcing strict dog control measures, and imposing strict fines for violations. The paramount wildlife concern on this project is the potential for inappropriate recreational use extending beyond the Workforce Housing development area that could adversely affect habitat effectiveness on surrounding lands, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. The secondary wildlife concern is the potential effect of stray dogs on adjacent winter range. Strictly enforced rules and regulations with significant penalties for first time violators should minimize recreation and stray dog incidents (see TR -10, Section 8.3.2.1). The Workforce Housing project should not jeopardize the viability of the East Vail sheep herd. 4.6.1.2 Peregrine Falcon Development and habitation of the Workforce Housing parcel should not negatively affect the viability or productivity of the peregrine nest cliff on the opposite side of 1-70 from the project area. Regarding buffer zones around peregrine nest cliffs, the CDOW (2008) recommended that "no surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) [occur] within [a] 1/z mile radius of active nests" and that there should be a "seasonal restriction to human encroachment within '/z mile of the nest cliff(s) from March 15 to July 31." That recommendation is valid 14 as a general guideline for all peregrine eyries in Colorado. However, the CDOW (2008) also recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity ata proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." Such is the case with the birds that have nested in East Vail since at least 2011 (Thompson, 2018b; TR -6). A cautionary consideration, however, is that "the tolerance of a particular pair may change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual and this may cause the pair to react to activities that were previously ignored" (CDOW, 2008). The proposed Workforce Housing project (0.36 mi. away from the base of the nest cliff) represents the same type of surface occupancy that is currently associated with the Booth Creek residential area, the Falls at Vail Townhomes, and the East Vail residential area south of 1-70, where the closest home on Lupine Drive is 989 horizontal feet (0.19 mi.) away from and ± 600 vertical feet below the 2018 nest ledge. All of the intervening, chronic, human developments and activities (see Section 2.6.3.2) should adequately buffer the nest cliff from construction and habitation of the Workforce Housing parcel. Mitigation (TR -10) is presented that would avoid and minimize potential construction effects associated with blasting. 4.6.1.3 Elk Potential residential development on the subject parcel will be of concern for elk for the same reasons described for bighorn sheep (the net loss of winter range, further impaired effectiveness of habitat within the influence of the development, and other potential habitation -related effects [e.g., dispersed recreation originating from residences and free -ranging dogs]). As described for sheep, elk habitat use in this area has adapted to 1-70 activity, nearby subdivisions, and dispersed recreational activity, phase would have the least obtrusive disturbances. 13 Le., on TOV open space to the west, National Forest Service lands to the north, and East Vail parcel open space to the east, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. 14 For what it was developed to consider. 23 but unlike sheep, the local elk have not habituated at all to human presence.15 The relatively small (5 -acre) potential East Vail development would result in a further, incremental loss of winter range in an overall elk herd whose numbers have declined as a collective result of similar winter range losses and recreational activity effects. The winter range forage losses should be more than offset by reinvigorating forage quality and quantity and facilitating access to 14.6 acres of on-site winter range that are now somewhat impaired by jackstrawed logs and out -of -reach browse. That on-site habitat enhancement could start in 2019, subject to TOV approvals (TR -10). Seventy-nine percent of the parcel would remain available for continued elk use. Additional winter range habitat enhancement being implemented and considered on surrounding TOV and NFS lands would also benefit elk. The subdivision and fencing would also deflect movements from a favored route (the 8-10 ft. wide buried electric line through the parcel) that a small group of elk, 16 wary of human activity and presence, use to move through this portion of their winter range. The project would continue to provide an east - west corridor through the rear portion of the parcel along the north side of the rockfall berm. Elk should also continue to use additional, existing, east -west movement routes buffered to the north of the housing. Other mitigation measures proposed for bighorn sheep would also benefit elk. 4.6.1.4 Black Bear Residential development on the Workforce Housing parcel will be of concern for black bears because of (1) potential habitation -related effects (e.g., potential garbage -handling issues), (2) the small, but additional net loss of summer forage habitat, and (3) further impaired effectiveness of habitat within the influence of the development. Approximately 79% of the parcel would remain undeveloped and available for continued bear use. Implementation of measures contained in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) should minimize human/bear conflicts to acceptable levels. 4.6.2 Other Wildlife Species and Groups Implementation of construction and habitation measures contained in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10) for the focal wildlife species would also benefit other wildlife species and groups within the project's area of influence. Note that some of the wildlife groups and species considered in the Existing Environment section, above, would not be affected by the proposed development and were not carried forward to this section. 4.6.2.1 Migratory Birds The Workforce Housing project would remove approximately five acres of habitat used by birds for foraging and nesting. Approximately 2.3 acres of habitat north of the development area that were grade for the rockfall berm would be restored to mountain shrub and aspen habitat. That habitat would be available and used by migratory birds as it develops and matures. Some birds tolerant of close human proximity and those attracted to feeders would inhabit the development area. 4.6.2.2 Fish Fish and other aquatic life in Gore Creek should not be negatively affected by the project with the implementation of standard Best Management Practices that would prevent sedimentation and impermeable surface runoff from reaching the creek. 4.6.2.3 Mule Deer and Moose The Workforce Housing project would approximately five acres of deer and moose summer range and deflect east -west movements through the area to the north. Mitigation measures proposed for sheep and elk would also benefit deer and moose. 15 During the 2017-2018 winter wildlife study (Thompson 2018), elk were present on the parcel and in the surrounding area, but only under cover of darkness. 16 Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike, in winter 2017-2018. 24 4.6.2.4 Mountain Lion Mountain lions should be unaffected by the Workforce Housing project. There is likely limited current lion use of the development parcel and the lion prey base (largely ungulates) should not be measurably diminished by the project. 4.7 Noise The proposed development would generate a short-term increase in noise levels due to heavy equipment use during construction. When construction is complete, the project would generate approximately 460 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 29 trips during the morning rush hour and 46 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (TR -9), and noise would also be generated by human occupation of the development. Considering the ambient noise generated by the 1-70 corridor, the added impact of the noise generated by the proposed development following construction would likely be negligible. The proposed development would not generate any odors. 4.9 Visual Resources The development would have a mountain contemporary design that honors the fundamentals of the Town of Vail design guidelines and the precedent of other recent Town of Vail's local housing projects such as Lions Ridge and Chamonix Vail. Buildings would be built into the gradually sloping hillside with the walk -out garden level on the lowest floor, and units on the 2nd floor walking out at grade on the north side of each building. Exterior materials will include stucco and cementitious siding that resembles wood siding, with windows and large sliding doors for most units. Primary roofs would be pitched and have asphalt shingles; metal materials would compose the secondary roofing. Triumph Development has also worked to minimize the height of stepped retaining walls that are required for site access and surface parking that is so important in the economics of a local housing project. The proposed number of parking spaces has been kept to a minimum to keep the footprint of the project as small as possible. The proposed development would not block any view corridors to the Gore Creek Valley or the north -facing mountain slopes to the south as there are no contiguous neighbors. The project will be visible from the CDOT right of way including 170 and the North Frontage Road. An earthen berm and rockfall protection structure have been provided across the rear of the development to, in part, provide a physical and visual barrier between the human -occupied portion of the development and the USFS and Town of Vail open space behind and to the west of the property. 4.10 Land Use The 5.4 acres of the project site zoned as Housing (H) would be developed and used as residential space. The 17.9 acres zoned as Natural Area Preservation (NAP) would remain as open space and be enhanced for wildlife use. Thus, the proposed development is consistent with Town Council's October 2017 rezoning to Housing. The potential development of the Housing parcel and enhancement of the NAP parcel is recognized in Action Item #23 of the update to the Town of Vail 2018 Open Lands Plan Update. Thus, the proposed development would change the land use for 5.4 acres of the project site from open space and wildlife habitat to a residential land use. 4.11 Access & Transportation McDowell Engineering, LLC (2019; TR -9) completed a CDOT Level 2 Study to forecast and analyze the impact of traffic volumes generated by the development on the surrounding roadway network. The traffic analysis was scoped with the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. The analysis determined that: 25 • Site Access & Circulation: The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. Sight distance meets the minimum spacing sight distance requirement per CDOT's State Highway Access Code. • Trip Generation: The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. See Table 4. • Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirement: No additional auxiliary turn lane construction is required. • State Highway Access Permit: A State Highway Access Permit will be required for the proposed 1-70 North Frontage Road access. • Recommendations: Based on the analysis and recommendations in the McDowell Engineering Report (2019), the project can be successfully incorporated into the Town of Vail's roadway network. Table 4. Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis Unit Type Estimated Site -Generated Traffic, East Vail Workforce Housing Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Trip Generation Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour 42 Unitsz Rates' Weekday' Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 1 28 Ave. AM PM Trips % % % % 2 4 Week Peak Peak (VPD) Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips 4 Market TH1 3BR day Hour Hour 30 12 APT 42 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 138 32% 3 68% 6 54% 7 46% 6 TH4 31 DU 5.44 0.32 0.41 169 27% 3 73% 7 60% 8 40% 5 MMR -10% -17 0 -1 -1 -1 Anticipated Trip Generation 290 5 12 14 10 ' Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. 2 DU = Dwelling Units s Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. 'Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. APT = Apartments; TH = Townhomes; MMR = Multimodal Reduction 4.12 Population As documented by Table 5, the population of the proposed development would range from a low of 113 to a high of 254. Table 5. Population Projection East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Low High Low VR Units 42 4 2 168 84 EHU TH1 2BR 7 4 1 28 7 EHU TH2 3BR 8 5 2 40 16 EHU TH3 2BR 2 4 1 8 2 EHU TH4 3BR 2 5 2 10 4 Market TH1 3BR 6 5 2 30 12 26 Table 5. Population Projection East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Unit Type Number of Units Persons Per Unit Total Persons High Low High Low Market TH2 3 B R 6 5 2 30 12 Market TH3 0 5 2 0 0 Market TH4 0 5 2 0 0 Total 61 254 113 5.0 Cumulative & Long-term Effects and Irreversible Environmental Changes 5.1 Hydrology 5.1.1 Surface Water The proposed development would impact (pipe) a 92 -foot long segment of an ephemeral stream in order to create transportation access to the development. This represents a long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.1.2 Groundwater There would be no long-term effects or irreversible environmental change to groundwater. 5.2 Atmospheric Condition The slight increase in hydrocarbon pollutants generated by the development and its traffic represents a cumulative long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.3 Geology & Hazards The long-term risk posed by the rockfall hazard potential would be mitigated in a design as developed by Cesare, Inc. The mitigation represents a long-term effect and irreversible environmental change. 5.4 Soils The proposed development would impact 5.1 acres of native soil. The soil loss represents a cumulative and long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. 5.5 Vegetation Resources 5.5.1 Vegetation Types The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of approximately 2.7 acres of an aspen forest. This represents a cumulative and long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change. Approximately 2.3 acres of aspen forest habitat would be restored following construction. 5.5.2 Wetlands Piping and riprap on and off-site would impact 184 ft2 of a 2 -foot wide ephemeral stream that is classified as a wetland. This represents a small cumulative effect and a long-term irreversible environmental change. 5.6 Wildlife Resources The proposed project would have both negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. The project would result in the permanent, irreversible loss of 2.7 acres of relatively young aspen with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry, as it is converted largely 27 into an urban wildlife habitat. That area of habitat represents 22% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. There would also be a temporary loss of 2.3 acres of similar habitat cleared for the rockfall berm, but reclaimed as a similar community. Big game would be restricted from that acreage by the human exclusion fence, but avian and small wildlife species should recolonize that habitat as it matures. There will also be wildlife displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness in habitats surrounding the on-site development and human activity areas and displacement of wildlife around existing, off-site recreation corridors used by housing residents." Wildlife displacement will vary by species and season of habitat occupancy. These direct and indirect project effects have been and would be avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the parcel's rezoning, (2) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (3) with 14.6 acres of on-site habitat enhancement, (4) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations, and (5) with the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (TR -10). While the resulting project effects would be relatively small, they would nevertheless be additive to the cumulative wildlife habitat losses that have occurred in the Gore Creek Valley and further down valley in Eagle County since the early 1960's. Collective habitat losses, the effects of increasing recreational activity in wildlife habitats, and other factors have reduced the size of the local elk, mule deer, and bighorn sheep herds (Andree, 2017). There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that meet criteria warranting consideration in this analysis (CEQ 1997, USEPA 1999). Potential bighorn sheep winter range enhancement on NFS land surrounding the project area is speculative at this time. 5.7 Noise Noise generated by the proposed development and the traffic it generates would create a slight cumulative and long-term environmental change. However, given the proximity to 1-70, this change would be negligible. 5.8 Odors There would be no odor impacts. 5.9 Visual Resources Development of the project site would create a cumulative, long-term and irreversible change to the visual resources of the area. Approximately 4.46 acres of native landscape would be replaced with a residential development. 5.10 Land Use Development of 5.4 acres of the project site which is currently used as open space and wildlife habitat would change the land use to a residential land use. This represents a cumulative, long-term effect and an irreversible environmental change to land use. 5.11 Access & Transportation The traffic generated by the proposed development, an estimated 290 vehicle trips per day, represents a cumulative and long-term effect and irreversible change to the existing traffic condition. 5.12 Population The estimated 113 - 254 residents of the development represent a cumulative long-term increase in the population of the town and an irreversible environmental change. 17 With resident education, fencing, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. 28 6.0 Figures 29 P. :. 106'1 9'0"W 106°18'0"W ' Booth Creek 10 ZZZ Y Area 87 B Gore Creek ��.. _ Parcel Boundary _ " t 1-70 East Vail Exit 2' Pitkin Creek ti 10400 �. 011 106'1 9'0"W BASE: USGS 7.5' Vail East Quadrangle, Colorado COLORADO -.1oJ I 'Copyridht:© 2013 106'1 8'0"W Figure 1. Project Location Map East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A Prepared by. Birch Ecology LLC 1:24,000 BIRCII ECOLOGY —_�-- 429 Main Street P.O. Box 170 'CO 80540 C 30 (720) 350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com P. co o co '* • y ifs , Fall Line Drive �_ 1� '; `':•� s ,: ,. n sem. �,t► .� w. �t.� 1• M f' . , ►' .`fir ��:�� • ,' . VVIII 01 � M'i r• •ftC•rp-ra i•n O, i ►N �Y" � •i tribufii•n M. D= i+,! •rj'+, EAGLE COUNTY, CO Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Housing N A Prepared by: Birch Ecology LLC 1:6,000 BIRCII ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�-- P.O. Box 170 'CO 80540 C 3 � (720) 350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com Legend: Figure 3. Wetland Map 0 Wetlands East Vail Workforce Housing 6 Pit 1 Soil Pits O --Ephemeral Stream Channel Wetland Fla in by: g Prepared oy: Birch Ecology LLC Surveyed Date: February 2019 I// Culverts Peak Land Surveying Inc. of Vail, CO Contour Interval = 2 ft Scale: 1 in = 110 ft nB-170 ei ass P.O. Box V0 $IRCII ECOLOGY -_-- ry— co aosao Project Boundary 32 (M) 2s ww U,ch—.W.c— W:\281A—.ff\1.5888\17.—A-1 Valley Rod 1May 'AC \Flg-4—geMp-g 6/15/281 J i, ?� 31 . uk ter = .f' f w m Q4 s � Cr 14 PROJECT NO: 17.5029 FIGURE 4 PROJECT NAME: Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Sheet 1 Of 2 DRAWN BY: RAB CHECKED BY: JMF Geologic Map CESARE, INC. DWG DATE: 06.16.17 1 REV. DATE: Page 33 r NnnAratf:Rx;A. &cR.vrr,n sr,�fl.cvtreRn 11.11litl215►1=9IIE�'? 9 Snowfield (latest Holocene) �E Artificial fill flakes[ Holocene) cla Alluvium (Holocene) alsy Recent landslide deposits (Holocene) W Fan deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Or Talus (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Qdf Debris.flow deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Gr Rnck4acier deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) 16W- Wedand deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) [lac Alluvium and colluvium, undivided {Holocene and upper Pleistocene) {tc Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) `drs -: Landslide deposits (Holocene and upper Pteistocerre) Ofnl Felsen neer (Holocene and Pleistoceoei Qbf Boulder field (upperO Pleistocene) Qtp Pinedale Tilt (upper Pleistocene) Otb Bull Lake Till (muddle Pleistocene) Od Diamlcion (middle to lower Pleistocene) -STI Dike rocks of intermediate to felsic composition (Tertiary) PPm Maroon Formation (Lower Permian to Middle Pennsylvanian) Minturn Formation, undifferentiated (Middle Pennsylvanian) Pml Jacque Mountain Limestone Member Upper sandslone and conglomerate member Pmwq White Quail Limestone Member Pmm Middle member Pill Individual limestone bed Pmr Robinson Limestone Member Pmrl Individual limestone bed Lower member IPmis Individual limestone bed F4Cu Pennsylvanian to Cambrian units, undifferentiated --Shown on cross section B•B' only Pzcd Clastic dike (lower Paleozoic?) Parting Formation (Upper Devonian) £p Peerless Formation (Upper Cambrian) es Sawatch Quartzite (Upper Cambrian) EARLY PROTEROZOIC ROCKS _ Early Proterozoic rocks, undifferentlated—Showrt only in cross sections Rocks of the Cross Creek batholith (Early Proterozoic) Aplitic granite ZXm Crow Creek Granite DioriteGabbroMigmatitic biotite gneiss (Early Proterozoic) ) Biotite gneiss (Early Proterozoic) ha Comact-Dashed where approximately located; dated where concealed: showing dip where known Fault or prominent fracture—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Showing dip where known. For some faults, no apparent offset Interpreted from air photographs 1 Normal fault—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed. Ball and bar on downthrown side. Dip of fault plane shown where known Reverse fault—Dashed where approximat4 located: dotted where concealed; rectangles on upper plate ' Thrust fault—Dotted where concealed. Teeth on upper plate. Dip of fault plane shown where known Strike-shp fault—Dashed where approximately located; dotted where concealed; arrows show relative slip direction — Mykmitic sheat -Generally parallel to Proterozoic Homestake shear zone (Tweto and Sims, 1963) Antichne—Showing trace of axial plane. Dotted where concealed } Syncline—Showing trace of axial plane. Dotted where i concealed Strike and dip of beds y Inclined + Vertical Overturned Horizontal Approximate strike and dip of beds 3 Inclined Strike and dip of foliation Inclined Vertical • rs Bearing and plunge of lineation �ts Strike and dip of foliation and bearing and plunge of associated lineation Strike and dip of small fault or fracture -A— Inclined + Vertical A Latter;ndicates Incalft referred its In text CONVERSION FACTORS Muhiply By To obtain centlme[ers(cm i 0.aa37 inaltes [in.) maters (m) 3.281feet VI) k[lama[ars(km} 0.6214 mi[es[mII GA AZ ze Muhlpty By To obta in i nchestin.} 2.56 Oakr"atera Icmi feet V0 0.3048 meters (m) Milos (mi) 1-608 kilometers (km) 106'i5' F 111CIP l GA Q QyaE L °o ff°� c," 4 a w 4�o NO GA AZ ze INDEX MAP SHOWING SURROUNDING QUADRANGLES PROJECT NO: 117.5029 FIGURE 4 PROJECT NAME: Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Sheet 2 of 2 DRAWN BY: RAB CHECKED BY: IMF Geologic Map CESARE, INC. DWG DATE: 06.16.17 REV. DATE: -- Page 34 urnfrrhnirnl Eingrfrw•rr .t C rl-rrfllfrO M.11 ruh Cori k -Or 35 t .f F Creek 4 = -. 3 5. itkin Creek Townhomes Base , Li DAR group d sur face. A�aa 5- la,dsl da haad=, dt,w, d,,ppad, dataahma�ta�aa. N —E- Vail Workforce Housin g Parcel -pa t,b,d,v1,p,d(+/-5.4acres) Areal -d own d ropp'darea with",, la,t graphy. Area 3 - d,'I"ated, —, intaa block that has moved downslope ---- Approximate landslide Erten Lr from the point of origin, h,m ,kyand uneven topogaphy. 0 rjpp 1000 — ApproximateExtents, publish ed landslide deposit (Kelloggand oth ers, 2003) Area 4-Iandslid, Flank, over -steepened slope. A,aa5- la,dsl,da t,,, ora,t,,pa.ad -�dopa. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 7 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Landslide Map GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.31.2019 Page 37 Figure 8. Important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same largest area and are shaded light blue. Winter concentration area is shown in the two darker blue polygons. The southern edge of a lambing area above the Booth Creek cliffs is outlined in green. 38 Figure 9. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 -mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 39 Figure 10. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of 1-70. 40 Figure 11. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped byCPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 41 Ephemeral StreamProposed Mechanically Proposed Riprap iie-into Existing Proposed 24 Pip. / \ Lined Swale Stabilized Eadh Wallfor Electric \ Rockfall Protection Connect to Eliit ng G\ Century L nk F ber --- Proposed Stormwater Pipes - Proposed Century Link gi Bus, ,vE engineering Shelter - Proposed Water Lines - Proposed Comcast N Edwards, CO •rrmrr• Ephemeral Stream Channel Proposed Date: May 2019 \ Wetlands Stonnwater contourintervai=2rt scale:l In=75R Sur veyed by: Peak Land surveying Inc. Existing Culverts treatment 42 \ Manholes Connecito Ex st ng Gas Proposed Water Gualty Ex stingg 24\„ Culved Pond \: Proposed Stormwater Pipe _ Proposed Rockfall Mitigation Be— Tie -into Existing 10" Water Main Tiered Boulder Walls Wetlands to be proteded ,nfe/yf4 ravel Pat /Q AO Proposed B Sewer Man , Proposed ' W ooden Stairs Legend: Existing Contours --- Proposed Stormwater Pipes - Proposed Century Link gi ,vE engineering tiProposed Contours - Proposed Water Lines - Proposed Comcast N Edwards, CO •rrmrr• Ephemeral Stream Channel - Proposed Sewer Lines Date: May 2019 Wetand Flagging Wetlands -Pro osed Electric p contourintervai=2rt scale:l In=75R Sur veyed by: Peak Land surveying Inc. Existing Culverts - Proposed Gas 42 Vail, CO Figure 12. Proposed Development Plan East Vail Worldorce Housing P P a Birch Ecology LLC �tRcFr ECOLOGY Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 3.0 Earthen berm approximate 1:1 slope 12.0 .0 A. Earthen Berm 40.0 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 12.0 Rockfall wall 12.0 I--6.0L115.0 B. Structural Wall Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 13 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Typical Sections - Rockfall Barriers GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Page 43 Figure 14. Wildlife habitats affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 3.3 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain that habitat effectiveness. 44 A. Y Figure 15. Bighorn Sheep Winter Range Enhancement Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project. 45 7.0 References Ackerfield, J. 2015. The Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press, Ft. Worth, Texas. 818p. Andree, B. 2017. Untitled letter re: the sustainability of wildlife populations within the Gore Valley. CPW. Glenwood Springs, CO. Ltr. to P. Wadden, Watershed Community Coordinator, Town of Vail. Mar. 6. 7pp. Birch Ecology. 2019. Wetland Delineation Report, East Vail Workforce Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared for Triumph Development & Western Ecological Resource. February 2019. Bush, T. 2006. Plant fact sheet: smooth brome, Bromus inermis. USDA NRCS Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, Michigan. 2pp. May 25. Cesare, Inc. 2018. Preliminary Subsurface Exploration, East Vail Housing Rock Mitigation and Geotechnical Study, Vail Colorado. Prepared for Triumph Development. November 14, 2018. Cesare, Inc. 2017. Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado. Prepared for Kevin Hopkins, Vail Resorts Development Company. June 19, 2017. Chick, Nancy. 2018. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Background Estimates for Air Pollution, East Vail Workforce Subdivision. December 27, 2018. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/tracking/vascular.html Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. CPW, Denver, CO. Craig, G.R. 1978. American peregrine falcon, Fa/co ,neregrinus anatum. Pages 40-45 in Essential habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife in Colorado. CDOW, Denver. 84 pp. Gunther, K.A., M.J. Biel and H.L. Robison. 1998. Factors influencing the frequency of road -killed wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. pp. 395 to 405 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. Fort Myers, FL, Feb. 9 to 12, 1998. Jennings, William F. 1990. Final Report. Species studied: S,niranthes di/uvia/is, Sisyrinchium pallidum. Report for the Nature Conservancy under the Colorado Natural History Small Grants Program. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. Kellogg, K.S., Bryant, B., Redsteer, M.H. 2003. Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2375, Version 1.1. Kellogg, K.S., Shroba, R.R., Premo, W.R., Bryant, B. 2011. Geologic Map of the Eastern Half of Vail 30'x 60' Quadrangle, Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3170. Skyline Geoscience. 2019. Geologic Hazard Analysis, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado. Prepared for Cesare, Inc. February 12, 2019. 46 Spackman, S., et al. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Thompson, R.W. 2019. Wildlife Mitigation Plan, East Vail Workforce Housing Project, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. February 2019. Thompson, R.W. 2018a. Recommended wildlife design criteria for Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 15. Thompson, R.W. 2018b. East Vail peregrines — 2018 nesting attempt to date. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 18. Thompson, R.W. 2018c. Wildlife monitoring reportfor the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 33 pp., Aug. 31. Thompson, R.W. 2018d. East Vail Workforce Housing project conceptual bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions memorandum. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 3 pp., Nov. 5. Thompson, R.W. 2017. Rezoning wildlife assessment of Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 10 pp., Aug. 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. ERDC/EL TR -08-28. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. Wash., D.C. 64 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of cumulative effects in EPA review of NEPA documents. U.S. EPA Off. Fed. Activities. Wash., D.C. 18 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Ute Ladies' -tresses (5,piranthe5 0(i/uvia/i5) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Forest Service. 2015. White River National Forest revised sensitive species list -terrestrial. USDA Forest Service, Glenwood Springs, CO. (updated by J. Austin, USFS, Nov. 7, 2016) U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Environmental Assessment, Booth Creek Project Burn Area, Eagle County, Colorado. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, CO. Feb. 6. 47 Appendix A. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Correspondence — Background Estimates for Air Pollution in Project Site STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor 0.075 Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH RM Steel Print Shop, Pueblo, 2013 - 2015. Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 Located in Glendale, Colorado (303) 692-3090 www.colorado.gov/cdphe David Johnson By email: david@westerneco.com December 27, 2018 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dear Mr. Johnson, You recently requested background estimates for air pollution in the area of the following project: East Vail Workforce Subdivision County: Eagle Latitude: NAD83: 39.645108 AND / OR NAD27 Longitude: -106.304878 The estimates, and their bases, are given below. Pollutant Standard Standard Estimated Concentration Basis for Estimate CO requested? Yes CO 1 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 35 2 Grand Junction, 2015 - 2017. CO 8 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 9 1 03 requested? Yes 03 8 Hour Fourth Maximum (ppm) 0.070 0.064 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. SO2 requested? Yes SO2 1 Hour 99th Percentile 0.075 0.012 RM Steel Print Shop, Pueblo, 2013 - 2015. SO2 3 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 0.05 0.008 (Secondary Standard) SO2 24 Hour Second Maximum (ppm) 0.003 SO2 Annual Mean (ppm) . 0.001 NO2 requested?) Yes NO2 Annual Mean (ppm) 0.053 0.005 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. NO2 1 Hour 98th Percentile (ppm) 0.100 0.033 PM10 requested? Yes 150 40 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. PM10 24 Hour Second Maximum (ug/m3) PM2.5 requested? Yes PM2.5 Annual Mean (ug/m3) 12.0 5 Glenwood Springs, Feb - Dec 2015. PM2.5 24 Hour 98th Percentile (ug/m3) 35 13 Pb requested? Yes Pb Rolling 3 -Month Average (ug/m3) 0.15 0.006 Denver Municipal Animal Shelter, 2009. A-1 Any ozone concentrations provided here are for informational purposes only. They are not for use in modeling. Ozone concentrations for use in modeling (AERMOD / OLM) should be requested separately. Upon request, refinement of a single value background concentration listed above may be conducted by the modeling staff (email: emmett.malone@state.co.us), if applicable, appropriate, and justified. These estimates are derived from ambient monitored concentrations that are available to the Division to represent background levels (added to the impacts of the project emissions and emissions from other nearby sources) in cumulative ambient air impacts for comparison to the NAAQS. They are not suitable for applications beyond that scope of use. The quantity of data is sometimes limited and may be of uncertain quality. The ambient background concentrations - 1. Do not necessarily substitute for on-site monitoring data; i.e., for permitting actions subject to PSD rules, pre -construction monitoring may be required. 2. Indicate the ambient levels in general geographic areas, not a specific location. This is particularly true for particulate concentration values. 3. Are subject to change without notice as new information is acquired. Use of these background estimates should be accompanied by an appropriate citation that indicates their source and their limitations. Referencing this letter would be adequate, but an expanded explanation is suggested. If you have questions, I can be reached at 303-692-3226, or email: nancy.chick@state.co.us. Sincerely, L�L't 1. D�'_k Nancy D. Chick Environmental Protection Specialist Air Pollution Control Division CAbackground concentration\request no. 177 A-2 Appendix B. IPaC Resource List IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trustresources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Eagle County, Colorado �w Local office Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office t. (970) 243-2778 18 (970) 245-6933 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand junction, CO 81 501-571 1 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/ http://www.fws.gov/pIatteriver/ Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project -specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Birds STATUS Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196 Yellow -billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAM E STATUS Bonytail Chub Gila elegans Endangered This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fks.gov/ecp/species/1377 Colorado Pikeminnow (=squawfish) Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531 Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2775 Humpback Chub Gila cypha This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930 Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus This species only needs to be considered if the following condition applies: • Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530 Endangered Endangered Flowering Plants NAM E STATUS Ute Ladies' -tresses Sp iranthes diluviali-C) Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.go specvs12159 U 70 Critical habitats %k Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Acti and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. ME 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.ggy/m gratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E -bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area NAME 'OPA Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 B-5 BREEDING SEASON (IF A .............................................................................. BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE ..................................................................................................... BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN .............................................................................................................. THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, .......................................................................................... WHICH IS AVERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE ........................................................................................................ WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS .................................................................................. ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. ......................................................................................... ''BREEDS ELSEWHERE'' INDICATES ............................................................................................................. THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY ............................................................................................................. BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 Olive -sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httpL.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4 -week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPEC IES Bald Eagle Non -BCC Vulnerable ................................................. (This is nota Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this .................................................. area, but warrants ............................................ attention because of the Eagle Act or for ............................................... potential ...................... susceptibilities in .......................................... offshore areas from ................................................. certain.types of ..................................... development or ...................................... activities.) Olive -sided probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV Jll 1111 till 1111 - - �11� ---- Flycatcher ,C , C Rangewide 0?4%k. (CON) (This is a Bird ................................................ of Conservation ...................................... Concern (BCC) ................................... throughout its range in the continental .......................................... USA and Alaska.) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide ..................... (CO This is a Bird of Conservation ....................................... Concern (BCC) throughout its range ..................................... in the continental ........................................... USA and Alaska.) ......................................... Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. Im What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E -bird Explore Data Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? A\k The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, bAding, and citizen science datasets . ! 1k Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects :: For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. V n Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. THERE ARE NO KNOWN WETLANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. l EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 3 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 May, 2019 1Western Ecosystems, Inc. Eco Cog icaCConsuCtants goy Nest Coad Road, Boulder, Colorado 8o302 (303) 442-6144 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Prepared by: Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist Western Ecosystems, Inc., 905 West Coach Road, Boulder, Colorado 80302 Submitted to: Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Western Ecological Resource 711 Walnut Street Boulder, CO 80302 MAY, 2019 C:\...\Vail Resorts\East Vail Parcel\WEI\Workforce Housing Subdivision 2018-\EIR Wildlife Sections\EV Wildlife Mit Plan May2819 Final Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS CURRENTLY REDUCING WILDLIFE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE EAST VAIL PARCEL......................................................................................................1 2.1 I-70 AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD..................................................................................................1 2.2 HUMAN RECREATION........................................................................................................................1 2.3 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND HABITAT DETERIORATION........................................................ 3 3.0 WILDLIFE USING THE EAST VAIL PARCEL....................................................................3 3.1 FOCAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN................................................................................. 4 3.1.1 Bighorn Sheep............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.1.1 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping ..................................... 4 ROCKFALL BERM................................................................................................................................16 3.1.1.2 Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study ................................... 6 3.1.2 Peregrine Falcon......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Elk................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.4 Black Bear..................................................................................................................................11 7.6 3.2 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN..............................................................................11 3.2.1 Migratory Birds.........................................................................................................................11 3.2.2 Raptors.......................................................................................................................................11 3.2.3 Fish.............................................................................................................................................12 3.2.4 Other Big Game Species.........................................................................................................12 3.2.4.1 Mule Deer...............................................................................................................12 3.2.4.2 Moose......................................................................................................................13 3.2.4.3 Mountain Goat......................................................................................................13 3.2.4.4 Mountain Lion.......................................................................................................13 4.0 2017 EAST VAIL PARCEL REZONING...............................................................................13 5.0 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA..............................................................................13 6.0 EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL...............................14 7.0 WORKFORCE HOUSING DESIGN CRITERIA REDUCING POTENTIAL IMPACTS 16 7.1 STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING........................................................................16 7.2 PARCEL ACCESS...................................................................................................................................16 7.3 ROCKFALL BERM................................................................................................................................16 7.4 DEVELOPMENT BUFFER.................................................................................................................16 7.5 ASPEN SCREENING............................................................................................................................17 7.6 DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD CUT SLOPE ..................17 7.7 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE SETBACKS...................................................................17 7.8 UNIT NUMBERS....................................................................................................................................18 7.9 INTERNAL PARKS...............................................................................................................................19 7.10 TREE CLEARING.................................................................................................................................19 Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.11 MAINTAINING SHEEP MOVEMENTS ABOVE THE FRONTAGE ROAD......................19 7.12 FENCING.................................................................................................................................................19 7.13 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT.............................................................................................................20 7.14 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND WILDLIFE MITIGATIONPLAN............................................................................................................................ 20 8.0 PROJECT -RELATED WILDLIFE EFFECTS.....................................................................20 9.0 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN.........................................................................................23 9.1 WINTER RANGE ENHANCEMENT.............................................................................................. 23 9.1.1 On-site Enhancement..............................................................................................................24 9.1.2 Off-site Enhancement............................................................................................................. 27 9.2 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES.................................................28 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep........................................................................................................................ 28 9.2.2 Nesting Peregrine Falcons...................................................................................................... 31 9.2.3 Other Construction -related Mitigation.................................................................................. 31 9.3 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENTPLAN....................................................................................................................... 31 9.3.1 Requirements for the Developer of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel ............... 32 9.3.2 Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel........ 33 9.3.2.1 Recreation...............................................................................................................33 9.3.2.2 Pet Controls........................................................................................................... 34 9.3.2.3 Resident Education Regarding Black Bears/ Trash Removal/ Nuisance Wildlife.................................................................................................................... 36 9.3.2.4 Resident Education on Mountain Lions............................................................. 37 9.3.2.5 Education on Wildlife Mortality on Local Roads ............................................... 37 9.3.2.6 Adjacent National Forest Lands......................................................................... 38 9.3.2.7 Resident Education on Other Wildlife Concerns ............................................. 38 9.3.3 Enforcement............................................................................................................................. 38 9.3.4 Miscellaneous............................................................................................................................ 40 10.0 LITERATURE CITED...........................................................................................................40 11.0 APPENDICES........................................................................................................................42 A. APPENDIX A. WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT FOR THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING PARCEL, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .................................. 42 B. APPENDIX B. EAST VAIL PEREGRINES — 2018 NESTING ATTEMPT ........................... 42 Western Ecosystems, Inc. 11 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 2-1. Location of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel, north of I -70's East Vail Interchange and composed of the 5.4 -acre, Lot 1, Housing Parcel and the 17.9 -acre, Tract A, Natural Area Preservation (NAP) Parcel. Also shown are contiguous and adjacent USFS and Town of Vail (TOV) lands. The TOV parcels to the west, the USFS parcel to the north, and the NAP parcel to the east compose the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern on this project ................................................. 2 Figure 3-1. Bighorn sheep winter ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 2017) in the vicinity of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range (BSWR) and severe winter range (BSSWR) cover the same largest polygon shaded light blue. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) is shown in the two darker blue polygons .............................. 5 Figure 3-2. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline) .................................................. 8 Figure 3-3. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of I-70..............................................................................10 Figure 3-4. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline)..............12 Figure 6-1. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision site plan..................................................15 Figure 8-1. Wildlife habitats affected by structural development on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres (not shown; see Triumph Development 2019) north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed, but blocked by fencing from big game access. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housing -related traffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain habitat effectiveness.............................................................................22 Figure 9-1. Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project. See text for prescription descriptions..................................................25 Western Ecosystems, Inc. m May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 1.0 INTRODUCTION Vail Resorts (VR) owns the ± 23.3 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. Triumph Development is under contract to purchase the property and is interested in locating affordable housing on a portion of the property. The parcel supports important wildlife habitat and is closely surrounded by habitats and wildlife uses that are unique in the Gore Creek Valley. Development and human habitation of this site without designing it around the wildlife community, without safeguards, and without habitat enhancement would result in impacts that would be unacceptable to the local community. This stand-alone Wildlife Mitigation Plan will be provided to residents of the Workforce Housing subdivision to educate them about (1) the parcel's setting, (2) the sensitivity of the local wildlife, (3) the effort that went into the development's design to avoid, minimize, and compensate for project effects, and (4) requirements that residents must abide by to live in this sensitive setting. 2.0 CHARACTERISTICS CURRENTLY REDUCING WILDLIFE EFFECTIVENESS ON THE EAST VAIL PARCEL Some wildlife species using portions of the East Vail parcel are negatively affected by existing levels of surrounding development and human activity. Figure 2-1 shows the two parcels composing the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel and surrounding land ownership. The following parcel conditions affect current, on-site and off-site wildlife use and limit, to some extent, the additional, negative, potential development effects to wildlife. 2.1 I-70 AND THE FRONTAGE ROAD The parcel's southern boundary is located as close as 122 feet to the westbound lanes of I-70, one of the major ground transportation corridors across the United States. Locally, I-70 consists of two westbound and two eastbound lanes with a posted 65 mph speed limit and supporting an average daily traffic volume of 29,000 vehicles (2016). The East Vail interchange and the west -bound on and off ramps are located on the opposite side of the Frontage Road from the parcel. There is virtually no location on the parcel where the sights, sounds, and smells of I-70 use are non -discernable 24/7/365. he current average daily traffic volume on the North Frontage Road is approximately 2,200 vpd (K. McDowell Schroeder, McDowell Engineering, pers. comm. May23, 2019) that are greatest during dawn through dusk. Most local wildlife have adapted to this relatively benign and predictable activity. The most acute Frontage Road traffic effects on wildlife are the harassment effects to bighorn sheep that occurs when motorists stop to view them when the sheep are close to the road. 2.2 HUMAN RECREATION There is a level of daily recreational use that occurs along the Frontage Road, some of which extends into the proposed development area, generally via the Booth Creek rockfall berm road and buried electric line corridor that bisects the center of the parcel. Uses, in order of decreasing frequency, include dog -walking, hiking, jogging, biking, motorcycle riding, and transients camping. Unauthorized use of the parcel occurs year-round, but is greatest from spring through fall when not curtailed by excessive snow depths. Low to Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife MitieationPlan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 2-1. Location of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel, north of I -70's East Vail Interchange and composed of the 5.4 -acre, Lot 1, Housing Parcel and the 17.9 -acre, Tract A, Natural Area Preservation (NAP) Parcel. Also shown are contiguous and adjacent USFS and Town of Vail (TOV) lands. The TOV parcels to the west, the USFS parcel to the north, and the NAP parcel to the east compose the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern on this project. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision moderate numbers of primarily hikers also pass by the parcel's eastern flank on the Pitkin Creek Trail extending into the Eagles Nest Wilderness. 2.3 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND HABITAT DETERIORATION The East Vail parcel is located within an approximate 1,800 -acre polygon of bighorn sheep winter range that extends along the south -facing slopes north of I-70. Over the last 20-30 years, aspen forest has encroached onto the East Vail parcel, as it has elsewhere in the local area. While mature aspen stands support some of the highest wildlife diversity values of any local vegetation type, they provide poor quality winter range for the local bighorn sheep herd, which has declined in number over that same time period. Sheep also consider forest stands as restrictions due to their need to visually observe the landscape for predators (e.g., bears, coyotes, mountain lions, dogs, etc.; USFS 1998). Mature aspen stands have died and fallen creating jackstrawed deposits of logs that restrict and block sheep and elk movements through the winter range. Lastly, mountain shrubs have become decadent and much of their nutritious foliage has grown out of the reach of wintering ungulates (bighorn sheep and elk). In 1998, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW, now Colorado Parks and Wildlife, CPW) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recognized that there was an increasingly limited amount of accessible winter forage (quality and quantity) and nearby escape terrain for sheep in the project area (USFS 1998). By suppressing wildfires on this winter range, the aspen and shrub components had become over mature and in need of vegetative treatment. The USFS (1998) proposed a habitat enhancement plan whose specific purposes were (1) to create a movement corridor (through downed aspen) for the bighorn sheep to be able to travel from Pitkin Creek west to Spraddle Creek, (2) to reduce the fuel loading to lessen the risk of wildfire, (3) to regenerate shrubland and aspen stands that are over mature, and (4), to improve the quantity and quality of forage (shrubs, grass, fortis) for big game (sheep, elk, and mule deer). The East Vail parcel was one of the USFS's proposed treatment areas. In 1998, the sheep population was estimated at approximately 125 animals (USFS 1998). Without implementation of the habitat enhancement plan, the USFS (1998) predicted that aspen stands would continue to age, disease and insect infestations would increase, and the stands would die. Dead and down timber would further restrict big game movements to winter foraging areas and escape terrain. The aspen and aged shrub communities would not regenerate. The shrub component (vital for wintering species) would continue to mature, die, and be replaced by grasses and fortis. Grass/ forb communities that are covered by snow are unavailable to winter browsers. Lastly, the USFS (1998) predicted that without enhancement there would be fewer bighorn sheep as a result of continued habitat degradation. The enhancement project was approved, but not implemented because of community opposition to the use of fire (B. Andree, CPW, Jan. 23, 2018). Although there have been two small scale habitat enhancement projects below the Booth Creek cliffs and on the East Vail parcel ca. 2000, the overall sheep winter range has deteriorated as predicted. Over the 2017/ 2018 winter, Thompson (2018c) detected a total of 41 sheep largely confined to a small non -forested subset of their former winter range. Availability of effective winter range is arguably the greatest current threat to the East Vail sheep herd. 3.0 WILDLIFE USING THE EAST VAIL PARCEL Our understanding of wildlife on the East Vail parcel and in the surrounding area was documented using the results of past observations, discussions with wildlife professionals (e.g., B. Andree, CPW District Wildlife Manager, pers. comms., now Ret.), mapping and studies conducted by the CDOW and CPW and Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision USFS (e.g., 1998), along with site-specific seasonal surveys conducted between August 4, 2017 and June 14, 2018 for the East Vail parcel Rezoning (Thompson 2017) and Workforce Housing (Thompson 2018b,c) processes. 3.1 FOCAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN There are four wildlife species of particular concern on this project, bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregnnus anatum), elk (Cereus canadensis), and black bear (Ursus americanus). 3.1.1 Bighorn Sheep 3.1.1.1 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Seasonal Range Mapping Figure 3-1 shows the important bighorn sheep seasonal ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 2017) in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The winter range and severe winter range polygons are approximately 1,800 acres and extend west from Pitkin Creek along the north side of I-70 nearly to I -70's Vail exit. This is the only sheep winter range mapped on either side of the Gore Range. Bighorn sheep winter range and severe winter range cover the same area and overlap most (± 75%) of the parcel. Winter range (BSWR) is that part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten, from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Based on CPW's generic definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of salt and mineral blocks. Severe winter range (BSSWR) is that part of the winter range where 90% of the individual animals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The amounts, quality, and effectiveness of winter range are generally what limit big game populations. The winter range and severe winter range polygon boundaries are not accurate based on the results of the 2017-2018 winter sheep study (Thompson 2018c). In the spirit of the mapping, the polygons were likely intended to extend southeast to the treeline along Pitkin Creek and down to the north side of the Frontage Road. This would include most, if not all, of the East Vail parcel, although, based on the winter sheep study (Thompson 2018c), the only meaningful foraging habitat used was that along the Frontage Road, below and mostly off of the parcel. There is no I-70 game fencing in the area. Sheep likely used the habitat in what is now the Booth Creek residential area before its development. Sheep no longer enter the interior of that development and only use peripheral areas when no people are initially present. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) is a subset of the winter range where animal densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define the winter range, in the average five winters out of ten. Two BSWCA polygons occur within the winter range, neither overlapping the East Vail parcel, but habitat effectiveness of the nearest polygon could be influenced by residential development and habitation on the parcel. A bighorn sheep migration pattern (not shown in Fig. 3-1) is a subjective indication of the general direction taken by migratory ungulate herds. In the study area, bighorns move downhill on the ridge between Pitkin and Booth Creeks during fall towards their winter range, then move uphill and follow this same general route in spring to their alpine summer range. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife MitieationPlan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 3-1. Bighorn sheep winter ranges mapped by CPW (Dec. 6, 201) in the vicinity of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel (red outline). See text for range definitions. Bighorn sheep winter range (BSWR) and severe winter range (BSSWR) cover the same largest polygon shaded light blue. Winter concentration area (BSWCA) is shown in the two darker blue polygons. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.1.1.2 Results of the East Vail 2017-2018 Winter Sheep Study Results of the 2017-2018 East Vail Winter Sheep Study (Thompson 2018c, App. A) are summarized below. The October 13, 2017 to June 14, 2018 wildlife study was primarily designed to detect and characterize winter bighorn sheep use on and in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. The study employed five trail cameras (4 on the East Vail parcel, including 3 overlooking the development area, and 1 below the eastern Booth Creek cliffs), winter tracking, and binocular and spotting scope surveys of the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon. Winter severity' affects spatial and temporal, winter, big game use patterns. Compared to the prior nine years, winter 2017-2018 was below average for total snowfall (-350/o), total snowfall days (40%), and mean base snowfall depth (-120/o), and above average for maximum base depth (+3%). Shallower and less persistent snow in the East Vail project area over the 2017-2018 winter should have allowed sheep to use higher elevation habitats, more forested habitats,z and a larger portion of their winter range than during average and harsher winters. Sheep use detected on the East Vail parcel over the 2017-2018 winter included foraging along the smooth brome-dominated cut slope above the Frontage Road on three occasions, forced travel through the potential 5.4 -acre development area on two occasions, and a single animal travelling through the NAP portion of the parcel in May, outside the winter period. The south -facing cut slopes above the Frontage Road are non -forested and steeper than the aspen forest portion of the development area, resulting in shallower depths and less persistent snow that facilitated foraging. Trail cameras captured 125,699 images over the study period. A total of 91 sheep were caught on two of the four trail cameras on the East Vail parcel during the winter range period, both of them in the 5.4 -acre development area (where strategic camera placement covered all trails and much of the area 24/7). Sheep use of the property caught on cameras occurred on January 24, 2018 (n=24 sheep) and 28 (n=28), February 7 (n=±15), and March 24 (n=8), 2018, and involved a total of 75 sheep. All but eight of the sheep (67 of 75 sheep) detected in the development area were associated with foraging along the cut slope above the Frontage Road on three days during the winter. In comparison, images of 534 sheep were caught on the single camera below the eastern portion of the Booth Creek cliffs (with a 4.4 -ac. field of view). More meaningfully, sheep were detected on the four cameras on the East Vail parcel on four days compared to sheep detected on the single camera below the cliffs on 40 days. Although the entire 23.3 acre parcel warrants consideration as winter range, meaningful foraging only occurred on the cut slope below (and largely of�the East Vail development area for up to several hours at a time on three days. That foraging was stressful to the sheep because of the ensuing traffic jams, as motorists stopped to observe and photograph the sheep. On at least one occasion Qan. 25, 2018), the sheep where chased by some human disturbance from the cut slope into the interior of the East Vail parcel. It is possible that during more normal winters with deeper and more persistent snow depths, those ' Winter severity is generally an interrelated function of snowfall (amounts and persistence) and temperature. 2 Which support deeper and more persistent snow depths than non -forested habitats, all else being equal. s This total includes a double counting of the same 24 sheep that were captured on Trail Camera (TC) 2 and TO on Jan. 24. Numeric differences (i.e., 91 vs. 75 sheep) associated with double counting the same group of sheep on two cameras in the same day are attributable to the different minimum number of sheep visible on images from each camera vs. the actual number of sheep present (i.e., not all sheep present were captured on one of the cameras). Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision grasses on the cut slope would not be available to the sheep. However, what foraging that occurs along the cut slope takes foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. The distribution of 222 bighorn sheep sightings over the course of the study was mapped in relation to the East Vail parcel and CPW's sheep winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration area polygons. No sheep sightings were made outside of CPW's winter range polygon. That sighting distribution did not include the 625 sheep sightings recorded by all trail cameras during the study, all of which were within the 2017-2018 sightings distribution. The visual sightings represent a spatial subset of overall winter range use over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter. Sheep were at lower elevations within their overall winter range polygon and used southwest- and south -facing aspects that had the best snow - shedding characteristics, even though it was a mild winter. The cluster of sheep sightings and trail camera results below the Booth Creek cliffs to the west of the study parcel suggests that area is the most heavily used and most important block of winter range within the overall winter range polygon because of higher quality forage in close proximity to escape cover. Four occasions of time lapse images of sheep foraging in the high quality habitat below the Booth Creek cliffs indicated that sheep appeared to select against foraging far into transitional aspen habitat above and to the west of the study parcel (i.e., where sparse seedling to pole stage aspen extend west into the mountain shrub habitat below the cliffs). This "avoidance" behavior was more likely related to the quality, quantity, and availability of forage than to predator detection. Only 15% (266.28 acres) of CPW's 1,800 -acre winter range polygon was used during winter 2017-2018.4 That is likely a function of (1) the smaller present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed logs, and (5) sheep not using isolated mountain shrub patches, over mature shrub patches with little available forage, and shrub communities where forage has grown out of their browsing range. Rams used more distant portions of winter range compared to ewes and lambs. With respect to minimum herd size and composition, the maximum number of sheep observed during the study at any one time was 39. Based on the observed sex and age composition of sheep, the herd was composed of at least 10 lambs, 21 ewes, and 10 rams, totaling 41 sheep. The highest number of lambs (born in 2017) seen at any one time was 10 on two occasions. There was no detectable overwinter lamb mortality. The above numbers do not include a minimum of seven lambs born in 2018.5 4 The acreage was calculated by encircling the locations of all sheep detected over the 2017/2018 winter (see Fig. 4-8 in Thompson 2018c) and adding likely movement corridors and straight line segments between the outer locations. This estimate underestimates actual use because there were days during the study when no sheep or only a small number of sheep were observed. Although virtually all of the lowest elevation, highest quality, and most effective winter range was detectable from the valley bottom, some portions of CPW's winter range polygon were not visible from valley bottom observation points. For example, considering two observations of sheep in winter 2018-2019 by a TOV employee (G. Ruttier, K. Bertuglia, TOV, pers. comm., Jan. 10, 2019), the winter range use polygon for those two winters would be 17% of the overall winter range. Furthermore, sheep never used the entire 1,800 acres of winter range during any one winter. The polygon is a composite of winter sheep locations observed over many years as well as adjacent apparently suitable habitat. 5 The sheep study (Thompson 2018c) was not designed to extend outside the winter range period. These lambs were opportunistically observed with 12 ewes and yearlings at the licks atop the rockfall berm cut slope on June 14, 2018 coincident with peregrine monitoring. Assuming equal productivity of the other known ewes in the herd, the herd could have numbered 54-55 animals in mid June, 2018. This estimate was supported when Rick Spitzer, a local photographer, documented 54 sheep in East Vail on February 24, 2019. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.1.2 Peregrine Falcon A cliff south of I -70's East Vail Interchange has been used in recent years for peregrine falcon nesting. The cliff is located 0.36 miles from the closest point on the East Vail parcel, on the opposite side of the Frontage Road, I-70, East Vail interchange on/off ramps, the East Vail Park and Ride, Vail Trail, Gore Creek, a social trail, and the East Vail Memorial Park. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's nesting area polygon is defined as the area that includes good nesting sites and contains one or more active or inactive nest locations (Fig. 3-2). The boundaries are drawn based on professional judgment to include most known nesting habitat in the vicinity. Usually these areas are mapped as polygons around cliffs and include a 0.5 mile buffer surrounding the cliffs. Figure 3-2. Active peregrine falcon nesting cliff complex and surrounding 0.5 mile buffer (shaded blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). Viable peregrine falcon nesting sites possess two components: (1) adequate nesting habitat and (2) extensive hunting habitat with an adequate prey base to support the adults and their offspring (Craig 1978). Nesting sites are located on precipitous cliffs ranging in height from 40 to 2,100 feet, averaging 200 to 400 feet tall. Several ledges, potholes, or small caves must be present in the cliff face to function as a suitable nest site. A breeding pair will frequently alternate their nesting activities to different ledges on a cliff face between years, and they will often relocate to adjacent cliff faces. As a result, protective measures must address an entire cliff complex (and potential nesting areas) rather than an individual cliff. Nesting peregrines will not tolerate excessive human encroachment or prolonged disturbance in the vicinity of the nesting cliff. Any activity or development above the nesting cliff will likely cause abandonment. Breeding peregrines become extremely agitated and may abandon the nest site if disturbance occurs during courtship, prior to the initiation of egg laying. Once birds have eggs or young, they have a strong fidelity to their invested resources. The CDOW (2008) recognized that "some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests." The East Vail peregrines are examples of how wildlife, in Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision general, can habituate to chronic, but benign, human activities, although residential and golf course development along the valley bottom has reduced their prey base. In Colorado, peregrines usually return to nesting cliffs in late February or early March and initiate courtship activities, which continue to mid- or late April when eggs are laid. The young hatch from mid - to late May and fledge (i.e., leave the eyrie) in mid- to late June. The young and adults remain in the vicinity of the nesting cliff up to several months after fledging. Extensive hunting habitat is a second key component of a viable peregrine nest site. Peregrines will frequently travel at least 10 miles from their eyrie to procure prey and they have been documented hunting up to 30 miles away from nest sites (G. Craig, CDOW, pers. comm.). It is, therefore, important to maintain the integrity of important hunting areas within at least 10 miles of the nesting cliff. All habitats within the 10 -mile radius need not be considered essential habitat, since only those areas that attract or support peregrine prey need be protected. The primary prey captured by nesting Colorado peregrines are small to moderately-sized birds, such as blackbirds, doves, robins, flickers, jays, nutcrackers, meadowlarks, and pigeons, but prey as large as waterfowl are also taken. Any habitat that supports or concentrates birds should be considered essential to locally nesting peregrines. Key hunting areas fall into two categories: (1) those habitats that concentrate or support important prey species, and (2) those habitats that expose prey and make them vulnerable to peregrine attack. Peregrines capture their prey through precipitous dives from considerable height above their quarry. Peregrines must, therefore, frequent habitats permitting this type of pursuit. Peregrines do not hunt below the forest canopy, but capture birds flying above forests or across open expanses. Larger prey are raked (with talons) or knocked out of the air and peregrines need open areas on the ground to recover them. Nesting cliffs, are generally situated at considerable heights above the surrounding terrain, so peregrines have a broad panorama from favorite hunting perches near the cliff top. Annual (2011-2017, n=5 yrs.) cliff monitoring by a long time Vail resident (Anne Esson) indicated that the pair(s) successfully fledged at least two birds during each of the five years. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2018 indicated that the nesting attempt failed approximately 19 days after incubation was expected to have started (Thompson 2018b). It is unknown why the 2018 nesting attempt failed. Construction of a new sanitary water line on the south side of I -70's East Vail interchange and the falcons selecting a different nest ledge on the cliff in 2018, compared to prior years, were the only known independent variables that differed with those of past years. There could have been other common causes of the nest failure. Subsequent behavior of the female observed on June 14 suggested that the pair may have been in the process of a second nest attempt. However, cliff monitoring was discontinued for the 2018 season after surveys by Thompson and Esson out to July 1 failed to detect any evidence of peregrine presence. Monitoring of the nest cliff in 2019 detected at least one peregrine and a pair was suspected of nesting as recently as May 13 (A. Esson, Vail resident, pers. comm., May 13, 2019). The East Vail parcel represents a small area of largely intact undeveloped habitat below and within fairly close proximity to the adjacent nest cliff. Its seral and relatively young aspen forest does not support even moderate concentrations of prey species that would be particularly attractive to birds using the adjacent nesting cliff, but it does support potential avian prey that could contribute to the local pair's prey base. 3.1.3 Elk Figure 3-3 shows one elk seasonal range mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that warrants consideration. The elk winter range definition follows that provided for sheep, above. No elk winter range is shown overlapping the subject parcel, but that mapping is incorrect. The winter range Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision polygon boundary along the north side of I-70 appears to follow an assumed land ownership boundary. At the time of CPW mapping, the County's and the Town's mapping assumed the East Vail parcel was in USFS ownership. Colorado Parks and Wildlife appears to have adopted the Town's position and extended the polygon along the U.S. Forest Service property line, rather than bringing it down to the north edge of the Frontage Road and I-70 where it should be. There are no mapped elk severe winter range or winter concentration areas in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel. Figure 3-3. Elk winter range (outlined in light blue) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). In undeveloped habitats, which include the entire East Vail parcel, the winter range actually comes down to the north shoulder of I-70. Results of the winter sheep study found that a minimum of 15 elk' were occasionally present and moving back and forth between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages through the East Vail parcel. Using the spike in the group as a marker, the same group of elk was captured on the three most widely separated trail cameras in the same night. Compared to the sheep, the local elk were more wary of human activity areas. Although some of their movements closely approached I-70 and the Frontage Road, they only did so under cover of darkness. Elk were only captured on the trail cameras at night and their movements between the Pitkin and Booth Creek drainages were completed at night. Evidence of elk foraging was captured on all cameras except one of three within the interior of the 5.4 -acre development area. Concerted foraging was noted on cameras located below the cliffs and in the NAP area. Foraging in the meadow in the development area's northeast corner was opportunistic as animals were traveling. 6 Composed of 12 cows, 2 calves, and a spike bull. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 10 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Although there are areas of the East Vail parcel that may not be used because of terrain and proximity to human disturbances areas, for all practical purposes, the entire parcel should be mapped as elk winter range. The elk winter range on the subject parcel is part of a polygon containing the highest elevation elk winter range in the Gore Creek Valley and some of the highest winter range in the Eagle Valley. This higher elevation winter range is used more during the early part of winters and during milder winters when excessive snow depths have not yet pushed animals to lower elevations down valley. Nevertheless, these winter ranges are valuable because they support animals during portions of the winter when animals would otherwise be further down valley on increasingly smaller, more crowded, and less effective winter range because of collective habitat losses and the effects of human activities. Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable loss of big game winter range to secondary ski area development in the Eagle Valley. Winter ranges generally occur at lower elevations along valley bottoms that are dominated by private lands. Development of those lands has pushed elk further west down valley. In recent years, CPW have increased their hunting permits to increase harvest and reduce the elk and deer populations to levels that the smaller winter range acreage can support. 3.1.4 Black Bear Colorado Parks and Wildlife have mapped two black bear seasonal ranges in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel that warrant consideration (Fig. 3-4). Black bear summer concentration areas are defined as those parts of the overall range where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during that period from June 15 to August 15. This entire polygon extends along and above the valley bottom from east of East Vail to west of West Vail. This designation has merit overlapping the subject parcel. During summer, the young, open -canopy aspen stands on the west end of the parcel supported a moderate density of berry -rich serviceberry shrubs that represent important summer forage for bears. A human/bear conflict area is represented by the same polygon along the Gore Creek valley bottom. Such areas are defined as that portion of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CPW investigation, damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc.), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock. 3.2 OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN 3.2.1 Migratory Birds The East Vail parcel supports a low to moderate diversity of largely migratory birds that reach peak numbers during the spring and mid -summer breeding season. The avian community is typical of those associated with the habitats present and is largely uninfluenced by chronic human activity associated with the adjacent Frontage Road and I-70. 3.2.2 Raptors Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were the only raptor actually observed on the East Vail parcel during 2017-2018 wildlife baseline surveys. No raptor nests are present and the parcel is within the hunting territory of a pair of red-tailed hawks that nested on the south side of I-70 in 2018. Other raptors Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 11 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision observed in the vicinity of the parcel during field surveys that could hunt the parcel include peregrine falcons, golden eagles (Aquila cbrysaetos), and sharp -shinned hawks (Accoiter straatus). 3.2.3 Fish The moderate gradient, intermittent creek bisecting the East Vail development parcel does not support fish. Stream water enters a 24 -inch diameter culvert and flows under the Frontage Road and I-70 before dropping into Gore Creek that supports a fishery. The culvert's drop prevents Gore Creek fish from attempting to colonize the creek during stream flows. Figure 3-4. Black bear summer concentration area and human/bear conflict area (a single polygon outlined and shaded purple) mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel (red outline). 3.2.4 Other Big Game Species 3.2.4.1 Mule Deer The only mule deer seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest mule deer winter range is 8.7 miles down valley to the west, north of I-70. Low numbers of deer are present on and around the parcel from May through October. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 12 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 3.2.4.2 Moose The only moose seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range. The closest moose winter range is 2.5 miles to the northwest in Spraddle Creek. Moose may occur on or in the vicinity of the parcel, as they may just about anywhere else in Eagle County. Moose is the only ungulate whose population is increasing in the Gore Valley (Andree 2017). 3.2.4.3 Mountain Goat The closest mountain goat seasonal ranges mapped by CPW in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel are overall range and summer range in the Gore Range alpine, 2.3 miles up Booth Creek and 2.8 miles up Pitkin Creek. 3.2.4.4 Mountain Lion The East Vail parcel is located within a large polygon designated as a "mountain lion human conflict area" by CPW that includes all residential areas and trailheads from east of East Vail; to west of West Vail. Such areas are defined as areas where mountain lions have been involved in incidents (conflicts with humans that have serious results), an attack on a human, predation on domestic pets, or livestock held in close proximity to human habitation. Lion conflicts have increased since 2016 with most encounters involving the public encountering lions while hiking with their dogs (B. Andree, CPW, DWM [Ret.] 2017). In 2016, there were two incidents of dogs killed by lions and one lion was euthanized as a result. Lions are occasionally present on and around the East Vail parcel. 4.0 2017 EAST VAIL PARCEL REZONING The East Vail Parcel was originally zoned Two Family Residential, which would have allowed 30-45 homes and roads to be spread out across most of parcel with no open space required. Development under that zoning would have appreciably altered big game use on and surrounding the parcel, with no resident education, wildlife requirements reducing negative wildlife effects, or any on-site enhancement. After an assessment of development and natural resource considerations and via the Town Planning Process, Vail Resorts successfully rezoned the parcel. Current zoning allows multifamily housing (zoned Housing Zone District) on the western 5.4 -acre tip of the parcel, while preserving the more isolated 17.9 acres as Natural Area Preservation (NAP, open space). As a result of rezoning, development would be clustered into 23% of the parcel closest to the Frontage Road and I-70 where wildlife values are currently reduced to some extent by exiting human disturbances. A single, more isolated portion of the parcel (77%) extending into NFS land, would be preserved as open space (Thompson 2017). 5.0 DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA Western Ecosystems, Inc. proactively developed an approach to Workforce Housing on the East Vail parcel that, if incorporated into the project's design, would avoid, minimize, and offset potential direct negative development effects to wildlife to the extent possible. The first draft of that document was finalized on February 28, 2018, after the author (Thompson) gave a presentation entitled "Optimal development design" at the January 18, 2018 Town of Vail Wildlife Forum. The document was finalized after the seven-month wildlife study report (Thompson 2018c) was finalized, but well before the developer of the Workforce Housing parcel was selected by Vail Resorts so that the wildlife criteria would be Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 13 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision considered and incorporated as initial integral components of the project's design, rather than the common development approach of trying to retrofit measures into a plan lacking and resistant to wildlife considerations. A disclaimer in Thompson (2018a) indicated that "There is some flexibility in the implementation of these design measures and it should be recognized that some of these recommendations are contradictory. It will be an iterative process to develop a design that works for wildlife and the developer." 6.0 EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL The current East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("EVWHS") proposal (aka the Booth Heights Neighborhood) and this section is based largely on Triumph Development (2019). Triumph Development is under contract to purchase from Vail Resorts the 23.3 acre East Vail parcel, located at 3700 North Frontage Road. Recognizing both the need for locals housing and nearby critical wildlife habitat, Vail Resorts rezoned the parcel from 23 acres of Two Family Residential to 5.4 acres of Housing and 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation set aside for wildlife, thereby clustering development onto 23% of the overall parcel. This application to the TOV proposes to develop the 5.4 -acre "Lot 1" of the EVWHS in conjunction with wildlife enhancements and conservation on the 17.9 acre "Tract A". The latter will be one of the most significant wildlife enhancement projects in the history of the Town on private property. The development plan has been prepared with a conscientious focus on protecting wildlife It will include a substantial landscape area and berm to protect the neighborhood from rockfall and a fence on the north side of the property to create a physical barrier restricting neighborhood residents to important surrounding wildlife areas. The new development, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing Zone district, would be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70% of the square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHUs'�. To that end, the applicant proposes 73 total residences comprised of 42 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes, and 12 market -rate townhomes within 11 buildings (Fig. 6-1). The apartments would be all 830 -square -foot, two-bedroom units with surface parking. The townhomes would be a mix of two- and three-bedroom homes ranging in size from 1,300 square feet to just under 2,200 square feet with one car garages, driveways with two outdoor parking spaces in most cases, and private outdoor space at the rear of most units. Each new home will include ample storage, durable long- lasting and fire-resistant building materials, such as cementitious siding and stucco, 30 -year asphalt shingle and metal roofs, oversized low -e glazed windows, R40+ insulation, Energy Star appliances, and long -cycle interior finishes. The apartment buildings would have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor equipment that are so prevalent among Vail residents. There would also be an outdoor community picnic and barbecue area and low maintenance and low water landscaping. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 14 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision PRELcoIMINRYA LE END -- __ � _ ••"� : � _ �' �'= ���aor FOR iasrnucnoa------- W� i C � o new. �' � �`.' `•�-, fir; -�, ��_�\ ;�• •`;� ` , ���_ �''� --, CO LL 00 r - \ U 1 `(moi/ // \ JJ AL _�'��� \� + •\� \ ��\ � ' fin, � _ ;` a Figure 6-1. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision site plan. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 15 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.0 WORKFORCE HOUSING DESIGN CRITERIA REDUCING POTENTIAL IMPACTS Recognizing the wildlife benefits resulting from the rezoning (Section 4.0), the following design criteria that were incorporated into the Workforce Housing plan further reduced potential impacts. 7.1 STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT CLUSTERING Structural development (16% of parcel) has been clustered as close as possible to the Frontage Road and within the interior of the parcel (Triumph Development 2019). A small area (0.26 ac.) of the most isolated, relatively open habitat on the development parcel, and the best potential sheep foraging habitat away from the Frontage Road, would be avoided. That area could be added to the open space enhancement acreage and would be important for better connecting the on-site enhancement with the heavily used sheep and elk winter range below the Booth Creek cliffs. The overall development footprint, including impervious surfaces, buildings, and snow storage is 2.7 acres (Triumph Development 2019), 50% of the 5.4 -acre development parcel and 11.6% of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel. While most of the remaining development area will be disturbed (e.g., for the rockfall berm) and then landscaped, most of that restored habitat would be unavailable or of lower value to the wildlife community (focusing on big game) because of access restricted by the fencing and its interstitial location within the development matrix. Thus, big game would lose access to approximately 5.0 acres of habitat, 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre East Vail parcel. Areas of direct and indirect habitat losses can be offset by on-site habitat enhancement. 7.2 PARCEL ACCESS Proposed parcel access off the Frontage Road at the existing rockfall berm road exploits the existing disturbance and provides the most gradual ascent to the development area, as recommended (Thompson 2018a). 7.3 ROCKFALL BERM A rockfall berm is proposed to the north of all structural development (Skyline Geoscience 2019) that is consistent with the recommended development design criteria (Thompson 2018a).. 7.4 DEVELOPMENT BUFFER With the exception of the initial driveway access onto the parcel, the Workforce Housing buildings and human activity areas would be well buffered by intervening forest cover from undeveloped surrounding habitats on TOV lands to the north and west and most private open space to the east. Temporary construction screening, berm installation, and tree plantings northwest of the driveway entrance that could screen project -related vehicles from nearby wildlife have been considered and could be constructed in areas that do not already have a berm/wall in time for the first bighorn sheep winter range season that is coincident with construction. The need and design for such screening will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The screening concern is that it would not be needed if sheep displaced by construction traffic during the day return and use that nearby habitat under cover of darkness, as sheep now use habitat along the Frontage Road. Furthermore, temporary construction screening could actually block sheep from accessing and foraging in the ± 1.7 -acre smooth brome stand that is east of the Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 16 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision driveway entrance and above the Frontage Road, unless they went around the screen's end and onto the Frontage Road at night. 7.5 ASPEN SCREENING The on-site development effects would be well screened (visually and somewhat acoustically) from the important sheep foraging habitat on NFS and TOV lands below the Booth Creek cliffs by a broad (444- 487 ft.; see Fig. 8-2, below) band of young to medium -aged aspen whose screening should increase as the trees age. However, there are issues to consider regarding the building heights warranting consideration. The upper floors of the buildings that would face undeveloped wildlife habitat to the north are three and two stories above grade. The tops of the habitable space (i.e., the area below the bottoms of the roof lines) are approximately 32 and 25 feet above the ground on the multifamily buildings and uphill town house buildings, respectively. Maximum tree heights in this area are around 30-35 feet. The building heights extending above the current aspen canopy should not be a wildlife concern because of the broad intervening distances (444-487 ft.) to occupied habitat and the local sheep being habituated to such sights as they look down on the Booth Creek neighborhood (e.g., where the closest home is 107 ft. downhill from the top of the rockfall berm). Furthermore, such inanimate objects are generally ignored by most wildlife. Perhaps, most importantly, portions of the buildings extending above the canopy are also less of a concern because none of the residential units have outside decks above ground level, as recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a), where human activity could be visible and distracting to wildlife. 7.6 DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD CUT SLOPE Over the relatively mild 2017-2018 winter, sheep foraged along the smooth brome-dominated cut slope above the Frontage Road on three occasions (Thompson 2018c). While use of that habitat was limited, all sheep winter range is important, particularly considering the amount of habitat deterioration and high quality habitats lost to human development. Even limited foraging in small areas takes foraging pressure off other accessible winter range. Virtually all of that smooth brome foraging area is off the East Vail parcel and would not be directly affected by development. However, some type of development setback was sought (Thompson 2018a) to increase the likelihood that sheep would continue foraging along that cut slope under suitable conditions. . Along most of the parcel's southern boundary, a young aspen stand exists in much of the 20 foot building setback and on the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way (ROW) that would help separate and screen housing activity from the smooth brome foraging area below. Multifamily buildings 1 and 2 at the west end of the site overlap a shallow draw and would provide no setback from the foraging habitat and would even directly remove a small amount of foraging habitat. Realistically, the diurnal effectiveness of that narrow foraging area, located between the Frontage Road and the Workforce Housing development/ activity areas may not be possible to save, although sheep could still access the area at night. Nevertheless, those forage resources could be offset by winter range enhanced in more remote open space portions of the parcel and possibly on surrounding NFS and TOV lands. 7.7 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE SETBACKS With the exception of the two north-western town house buildings, which are setback 50 feet and 95 feet, respectively, the development plan would be consistent with CPW's past, arbitrary, 100 -foot setbacks of residential development from private/ USFS property lines. This residential setback from the USFS property is further enhanced along most of the property rockfall berm. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 17 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 7.8 UNIT NUMBERS The proposed 73 housing units is on the low end of the range of possible units (72 to 120 units) anticipated in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a). Nevertheless, consideration of the individual, unit -related, design considerations relative to the 73 proposed units is warranted. "While the fewer the number of units, the better for wildlife, there is practically not much difference within a ± 10-15% range of units, particularly if the development effects can be localized and buffered. Once a development gets to a certain size, a few more units have additional, but diminishing discernable effects. For this project, there is also a trade-off of clustering development as tightly as possible (i.e., to minimize habitat loss and development effects extending off-site) versus keeping structural development with visible human activity' from extending vertically above the forest canopy and into view of wildlife on important surrounding habitats" (Thompson 2018a). The proposed number of units falls at the low end of the range of the number of units anticipated in the design recommendations. The proposed housing has largely been clustered as close as possible to the Frontage Road and within the parcel's interior and all outside, ground level human activity would be screened by existing aspen forest and rockfall berms/ walls from the heavily used sheep winter range to the west and northwest. 2. "...to that end, two story structures might be best, but three story buildings might also work. Stepping structures up the hillside on the parcel might help keep most of most structures below the canopy" (Thompson 2018a). The proposed buildings would be two and three stories on their north sides that face the important sheep winter range. All but the roofs of the buildings would be screened from wildlife view. Most importantly, all outside, ground level human activity would be screened by existing aspen forest and rockfall berms / walls from the heavily used sheep winter range to the west and northwest. There , and there are no outside, west- and northwest -facing, upper level decks proposed on any of the buildings that would expose human activity, sounds, and smells to wildlife. 3. The number of units identified in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a) was a surrogate for what really matters, the number of residents, which could not be accurately estimated until the project was designed. The proposed Workforce Housing would support 113 to 254 residents, depending on the number of people that would choose to live in a unit.' That number of people confined to the parking lot and in the buildings, clustered in the interior of the parcel and screened from important surrounding wildlife habitats is fine. The paramount issue associated with this project is not the habitat lost to development, or temporary construction disturbances, but keeping the residents away from the important surrounding habitats, particularly in winter.' That means no trails developed onto private open space, no use of the Booth Creek rockfall berm road (possibly a seasonal ' An example of this would be an outside, north -facing deck on the upper level of a housing structure where human activity above the forest canopy would be visible to sheep on the hillside above. However, a roof or floor level without resident access to the outside (i.e., an inanimate object) could extend above the canopy. 8 Source: Triumph Development, M. O'Connor, May 7, 2019, pers. comm., file: EVWHS Population Projection 051919.xlxs. 9 This was a conclusion reached amongst biologists at a May 14, 2018 meeting held between Vail Resorts, the project biologist (Thompson), and CPW representatives (B. Andree, District Wildlife Manager, and Perry Will, Area Manager) to discuss the East Vail Workforce Housing project. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 18 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision or permanent closure of TOV open space), no on-site use of National Forest System (USFS) lands beyond (north oo the rockfall walls, no sidewalks along the Frontage Road, no dogs, no drones, resident education, penalties for non-compliance (including losing the lease), and HOA and Town enforcement. Details of these restrictions and Wildlife Requirements will be fleshed out in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. While such avoidance and minimization measures may not have 100% compliance, the project's design, enforcement opportunities, and the leverage and consequences of resident non-compliance make it likely that compliance will be adequate to avoid significant adverse effects to the sheep herd. 7.9 INTERNAL PARKS As recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a), there would be no sizeable internal parks, open space, or similar amenities, which could increase the footprint of the development area. The small community park and BBQ shelter is an internal location at the center of the site and would be screened from the Frontage Road with the proposed grading. There would also be small amounts of private outdoor space at the rear of each unit. This is highly preferable to upper level outside decks where some residents would grill and use for other activities, possibly in view of wildlife. 7.10 TREE CLEARING Tree clearing would be consistent with the intent of recommended design criteria (Thompson 2018a). Tree clearing outside the development area (i.e., on the NAP parcel) would be implemented to increase winter foraging habitat. 7.11 MAINTAINING SHEEP MOVEMENTS ABOVE THE FRONTAGE ROAD Consistent with the recommended design criteria (Thompson 2018a), the developer is not proposing excessive cut slopes, fencing, or entrance landscaping that could block east -west sheep movements along the north side of the Frontage Road. The TOV Public Works Department has requested consideration of a public trail/sidewalk along the Frontage Road that would connect with the existing sidewalk ending west of Katsos Ranch Road, as well as a possible full -movement bus stop that would need to be located near the west end of the parcel (M. O'Connor, Triumph Development, Dec. 14, 2018 pers. comm.). Regarding both improvements, in addition to the direct loss of foraging habitat from trail and bus stop construction, the displacement of sheep from adjacent winter foraging habitat by pedestrians would affect sheep use not only below the East Vail parcel, but also the heavily used CDOT ROW and TOV open space to the west. A winter closure of such a trail would be difficult to enforce and would likely be ineffective. Should winter sheep use of the cut slope above the Frontage Road near the East Vail parcel be determined to be lost, a sidewalk could be considered east of the Workforce Housing access road. Although the project design documents have demonstrated adequate space and the ability to add these requested pedestrian and transportation improvements, a substantial new bus stop and pedestrian trail, eventually connecting to the Booth Creek neighborhood to the west is not recommended for the above reasons. 7.12 FENCING Fencing to block human access from the property into important surrounding wildlife habitat was Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 19 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision requested by CPW 1' before the Workforce Housing plan and the rockfall berm were designed. Such fencing would not only restrict humans from surrounding habitat, but also exclude big game from entering undeveloped and native landscaped areas of the development parcel (approx. 2.3 ac.). The need and design of fencing will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the PEC/ TC planning process, with details finalized during the Building Permit process. A fencing concern includes a design that allows big game (that will inevitably find their way into the subdivision at night then become trapped and panic onto an adjacent Frontage Road when residential activity increases in the morning) to safely exit the development area. Fencing and jump gate designs, similar to those that have been installed in wildlife fencing along I-70 in Eagle County, have been obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT, J. Peterson, CDOT Wildlife Program Manager) and would be incorporated into the rockfall berm to facilitate the needed egress. 7.13 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Now that a detailed housing plan has been developed, the enhancement of bighorn sheep winter range (that will also benefit other wildlife [e.g., elk and mule deer] in the area) recommended in the design criteria document (Thompson 2018a), has been further refined (see Section 9.1, below). While the long-term viability of the local sheep herd is much more dependent on the implementation of a broad -scale enhancement plan on NFS and TOV lands supporting the vast majority of the winter range, Triumph Development plans to proceed with the enhancement of winter range under its control as soon as possible after receiving TOV approval. 7.14 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN The Wildlife Mitigation Plan in Section 9.0, below, addresses topics related to Workforce Housing construction and resident habitation of the property, as recommended in the design criteria (Thompson 2018a). 8.0 PROJECT -RELATED WILDLIFE EFFECTS The proposed Workforce Housing is going to have a mix of negative and beneficial effects on the local wildlife community. There will be a net loss of habitat and wildlife displacement from development and human activity areas when 21.5% of the overall parcel is developed. Negative effects will include approximately five acres of direct habitat losses, 11 reduced habitat effectiveness of adjacent buffer zones, increased traffic along the Frontage Road and regional highways, and the displacement of wildlife around off-site recreation corridors that will likely be used by housing residents.12 Potential negative development effects have already been somewhat reduced through the rezoning process that concentrated development on 23% of the parcel, as well as further avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design (Section 7.0 and 9.2), (2) with on-site 10 At a May 14, 2018 meeting with Vail Resorts. ii I.e., 2.7 acres from direct habitat losses and fencing blocking wildlife access to another 2.3 acres of the parcel. lz With resident education, fencing/ barriers, and aggressive fines and enforcement, these recreational impacts will be minimized on lands surrounding the East Vail development area that are important for sheep winter range and other wildlife uses. However, additional, incremental recreational impacts will occur along other existing trail corridors in Eagle County that bisect wildlife habitats as a result of increased recreational use of those trails by Workforce Housing residents. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 20 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision habitat enhancement proposed on 14.6 acres of the parcel that will remain undeveloped (Section 9.1), (3) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations (Section 9.2), and (4) with the implementation and enforcement of the human habitation -related minimization measures and management plan (Section 9.3). The beneficial effect would be the enhancement of sheep and elk winter range that is not currently effective for sheep because of fire suppression effects. Additional details of project effects are contained in the wildlife section of the 2019 Environmental Impact Report submitted to the TOV as part of the planning and approval process for this project. Figure 8-1 shows wildlife habitats that would be affected on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint, including the driveway and parking lots, buildings, the rockfall wall, and ancillary facilities, would affect approximately five acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. That area of habitat represents 21.5% of the 23.3 -acre parcel; 78.5% of the parcel would remain undeveloped. Undeveloped habitat on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range. Mule deer, elk, and other wildlife with affinities to mountain shrub habitat would also benefit. Using the results of the 2017-2018 wildlife study (Thompson 2018c), additional sheep winter range enhancement, probably involving hundreds of acres, is under consideration on surrounding NFS lands and TOV open space. Most wildlife present in development areas at the time of construction will be displaced to adjacent habitats, some of which will be occupied. Small mammals, the young of cavity nesting birds, and a reptile (garter snake, Thamnophir elegans) may be killed, depending on the time of year that site clearing starts. The size of the development area likely supports the home ranges of several to a handful of individual bird and small mammal species. After project development and habitation, the development parcel will support those wildlife species tolerant of human development. The effectiveness of habitats surrounding the development to the north, east, and west would be reduced, to a certain extent, by noise, visual, and olfactory disturbances emanating from the development. Distances would vary by species and would be attenuated by screening forest, distance, topography, and the chronic disturbances extending through the parcel from the adjacent Frontage Road and I-70. Birds and small mammals would be the least affected by the adjacent development. Elk would exhibit the broadest avoidance zones. Workforce Housing -related traffic increases may incrementally increase wildlife road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road and along regional highways. Buildout of the East Vail parcel is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour (McDowell Engineering 2019). Ten to 20% (29-58) of those contributions would be on the North Frontage Road while 70-80% (203-232) would be on I-70. These additional contributions represent and average of 9.9 % and 0.8% of the current, average, daily traffic volumes on those respective roads and highways. Increased road -kill probabilities on I-70 resulting from the additional Workforce Housing traffic would be discountable relative to the low mortality associated with current high traffic volumes and should not affect local big game because they don't cross the highway in the vicinity of the project area. Sheep are occasionally present during winter Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 21 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 8-1. Wildlife habitats affected by structural development on and adjacent to the 5.4 acre East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. The development footprint would affect 2.7 acres of a relatively young aspen stand with a mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry. Another 2.3 acres (not shown; see Triumph Development 2019) north of the development area would also be disturbed for the rockfall berm, reclaimed, but blocked by fencing from big game access. Approximately 0.3 acres of bighorn sheep winter foraging habitat, largely composed of smooth brome, would be permanently lost. Approximately 1.7 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat, also composed of smooth brome and largely off-site, would not be disturbed, but its effectiveness would be reduced by its linear configuration and location between the Frontage Road and the housing. The effectiveness of winter range to the west of the housing's driveway could also be impaired by housingrelatedtraffic, but that area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation is proposed to better maintain habitat effectiveness. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 22 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision conditions along the Frontage Road and have been known to lick salt off the road and a few may even cross the road to forage between the road and I-70. Increased sheep road -kill probabilities on the Frontage Road are possible, but unlikely because of good horizontal visibility along the road, because the sheep are habituated to the traffic, and because most road mortality occurs on roads and highways where posted speeds are >_ 45mph (Gunther et al. 1998). In the vicinity of the site, the North I-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25 mph eastbound and 45 mph westbound. Resident participation in public transportation would reduce potential traffic impacts. The Mitigation Plan contains a section that would educate residents about this issue. Resident education about the parcel's sensitive location in wildlife habitat and the implementation and enforcement of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, with significant penalties for violators, (App. G) should reduce and confine potential habitation effects to the parcel's development area and minimize the potential effects of greatest concern (recreationists and dogs) from extending off-site. Issues specific to individual species and wildlife groups are discussed below under those accounts. 9.0 WILDLIFE MITIGATION PLAN Project -related effects on the local wildlife community can be further minimized with the implementation of this Workforce Housing Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Three categories of mitigation measures are outlined, below, (1) sheep winter range enhancement, (2) construction -related minimization measures, and (3) habitation -related minimization measures. The first two sections related to the East Vail parcel are relevant to the developer while the last section primarily applies to residents. Section 9.3 will likely be developed as a legally binding, stand-alone document that residents will be required to read, sign, and abide by should they wish to live in this setting. 9.1 WINTER RANGE ENHANCEMENT Even with the implementation of minimization measures, Workforce Housing development is going to result in the permanent loss of approximately five acres of bighorn sheep and elk winter range and reduce the effectiveness of surrounding habitat. Construction would remove 0.3 acres of sheep winter foraging habitat on the East Vail parcel (Fig. 8-1). Wintering sheep could also be displaced by construction activity from two nearby foraging habitats, (1) the cut slope above the Frontage Road that is below the development area (1.7 ac.) and (2) from nearby TOV open space, west and northwest of the of the project's driveway entrance.13 Sheep displacement from adjacent foraging areas could also continue during the habitation phase of the project. To compensate for lost and impaired habitat, the developer is proposing on-site habitat enhancement on 14.6 acres that would more than offset winter foraging habitat losses to the development. Enhancement treatments could occur in fall 2019 and spring 2020 following initial Development Application approval. Increased forage would be available to compensate for the direct and indirect habitat losses that would and might occur during construction in winter 2020-2021 and thereafter. Suggestions are also provided in this section for what enhancement might be implemented on surrounding public lands to better connect the private East Vail parcel enhancement with other winter range segments also in need of enhancement, with or without the Workforce Housing. Proposed winter 13 As a worst case scenario, animals might be completely displaced from these foraging areas (i.e., in addition to their diurnal displacement, they would not forage in these areas during the 16 hours of the day when construction is not occurring and human activity has ebbed). Conversely, and more likely, if animals that may be displaced from these foraging areas during the day return to forage in this adjacent habitat under cover of darkness, as they do now, there would be little meaningful reduced habitat effectiveness. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 23 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision range habitat enhancement on private and public lands was presented to and discussed with TOV, CPW, and USFS representatives on January 11, and February 6 and 8, 2019. 9.1.1 On-site Enhancement The above direct and indirect effects to sheep winter range can be more than offset via on-site habitat enhancement on a portion of the 17.9 acre NAP parcel. On-site enhancement is generally best for wildlife because it benefits the individual animals affected by the development. It is rare for a development project to have the opportunity to implement any meaningful percentage of habitat enhancement on-site to offset its impacts, let alone enhance more than what is needed. The enhancement would be oriented at restoring bighorn sheep winter range, which has been degraded over the last 30 years by aspen encroachment, fallen aspen, and a mountain shrub community where much of the browse has grown out of the reach of sheep and elk, all effects of wildfire suppression. The enhancement would also benefit elk winter range use and black bear and mule deer summer range use. Figure 9-1 shows 14.6 acres of habitat on the East Vail parcel that would be enhanced for sheep and elk winter range. Additional enhancement could occur on 0.26 acre in the undeveloped northeast corner of the 5.4 -acre development parcel. The overall enhancement area is shown as a blue polygon, the bottom of which is above the shoulder of the steep slope dropping down to the valley bottom. The shoulder occurs in the vicinity of the ca. 1998 fire line or historic road. The untreated mountain shrub habitat below the shoulder is suitable for treatment, but there is assumed to be some need for (1) a physical barrier to prevent people from climbing up to the enhancement area (which does not currently occur) and (2) stabilizing vegetation to retard any runoff from above (although it may not be a practical concern in this small, gently -sloping enhancement area). If these concerns are invalid, the enhancement area could be larger. There is also a need to maintain a band of young aspen with a dense chokecherry understory and jackstrawed logs west of the Pitkin Creek Trail as a physical restriction and visual barrier between the trail and the enhancement area. Within the enhancement area are three treatment categories, described below, where the common enhancement goal would be to restore the mountain shrub community within the browsing height of big game that is normally maintained by periodic wildfires (Fig. 9-1). While broadcast buming 4 to restore the mountain shrub community could be the most cost effective, quickest, and most widespread treatment option that would best meet the goal of mountain shrub restoration/reinvigoration and nutrient recycling, the approach recommended by the TOV would involve cutting and stacking trees and downed logs, cutting shrubs, then burning the slash and log piles when dry (P. Cada and M. Novak, TOV, Jan. 11, 2019 pers. comm.). Soils sterilized and vegetation removed at burn piles should be reseeded with a wildlife mix suitable for the site.'-' Fertilizing as soon as possible after spring snowmen would increase forage availability for the first winter post-treatment. With two exceptions, enhancement prescriptions differ between the three treatment categories (Fig. 9-1). First, the entire enhancement area is in need of pruning to remove shrub stems that are out of reach of wintering big game and to stimulate new nutritious growth that is available for winter browsing. This is 14 Prior broadcast burns conducted by the TOV on their open space below the Booth Creek cliffs and on what is now the East Vail parcel's NAP area was marginally successful in late 1990's (pers. comm. between, P. Cada, TOV, and M. O'Conner, Triumph Development, Jan. 30, 2019). 15 To be developed by the silviculturalist. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 24 Wildlife Mitivation Plan East Vail Workforce Housinu Subdivision Figure 9-1. Bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions proposed on 14.6 acres of the East Vail parcel (red outline) to compensate for winter range lost to, and affected by, development of the Workforce Housing project See text for prescription descriptions. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 25 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision best accomplished in early spring when shrubs are still dormant and before they begin contributing resources to the new year's growth. Pruned stems," with new multiple shoots within the browse range of ungulates, would be available as forage for the following winter (e.g., winter 2020-2021) if pruning is prioritized to start as early in spring 2020 as possible. Second, the entire treated enhancement area could be fertilized" to increase forage nutrition and grass, forb, and shrub productivity. Fertilizing in spring, before (preferred), during, or after other treatments, would increase forage availability for the following winter. The effects of fertilizing last for three growing seasons. The 3.9 -acre "mature aspen" stand on the parcel is regenerating and consists of young to overly mature trees with an overly mature mountain shrub understory dominated by chokecherry (Fig. 9-1). Most trees" should be removed and the shrub understory pruned, as above. Felled trees should be cut into lengths that can be carried to piles. Logs and slash piles should be spaced apart (e.g., >_ 10-15 ft.) such that they do not restrict animal movements. Shrub pruning, tree canopy removal, and increased light penetration to the shrub understory would stimulate increased forage production that would be available the following winter. Tree removal would stimulate aspen suckering. The branches of aspen suckers within the browse range of sheep and elk would provide additional forage. However, when sucker foliage has grown out of the browse range (e.g., every ± 5-7 yrs.), it should be cutback to provide available forage and to prevent aspen stand regeneration. "Jackstrawed logs" are mature aspen that have died and fallen. At a certain density, they impede and block big game movements, reducing and eliminating forage and other habitat values that would otherwise be available. Winter snow cover makes such areas even more inaccessible. There are 4.8 acres of such "jackstrawed logs" in the enhancement area that impair sheep movements and reduce forage availability (Fig. 9-1). Those polygons contain the same vegetative composition as the 5.9 -acre "over mature shrub" community, which consists of young, sparse to dense, aspen seedlings and pole stage trees with a chokecherry -dominated mountain shrub understory and a dense graminoid understory. Most of the chokecherry branch tips have grown out of the reach of ungulate (sheep, deer, and elk) browsing. In these areas, in addition to the shrub pruning and the removal of young aspen,19 described above, the logs should be piled and burned to where they no longer restrict big game movements. Triumph Development intends to proceed with the private land enhancement in either the fall of 2019 or spring 2020, subject to receiving initial TOV Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval of the project. On Town land and private property in the TOV, there are no regulations, official permitting process, Town Code, or State requirements to conduct the type of enhancement proposed above on the East Vail parcel (pers. comm., P. Cada, TOV, and M. O'Conner, Triumph Development, Jan. 30, 2019). 16 E.g., shrub pruning could consist of a two-man team lassoing (using a 15-20 ft. length of rope with loops on the ends to encircle and tightly cinch the shrub, then us a chainsaw to cut shrub stems at shrub -specific heights where the new growth would be available to big game as winter browse. 17 Since 1986, the CDOW/ CPW has been aerially fertilizing (i.e., treating 1.57 acres of habitat once every three years in perpetuity to offset each 1.0 acre of habitat lost to development) of big game winter range in the Eagle Valley to increase its productivity and offset habitat losses (based on CDOW research in Middle Park). The application rate is 300 lbs. of ammonium nitrate per acre (=100 lbs. of nitrogen/ acre) and treatments are effective for three growing seasons. Application under suitable (moist) soil conditions in spring 2019 would require hand spreading. Occasional aerial application thereafter might be coordinated with CPW. 18 Except those needed for "feathering" to create a more organic shape to the clearing where the aspen stand meets the USFS property line. Young aspen with branches within the browse range of sheep and elk (e.g., 4 ft. above ground level) could be left to help create this visual form. 19 I.e., those whose branches have grown out of the winter browse range of ungulates. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 N11 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision The TOV Fire Department (FD) recommends enhancement treatment approval through the PEC application process for the whole project rather than a separate process. TOV FD has the capability and permission to implement cut/pile/burn projects and would be willing to help with the East Vail enhancement. Practically, it would work better if the TOV FD would do the piling to facilitate an efficient burn. The Work Plan would be prepared by the TOV FD. Some direction from a silviculturalist on the final appearance of the cleared forest, how and when to trim shrubs, reseeding, etc., is recommended. Triumph would pay for FD time; likely a crew of three, working for two to three months for nine to 15 acres, doing work by hand, plus the planning time. The subsequent pile burns will likely occur start in the following spring or fall when the logs have dried and there is sufficient (min. 4 in.) snow on the ground. Treatment access will likely be via the Pitkin Creek trail (to most of the large open space area) and via the rockfall barrier catchment corridor (to the enhancement area in and adjacent to the northeast corner of the 5.4 -acre development area). Any access track(s) from the trail will be blocked and restored upon completion of the project to discourage pedestrian access. To maximize the effectiveness of the enhancement area and surrounding habitats, there should be no trails or non -authorized human access onto the NAP parcel and no trails emanating from the Workforce Housing parcel onto surrounding TOV or NFS lands. Triumph Development is also aware that for maximum effectiveness of their enhanced winter range, it should be "connected" with current high quality habitats on NFS lands via non -forested corridors, including (1) the currently suitable, but over mature, winter range below and east of the main Booth Creek cliffs, and with (2) the cliff band above the East Vail parcel (as relayed to the U.S. Forest Service [USFS] on Feb. 6, 2019). Triumph will provide east -west connectivity through the site on the uphill side of the rockfall berm. This on-site winter range enhancement could complement a larger project now under consideration by the Town, USFS, and CPW to treat other areas within the overall sheep winter range polygon .2" However, with the undetermined timeline and uncertainty of enhancement approval by the USFS, this off-site enhancement is not part of the Triumph's proposal for the East Vail project. With the above habitat enhancement, the 15.6 acres of treated habitat would provide a larger amount of isolated, better quality sheep winter range (foraging habitat) than what currently exists and would more than offset the winter foraging habitat located adjacent to the Frontage Road and I-70 that would be directly (0.3 ac.) and indirectly (.) affected by the new housing project. While the entire 3.3 acre development footprint and adjacent habitat represent sheep winter range, its value as foraging habitat is limited to 0.25 acres on-site and the narrow band of largely non-native smooth brome along the cut slope above the Frontage Road, which is almost entirely off the parcel and would not be developed. Therefore, the extent of the compensatory replacement of lost project -related foraging habitat is even more apparent. 9.1.2 Off-site Enhancement The East Vail Workforce Housing project has enlightened the Vail community about the bighorn sheep herd and has become a catalyst prompting the TOV and resource agencies (the USFS and CPW) to again consider broad scale habitat enhancement, the real key to maintaining this herd. Most of the habitat within the 1,800 -acre sheep winter range polygon is in need of some type of enhancement to restore and reinvigorate the mountain shrub community that is normally maintained by periodic wildfires. Such a widespread enhancement plan, similar in scope and approach to that proposed by the USFS in 1998, is now under preliminary consideration with the TOV, USFS, and CPW. Few of the personnel involved and familiar with the 1998 habitat enhancement proposal are currently available. Suggestions were provided to 20 Initial meetings to discuss this project occurred on Jan. 11 and Feb. 5, 2019. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 27 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Town and agency personnel regard what and where enhancement might be implemented on surrounding public lands to better connect the private East Vail parcel enhancement with the larger treatment area, with or without the Workforce Housing. This potential enhancement in the immediate vicinity of the East Vail parcel was also presented to and discussed with TOV and CPW representatives on January 11, 2019 and with TOV, USFS, and CPW representatives on February 5, 2019. As of the spring 2019, some of this enhancement on Town of Vail property is underway. 9.2 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES Temporary (i.e., 1-2 yr.) construction disturbances will affect wildlife on and adjacent to the parcel. Of greatest concern are potential effects to wintering sheep and nesting peregrine falcons. The following minimization measures that would be implemented by Triumph Development would reduce potential negative effects. 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep Construction would remove 0.3 acres of winter foraging habitat on the East Vail parcel (i.e., in the vicinity of the multifamily buildings' footprint and the driveway entrance; Fig. 8-1). Wintering sheep could also be displaced by construction activity from two nearby foraging habitats, (1) the cut slope above the Frontage Road and below the development area (1.7 ac.) and (2) from the nearby CDOT ROW and TOV open space, west and northwest of the of the project's driveway entrance. Combined, all of these areas support three+ acres of foraging habitat dominated by smooth brome. See Section 3.1.1.2, above, for comments regarding the stress level of sheep foraging close to the road, the frequency and amount of foraging on and adjacent to the development area, and the importance of this forage to wintering sheep. While sheep displacement from the cut slope below the construction area is most likely, most construction activity within the parcel's interior would be screened by intervening trees from the important foraging habitat to the west and northwest. The exception to this would be disturbances from vehicles entering the site where no effective screening is present to the west. In consideration of the construction activity's displacement significance on the wintering sheep, the most obtrusive disturbances from site clearing, excavation, grading and wildlife/rockfall berm construction would not occur outside buildings during the winter range period. Some outside activity (which would largely be screened for view) such as framing and skinning the buildings would occur during the first winter, and any activity during the second winter would be largely inside the buildings. As a worst case scenario, animals completely displaced from adjacent foraging areas (i.e., in addition to their diurnal displacement, they would not return to forage in these areas during the 16 hours of the day when construction is not occurring and human activity has ebbed, as now occurs) they would have to obtain their forage from other areas of their winter range. Colorado Parks and Wildlife's sheep winter range polygon is approximately 1,800 acres. However, during winter 2017-2018, sheep only used 15% (277 acres) of the area within that polygon (Thompson 201 8C).2' While that percentage underestimates winter range actually used by the sheep, the five acres of winter foraging habitat that would be removed and unavailable to wintering sheep represents 1.8% of the winter range used during winter 2017-2018. That is a relatively small proportion of available habitat, however all winter habitat is important not only for the zi That is likely a function of (1) the smaller (than in past years) present population of 41 sheep, (2) sheep now using the highest quality habitat available, (3) sheep avoiding forested habitats, (4) sheep restricted from some portions of their winter range by jackstrawed logs, and (5) sheep not using isolated mountain shrub patches, over mature shrub patches with little available forage, and shrub communities where forage has grown out of their browsing range. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 28 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision forage it provides, but also by reducing foraging pressure on other areas of winter range. The range of measures that would minimize and offset, temporary, construction -related, winter range reductions include: 1. Schedule construction phasing so the most obtrusive disturbances do not occur outside buildings during the winter range period22 Initial clearing and site work, when heavy equipment would be operating and when disturbances would be greatest, should not occur during any winter. The framing through dry -in phase could overlap the first winter. All of that activity, other than framing, enclosing, and outside finishing of the upper floors, would be screened from sheep winter range to the west by a broad band of aspen forest. Most construction noise should blend in with noise associated with I-70 and the Frontage Road. Thereafter, the final inside finishing phase would have the least obtrusive disturbances. 2. Conduct construction activities only during daylight hours, excluding emergencies. This would give sheep the opportunity to enter foraging areas adjacent to construction areas (i.e., where they may be diurnally displaced) under cover of darkness and forage (as they do now in diurnal human activity areas near the Frontage Road), minimizing any reduction of forage availability. 3. With the exception of construction traffic entering the parcel on its western tip, virtually all construction activity23 would be screened from sheep winter range to the west by a broad band of aspen forest. To better maintain sheep winter range habitat effectiveness on the CDOT ROW and TOV open space to the west of the project's driveway entrance, temporary construction screening, berm installation, and tree plantings northwest of the driveway entrance that could screen project - related vehicles from nearby wildlife have been considered. The need and design for such screening will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The screening concern is that it would not be needed if sheep displaced by construction traffic during the day return and use that nearby habitat under cover of darkness, as sheep now use habitat along the Frontage Road. Furthermore, temporary construction screening could actually block sheep from accessing and foraging in the ± 1.7 -acre smooth brome stand that is east of the driveway entrance and above the Frontage Road, unless they went around the screen's end and onto the Frontage Road at night. Should screen be needed, a berm or temporary, non -transparent construction fence that visually blocks construction traffic (and subsequent housing traffic) could be installed before the first winter construction season where traffic would enter the parcel. A berm could be seeded with an initial mix to stabilize the soils without irrigation. Thereafter, the berm could be reseeded with site -appropriate vegetation that would provide winter forage values. After construction, when project utilities are functional, trees could be strategically planted on areas around the berm to better screen traffic entering/ leaving the site. Irrigation would be needed for tree establishment and maintenance. Tree species, tree density, screening width, and topography should be considered. Conifers, whose lower branches would not lift, would be most effective. Screening effectiveness would increase over time and would be beneficial over the life of the project. The location of those plantings may extend onto TOV open space where permission would be required to landscape. 22 CPW has not defined the winter range period for this herd. Their generic winter range definition is that part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten, from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up. Based on that definition and considering winter range dates for other big game species, average sheep winter range occupancy could be defined, on average, as November 15 to April 15 (dates inclusive). Sheep are present on portions of their winter range (i.e., below the Booth Creek cliffs) outside this period because of salt blocks. 23 Other than framing of the upper floors, but certainly all ground -level activity. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 29 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 4. Prohibit all construction personnel from bringing non -service animals on-site at any time of year. 5. A rockfall berm is planned for the upslope edge of the development area (Skyline Geoscience 2019). The tree- and shrub -less rock collection area uphill of the wall could function as a corridor facilitating wildlife movements around the development area. That narrow corridor could be cleared of jackstrawed logs and extended to the open mountain shrub below Booth Creek cliffs with the USFS's permission. Fencing to block human access from the property to important wildlife habitats beyond was requested by CPW24 before the Workforce Housing and the rockfall berm was designed. The need and design of fencing along the rockfall berm to block restrict resident access will be resolved with CPW and the TOV during the planning process. The fencing concern includes a design that allows wildlife that might enter the development area to exit safely. The following design criteria are under consideration: a. If fencing is required, it should be continuous to keep residents and domestic animals in and wildlife out. A fence midway down the uphill side of the berm would allow a portion of the berm to be used as wildlife habitat and a wildlife movement corridor. An eight -foot -tall cyclone fence would be recommended. Closure signs spaced on stakes along the base of the rockfall berm would not restrict access as effectively as a fence. b. Jump gates (i.e., like those installed along fenced sections of I-70) might be the most appropriate features to allow wildlife that might enter the development area under cover of darkness to safely exit, while also preventing wildlife from entering the property. Their locations and design would require consultation with CPW, the landscaper, and geotechnical personnel, but by locating these fences on the uphill side of the berm, regularly spaced jump ramps can be incorporated into the berms grading. Fencing and jump gate designs, similar to those that have been installed in wildlife fencing along I-70 in Eagle County, have been obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT, J. Peterson, CDOT Wildlife Program Manager) and would be incorporated into the rockfall berm to facilitate the needed egress. c. Access to the barrier catchment area should be secured with similar fencing. d. Any rockfall wall/ fencing configuration should be continuous along the north and east property lines. e. Signs (e.g., "Important wildlife habitat. Area behind sign closed to all non -authorized access year-round. Trespassers will be prosecuted.' should be strategically placed on at jump gates and at the fence ends to remind and educate residents and guests about the restricted access. 6. If debris removal from the barrier catchment area occurs during the early peregrine falcon nesting period (May and June, inclusive) and there are large boulders that must be broken into smaller fragments, use expansive grout rather than blasting. Depending on when in on-site habitat enhancement is initiated and depending on what the treatment consists of, there could be increased forage availability on the entire 14.6 acres for the first winter of construction. Fertilizing and shrub cutting would provide an immediate response, followed by a gradual increase in habitat quality and forage availability over the following years. Treatments have been and can continue to be implemented on TOV open space and the CDOT ROW to the west of the East Vail parcel 24 At a May 14, 2018 meeting with Vail Resorts. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 30 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision (both of which are in need of enhancement), whose vegetative response would be available to sheep in the first winter of Construction (see Section 9.1.2, Enhancement on TOV Lands). Those treatments could total up to 20.0 acres or more. 9.2.2 Nesting Peregrine Falcons A pair of peregrine falcons have nested on a cliff on the opposite side of I-70 from the East Vail parcel in recent years (Thompson 2018b,c). The pair is largely habituated to the chronic traffic and human activity below their cliff. Most Workforce Housing construction activity should not affect the pair because of their level of habituation, the distance of the nest cliff from the closest construction activity (0.36 mi.), and the considerable amount of noise, traffic, and recreational activity present between the parcel and the nest cliff. For the same reasons, habitation of the Workforce Housing, which will be similar to other East Vail subdivisions to the east, west, and below the cliff, should not meaningfully affect nest success. However, there is one potential component of Workforce Housing construction could adversely affect their nesting success, blasting. It is unknown if blasting will be needed, but if it is, it should be conducted outside of the March 15 to July 31 (dates inclusive) nesting period or until fledging. It is unknown if blasting could be adequately baffled to attenuate noise and shockwaves from hitting the cliff (>_1,923 feet away)2' and startling the birds. Blasting during the incubation period (early to mid-May to mid-June; Cade et al. 1996, Craig and Enderson 2004) would likely produce the greatest negative effects that could jeopardize recruitment. 9.2.3 Other Construction -related Mitigation In addition to the above sheep and falcon measures, the following would minimize, temporary, construction -related, impacts on the broader wildlife community: 1. Prohibit all construction personnel from bringing dogs on-site at any time of year. 2. Prohibit all construction personnel from feeding or baiting wildlife. 3. To minimize conflicts with black bears, all construction activity on the parcel shall have available certified bear -proof trash receptacles for the disposal of any refuse associated with food or drink. No food products or food containers should be thrown in the larger roll -off style dumpsters. Receptacles shall be adequately distributed to facilitate use and be in place before any ground disturbance occurs. All construction personnel associated with the project shall be initially briefed about the bear issue and the need to properly handle and dispose of all materials that can attract bears. At no time will any refuse, that has been associated with food or drink, be allowed to be available to any wildlife species. 4. All vehicle windows should be kept closed and doors locked on all vehicles to prevent bear entry. 5. Sediment basins and other Best Management Practices should be implemented to contain construction -related erosion and sedimentation on-site and prevent parking lot runoff from reaching Gore Creek where it could negatively affect fish and other aquatic biota. 9.3 HUMAN HABITATION -RELATED MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND MANAGEMENT PLAN In addition to construction impacts, resident habitation of the Workforce Housing will have additional 2s As measured in Google Earth. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 31 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ongoing effects to on-site and off-site wildlife communities. This section and its reference to preceding sections of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan identifies (1) tasks to be implemented by the developer and (2) Wildlife Requirements for residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision to avoid and reduce these effects. It is anticipated that these commitments and requirements will be incorporated into the subdivision's Development Application, approvals, and any Home Owners Association (HOA) governing documents. The term "Responsible Party" shall mean any resident, owner, tenant, family guests of the resident, owner, or tenant of the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel. 9.3.1 Requirements for the Developer of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel The following additional recommendations should be implemented and/or overseen by the developer and its selected apartment management company ("Housing Management's to further avoid and minimize wildlife -related habitation effects. 1. The planting of gardens and fruit/ nut bearing trees or bushes on the parcel will be prohibited because bears will be attracted to these plants in close proximity to residences. If flowering trees are desirable, the developer should consult with a local landscaper to select a sterile variety that produces flowers, but no fruit. 2. There shall be no roads or trails developed on the undeveloped portion of the East Vail parcel. Such roads and trails would encourage recreational access, which is expressly prohibited 21 outside of the development area year-round. Unauthorized hiking and biking trails developed by third parties on the East Vail parcel shall be promptly deconstructed and reclaimed as soon as possible after they are discovered. Of paramount concern on this project is prohibiting all recreational use of Town of Vail (TOV) open space to the west, , the East Vail parcel Natural Area Preservation Parcel to the east, a National Forest Service lands to the north (i.e., the "Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern;" see Fig. 2- 1), some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. There are currently no official recreational trails on those lands between the Pitkin Creek trail to the east and the Booth Creek trail to the west. If and when Housing Management becomes aware of any such trails on those surrounding public lands, they shall promptly notify the appropriate land owner about the trail so that it may be decommissioned. 3. There shall be no outside storage of any trash or garbage, no matter how briefly (e.g., overnight), at any residence within the development, unless it is in a fully enclosed structure or contained within commercial -size, bear -proof containers, which meet North American Bear Society, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), or U.S. National Park Service specifications, or are of a custom design approved by CPW. Housing Management shall provide an adequate number of trash containers, distributed around the development to encourage and facilitate their use, and arrange and maintain a trash collection schedule that is adequate to prevent trash "overflow" that could attract and lead to bear conflicts. A separate bear -proof trash container shall be provided at the BBQ shelter. 4. Because the mountain shrub community within the bighorn sheep winter range polygon (see Section 3.1.1.1) is unlikely to be naturally maintained by periodic wildfires, it will need to be periodically restored and reinvigorated via some type(s) of enhancement, such as those prescriptions recommended in Section 9.1. In the best interest of the sheep, consideration and implementation of such 26 Except as may be needed for (a) access to the rockfall wall cleanout area (b) authorized wildlife assessment, (c) periodic habitat enhancement, (d) utility maintenance and repairs, and (e) emergencies. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 04 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision enhancement should occur approximately every 15-20 years. The owner or HOA responsible for the NAP parcel should undertake these enhancements periodically on its property. 5. Owner of the East Vail parcel will develop and implement a weed management program on and around the development area. Such a plan would be most important in the first few years following development and habitat enhancement. 6. The developer will post signs around the property informing the Responsible Parties of the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern and the prohibition of accessing these areas by their lease or HOA Documents. 9.3.2 Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel The East Vail Workforce Housing parcel is located adjacent to the most important block of bighorn sheep winter range in the valley. It also supports other important wildlife values. The development and habitation of the project is going to have negative effects on the wildlife community. However, the potential negative effects have been, and will be, avoided, minimized, and compensated with (1) the parcel's rezoning, (2) the incorporation of wildlife -oriented design criteria into the development's design, (3) with on-site habitat enhancement, and (4) with the implementation of wildlife -related construction and operational considerations. The last component required to avoid and minimize project -related impacts on the local wildlife community is for residents to recognize that they are living in a sensitive wildlife setting and that they must strictly abide by the following Wildlife Requirements to maintain the wildlife community. It was only with the implementation of all of these wildlife protection measures that Workforce Housing was authorized on this site. 9.3.2.1 Recreation Inappropriate recreational use beyond the Workforce Housing development area could adversely affect continued wildlife use of surrounding lands, some of which are vital to the small bighorn sheep herd. This is the paramount wildlife concern on this project. Lands of particular concern include TOV open space to the west, National Forest Service lands to the north, and the East Vail Natural Area Preservation parcel to the east, that extend above the East Vail parcel to the highest cliff band, hereinafter the "Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern" (see Fig. 2-1). There are currently no official recreational trails on those lands between the Pitkin Creek trail to the east and the Booth Creek trail to the west. Therefore, in the best interest of the sheep, the following recreation -related measures shall be enforced to minimize negative effects and will be implemented in partnership with the Town of Vail: 1. The TOV will use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on nearby Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern at appropriate times during the year, including but not limited to, closing privately owned parcels to access, and assisting the property owners with policing and preventing trespassing violations. 2. Responsible Parties will be prohibited from accessing the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern during the times of year that the TOV determines that the property should not have human presence, which can include complete closure of privately owned property. This particularly includes the gated Booth Creek rockfall berm road that starts immediately west of the Workforce Housing driveway entrance. This measure is focused on protecting and maximizing bighorn sheep use of the habitat. While sheep are generally present from October through July, they may be present in this area year - Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 33 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision round. Any human presence could reduce sheep habitat effectiveness27 and have negative effects on the herd. Because of habitat deterioration, winter range losses, and other factors, no further habitat losses or reduced habitat effectiveness should occur. 3. Colorado Parks and Wildlife specifically requested the fencing that extends along the northern and eastern boundaries of the development area as a physical barrier to restrict and discourage resident use from extending into the important Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern. Subject to TOV approval, the developer will install fencing recommended by CPW along the north side of the rockfall berm and eastern boundaries not already protected by natural grade. 4. Responsible Parties are prohibited from flying drones on the housing parcel and on or around the Surrounding Wildlife Areas of Concern year-round. 5. Responsible Parties are encouraged to recreate along existing official trails elsewhere in the area, to understand and follow all associated trail rules, including seasonal trail closures for wildlife, and not to use or create volunteer trails. 9.3.2.2 Pet Controls Most pets and those properly controlled do not negatively affect wildlife. Of all pets, dogs present the most conflicts. Domestic dogs are carnivores and all breeds have the potential to be predators at some level. All domestic dogs were wolves or their wild canine relatives and 7,000-15,000 years of domestication and out -breeding aggression (Kendall 2002, Savolainen et al. 2002) has not bred all predatory tendencies out of all breeds. At some level, domestic dogs still maintain instincts to hunt and/or chase prey. It is well established that domestic dogs, including a loose or temporary "stray" dog that might originate from Workforce Housing, could harass, chase, exhaust, bite, injure, severely maul, or kill wildlife, including sheep, deer, and elk. In addition, free -ranging domestic cats are the top human -caused threat to wildlife in the United States, killing an estimated 1.3 to 4 billion birds and 6.3 to 22.3 billion mammalsZs annually (Loss et al. 2013). Because of the sensitivity of the Workforce Housing parcel's location in wildlife habitat and in the winter range of a small bighorn sheep herd, where the mortality of a single individual could negatively affect herd viability, the avoidance of any conflict between pets and wildlife must be avoided. Therefore, each of the following East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel Pet Policy (aka the General Pet and Dog Policy) measures shall be included in the development application commitments, any leases for residents, and/or HOA documents enforced to minimize negative effects to wildlife. General Pet, Service Animals, and Emotional Support Animals Policy As background, residents who have need of assistance from "service animals" Z`' or "emotional support 27 Habitat effectiveness may be thought of as the ability of wildlife to use the amount, quality, and distribution of available forage and cover without being impaired from that use by human activities and developments. 28 Including mice, shrews, voles, squirrels and rabbits. 29 Service animals include dogs and are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Tasks performed can include, among other things, pulling a wheelchair, retrieving dropped items, alerting a person to a sound, reminding a person to take medication, Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 34 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision animals" 30 are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Fair Housing Administration Act (FHA). Other applicable Federal, State, and/or local laws and regulations may also apply. Such animals will not be prohibited or limited from the development and instead will be required to follow the rules and regulations of the community to the extent allowed by Federal and Colorado law. 1. All dogs shall be prohibited in any rental property on the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel at all times, except for those that have valid documentation as a service animal or emotional support animal, which shall be provided to Housing Management. This prohibition applies to all Responsible Parties renting units in community. This measure reduces potential dog issues from those associated with 73 units to 31 units, with the possible exception of service or emotional support animals. 2. Owners shall be limited to harboring no more than two dogs on the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel at any time. No resident shall be limited to the number of service or emotional support animals. 3. Other than pets of owners, no pets of family, guests, and/or contractors of residents will be permitted on the parcel other than service animals, emotional support animals, or other animals as required by Colorado and Federal law. 4. Any animal within the parcel must be under the direct control of its owner or Responsible Party at all times. 5. Anytime an animal is outside of the residence it shall be controlled by a leash of no more than 12 feet in length, unless it is a service animal that must be unleashed to perform its services. 6. An exception to Measure 6, above, is that owners may construct an outdoor facility (i.e., a dog run or kennel) that is adequate to contain the dog(s) when outside and unattended and then only for limited periods of time, not to exceed 30 minutes, to allow the dog to "do its business," before its return to the residence. Dogs kept in a kennel or dog run for longer than 30 minutes shall constitute a violation of these rules. Enclosed runs or kennels must: (a) be located immediately adjacent to the home, surrounding an outside door, and as best possible attached to and integrated into the design and visual appearance of the residence and (b) not exceed 500 square feet. Dog run or kennel height shall be adequate to contain the breed of dog(s). Eight -foot fence heights are generally adequate to contain the most athletic of dogs, particularly if there is no opportunity to climb. Owners need not completely enclose the tops of kennels or runs to protect dogs from possible mountain lion predation because of the short duration that dogs will be present in the confinement area. The design, characteristics, and location of the kennel or dog run must be reviewed and approved by the HOA. If facilities are inadequate to contain the resident's dog(s) when outside and unattended, the animals will be immediately removed from the property until adequate structures can be built. 7. The walking of animals within the property shall be confined to the developed areas (parking lots and around buildings) within the Workforce Housing project area. Small parks and open space were intentionally excluded from the development to minimize the footprint of the development area and native habitat loss. Walking dogs along the Frontage Road would reduce wildlife use of adjacent habitat (e.g., Lenth et al. 2008, Ellenberger and Byrne 2009, Miller et al. 2011), a negative effect that must be avoided, particularly in winter (approx. Nov. 15 - Apr. 15). or pressing an elevator button. 30 Emotional support animals (ESA) do not need any specialized training and are there to purely gives comfort and love. Emotional support animals can be dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, lizards, etc. People may use all sorts of animals to give them the emotional support they need to live a fulfilling life. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Ubl Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 8. Residents shall pick up after their animal and put any waste materials in proper trash containers. 9. Pets shall not be fed outside. 10. No animals shall be permitted to chase any wildlife (including, but not limited to, sheep, deer, elk, marmots, rabbits, coyotes, foxes, porcupines, and chipmunks) anywhere within or beyond the parcel, and each resident shall take all steps reasonably necessary to prevent its animal from chasing wildlife anywhere within or beyond the parcel (including off-site public trails). 11. No Responsible Party shall permit any animal to be a public nuisance. Examples of nuisance behavior include, but are not limited to, barking, whining, or howling in an excessive, continuous, or untimely fashion, as determined by Housing Management and/or the HOA, in their sole and absolute determination, which also reserve the right to define public nuisance in additional ways. 12. Housing Management, at their sole discretion, may ask a Responsible Party to remove their animal from the premises if it is not under control, if the handler fails to act to gain to control, if the animal is behaving aggressively, or if the animal is posing a threat to human health and safety. If a service animal or emotional support animal must be removed for a legitimate reason, Housing Management and/or the HOA must permit the handler to obtain the services or goods they need without the animal's presence, including a new service animal or emotional support animal. 13. All rules and regulations required of residents will be required of the family, guests, and contractors of the residents. Remedies for infractions by the resident's family, guests, and contractors will be enforced upon the residents as if the animals where owned by the residents. 14. Each resident or homeowner in the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision shall sign a separate copy of the General Pet and Dog Policy indicating that the he/she understands and agrees to abide by the General Pet and Dog Policy as a part of its lease or in conjunction with the purchase of their unit in the HOA. 15. Responsible Parties requesting to have a service animal or emotional support animal that is a dog shall provide documentation to Housing Management, the HOA, and/or the employer, as applicable, who is/are responsible for the home or unit used by the Responsible Parry demonstrating that: (a) the Responsible Parry has a disability (i.e. a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) and (b) the Responsible Party has a disability -related need for the service or emotional support animal as allowed under the ADA and/or FHA. 16. The application for a service or support animal will be reviewed by Housing Management, the HOA responsible for the unit, or the employer. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld and will follow all state and federal laws. 9.3.2.3 Resident Education Regarding Black Bears/ Trash Removal/ Nuisance Wildlife The Workforce Housing project is located in high quality black bear habitat. Most bears do not cause damage where residential and other developments have encroached into bear habitat. The key is that if a bear doesn't find food it will move on. Black bears are omnivorous and while they mostly eat vegetation, they will eat almost anything. Bears will eat human food, garbage, hummingbird nectar, bird seed, pet food, grease off grills, suntan lotion, etc. Garbage generally provides the greatest attraction for bears to residential developments. Once a bear has found an easily accessible, consistent food source, it will often overcome its wariness of people and visit the site regularly. This increases the chance of a bear -human encounter. After repeated use of the food source, the bear may even act aggressively toward residents or their unsuspecting neighbors. When this happens and wildlife authorities are notified, the bear is usually killed to protect human Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision safety. The following education measures will be required to reduce potential bear problems: 1. Residents will be provided and are encouraged to review the bear section in this Plan (Section 3.1.4) describing the project's setting in bear habitat. Residents will be provided with information to educate themselves about most bear issues they might encounter by being provided the following link on CPW's website, or similar information: htWs: / /cpw. state.co.us /Documents /Education /LivinyWithWildlife /LivinyWithBears.pdf 2. Residents are also encouraged to access and view a wide variety of pamphlets, brochures, reports, and videos of other bear -related topics such as CPW's Bear webpage: https: / /cpw. state.co.us /learn /Pages/LivingwithWildlifeWildBears.asi2x 3. Bird feeders attract bears. For this reason, residents are discouraged from using bird feeders of any design (e.g., mixed seed, sunflower, thistle [niger], suet, fruit, mealworms, nectar [hummingbird], etc.) from April 1 to November 15, dates inclusive, the period of the year when bears are actively seeking food, unless the feeders and seed spillage from them are clearly inaccessible to bears. 9.3.2.4 Resident Education on Mountain Lions Mountain lions are occasionally present year-round in the vicinity of the East Vail parcel, but may be more common in the area from fall through spring when bighorn sheep and elk (prey species) are wintering and at lower elevations. In other areas of Colorado, where subdivisions have encroached upon mountain lion habitat containing high concentrations of prey species, encounters between lions, humans, and their pets and livestock have increased. The following measures will be implemented to minimize lion -human conflicts: 1 Residents are encouraged to review the mountain lion section of this Plan (Section 3.2.4.4) describing the project's setting in lion habitat and the recent increase involving the public encountering lions while hiking. Residents can further educate themselves about most lion issues they might encounter by via the link on CPW's website or similar information: https: / /cpw. state.co.us /Documents /Education /LivinyWithWildlife /LivinyWithLions.pdf Residents are also encouraged to access and view a wide variety of other lion -related topics on CPW's Lion webpage or similar information: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/LivingwithWildlife LionLaspx 9.3.2.5 Education on Wildlife Mortality on Local Roads The following information will be provided to residents of the Workforce Housing parcel to minimize conflicts and wildlife mortality on local roads: Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 37 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision The Workforce Housing parcel is accessed by the I-70 Frontage Road where the posted speed limit is generally slow enough to avoid most wildlife mortality. Obeying posted speed limits would not only reduce wildlife mortality, but would also reduce the risks of collision, damage to personal property, and injury to motorists. Residents and their contractors, employees, and guests should obey posted speed limits to avoid wildlife mortality on roads. During winter, bighorn sheep occasionally come down and graze along the cut slope above the Frontage Road, in the vicinity of the housing. Under certain conditions, they will lick salt off the road. To discourage this behavior, the TOV changed from using a salt product to cinders for treating slick road conditions in this area. However, the cinders still contain approximately 5% salt to keep the cinders from clumping, so the sheep continue to lick the road. Sheep on or adjacent to the road cause traffic jams. Traffic backs up as drivers stop to view the sheep. Drivers of some vehicles try to go around stopped traffic and end up closely approaching the sheep. The sheep often seem oblivious to the traffic. Law enforcement eventually shows up with the goal of restoring traffic flow. The sheep are chased off the road and traffic is encouraged to resume. If you encounter sheep grazing near or along the road, residents may slow down, but should not stop. It is stressful to the sheep to be foraging in such close proximity to humans and their vehicles and they only do it because they are starving and need the forage. If residents are caught in a sheep jam, they should not try to go around stopped vehicles or park and get out of their vehicle to get a better view the sheep. 9.3.2.6 Adjacent National Forest Lands Undeveloped habitat north (uphill) of the Workforce Housing is National Forest Land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. While all Workforce Housing residents and guests are prohibited from those lands to protect their wildlife values (see Section 9.3.2.1), it is possible that residents may see hunters wearing fluorescent orange or pink clothing carrying weapons in that area during the fall hunting seasons. That activity is legal and residents need not report it by calling 911, CPW, or Housing Management. 9.3.2.7 Resident Education on Other Wildlife Concerns With the exception of bird feeders, as described in Section 9.3.2.3, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife is prohibited. It is illegal in Colorado to intentionally place or distribute feed, salt blocks, or other attractants for big -game animals and such actions are subject to fines for violations. The well-meaning sheep enthusiasts who illegally placed salt and mineral blocks on TOV open space are apparently unaware that their actions are deleterious to the herd. The sheep's attraction to salt blocks prolongs their use of winter range well into spring and even summer, putting additional pressure on the vigor and quantity of forage that should be reserved for winter, in a landscape that has deteriorated as a result of wildfire suppression. Salt blocks can spread disease. Concentrated, prolonged, and predictable sheep use of salt blocks may also attract mountain lions that prey on sheep. Not only might the use of salt blocks result in greater sheep predation, but it might also become necessary to kill the lions for public safety. 9.3.3 Enforcement The East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision is located within the TOV's jurisdiction and is subject to its laws. The Developer, Housing Management, and the HOA, if applicable, together with the TOV, will maximize the impact of enforcing the above Wildlife Requirements for the Developer and Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel through the following measures. Western Ecosystems, Inc. May, 2019 38 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision 1. The TOV will use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce protective restrictions on TOV and private property that is important wildlife habitat at appropriate times during the year, including but not limited to, closing all or portions of parcels to access by the public, including residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, and policing and preventing trespassing violations. 2. Housing Management staff will enact and enforce the above restrictions regarding pet ownership as allowed by Federal and Colorado law. These items will be included in the community's rules and regulations and HOA documents, as applicable. 3. Residents of the Workforce Housing parcel will ultimately be responsible for costs related to any damage done by pets or service and emotional support animals. 4. Housing Management and HOA management will provide assistance to the TOV in enforcing violations of restrictions to TOV property by the timely reporting of observed violations of those restrictions, including providing evidence of the violation(s) to TOV authorities, who can take appropriate action. 5. Upon the occurrence of a violation of these policies by a Responsible Party, Housing Management or the HOA Manager, as applicable, shall give written notice ("Notice of Violation's to the Responsible Party (and a copy to the owner and Master Lessee of the unit, if the owner or Master Lessee is not the Responsible Party) regarding the occurrence of the violation, stating with reasonably detailed information concerning the violation, noting, among other things, the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation as well as the day, approximate time, and approximate location of the violation. 6. Housing Management should maintain a file of Wildlife Requirement violations by Responsible Parties. The TOV and CPW may periodically request summarized wildlife -related violation records to evaluate compliance with the Wildlife Requirements and determine if any adaptive management is needed to increase compliance. 7. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision residents and tenants are encouraged to report Wildlife Requirement violations associated with recreation and pet controls to Housing Management or the HOA, as appropriate, along with documentation (e.g., photos or video) of the violation, if possible. It is in the best interest of residents, owners, and tenants of the project, and the larger East Vail community to report violations to minimize impacts to wildlife so residents can continue appreciating the wildlife in this special setting and so more stringent requirements are not developed and implemented. 8. The Housing Manager is authorized, empowered, and obligated to impose the following fines and enforcement measures for violations of these Wildlife Requirements. a. Upon the occurrence of the first violation, a fine in the amount of $250.00 will be assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit. b. Upon the occurrence of the second violation, a fine in the amount of $500.00 will assessed will be assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit. c. Upon the occurrence of a third and all subsequent violations, a penalty will be assessed according to ownership status of the Responsible Party as follows: i. A Responsible Party who is a tenant in the Workforce Housing Parcel will be given a one- month notice in writing to vacate their premises, regardless of hardship. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 39 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ii. A Responsible Party who owns a home in the Workforce Housing Parcel will assessed a fine of $750.00. d. Notwithstanding the above, for violations by residents whose occupancy at the East Vail Workforce parcel is a component of their employment, and subject to federal and state labor laws, fines and enforcement actions will be determined by and imposed solely through their employer, and include fines and enforcement measures up to and including the loss of housing at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision. 9. The Owner or HOA of the East Vail parcel will retain any fines collected by the Housing Manager or HOA and use these funds for future wildlife -related enhancement on the parcel or otherwise valid enhancement that would benefit the local sheep herd. All fine assessments shall be due and payable to Housing Management within 30 days of written notice of such fine or assessment, as described below. All unpaid fines are subject to the imposition of liens on the unit as may be provided by the community's governing documents. If any fine assessment is not paid within ten days after the due date, a late charge in the amount of $100 shall be assessed to compensate Housing Management for the expenses, costs, and fees, including attorney fees, involved in handing such delinquency. Responsible Parties shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable for all fines/penalty assessments. 9.3.4 Miscellaneous 1. In the event of a specific conflict between any non -wildlife related Workforce Housing Policies and these Wildlife Requirements, the Wildlife Requirements shall prevail. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Wildlife Requirements, Housing Management hereby reserves the right, at any time and from time to time hereafter, to modify, amend, repeal, and/or re-enact these Wildlife Requirements to better protect the wildlife community on and surrounding the Workforce Housing parcel, in accordance with non -wildlife related Workforce Housing Policies, Declarations, Bylaws, Town of Vail procedures, and applicable law. 3. For modifications or amendments to the Wildlife Policies that impact residents whose occupancy at the East Vail Workforce parcel is a component of their employment and subject to federal and state labor laws, such modifications and amendments will be subject to the review and approval of the employer. 4. Failure by Housing Management or any person to enforce any provision of these Wildlife Policies shall in no event be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 5. Adaptive management will be used to resolve unanticipated wildlife issues. The TOV and CPW are two resources that may be consulted to assist. 6. The provisions of these Policies shall be deemed to be independent and several, and the invalidity of any one or more of the provisions hereof, or any portion thereof, by judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, which provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 10.0 LITERATURE CITED Andree, B. 2017. Untitled letter re: the sustainability of wildlife populations within the Gore Valley. CPW. Glenwood Springs, CO. Ltr. to P. Wadden, Watershed Community Coordinator, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 40 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Mar. 6. 7pp. Brennan, J. and Nguyen, V. 2014. Service animals and emotional support animals, where are they allowed and under what conditions? Southwest ADA Center at ILRU, Houston, TX. 17pp. Bush, T. 2006. Plant fact sheet: smooth brome, Bromus inermi.r. USDA NRCS Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, East Lansing, Michigan. 2pp. May 25. Byrne, G. and R. Sherman. 2011. Aldasoro Ranch wildlife assessment: a review & update of the 1990 assessment. Wildlife Management and Consultants, LLC, Palisade, CO and Wildlife Habitat & Natural Resource Specialists, Montrose, CO. Nov. 20. Cade, T.J., J.H. Enderson and J. Linthicum. 1996. Guide to management of peregrine falcons at the eyrie. The Peregrine Fund and Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. Boise, ID and Santa Cruz, CA. Sep. 97pp. Craig, G.R and J.H. Enderson. 2004. Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado 1973 - 2001. CDOW, Denver, CO. Tech. Publ. 43. July. 80pp. Ellenberger, J.H. and G. Byrne. 2009. Monitoring deer and elk response to human disturbance on the Dart Conservation Easement. Wildl. Manage. Consh. & Assoc. Palisade, CO. Unpub. Rpt. 35pp. (as cited in Byrne and Sherman 2011) Kendall P. 2002. Stone age man kept a dog. Nature, 22 November 2002 (in science update). http://www.nature.com/nsu/021118/021118-12.html Lenth, B.E., R.L. Knight, and M.E. Brennan. 2008. The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas J. 28:218-227. Loss, S.R.; T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free -ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Comm. 4:1396. McDowell Engineering. 2019. Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential. McDowell Engineering, LLC. Eagle, CO. May 19. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29:124-132. Savolainen, P., Y. Zhang, J. Luo, J. Lundeberg and T. Leitner. 2002. Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science. 298: 1610-1613. Thompson, R.W. 2017. Rezoning wildlife assessment of Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 10 pp., Aug. 10. Thompson, R.W. 2018a. Recommended wildlife design criteria for Vail Resort's East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 15. Western Ecosystems, Inc. 41 May, 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Thompson, R.W. 2018b. East Vail peregrines — 2018 nesting attempt to date. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp., June 18. Thompson, R.W. 2018c. Wildlife monitoring report for the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 33 pp., Aug. 31. Thompson, R.W. 2018d. East Vail Workforce Housing project conceptual bighorn sheep winter range enhancement prescriptions memorandum. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 3 pp., Nov. 5. Triumph Development. 2019. Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Vail, Colorado, PEC Submittal, June 10, 2019. Triumph Development, Vail, CO. U.S. Department of Justice. 2011. Service animals. Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. July. app. (hfps://www.ada.gov/service_anitnals_2010.pdo USFS. 1998. Environmental Assessment, Booth Creek Project Burn Area, Eagle County, Colorado. Holy Cross Ranger District, White River National Forest, Minturn, CO. Feb. 6. 11.0 APPENDICES A. APPENDIX A. WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT FOR THE EAST VAIL Workforce Housing parcel, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO. To be inserted in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan provided to Workforce Housing residents. B. APPENDIX B. EAST VAIL PEREGRINES — 2018 NESTING ATTEMPT. To be inserted in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan provided to Workforce Housing residents. Western Ecosystems, Inc. EN May, 2019 EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 4 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT East Vail Workforce Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado prepared for: TRIUMPH DEVELOPMENT 12 VAIL ROAD, SUITE 700, VAIL, CO 81657 8� WESTERN ECOLOGICAL RESOURCE 711 WALNUT STREET, BOULDER, CO 80302 prepared by: BIRCH ECOLOGY, LLC 429 MAIN STREET, LYONS, CO 80540 IPIR Ic°L01- BIRCH ECOLOGY FEBRUARY 2019 Table of Contents Section/Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 DELINEATION METHODS.................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 WETLANDS & WATERS OF THE U.S....................................................................................................2 4.1 Wetland A.......................................................................................................................................2 4. 1.1 Location................................................................................................................................... 2 4.1.2 Classification........................................................................................................................... 2 4.1.3 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................. 2 4.1.4 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 2 4.1.5 Soils............................................................................................................................................2 4.2 Ephemeral Stream Channel.......................................................................................................2 4.2.1 Location................................................................................................................................... 2 4.2.2 Classification........................................................................................................................... 2 4.2.3 Hydrology................................................................................................................................3 5.0 ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS...........................................................................................3 6.0 FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................4 7.0 TABLES..................................................................................................................................................8 8.0 PHOTOS.............................................................................................................................................12 9.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A. FIELD DATA FORMS.......................................................................................................19 List of Figures Number/Title Page Figure 1. Project Location Map...........................................................................................................5 Figure2. Aerial Photo............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure3. Wetland Map.......................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables Number/Title Page Table 1. Potential Waters of the U.S. Summary.................................................................................9 Table 2. Vascular Plant Species List...................................................................................................10 List of Photos Number/Title Page Photo 1. View to the southeast, toward the 1-70 corridor and East Vail Exit (10/18/17)......... 13 Photo 2. The steep forested hillside above the project site.(10/24/17)...................................13 Photo 3. Wetland A is a seep with an overstory dominated by willows. (10/24/17) ..............14 Photo 4. Wetland A is on a steep, southwestern -facing slope.(10.18/17)..............................14 Photo 5. The ephemeral stream has a bed that averages 2 feet wide. (10/24/17) ..............15 Photo 6. Aspen forest next to Wetland A.(10/24/17)..................................................................15 Photo 7. Pits 2 (foreground) and 1 (background).(10/24/17)....................................................16 Photo 8. Pit 3 is within Wetland A......................................................................................................16 1.0 INTRODUCTION Triumph Development has plans to construct a workforce housing project near the 1-70 Exit in East Vail. The development would be located on the western part of the ±23.3 -acre property, on a 5.397 -acre parcel which is the focus of this wetland delineation. The eastern 17.915 acres will be designated for Natural Area Preservation. Specifically, the project site is located in the southeast '/4 of Section 2 of Township 5 South and Range 80 West in Eagle County, Colorado (Figures 1 & 2). To aid in project planning, a wetland delineation was completed for the 5.397 -acre project area where the development would be located. This report describes the wetlands and waters identified in terms of their vegetation, soil, and hydrology, and includes photos and a Wetland Map. Please note, all Figures are included in Section 6.0, Tables are in Section 7.0, and Photos are in Section 8.0. Appendix A contains copies of the field data forms. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The East Vail Workforce Housing project site is located on a south to southwest -facing hillside above the Frontage Road on the north side of 1-70 (Photo 1). The 5.397 -acre parcel where the development would be located is dominated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest with scattered Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanii) and a mixed mountain shrub community that includes serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa), Woods' rose (Rosa woodsii), and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), among other species (Photo 2). There is a small seep wetland near a landslide area at the eastern boundary (Photos 3 & 4), and a narrow ephemeral stream channel that crosses the western side (Photo 5). Elevations of the delineation area range from a high of 8,520 in the northeastern corner to a low of 8,374 in the southwestern corner where the ephemeral stream channel flows off the project site. 3.0 DELINEATION METHODS Wetlands were delineated by Heather Houston of Birch Ecology, LLC and formerly of Western Ecological Resource, Inc. and David Buscher of Buscher Soil & Environmental, Inc. in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast (2010) on October 24, 2017. In general, wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged based upon the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and indicators of a wetland hydrology. Field forms for the three test pits with vegetation, soil and hydrology data are included in Appendix A. These test pits are located in both wetland and upland habitats. In general, plant species names follow Weber and Whitmann (1992). The wetland status of plants follows the 2016 National List for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region. Classification of wetlands follows Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland flagging was surveyed by Peak Land Surveying of Vail, Colorado. 4.0 WETLANDS & WATERS OF THE U.S. Approximately 377 square feet of a seep wetland are located within the 5.397 -acre project area boundary. In addition, approximately 68 linear feet of an ephemeral stream channel bisect the project site, as illustrated by the Wetland Map (Figure 3) and summarized in Table 1. 4.1 Wetland A 4.1.1 Location Wetland A is a seep located near the eastern boundary of the project site. The wetland extends into the project area from the Natural Area Preservation parcel to the east. Approximately 377 square feet of this wetland occur within the 5.397 -acre project site (Photos 3&4). 4.1.2 Classification Under the Cowardin Classification System for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (Cowardin et al., 1979), Wetland A is in the Palustrine System, Scrub -Shrub Wetland Class. 4.1.3 Vegetation Wetland A is a seep within the aspen forest (Photos 3, 4 & 6). In the area mapped as wetlands, the shrubby overstory is dominated by willows (Salix bebbiana, S. scouleriana), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and bush honeysuckle (Distegia involucrata), with serviceberry, snowberry, Woods' rose, common juniper (Juniperus communis), and mountain maple (Acer glabrum) in the moist soil at the periphery. The understory of the delineated wetland is dominated by a sparse cover of beaked sedge (Carex utriculata) growing with cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium ssp. montanum), starry false Solomon's seal (Maianthemum stellatum) and monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), as well as the shade - tolerant introduced species orchard grass (Dactylis glomerate). 4.1.4 Hydrology This wetland is a seep fed by groundwater discharge and snowmelt runoff. As noted on the data form for Pit 3, the soil was saturated below a depth of 11 inches on the date of the delineation, and there was flowing water nearby in a small channel. 4.1.5 Soils Three soil pits were used to define the limits of Wetland A. Pits 1 and 2 were located just outside the wetland boundary (Photo 7) in a shallow drainage swale. Both pits lacked hydric soil and indicators of a wetland hydrology. Pit 3 was located inside the wetland boundary. The soil was hydric and was saturated below a depth of 11 inches (Photo 8). 4.2 Ephemeral Stream Channel 4.2.1 Location A 2 -foot -wide, rocky ephemeral stream channel is located in the western portion of the project site (Photo 5). Approximately 68 linear feet of this channel is within the project boundary. 4.2.2 Classification The ephemeral stream is in the Riverine System, Intermittent Subsystem, Streambed Class. 11 4.2.3 Hydrology The ephemeral stream is fed by snowmelt runoff and likely seasonal groundwater discharge from the steep hillside above the parcel. The stream flows south across the site and into a 24 -inch culvert in the bottom of a depression, where the inlet is buried by rocks. The outfall is on the south side of 1-70, and it discharges into Gore Creek. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Wetland A is a seep that does not connect to other waters of the U.S. and is likely a non - jurisdictional feature. In contrast, the ephemeral stream has a direct surface connection to Gore Creek via a 24 -inch culvert below I-70. Therefore, the ephemeral stream is likely jurisdictional. 3 6.0 FIGURES P. :. 106'1 9'0"W 106°18'0"W ' Booth Creek10 oZZZ Y Area 87 B Gore Creek ��.. _ Parcel Boundary _ " t 1-70 East Vail Exit 2' Pitkin Creek ti 10400 �. 011 106'1 9'0"W BASE: USGS 7.5' Vail East Quadrangle, Colorado COLORADO -.1oJ I 'Copyridht:© 2013 106'1 8'0"W Figure 1. Project Location Map East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A Prepared by. Birch Ecology LLC 1:24,000 5 BIRCII ECOLOGY —_�-- 429 Main Street P.O. Box 170 Lyons, C080540 (720)350-2530 www. birchecology.com P. co o co ;:5� �� tc•: ••�`? ►' *?�� r Fi7r r V j.' . ,� '�� ''�• ��r,, , ` ' . , ' �'`a>�jy�'„�ti x• - t tri"i - ~• ►.'' �.� . r y ^S f a.,, �A ': {. . • •fes • r'" • _ � w . + f r • •,lY... ' P Sp • '�► , ir,, -z• Boundary of ;` .•a,. ; .� w•.,r Wetland Delineation • 460— ��` ,.•� ,'. •. '�'�;., ,... Parcel Boundary .r46 t• �. ■ 44 a. w �� + • . . � �•: ' ~:� ti.� moi. h: • Ne— Gore Creek * 1-70 East Vail Exit COLORADO _ jtM► Source: E-sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEaye, Earthstar Geo'gr�ics, ONES/Airbus . •, U• U• ��,A� �ein•,Aer •ri•, ISN, I -P, swisst• an• th � I = User ommunity `- '►`` Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A 1:6,000 R Prepared by: P\'It:I'l 1 ' ••L . 1'mcii ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�--- P.O. Box 170 Lyons, CO COLORADO _ jtM► Source: E-sri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEaye, Earthstar Geo'gr�ics, ONES/Airbus . •, U• U• ��,A� �ein•,Aer •ri•, ISN, I -P, swisst• an• th � I = User ommunity `- '►`` Figure 2. Aerial Photograph East Vail Workforce Subdivision N A 1:6,000 R Prepared by: Birch Ecology LLC 1'mcii ECOLOGY 429 Main Street —_�--- P.O. Box 170 Lyons, CO (720)350-2530-2530 www. birchecology.com Legend: 0 Wetlands *pit I Soil Pits •��—��• Ephemeral Stream Channel Culverts Project Boundary Wetland Flagging O Surveyed by: Data February 2C19 Peak Lend Surveying Inc. Contour Interval=2H of Vail. CO Scale: 1 in = 75 ft 7 Figure 3. Wetland Map East Vail Workforce Housing a aPa�s v, I i 11-1 Ecology LLC ZQ:CHL'COLOGy i.2� ,m_� _. o� 7.0 TABLES TABLE 1 Potential Waters of the U.S. Summary East Vail Workforce Housing Project Potential Waters of the U.S. Size Location Wetlands Wetland A 377 ft2 39.645810 (<0.01 ac) -106.307616 Total Wetlands 377 ft2 Aquatic Habitats Ephemeral stream channel 68 LF 39.646449 -106.310683 Total Aquatic Habitats 68 LF Scientific Name Trees Picea engelmannii Populus tremuloides Shrubs Acer glabrum Amelanchier alnifolia Artemisia tridentate var. vaseyana Cercocarpus montanus Chrysothamnus parryi Corn us sericea (C. stolonifera) Distegia invol ucrata Juniperus communis ssp. alpina Prun us virginiana var. melanocarpa Ribes inerme Rosa woodsii Salix bebbiana Salix monticola Salix scouleriana Symphoricarpos rotundifoli us Perennial Graminoids Brom us inermis Carex utriculata Dactylis glomerate Elymus trachycaulus Phleum pretense Poo compresses Perennial Forbs Achillea Ianulosa Aconitum columbianum Agastache urticifolia Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Aster foliaceus Cirsium arvense Frasera speciosa Geranium richardsonii Heracleum sphondylium ssp. montanum Linaria vulgaris TABLE 2 Vascular Plant Species List East Vail Workforce Housing Project Common Name Engelmann spruce Aspen Mountain maple Serviceberry Mountain big sagebrush Mountain mahogany Parry's rabbitbrush Redosier dogwood Family Pinaceae Salicaceae Aceraceae Rosaceae Asteraceae Rosaceae Asteraceae Cornaceae Bush honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae Common juniper Cupressaceae Choke cherry Rosaceae Wetland Origin* Status** N FAC N FACU N FACU N FACU N NL N NL N NL N FACW N FAC N UPL N FACU Whitestem gooseberry Grossulariaceae N FAC Woods' rose Rosaceae N FACU Bebb willow Salicaceae N FACW Mountain willow Salicaceae N OBL Scouler willow Salicaceae N FAC Snowberry Caprifoliaceae N NL Smooth brome Poaceae I UPL Beaked sedge Cyperaceae N OBL Orchard grass Poaceae I FACU Slender wheatgrass Poaceae N FAC Timothy Poaceae I FAC Canada bluegrass Poaceae I FACU Yarrow Asteraceae N FACU Monkshood Helleboraceae N FACW Nettleleaf giant hyssop Lamiaceae N FACU Kinnickinnick Ericaceae N FACU Leafy bracted aster Asteraceae N FACU Canada thistle Asteraceae 1+ FAC Monument plant Gentianaceae N NL Richardson's Geranium Geraniaceae N FAC Cow parsnip Apiaceae N FAC Toadflax Scrophulariaceae 1+ NL Scientific Name Mahonia repens Maianthemum stellatum (Smilacina stellata) Paxistima myrsinites Pyrola rotundifolia ssp. asarifolia Rudbeckia ampla (R. laciniata var. ampla) Thalictrum fendleri Vicia americana * Origin TABLE 2 Vascular Plant Species List East Vail Workforce Housing Project Common Name Family Oregon grape Berberidaceae Starry false Solomon seal Convallariaceae Mountainlover Roundleaf wintergreen Goldenglow Fendler meadowrue American vetch N = Native I = Introduced I+ = Colorado State Noxious Weed Wetland Origin* Status** N NL N FAC Celastraceae N FACU Pyrolaceae N FACU Asteraceae N FAC Thalictraceae N FAC Fabaceae N FAC ** Wetland Status OBL = Obligate Wetland FACW = Facultative Wetland FAC = Facultative FACU = Facultative Upland UPL = Obligate Upland NO/NL = No Status in this Region 8.0 PHOTOS 12 Photo 1. View from the project site to the southeast, toward the 1-70 corridor and East Vail Exit. (10/18/17). Photo 2. The steep forested hillside above the project site is dominated by aspen. (10/24/17). 13 ,�'¢�p'�,Jr '�. c a b�° P'p/LCA^ '�/•fi � R V - i E � �� P 1- 1 ra��AF. !! N (� �. � � ti �_ y;�` 1 u _ IC�Cl .i „F w��_�r4Y�YQY�,��. 1� 5 ''lift V iA �7a Add �' t t►r 4 . t Nt fr I. a10 f�- 9.0 REFERENCES Ackerfield, J. 2015. The Flora of Colorado. BRIT Press, Ft. Worth, Texas. 818 p. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2003. Field Guide to the Wetland and Riparian Plant Associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS- 79/31, Washington, D.C., 103 p. Culver, D.R. and J.M. Lemly. 2013. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants: Identification, Ecology and Conservation. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Harrington, H.D. 1964. Manual of the Plants of Colorado. The Swallow Press, Inc. Chicago, Illinois 60605. Kartesz, J.T. 1994a. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Vol. 1 - Checklist. Second edition. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon. 622 p. Kartesz, J.T. 1994b. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Vol. 2 - Thesaurus. Second edition. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon. 816 p. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. ERDC/EC TR -10- 3. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. USDA, NRCS. 2014. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 28 February 2014). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO). Specimen Database of Colorado Vascular Plants. http://cumuseum.colorado.edu/Research/Botany/Databases/search.php Weber, W. A. and R. C. Whitmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Fourth edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado. 17 Weber, W.A. & R.C. Wittmann, 1992. Catalog of the Colorado Flora: a Biodiversity Baseline. University Press of Colorado. Niwot, Colorado. Including most recent addenda available from CU Herbarium (COLO), Boulder, Colorado. M] APPENDIX A. FIELD DATA FORMS 19 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Lgs-t vat' I UVVVy\1 +�►r ce, S V-7 City/County: I f— Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: jj l d 01 State: Sampling Point: , Investigator(s): I'lOs i i"i T I� l�bb Y �i'1/� Section, Township, Range: i' ,dam' Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): iC 8Local relie concave convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes XNo (If no, explain in Remarks.) / Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydric Soil Present? Yes No < Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:1e, 3 €1 0Ar That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. �i Total Number of Dominant 3. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species / "� GO Sa lin /Shrub Stratum Plot size: ( [ 0X 1Or) = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) 1. a+ f 1 ' '�.- Y *qc V) � i/ 'ISI I, Prevalence Index worksheet: oL Total % over of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 4. Cff I C �S, 'r Ifrj I C) FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 0 UPL species x 5 = 1 • M t W . ' 40 FAC, Column Totals: (A) (B) `' 2• 11�A`v i � cl I i PwTir Ct 3• r `< *rrAs, i A' Q, (° 10 P . t 7 Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. C 5• al/0� 00, ( _!W 7i F&Jkl_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7• _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g. _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation I Ile = Total Cover Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL las` )k2 l 111 � t Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) (moist) % (iin�chhe/s�)� Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks gColor — High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) — Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) — Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) — Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) — Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Field Observations: Type: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes - No Remarks: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) — Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except — Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, — High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) — Dry -Season Water Table (C2) — Sediment Deposits (62) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation — Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ? l Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) — FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No lr' - Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No (_ ' Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary frin e Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: L-41"3fl ut oii��wUV Vx7T�,, lL&PHYk ity/Count, Applicant/Owner: i V 1 r dq Investigator(s): LlSection, Ti Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _51A. J42_, Local relic Subregion (LRR): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? LQ Q (_ Sampling Date: favy State: C Sampling Point: At Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No %� within a Wetland? Yes No i Remarks: 7f Uf.- SCOU 64 1 C,,"'S.... Number of Dominant Species VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. A " Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: io % Cover Species? Status 7t�i Number of Dominant Species 1. kX/ _ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4' = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, FAC: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plotsize: r ) or (A/B) 1, � �T �( T Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. r Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = 3. u 4 1 p f• FACW species x 2= FAC species x 3 = 5. ° � =Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species X5= Herb Stratum Plot size: ) ( 0 "rro 1 D (" e " Column Totals: (A) (B) 2• 6 . 14 { " ` _ ' s° I f't. N / J A " Prevalence Index = B/A = 3•L'tu I r Z Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4• 5. or,04 ,' '�� yy ��' t i„— _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0' 6•. 7• 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting $ _ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes No %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: r, jrr US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast —Version 2.0 v SOIL�ty i Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the ab"se'nce of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) D' _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: (inches): Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Saturation Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: /� /Depth Surface Water Present? Yes No (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No (inches): / /pepth Saturation Present? Yes No Lf Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: '-'•'illO. VAj) WWKT- + �-��11t,Jl k1JCity/County: `~ TMY - Sampling Date: t/ Applicant/Owner: State: � Sampling Point: Investigator(s): t C Section, Township, Range: Ser-. -y , T�)-90 e' Landform (hillslope, terrace etc.):�j4 4 } _ Loc I retie conc convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly dist Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally proble NWI classification: Vo (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? /X Yes No Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: _v I j1'+�f I S 1.1"ruy. sofUV rt, VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 5 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species, / Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 (d ) = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 1. (� �? a (�' y � c�� Prevalence Index worksheet: Total %Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = 2 I_ +r f ! ,P' 4.. AAC F FACU species x4– 4=Herb / Herb Stratum (Plot size: = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = ) 1 �,.'S `y�14 Z Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. t ( 1&. V `7 Hy rophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. F % 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7• g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) g _ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: g H t7 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL F&J- ()f,, Lo ( a_4 It -7 Sampling Point: -d— Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm lie absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks 4— MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) Sigh aturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: ' Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: q Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 7- Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 46) 4A, and 413) Sigh aturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) _ Water Marks (61) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (63) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes "No __,,_/'Depth (inches): ' Saturation Present? Yes t-' No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes t/ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: �lYio US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 5a HNiffl�SAR INC. Geotechnical Engineers & Causrrucrion iviaterials Consultants February 13, 2019 Mr. Michael O'Connor Triumph Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 Subject: Geologic Hazards Analysis Report East Vail Workforce Housing Vail, Colorado Project No. 18.5080 Dear Mr. O'Connor: A geologic hazards analysis was performed by Skyline Geoscience for the subject project. The purpose of this letter is to transmit the report prepared by Skyline Geoscience. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please contact our office. Sincerely, CESARE, INC. William H. Koechlein, P.E. Senior Consultant WHK/ksm Attachment 18.5080 East Vail Workforce Housing Letter 02.13.19 Corporate Office: 7108 South Alton Way, Building B Centennial, CO 80112 Locations: Centennial Frederick Silverthorne Salida/Crested Butte Phone 303-220-0300 www.cesareinc.com SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING February 12, 2019 Cesare, Inc. William Koechlein, P.E. 365 Warren Avenue, Suite #201 Silverthorne, Colorado 80497 Geologic Hazard Analysis East Vail Parcel Vail, Colorado Skyline Project No: 18105 Dear Mr. Koechlein: Skyline Geoscience (Skyline) is pleased to submit to Cesare, Inc. (Cesare) this geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel located near the 1-70 East Vail Exit in the Town of Vail, Colorado. Preliminary development plans for the EVP (not for construction; dated January 30, 2019) have been issued to Triumph Development, Inc. by Alpine Engineering, Inc. (Alpine), and were used in this study. This geologic hazard analysis addresses rockfall, debris flow and the existing , landslide, and the potential impacts these hazards may have on the proposed development. Skyline understands that a .�.4 rockfall impact barrier is planned for the upslope edge of the EVP. This barrier will serve as both a protective barrier for rockfall and debris flows and serve as a wildlife barrier separating human activity from existing wildlife habitats. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE I OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table of Contents 1.0 Location SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Figure3.................................................................................................................................................................Topographic SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................................................................3 Figure4.......................................................................................................................................................................Geologic 3.0 Figure 5....................................................................................................................................... GEOLOGIC SETTING....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure6......................................................................................................................................................................LiDAR Imagery 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure8.................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section A 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................................5 Figure10................................................................................................................................................................. 4.0 Figure 11..................................................................................................................................Typical GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................7 4.1 ROCKFALL.......................................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 DEBRIS FLOWS...............................................................................................................................................................8 4.3 EXISTING LANDSLIDE.....................................................................................................................................................9 5.0 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 STUDY SECTION A........................................................................................................................................................11 5.2 STUDY SECTION B........................................................................................................................................................12 5.3 STUDY SECTION C........................................................................................................................................................13 5.4 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS....................................................................................................................................14 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................15 6.1 ROCKFALL AND DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION..............................................................................................................15 6.2 EXISTING LANDSLIDE...................................................................................................................................................18 7.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................18 8.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................19 List of Figures Figure1.........................................................................................................................................................................Site Location Figure2.......................................................................................................................................................Proposed Development Figure3.................................................................................................................................................................Topographic Map Figure4.......................................................................................................................................................................Geologic Map Figure 5....................................................................................................................................... Slope Map and Landslide Extents Figure6......................................................................................................................................................................LiDAR Imagery Figure7...................................................................................................................................................................... Landslide Map Figure8.................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section A Figure9..................................................................................................................................................................... Study Section B Figure10................................................................................................................................................................. Study Section C Figure 11..................................................................................................................................Typical Sections—Rockfall Barriers 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 2 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The objectives of this geologic hazard analysis are to characterize the geologic hazard conditions and the potential impact those conditions may have on the intended development of the East Vail Parcel (EVP) located in the Town of Vail, Colorado (Figure 1). This analysis is based on proposed development plans made available at the time of this study (Alpine, January 30, 2019; Figure 2). Geologic hazards addressed in this analysis include rockfall, debris flows, and the existing landslide. Analysis of other geologic hazards including, but not limited to, snow avalanches, expansive soils and bedrock, and seismicity are not included in the scope of this study. Subsurface exploration or slope stability analysis for proposed cuts, fills, structural foundations, retaining wall structures, or other site improvements are not included in the scope of this study. Based on the documents available to us and our understanding of the project, the scope of work for the geologic hazard analysis included: 1. Review of available literature and published mapping related to geologic conditions in the site area. 2. Review of applicable Town of Vail codes and requirements related to geologically sensitive areas. 3. Analysis of rockfall hazard along three study sections using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP). 4. Meetings and collaboration with the EVP design team, Town of Vail, Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), and others. 5. Preparation of this report signed by a Colorado Professional Geologist summarizing findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The EVP is located on the northeast side of 1-70 near the 1-70 East Vail exit, in the Town of Vail, Colorado (Figure 1). The site is triangular, about 23.3 acres in size, and is currently undeveloped except for a buried utility easement traversing the west side of the site. The part of the site which will be developed is the western approximate 5.4 acres (Housing Zone District). The remaining 17.9 acres of the site will remain undeveloped and zoned Natural Area Preservation (NAP). Fall Line Drive and the 1-70 Frontage Road bound the site along the southwest edge. Pitkin Creek Townhomes is located immediately southeast of the EVP and Booth Falls Mountain Homes (Booth Falls) development is located west/northwest of the site. The land to the north, northeast, northwest, and west is undeveloped, National Forest Service Land. There is a Town of Vail shuttle stop near the intersection of Fall Line Drive 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 3 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING and 1-70 Frontage Road along the southwest edge of the site. Table 1 summarizes project site characteristics. Table 1. Project Site Characteristics Location: Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado Size: 23.3 acres total; 5.4 acres to be developed Shape: Triangular Undeveloped except for a buried utility easement that crosses through the Existing Condition: northwest part of the site. Vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grasses. Incised drainages with flowing water on the west side of the site. Multi-level residential buildings and surface parking on 5.4 acres zoned for Housing Proposed Development: on the west side of the site. The other 17.9 acres will remain undeveloped and zoned NAP. A rockfall/wildlife barrier will traverse the part of the site to be developed on the upslope side. Topographic Quadrangle: Vail East Township/Range: SE'/ of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West Latitude/Longitude: 39°38'46"N / -106°18'25"W 8380 to about 8940 from southwest to northeast across entire site. Elevation: 8380 to about 8530 from southwest to northeast corner of the part of the site to be developed. Elevation Change Across About 560 feet across entire site. Site: About 150 feet across part of site to be developed. Slope of Ground Surface: About 15 to 20 degrees down toward the south/southwest. Gore Creek located about 350 to 650 feet to the south. Nearby Drainage Features: Booth Creek located about 3,200 feet to the northwest. Pitkin Creek located immediately east of the property boundary. Surficial Geologic Units: Colluvium, landslide deposits, and glacial till. Bedrock: Minturn Formation The EVP is located in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West, with a latitude and longitude of about 39°38'46"N and -106°18'25"W, respectively. Pitkin Creek is located immediately southeast of the entire site and Booth Creek is about 3,200 feet to the northwest. Both Pitkin and Booth Creek are deeply incised and active drainages that flow to confluence with Gore Creek, located about 350 to 650 feet south/southwest of the site. The site topography slopes down to the southwest. The slope of the ground surface on the western part of the property (the part to be developed) ranges from about 0 to 20 degrees. The slope of the 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 4 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING ground surface on the remainder of the EVP is steeper and exceeds 40 degrees in some places. Elevation ranges from about 8380 feet along the southwest side to about 8940 at the upper northeast corner. Elevation ranges from about 8380 to 8530 on the western part of the site to be developed, about 150 feet of elevation change. Refer to Figures 1 through 3 for site location, proposed development and topographic maps. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The EVP is in the Southern Rocky Mountain physiographic province along the western flank of the Gore Range, in a region characterized by montane to subalpine settings. The Gore fault system is the western structural boundary of the Gore Range and was active during the Laramide mountain building event about 70 to 50 million years ago. The Gore Range is comprised of crystalline rock and is separated from the Front Range Mountains to the east by the Blue River Valley and the Williams Range thrust fault zone. Southwest of the Gore fault system are thick sequences of sedimentary units such as the Minturn and Maroon Formations. Sedimentary units underlie the EVP and are comprised of shale, claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and marine limestone. Glacial till is also mapped in the region along Gore Creek Valley and associated tributaries. 3.2 SITE GEOLOGY Based on published geologic mapping (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others, 2011), the EVP is underlain by surficial deposits comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and glacial till (Figure 4). Bedrock underlying the EVP is Minturn Formation (middle Pennsylvanian in age; about 315 to 307 million years before present) and is generally obscured by surficial deposits except for steep cliff outcrops upslope from the site. Geologic units are described below, from youngest to oldest in age: Artificial Fill — Artificial fill (af) is present and associated with modifications to the natural condition within and adjacent to the EVP, such as the buried utility easement in the western part and construction associated with Fall Line Drive, the shuttle stop, and the retaining wall in the southeast part of the site. Colluvium — Colluvial deposits (Qc) of Holocene and upper Pleistocene age (126,000 years ago to present) blanket most of the slope in the site area. Colluvium is described as unconsolidated, non- stratified deposits covering slopes less than 50 degrees. These deposits are typically less than 30 to 45 feet thick and comprised of pebble, cobble, and boulder sized rock and fine-grained material mixed together during movement downslope. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 5 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Landslide Deposits— Landslide deposits (Qls) of Holocene and upper Pleistocene age (126,000 years ago to present) are mapped on the eastern part of the EVP, on the approximate 18 acres that will not be developed. These deposits varyfrom chaotically arranged debris that has mobilized downslope to intact blocks of sedimentary bedrock. The middle and lower members of the Minturn Formation are particularly susceptible to landsliding (Kellogg and others, 2003). Pinedale Till— Glacial till (Qtp) of upper Pleistocene, Pinedale glaciation age (about 30,000 to 12,000 years ago) is mapped in the southeast area of the EVP. Glacial till is also mapped upslope from the site, above the prominent cliff exposures. Glacial till is mapped throughout the Gore Creek Valley and commonly forms well-preserved moraines. The Pinedale Till is unsorted, unstratified, bouldery glacial till, characterized by matrix -supported, subrounded to subangular clasts of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary (minor) composition. This unittends to form hummocky surface topography with common closed depressions and small ponds which have been modified by development in the Gore Creek Valley. The Pinedale Till has been mapped at variable elevations as high as 900 feet above the present elevation of Gore Creek, and may be up to about 90 feet thick in places (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others 2011). Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member — The Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation (Pmr) underlies the northeast part of the EVP. This unit also comprises the steep cliff outcrops upslope from the site. Pmr is thick -bedded, marine and dolomitic limestone, and is gray to yellow -gray, fine- to medium -grained, and locally fossiliferous. This unit can be divided into four distinct depositional sequences which are interbedded with pink -tan and light tan, cross -bedded, micaceous pebbly sandstone, gray -pink sandy siltstone, and shale. The sandstone, siltstone, and shale layers weather to rounded shapes, whereas the limestone and dolomitic layers weather to more angular forms. Based on published mapping (Kellogg and others, 2003), Pmr dips about 10 degrees south on the slope above the site. Pmr is about 360 feet thick in the project area, however, is about 660 feet thick at the type section. Minturn Formation, Individual limestone bed — This individual limestone bed of the Minturn Formation (Pmrl) is mapped within Pmr, is cliff -forming and generally greater than 15 feet thick. Pmrl is mapped on the east side of the EVP on the slopes of Pitkin Creek. Minturn Formation, Lower Member—The Lower Member of the Minturn Formation (Pml) underlies the EVP and is comprised of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Pml is pink -gray, gray - brown, gray -green, and mottled maroon and gray -green. This unit is about 1,200 feet thick in the project area. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 6 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONSIDERATIONS The Town of Vail code 12-21-13 lists the maps that have been adopted as official maps of the town to identify geologically sensitive areas and guide site-specific studies. These maps show debris flow and debris avalanche hazards (Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., November 1984), rockfall hazards (Schmueser and Associates, Inc., November 29, 1984), and geologic hazard areas (Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists, August 16, 1982). Based on these maps, the EVP is within a rockfall hazard area and thus designated as a geologically sensitive area by the Town of Vail. The geologic hazard considerations included in this study include rockfall, debris flows, and an existing landslide (Figure 5). 4.1 ROCKFALL The EVP has been placed in a rockfall hazard area by the Town of Vail. The EVP is located directly below cliff exposures of the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation. Potential rockfall source zones include these cliff exposures, glacial till deposits present further upslope, and other bedrock outcrops and piles of accumulated boulders on the slope above the site. The glacial till produces subrounded, granitic boulders that pose a rockfall hazard as they dislodge from the matrix and cascade downslope. The Minturn Formation tends to break from the source as irregular blocks of various sizes. The primary rockfall trigger for the bedrock is likely alternating freeze -thaw cycles. Additionally, the Minturn Formation has a combination of internal characteristics that contribute to rockfall susceptibility, including: • thin, interbedded, weak shale layers within the thicker limestone and sandstone beds • joint patterns • bedrock dip of 10 to 15 degrees out -of -the slope (toward the valley) The neighboring development to the northwest (Booth Falls) experienced historic rockfall events in 1983, 1986, 1987, and 1997, when large boulders dislodged from the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation and damaged residences (Kellogg and others, 2003; Colorado Geological Survey, undated). The 1983 rockfall event prompted a rockfall study for the entire Town of Vail (Schmueser and Associates, 1984). The rockfall berm and catchment that was in place at the time of the 1997 rockfall event was 100% effective in containing rocks that intercepted the barrier, however, part of that rockfall mass skirted the edge of the berm and rolled downslope to damage structures in the development below. After the 1997 event, additional barriers (reinforced walls) were constructed to protect residences. Based on the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) study conducted soon after the 1997 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 7 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING rockfall event, the section of rock that detached from the upper cliff was about 20 x 8 x 8 feet in dimension and broke into smaller pieces as it tumbled down the slope. Two cliff exposures of the Robinson Limestone Member are present above Booth Falls, and the CGS identified the main rockfall source to be the upper cliff exposure (Figure 5). The upper cliff exposure at Booth Falls can be correlated to the main rockfall source for the EVP. The lower cliff exposure above the EVP is largely obscured by colluvial deposits and not considered a primary rockfall source. The slope below the cliff exposures at Booth Falls constitutes the acceleration and runout zones and is about 40 degrees. The slope below the rockfall source zone for the EVP is less extreme, varying from about 20 to 40 degrees. Joint spacing in the bedrock source zones may be an indicator for the potential size of rockfalls. Joints observed in the upper cliff exposure above the EVP were spaced about 10 feet apart. Other joint set orientations and spacing may exist but were not observable in the cliffside. Shale layers in the limestone and sandstone, spaced at irregular intervals, are also discontinuities along which blocks can be dislodged. Differential weathering of the shale layers also causing instability. For Booth Falls, the CGS states that: "Most rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact approximately 8 by 5 ft (2.5 by 1.5 m) limestone boulders which are capable of reaching the farthest limits of the runout zone." The CGS indicates that larger slabs tend to break from the lower source zone above Booth Falls, with diameters of 15 to 20 feet. 4.2 DEBRIS FLOWS The EVP is not within the limits of the Town of Vail debris flow hazard zone, however, there is the potential for debris flows at the site. Review of a detailed terrain surface derived from the LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and of aerial photographs of the EVP and surrounding area indicates the potential for debris flows. Incised channels with flowing water are present on the west side of the site (the part to be developed) and on the slopes above, evidence for active erosive processes. An intense, prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper - concentrated debris flow. Modifications to the existing, natural condition may increase the debris flow susceptibility. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 8 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 4.3 EXISTING LANDSLIDE Landslide deposits are mapped on either side of the Gore Creek Valley and are commonly associated with the middle and lower members of the Minturn Formation (the lower member underlies the EVP). Most of these landslides are considered by investigators to be ancient and inactive. One known exception is a large historic landslide about 1.5 miles to the west of the EVP which was re -activated by undercutting of the toe for construction of 1-70. That landslide involved Minturn Formation bedrock units, the same which underlie the EVP. Contributing factors for landslide susceptibility in the project area includes over -steepening or undercutting of slopes by natural processes or human activities, bedding in sedimentary rocks that is oriented out -of -the slope (dip -slope), deforestation and removal of vegetative cover, elevated water content by means of intense, prolonged rainfall or rapid snowmelt, and unit contacts with vastly contrasting material properties (Kellogg and others, 2003). An existing landslide occupies the eastern approximate 18 acres of the EVP, the area to remain undeveloped (NAP). The landslide is visible in the LiDAR collected for the area, shown on Figure 5. Figure 6 shows a slope map derived from the LiDAR, with marked landslide extents. Geomorphic features of landslide movement have been obscured by heavyvegetative cover and smoothed by natural processes over time. The LiDAR imagery assisted in delineating the extents of the landslide (Figure 7), which extend further upslope than previously identified in published geologic maps (Kellogg and others, 2003). The landslide extents delineated in this report are approximate. Historical landslides are complex, and characteristics vary even within a single landslide mass, including type of slope failure (may be a combination of various mobilization mechanisms), timing of slope failure events, causative factors, direction of sliding, and others. The mechanism of sliding for this landslide may be a combination of block sliding and deep rotational processes. The detachment location for the landslide is located further upslope and beyond the boundaries of the EVP. The steep toe of the landslide is abruptly cut off by Fall Line Drive (Figure 7). The western flank of the landslide in the area of the toe is also steep and forms a recognizable break in slope on the topography map. Based on LiDAR imagery, the approximate extent of the landslide is about 1,750 feet wide by about 2,500 feet long from head scarp to Fall Line Drive. 5.0 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS Skyline modeled rockfall along three representative study sections through the part of the EVP to be developed using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program version 4.0 (CRSP). Figure 6 shows the locations of the study sections. CRSP estimates maximum, average, and cumulative probability statistics 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 9 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING for rockfall impact kinetic energy, bounce height and velocity at analysis points along each slope profile. The slope geometry for each study section was derived from site-specific survey and from contours developed from LiDAR data. The current condition for each study section was analyzed and the model parameters calibrated to fit site observations of slope characteristics. Analysis points were chosen upslope from the property, at the upslope property line, and at the proposed rockfall barrier locations. Results are reported for the proposed rockfall barrier locations. Rockfall behavior is generally influenced by slope geometry, material properties of the slope, and the material properties and geometry of the falling rock. Each study section was divided into sections (cells) based on slope characteristics. Cell boundaries were based on slope angle, vegetative cover, and material comprising the slope surface. Parameters that were estimated include density of limestone (source rock composition), surface roughness of the slope (SR), tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt), and the normal coefficient of restitution (Rn). SR is an estimation of the amount the slope angle varies within the radius of the rock being rolled. SR is a function of the size of the rock and the irregularity of the slope surface and will have greater influence on smaller rock sizes. The SR of the slope along each study section varied based on the size of the rock being modeled. A rock size of 3 to 4 feet is common for the slope and occurs with some frequency. Due to snow cover, it was not possible to directly measure SR along each study section. The SR was estimated based on previous site visits and observations made for the initial Cesare study in May and June 2017, and on aerial photographs and LiDAR data. Rt is the component of velocity parallel to the slope, which decreases during impact. The Rt was estimated for each cell based on the typical material comprising that section of the slope, and the amount of vegetative cover. Vegetation tends to increase the frictional resistance in the direction parallel to the slope, thus decreasing the tangential coefficient. Rn accounts for the change in velocity in a direction normal to the slope during an impact—a comparison of the normal velocity of the rock before and after impact of the rock with the ground surface. Skyline referred to the CRSP program manual for reasonable ranges of Rt and Rn for different surface material types along each study section. Table 2 is a summary of the model parameters used for each study section. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 10 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table 2. Summary of Rockfall Study Section Parameters Parameter Study Section A Study Section B Study Section C Length of section analyzed (ft) 1410 1460 1440 Elevation difference across section (ft) 775 770 765 Total number of cells 8 6 7 Analysis Point 1 Property Line Property Line Property Line Analysis Point 2 Rockfall Barrier Rockfall Barrier Rockfall Barrier Top starting zone (y-coordinate) 9080 9080 9080 Bottom starting zone (y-coordinate) 9040 9040 9040 Number of rocks simulated 500 500 500 Starting velocity (x) 1 ft/sec 1 ft/sec 1 ft/sec Starting velocity (y) -1 ft/sec -1 ft/sec -1 ft/sec Lithology of modeled rock Limestone Limestone Limestone Material density of modeled rock 165 Ib/ft3 165 Ib/ft3 165 Ib/ft3 Rock shape Spherical, Discoidal Spherical, Discoidal Spherical, Discoidal Rock dimension (diameter) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) Varied (4, 6, 8, 10) The primary rockfall source zone for the EVP is located at a bedrock outcrop of the Robinson Limestone about 1,240 to 1,280 feet upslope from the property boundary at an elevation of about 9040 to 9080. Rocks deposited on the slope below this source zone are blocky, slab -shaped and primarily comprised of gray limestone interbedded with layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Boulders comprised of sandstone and pebble conglomerate were also observed. A second source for rockfall is the glacial till which caps the slope above the Robinson Limestone cliff outcrop. Subrounded boulders of igneous and metamorphic composition are dislodged from the matrix of this deposit and roll downslope. The slope directly below the rockfall source zone is vegetated with aspen trees, tall shrubs, and grass. Further downslope from the source zone, the vegetation on the slope thins to aspen trees and grass. The material on the slope is soil, colluvial material that has been transported downslope, and scattered boulders and large slabs of bedrock which are slightly to deeply embedded in the soil. The slope is also incised by active drainages which were flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May 2017. 5.1 STUDY SECTION A Study Section A is located on the west side of the EVP (Figure 6). Study Section A spans a length of about 1,600 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 8). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 11 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended barrier system at this location is a reinforced, rigid wall with catchment area. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,300 feet. Table 3 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section A. Table 3. Study Section A — Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.2 STUDY SECTION B Study section B is located near the middle of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section B spans a length of about 1,650 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 9). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,260 feet. Table 4 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section B. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 12 OF 19 Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) 2 100, 9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 Steep cliff face, rockfall source Bedrock zone (Limestone, jointed) 3 110, 9040 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 209, 9000 0.65 0.18 40-45 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 500, 8750 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 645, 8650 0.65 0.16 20-30 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 7 1078, 8450 0.70 0.16 15-20 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 8 1310, 8376 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.2 STUDY SECTION B Study section B is located near the middle of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section B spans a length of about 1,650 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8380 to 9150 (Figure 9). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,260 feet. Table 4 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section B. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 12 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Table 4. Study Section B - Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.3 STUDY SECTION C Study section C is located near the east side of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section C spans a length of about 1,630 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8384 to 9150 (Figure 10). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,100 feet. Table 5 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section C. Table 5. Study Section C - Slope Profile Parameters Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) 2 92, 9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 Steep cliff face, rockfall source Bedrock 2 89,9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 zone (Limestone, jointed) Bedrock 3 100, 9040 0.65 0.18 30-35 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 868, 8550 0.65 0.16 20-25 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 1150, 8430 0.65 0.15 10-15 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 1356, 8382 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 5.3 STUDY SECTION C Study section C is located near the east side of the proposed development (Figure 6). Study Section C spans a length of about 1,630 feet along the slope and an elevation range from 8384 to 9150 (Figure 10). The slope is vegetated with aspen trees, shrubs, and grass, and covered in colluvium and limestone boulders that have broken from the steep cliff rockfall source zone at about elevation 8040 to 9080. Skyline understands that the intended type of barrier system at this location is an earthen berm with catchment area located upslope from the proposed buildings. The distance along the slope from the rockfall source zone to the property boundary is about 1,100 feet. Table 5 lists slope profile parameters used for Study Section C. Table 5. Study Section C - Slope Profile Parameters Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 13 OF 19 Approx. Slope Material Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Slope Surface Characteristics Designation Angle (°) 1 0,9150 0.70 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Glacial Till) Steep cliff face, rockfall source 2 89,9080 0.90 0.25 80-90 zone (Limestone, jointed) Bedrock 3 96,9040 0.75 0.18 30-40 Vegetated slope below rockfall Talus/Firm Soil source zone (Colluvium) 4 1 600, 8700 0.75 0.18 1 20-30 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 5 873, 8550 0.65 0.17 15-20 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 6 1140, 8450 0.65 0.15 10-15 Vegetated slope (Colluvium) Talus/Firm Soil 7 1386, 8384 0.90 0.60 FLAT Paved roadway (Fall Line Drive) Paving Rt: tangential coefficient; Rn: normal coefficient 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 13 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 5.4 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS Based on observations of the rockfall source zone and evidence on the ground surface along the slope, Skyline considers the design rock size for this site to be 8 to 10 feet in diameter. Two analysis points were analyzed for each study section: (AP1) located at the upslope property boundary and (AP2) located at the proposed barrier. For Study Sections A and B, the barrier is located at the upslope boundary. For Study Section C, the barrier is placed about 115 feet downslope from the property boundary (Figure 2). Estimates for the maximum, 98% and 95% cumulative probability statistical results are reported for velocity, kinetic energy (KE), and bounce height. Based on the CRSP results from the three study sections (summarized in Table 6), the maximum KE at the barrier locations should be considered 2,300 H (1,700,000 ft -Ib). The maximum bounce height should be considered 3.0 feet. A higher KE of about 3,160 H was estimated at AP1 for Study Section C, located at the property boundary about 115 feet upslope from where the barrier system is placed (AP2). This part of the slope along Study Section C ranges from 15 to 20 degrees and is a soil covered, vegetated slope with scattered boulders. The difference in estimated impact energies between AP1 and AP2 shows how the rockfall energy dissipates along this portion of the slope. Table 6. Rockfall Analysis Results SS AP Rock Size/Shape Rock Weight (lbs) Velocity (ft/see) max 98% 1 9S% Kinetic Energy (kJ) Bounce Height (ft) max 98% 9S% max 2 8' spherical 44,234 -no rocks past AP A 2 10' spherical 86,394 24.8 1 22.3 20.9 1,550 1,120 1,010 1.3 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 24.5 20.5 19.0 920 590 530 1.2 2 8' spherical 44,234 14.2 16.2 14.7 260 290 260 0.7 B 2 10' spherical 86,394 29.8 22.5 20.4 2,200 1,130 990 2.6 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 24.4 19.0 17.1 930 520 450 1.8 2 8' spherical 44,234 -no rocks past AP 1 10' spherical 86,394 37.0 30.2 27.8 3,160 1,980 1,750 3.3 C 2 10' spherical 86,394 31.8 23.6 21.3 2,300 1,230 1,070 2.4 2 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 32.7 27.1 24.8 1,690 1,000 890 3.0 SS -study section; kJ - kilojoules; AP -a nalys is point; Ibs -pounds; ft/sec -feet per second A 10 -foot high barrier placed at AP2 for each study section successfully stopped all 10 -foot spherical rocks in the CRSP model. A 10 -foot spherical rock will have higher estimated impact energies than a discoidal rock of similar dimension. Due to overtopping conditions that may occur and due to the size of boulders visible on the ground surface within the property limits (exceeding 10 feet in longest dimension), the recommended height of the barrier is 12 feet. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 14 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report addresses rockfall, debris flow, and existing landslide hazards for the EVP, and the potential impacts those geologic hazards have on the proposed development of the western 5.4 acres of the site. 6.1 ROCKFALL AND DEBRIS FLOW MITIGATION Rockfall and debris flow hazards can be mitigated at the site with a single barrier system. The mitigation system will reduce but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards in the area of the proposed development. Considerations for each hazard will have to be incorporated into structural and civil design of the system. The system will also act as a wildlife barrier, limiting pedestrian access to the open space beyond and separating human activity from existing wildlife habitats. Skyline understands the barrier system under consideration is an earthen berm and catchment ditch. An impact barrier wall with a smaller spatial footprint is also being considered for the western part of the site where there is limited space between the property boundary and edge of development. Refer to Figure 11 for typical sections of each barrier type. Recommendations for the barrier system include: a) Height = 12 feet. b) Designed to withstand the maximum impact energy estimated = 2,300 U c) The impact face of the barrier should be as vertical as possible. A 1:1 slope is assumed for the earthen berm option, although a steeper grade is preferred. A vertical face with minimal to positive batter on the upslope side is recommended for the impact barrier wall option. d) Ideal orientation of the barrier is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. If a perpendicular orientation is not possible, a staggered wall geometry may be considered. There shall be no gaps in the barrier system and staggered sections should have appropriate angles and lengths to accommodate coverage of site development. If the angle of the barrier diverges significantly from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, the system must be designed to accommodate for containment of rocks within the property boundaries. The orientation of the proposed barrier system is perpendicular to the fall line of the slope, except at the western end where the wall deviates about 10 to 15 degrees from the preferred orientation. It is not recommended for the barrier system to deviate more than 20 degrees from perpendicular to the fall line of the slope. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 15 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING e) Adequate space uphill of the barrier for catchment and accumulation of rockfall, and for routine access of equipment for removal of accumulated debris. This area should be graded flat. The actual width of the catchment depends on the size of the equipment to be used to remove accumulated debris and the angle of the slope above. The use of explosives or expansion grout can be used to break up large boulders that accumulate in the catchment, creating smaller fragments that can be removed. f) The catchment area must be routinely maintained, and accumulated debris removed. Debris should not be allowed to pile up and thus diminishing the effectiveness of the catchment. g) Surface drainage within the catchment should be controlled with adequate slope of the ground surface. Based on proposed development plans available at the time of this study, the ground surface of the catchment slopes down from east to west with a grade of 2%. Water should not be allowed to accumulate or pond in the catchment. Surface drainage and erosion management related to the deeply incised drainages which were flowing water during the Cesare site visits in May and June 2017 must be considered. h) An access road to the catchment area must be designed and maintained. i) Routine inspection of the barrier system must be enforced and will assist in determining the maintenance and repair needs of the system. Inspections should be conducted on a regular basis and immediately following a rockfall or debris flow event. Other construction, maintenance and inspection recommendations may be provided by the wall manufacturer. j) Observation and inspection by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer during construction and upon completion of the rockfall barrier system is recommended. For comparison, the CGS study completed after the 1997 rockfall event at Booth Falls and in support of the design of the additional MSE wall barriers constructed downslope from the initial rockfall earthen berm recommended a design impact energy of about 6,800 kJ (5,000,000 ft -lbs) at an AP about 30 feet upslope from existing structures. The design rock size used by the CGS was about 6 to 7 feet in diameter. CGS recommended a design height of no less than 12 feet, with a low capacity rockfall fence at the top of the wall. Photographs 1 and 2 show one part of this wall system, taken during the winter months of 2017. Although the height of the wall was not measured, it is apparent from the photographs that the wall is about 10 feet high (assuming each block is 6 inches high) with a chain link fence on top to stop smaller rocks. Photographs 3 and 4 show the earthen berm upslope from Booth Falls. The slopes of this berm are steep and between 10 to 15 feet high. The crest is narrow and about 1 foot wide. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 16 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Photograph 1. Existing rockfall impact barrier wall located about 50 feet upslope from existing Booth Falls residences. This system is about 10 feet high, with an additional low capacity, chain link fence at the top. (photo courtesy of Nathan Thompson, GSI) I Photograph 2. Sideview of the existing rockfall impact barrier wall located upslope from Booth Falls. (Photo courtesy of Nathan Thompson, GSI) Photograph 3. Existing rockfall berm upslope from Booth Falls. Photograph was taken while standing on the crest of the berm, looking east. Interstate 70 is visible in the background. Photograph 4. Existing rockfall berm and catchment system upslope from Booth Falls, looking west. Photograph was taken while standing in the catchment area near the east end. 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 17 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING 6.2 EXISTING LANDSLIDE The existing landslide exhibits geomorphic evidence of past movement. Features such as a detachment zone upslope, over -steepened toe and flank areas, and hummocky topography are visible on the ground surface and in the LiDAR imagery (Figures 5 through 7). Evidence of recent movement such as tension cracks, fresh scarp exposures, and other features were not observed. As noted by previous authors (Kellogg and others, 2003; 2011), large landslides in the Gore Creek Valley are generally ancient and inactive. Ground modifications and development around these ancient landslides will increase the potential for re -activation and re -mobilization of the landslide mass, as is the case on 1-70 about 1.5 miles west of the EVP. Based on the proposed development plan made available to Skyline at the time of this report, development and planned structures are limited to 5.4 acres on the west side of the EVP. Planned development extends up to the limits of the steep western flank of the landslide extents as delineated from LiDAR imagery and surface topography. Skyline recommends avoiding development within or near the mapped extents of the landslide. Site improvements and regrading near the toe of the landslide may re -activate slope movement and should be avoided. Landslide extents have not been verified with subsurface exploration and the geomorphic expression of the landslide has been smoothed with time and erosive processes. Thus, the landslide extents presented in this report are approximate. Skyline recommends implementing a slope monitoring program during construction or grading activities near the landslide. If development within the extents of the landslide is planned, additional geological and geotechnical analysis should be performed to further characterize the landslide and the potential impact the proposed development would have on slope stability. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The purpose of this report is to provide a geologic hazard analysis as it relates to rockfall, debris flows, and the existing landslide for the development of the western 5.4 acres of the East Vail Parcel located in Vail, Colorado. The professional judgments and conclusions presented in this report meet the standard of care for our profession. This geologic hazard analysis is based on review of available literature and published geologic and topographic maps, an understanding of geologic conditions and processes in the project area, and experience with similar conditions. Variations in geologic conditions can and do occur. Subsurface exploration was not included in the scope of this study and snow cover prevented field verification of ground surface conditions along study sections. There is a potential for variations in the geologic conditions presented in this report. These variations, if present, may be enough to necessitate modifications to this report. If unexpected, adverse, or differing conditions are 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 18 OF 19 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING encountered during geotechnical investigations or construction, Skyline should be notified for additional review and potential modification to the conclusions and recommendations herein. 8.0 REFERENCES Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., 1984, Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Analysis, prepared for the Town of Vail. Cesare, Inc., June 2017, Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel, Vail, Colorado, prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company. Colorado Geological Survey, Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums, and Proposed Mitigation, prepared for the Town of Vail, Colorado, undated. Kellogg, K.S., Bryant, B., Redsteer, M.H., 2003, Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2375, version 1.1. Kellogg, K.S., Shroba, R.R., Premo, W.R., Bryant, B., 2011, Geologic Map of the Eastern Half of Vail 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3170. Schmueser and Associates, Inc., 1984, Rockfall Study—Town of Vail, prepared for Stan Berryman, Public Works Director, Town of Vail. Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists, August 16, 1982, Geologic Hazards Investigation and Subdivision Evaluation, Highland Park Subdivision, Highland Meadows Subdivisions, and Vail Village West, Filings 1 and 2, West Vail, Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Please contact Skyline if you have any questions or comments regarding the information provided in this report. Sincerely, SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Report Prepared By: Golden, Colorado www.skylinegeoscience.com r c r�5_ Julia M. Frazier, P.G. I Owner 18105 EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS I PAGE 19 OF 19 East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel (+/- 23.3 acres) ❑ Area to be developed (+/- 5.4 acres) Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 500 1000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N FIGURE 1 Site Location SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING C �• a. I I'lull 0 120 240 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 2 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 01.30.2019 Proposed Development GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING � 11 I jt i 1 I I 1 � f. UST OF MAP UNITS �� I �' 11 -Wale Prs 1 i- P nl -PnUl Ur. -- r.--@rnl i P I �p� — T (1t 1 ager otb, d.Lo ao L •" �� _ A ��.'�, o v<�� w _ Of AU.. A�� om�m 1o�m �aR�ro DIP 1- 0 \A., O'nil / of) a -- Jxg✓�J ' A , F , of names Nh 1Ea., U-- q ��\ Di.r a a s Pie eo c. 1 ay C D SCALE 7'.24000 0 1 .5 0 (MILEel fl 11[y.'f1 1 KILOMETER -AORNvc�E nan_n �� aom c a Irvuexm<v eHonw.,s�nnaimwaeoua,wwoLen CONTOUF INTEPVAL40FEE NATIONAL GEOOEIICVEMICA_ DATUM CF 192] Map Source'.K lIo andoh—,2003 yren�maraPlt Q E Vail Workforce H—u Pa1(+/ 23 3acre) Project No: 28205 Project Name: East Vcil Parcel FIGURE SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Geologic Map GEOLOGICAL CNSULrwG Date: 01.2 2019 Slope Gradient Scale: GO -5 06- 10 [] 11 -20 ©21-30 031 -40 X41-86 y.. Basemap: Topoga hyand slope grad—t d --d from Li DAR. E- Va it Workforce Housing Parcel ---- Appro,—, landslide E-nt, 600 1200 A -dyS—ona APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 6 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 01.25.2019 Slope Map and Landslide Extents GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING /. 4— 1 � 1i - _ J - - aw•. 11 r Creek - 4 � Pitkin Creek Townhomes B--, L,DARg.... d sur face. East Vail Workforce Hou sin g Parcel- part[, b, developed(+/-5.4acres) A lao dslld, header ,down d,,ppd, detaI—tarea. Areal down d,,pped area with l",, lar[opo phy. N �•G ---- Approximate landslide EMents Area3- dislocated,sem, t-blockchathas moveddownslope f,—they , ,f,rigin, h,—,ky-d uneven 0 rj00 1000 — ApproximateExtents, publish ed landslide deposit (Kelloggand oth ers, 2003) top phy. Area 4-Ianddhd, Flank, over -steepened slope. A-5-la,ddhdateepened l,p,. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 7 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Landslide Map GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.31.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 33- ,, ----Steep cliff face 9050 Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member Roclffall source zone Cell 1 9000 2 e 8950 Cell 3 •syr . _ ,3/' 4° 89001 8850 Cell 4 8800 Slope Angle =40-45-� 8750 8700 3° 8650 I 8600 2 ° Cell 5 8550 Slope Angle = 30-35 2 ° Buried utility easement 8500 Property Line 21 ° ELEV 8398 8450 Cell 6 Slope Angle =20-30 Fall Line Drive 1 ° [8400 Cell 7 8350 Slope Angle =15-20 Cell o Foo 200 APPROXIMATESCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE Study Section A GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.25.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 ,,----Steep c Ift face 9050 Mlnturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member Rockfall source one Cell 1 9000 2 _ 3I o / z 8950 8900 8850 Cell 3 Slope Angle = 30-35 8800 8750 8700 8650 ipo 8600 8550 2 Buried utility easement 8500 roperty Line 2I ELEV 8421 8450 Cell 4 Fall Line Drive 8400 Slope Angle = 20-25 1 8350 Cell 5 Slope Angle = 10-15 Cell 6 0 loo 20C APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name East Vail Parcel FIGURE Study Section B GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Date: 01.25.2019 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9100 Cell ,, -----Steep cliffface 9050 Minturn Formation, Robinson Limestone Member -- Rockfall source one 9000 2 f. 8950 z 8900 3 ° 8850 Cell 3 Slope Angle =30-40 8800 8750 8700 8650 8600 2 ° Property Line 8550 ELEV 8484 8500 Cell 4 Slope Angle =20-30 1 ° 8450 Fall Line Drive 8400 Cell 5 Slope Angle =l5-20 Cell 6 8350 Slope Angle =10-15 Ce -LEE 200 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ProjectNo: 18105 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 10 Study Section C GEOLOGICAL CONSULT NG Date: 01.25.2019 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 3.0 Earthen berm approximate 1:1 slope 12.0 .0 A. Earthen Berm 40.0 Access and Existing ground surface accumulation area 12.0 Rockfall wall 12.0 I —I-6.0 15.0 B. Structural Wall Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel Date: 01.25.2019 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 11 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Typical Sections - Rockfall Barriers GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 5b SKYLINE GEOSCIFNCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Memorandurn Subject: East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan Date: May 24, 2019 To: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development From: Julia Frazier, Skyline Geoscience Skyline Geoscience (Skyline) has reviewed the Grading and Drainage Plan (Plan) by Alpine Engineering, Inc. (Alpine) dated May 17, 2019. This Plan is an update from the Preliminary Grading Plan by Alpine dated January 25, 2019. The Plan shows a 12 -foot high earthen rockfall barrier with a IV: IH slope on either side of the crest, spanning a length of about 620 feet and located upslope from the proposed structures (Figure 1). The location of the berm on the east end of its length has been relocated upslope about 85 to 95 feet from the location previously analyzed for the Geologic Hazard Analysis (original report; February 12, 2019). The Plan also shows changes in the number and location of residential structures, and site grading and drainage. The Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) analysis for Study Section C has been updated to reflect the relocation of the barrier. Moving the barrier upslope is moving it closer to the rockfall source. The analysis point (AP) is associated with the location of the crest of the proposed barrier. Slope profile parameters were not changed from those stated in the original report. Study Section C was analyzed: 1) in the natural, current condition without a barrier, and 2) with the barrier placed at the location shown on the Plan. The results for the natural condition analysis are reported in Table 1. The maximum estimated values and the 95% and 98% statistical cumulative probability values are reported for velocity, impact energy, and bounce height. Table 1. Rockfall Analysis Results Study Section C Rock Size/Shape Rock Weight (Ibs) Velocity (ft/sec) Kinetic Energy (kJ) Bounce Height (ft) max 98% 95% max 98% 95% max 8' spherical 44,234 25.3 21.7 19.7 730 500 450 1.7 10' spherical 86,394 36.8 28.3 25.7 3,000 1,700 1,500 3.5 10'x4' discoidal 51,836 37.1 26.4 24.1 2,100 1 980 860 3.2 SS = study section; kJ = kilojoules; AP =analysis point; lbs =pounds; ft/sec =feet per second EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS —REVIEW OF UPDATED SITE PLAN I Page 1 of 2 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING A 10 -foot high barrier placed at the location shown on the Plan for Study Section C stopped all 10 -foot spherical rocks in the CRSP model. Due to overtopping conditions that may occur and due to the size of boulders observed on the ground surface within the property limits, the recommended height of the rockfall barrier is 12 feet (as shown on Figure 1). Based on the results of the CRSP analysis for a spherical, 10 -foot diameter limestone rock, the barrier should be designed and constructed to withstand the maximum estimated impact energy of 3,000 kJ (about 2,200,000 ft -lbs), velocity of 36.8 ft/sec, and bounce height of 3.5 ft. These values have increased from those reported in the original report for Study Section C at the location of the proposed berm. Refer to the original report for other recommendations related to rockfall berm system and catchment area construction, maintenance and access. Skyline and Cesare, Inc. (Cesare) should be contacted for additional consultation and review if other rockfall barrier systems are considered or if changes are made to the Plan after the date of this memorandum. Slope stability was not included in the scope of this study. Skyline understands that a geotechnical investigation by Cesare is planned for the summer of 2019 and that slope stability and other geotechnical considerations will be addressed at that time by that firm. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this review and update to the geologic hazard analysis for the East Vail Parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Please contact Skyline if you have any questions or comments regarding the information provided in this memorandum. Sincerely, SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Golden, Colorado www.skylinegeoscience.com Prepared By: Julia M. Frazier, P.G. I Owner EAST VAIL PARCEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD ANALYSIS — REVIEW OF UPDATED SITE PLAN I Page 2 of 2 rest of Rockfall Berm — – -- _ – „- �1 z - v41 h A (Note: Study Section C extends upslope to the rockfall source area) 0 120 240 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N Project No: 18105 Project Name: East Vail Parcel FIGURE 1 SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE Date: 05.23.2019 Proposed Development GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING EMS Development Application - Exhibit 5c CESARE, INC. Geolechnicaf Engineers & Cons[rncdon Afalerials Con.whann ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY East Vail Parcel Vail, Colorado Y wry { �..:S .4 A Report Prepared for: Mr. Kevin Hopkins Vail Resorts Development Company PO Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Project No. 17.5029 June 19, 2017 7108 South Alton Way, Building B Centennial, Colorado 80112 www.cesareinc.com Phone 303-220-0300 1 Fax 303-220-0442 4F- � CESARE, INC. Geolechxicaf Engineers & Cous[ruc7inu Afaleriats Cansullaun ROCKFALL HAZARD STUDY East Vail Parcel Vail, Colorado Report Prepared for: Mr. Kevin Hopkins Vail Resorts Development Company PO Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Project No. 17.5029 June 19, 2017 Report Prepared by: Julia M. Frazier, P.G. Senior Geologist 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 CESARE, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3 2. SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................................ 3 3. SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................... 3 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING................................................................................................................ 11 4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY............................................................................................................... 11 4.2 SITE GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 12 4.2.1 ARTIFICIAL FILL (AF)....................................................................................................... 12 4.2.2 COLLUVIUM (QC)............................................................................................................. 12 4.2.3 LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS(QLS)............................................................................................. 12 4.2.4 PINEDALE TILL (QTP)....................................................................................................... 12 Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr)....................................................................................... 13 LowerMember (Pml)............................................................................................................ 13 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS............................................................................................................... 14 5.1 ROCKFALL............................................................................................................................... 16 5.2 LANDSLIDE............................................................................................................................. 16 6. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 18 6.1 ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION...................................................................................................... 18 6.2 ROCKFALL MODELING - CRSP ANALYSIS.................................................................................... 24 6.3 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS................................................................................................. 26 6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS......................................................................... 26 7. LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAPPING............................................................................................... 27 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 28 8.1 ROCKFALL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................... 28 8.1.1 PLACEMENT OF THE ROCKFALL CATCHMENT STRUCTURE ................................................... 28 8.2 LANDSLIDE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................. 29 8.3 DEBRIS FLOW CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................. 30 9. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 30 TABLES AND DIAGRAMS DIAGRAM 1. Cross Section D-D'.................................................................................................. 14 TABLE 1. CRSP Simulation Parameters....................................................................................... 25 TABLE 2. Slope Profile Parameters.............................................................................................. 25 TABLE 3. Summary of Rockfall Analysis Results......................................................................... 26 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 1 CESARE, INC. FIGURES SITE LOCATION MAP........................................................................................................ FIGURE 1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP.......................................................................................................... FIGURE 2 OFFICIAL ROCKFALL HAZARD MAP, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .................................... FIGURE 3 OFFICIAL DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD MAP, TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO .............................. FIGURE 4 GEOLOGICMAP................................................................................................................. FIGURE 5 LEGEND FOR FIGURE 5 GEOLOGIC MAP........................................................................... FIGURE 6 LANDSLIDE EXTENTS MAP................................................................................................ FIGURE 7 STUDY SECTIONS MAP..................................................................................................... FIGURE 8 ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION.............................................................................................. FIGURE 9 LANDSLIDE STUDY SECTION.......................................................................................... FIGURE 10 SLOPEMAP..................................................................................................................... FIGURE 11 APPENDIX REFERENCES.................................................................................................................APPENDIX A ROCKFALL HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS CONDOMINIUMS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION (COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY).......................................................APPENDIX B 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 CESARE, INC. 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a rockfall hazard study for an undeveloped lot located on the east side of Vail, Colorado and owned by the Vail Resorts Development Company (Vail Resorts). It is Cesare, Inc.'s (Cesare's) understanding that a preliminary rockfall hazard analysis is desired prior to potential development of the western portion of this site, along with other geologic hazards which may have a significant impact on the proposed development. The site is located directly north of the I-70 East Vail interchange. Geologic hazards, such as rockfall, debris flow, and avalanche are recognized by the Town of Vail and delineated in the project area. The rockfall hazard has been identified and addressed on the neighboring development to the west (Booth Falls Mountain Homes), with multiple existing catchment structures. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of services for this rockfall hazard study generally included: 1. Review of available information, including published geologic maps, aerial photography, and readily available studies performed on nearby sites. 2. Site reconnaissance to verify geologic and geologic hazard conditions on and upslope from the subject site, with a focus on rockfall. This involved mapping the geology and geologic hazards by traversing the site on foot, and through photography and video of the site using an unmanned aircraft system (drone). 3. Modeling of the rockfall hazard potential using a critical cross section through the project site and input into the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP). 4. Preparation of this report presenting our findings and preliminary recommendations relative to the rockfall hazards potentially impacting the site, including conceptual techniques that might be used to remediate and reduce the rockfall hazard. Also included in this report are applicable figures, tables, and cross sections. 3. SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located directly north of the I-70 East Vail interchange on the north side of Fall Line Drive (Figure 1). Pitkin Creek Townhomes (formerly named Falls at Vail) is located immediately adjacent to the site in the southeast corner, and Booth Falls Mountain Homes (Booth Falls) and Vail Mountain School are located on a neighboring property to the west-northwest. The site is rectangular in shape and is located in the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 4 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Eagle County, Colorado. The approximate center of the property is situated at latitude 390 3846" N and longitude -1060 18' 25" W. Cesare performed site reconnaissance to characterize and map the geologic and geologic hazard conditions during May 2017. The site is currently undeveloped with a variably sloping ground surface ranging from about 7 to over 45 degrees (Figure 2). The elevation ranges from about 8375 feet in the west side of the site to about 8940 feet in the northeast corner, an elevation change of about 565 feet across the site. The site is bound by undeveloped National Forest Service land to the north, northwest, and east. Fall Line Drive and the I-70 Frontage Road bound the site along the southern edge. Pitkin Creek forms a deeply incised drainage immediately to the east of the eastern site boundary. Booth Creek, also deeply incised, is located about 3,200 feet to the northwest of the site. Gore Creek is located on the opposite side of I-70, about 580 feet to the 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 3 CESARE, INC. south at closest approach. A retaining wall borders the site along Fall Line Drive near the East Vail I-70 off ramp in the area of the shuttle stop. Design or construction details for this retaining wall were not available at the time of this study. Based on site observations, this retaining wall is constructed of wood cribbage, with gravel placed directly behind the wood facing. The wall appears to generally be in good condition, with one exception near the east end where the wall has bulged out. An unpaved, single track road traverses the site along the edge that borders Fall Line Drive and is barely visible in some historic aerial photographs. Multiple utility service manholes were observed along this single track road and the manhole covers are labeled with Alelectric utility". Vegetative cover at the site includes grasses, shrubs, and aspen trees. The western part of the site and the area upslope of the western part of the site are incised with a network of drainages which contained flowing water at the time of our site visits. This western area is generally more densely vegetated with low shrubs and aspen trees than other parts of the site and upslope areas. Refer to Photographs 1 through 8 for views of these onsite features. .; _ q •4. L AOL .Lir{ .... .....-�„� Vis.. A Photograph 1. View of the project site. Photograph taken from the eastbound lane of I-70 looking east across the site. The photograph shows the relatively steep slope of the site and the rock outcrops present upslope from the site. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 4 Photograph 2. View of retaining wall located along edge of site that borders Fall Line Drive. Town of Vail shuttle stop is visible in the left side of the photograph. CESARE, INC. �Y- ���5 _ k- ` - •� SSV. -.a � u Photograph 3. View of distressed part of the retaining wall along the edge of the site that borders Fall Line Drive. The slope rises steeply upward to the north at the top of the wall. This photograph was taken near the east end of the wall. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 5 CESARE, INC. Li v- _ 1 - j ! • - _ - 0 L N 0) s rt` �L�► Ol N To '.,0) 46 V L a = +J O, V (n - - > OL N _ O L go o 4U - U) L Q% _ _ L U L - U) 2 V N r� o41 O • -0 l-- > U * V V fo _ _ _ - '- •� _ +J a) (n L 0 At •s. i = V •0 i 1 _ U `0 Q N - O 46 Al > 0 co Q 4- N A CL 4- 0 O 0 4- O 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 6 CESARE, INC. Photograph 5. View of limestone boulders which have come to rest near the base of the slope in the western part of the site. Boulders are about 3 to 4 feet in longest dimension, embedded in the soil, surrounded by mature vegetation, and show lichen on the surface. A' -:•W 12 ,4. ,. Photograph 6. View of large sized limestone boulder located in the southern area of the site. Boulder measures about 21 feet long by 16 feet wide by 6 feet high. A survey marker has been placed on this boulder (Eagle County Survey Control, 1998). 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 7 CESARE, INC. Photograph 7. View of the western part of the site. Note the dense vegetative cover, flowing water, and exposed bedrock outcrops near the top of the slope. Photograph 8. View of flowing water in the western part of the site. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 8 _ _ e:1••L+"• _ �` gra t` t'7 •� f-..� 444••• .ti .. Z 9a • i ; . dr • .. ile ..� ll r u s+ I`• Photograph 7. View of the western part of the site. Note the dense vegetative cover, flowing water, and exposed bedrock outcrops near the top of the slope. Photograph 8. View of flowing water in the western part of the site. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 8 CESARE, INC. Rock outcrops are present upslope from the site and are rockfall source zones which have the potential to impact the site and future planned development. Rockfall is a recognized hazard in the site area, as depicted on the "Official Rockfall Hazard Map" for the Town of Vail (Figure 3). A significantly sized rockfall catchment berm and basin, located about 1,300 feet to the northwest at closest approach, has been constructed to reduce the rockfall hazard above the Booth Falls development. It is Cesare's understanding that this consists of an earthen berm ranging in height from about 10 to 15 feet, and an upslope catchment area spanning about 20 feet where the natural slope has been laid back. An access road leading up to the catchment area begins at Fall Line Drive near the western point of the project site. Additional rockfall remediation structures are located upslope from Booth Falls Court and are visible in the aerial imagery. These rockfall remediation features are shown in Photographs 9 through 11. Debris flows are also a recognized geologic hazard for the area, as shown on the "Official Debris Flow Hazard Map" for the Town of Vail (Figure 4). As shown on Figure 4, the site is not within a debris flow hazard zone, although moderate and high hazard areas are delineated along Pitkin Creek to the east-southeast of the site. Photograph 9. Google Earth image of Booth Falls Mountain Homes to the west of the project site. Examples of existing rockfall remediation structures are labeled. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 9 CESARE, INC. ' �r %• y 4 � S - WW •'�-•T�''�. '�.i. �'���'.-- - - .i:•: y •rte • � _ ,.� .�°� -� •..: � �,�, _�;'t; .. � �_�;.}.,. , :�• 7 F, r •��°` . . G:;ter'i gyp.. N, i;e � !�.�.•:-_ :.. .�y .�:w•;,.:�` .i � .! C{...: � ' V.'. .t •'.tp- _.Siler. ' i- Nbi y,.• '�; `n"'fie 'a' � r ! - . .i Photograph 10. View of rock -fall catchment berm and basin, upslope from Booth Falls Mountain Homes. View looking west toward Booth Creek. The berm is between 10 and 15 feet high, and the ditch is about 20 feet from crest of berm to backslope. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 10 CESARE, INC. Photograph 11. View of rock -fall catchment berm and basin upslope from Booth Falls Subdivision. View looking east toward the project site. 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING 4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is included in the Southern Rocky Mountain physiographic province in an alpine setting with elevations ranging from 8000 to 9000 feet. The site is located along the western flank of the Gore Range, a northwest -southeast trending mountain range situated in north -central Colorado. The Gore Range is separated from the Front Range Mountains to the east by the Blue River Valley and Williams Range thrust zone. The core of the Gore Range is comprised of crystalline basement rock uplifted during the Laramide mountain building event (orogeny) about 70 to 50 million years ago (Ma). The Laramide orogeny also uplifted thick sequences of sedimentary units deposited during the occupation of an inland sea in parts of Colorado. The sedimentary units are comprised of shale, claystone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone. The Gore fault is located about 500 feet northeast of the site at closest approach and is not considered active (Figures 5 and 6). The Gore fault is characterized as a zone of high angle reverse faults. These faults have had at least five episodes of movement that span from Precambrian (older than 540 Ma) to late Oligocene and younger (about 28 Ma), although most of the displacement likely took place during the Laramide orogeny (Kellogg and others, 2011). A 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 11 CESARE, INC. gentle regional tilt of 5 to 15 degrees down to the south-southwest, characterizing the sedimentary bedrock in the site vicinity, is interrupted adjacent to the Gore fault. Beds of the Minturn Formation are steeply dipping and overturned where located close to the Gore fault, as is the case upslope and to the northeast of the site. 4.2 SITE GEOLOGY The site is underlain by surficial units comprised of artificial fill, colluvium, landslide deposits, and till of the Pinedale glaciation (Figure 5 Geologic Map). The bedrock underlying the site is mapped as Minturn Formation (Kellogg and others, 2003; Kellogg and others 2011). Artificial fill is associated with the construction of Fall Line Road along the southern border of the site and likely with the unpaved, single track road (with buried utilities) in the southwest part of the site. A wedge of colluvium is mapped mid -slope in the western half of the site, however, the colluvium was actually observed to completely cover the site and largely obscure bedrock outcrops. The eastern half of the site is predominantly landslide deposit and Pinedale Till underlies the southeastern corner of the site. Bedrock of the Minturn Formation underlies the surficial deposits at the site. Descriptions of these units are described below, from youngest to oldest. Refer to Diagram 1 for a geologic cross section near the site. 4.2.1 Artificial Fill (afi) Artificial fill is associated with the ground modifications that have occurred within and adjacent to the site boundaries. Based on site observations, artificial fill is likely associated with the single track utility road in the southwestern part of the site, construction of Fall Line Drive, and construction of the shuttle stop and retaining wall in the southeast part of the site. 4.2.2 Colluvium (Qc) Colluvial deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene; 126,000 years ago to present) cover most of the slope in the site area based on site observations. Colluvium is characterized as unconsolidated, generally non -stratified deposits mantling slopes less than 50 degrees. Colluvial deposits are comprised of pebble, cobble, and boulder sized rock and fine grained material mixed together by downslope movement. Colluvium is typically less than about 30 to 45 feet thick. 4.2.3 Landslide Deposits (Qls) Landslide deposits (Holocene and upper Pleistocene; 126,000 years ago to present) underlie most of the eastern half of the site. Kellogg and others (2003) characterize these mapped deposits as a range of chaotically arranged debris to intact slump blocks of bedrock. The middle member of the Minturn formation (Pmm) is notably susceptible to landsliding, although slope failures can occur in most sedimentary units where over steepening of the ground surface has destabilized slopes. Largescale landslide deposits may be up to about 120 feet thick. 4.2.4 Pinedale Till (Qtp) Glacial till of Pinedale age (upper Pleistocene; 126,000 to 11,000 years ago) underlies the southeast corner of the site and also a majority of the slopes to the east-southeast, and the area upslope to the north of the site (in part). Pinedale Till is characterized as unsorted, unstratified, and boulder. It tends to form hummocky topography with common depressions and small ponds. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 12 CESARE, INC. Till deposits were observed upslope from the site and were bouldery (sedimentary and igneous composition) and poorly sorted. This unit has been mapped as high as 900 feet above the present elevation of Gore Creek, with thickness up to about 90 feet. 4.2.5 Minturn Formation The Minturn Formation (middle Pennsylvanian; 315 to 307 Ma) underlies the entire site and general vicinity. This unit is generally comprised of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, claystone, shale, and stratigraphically distinct layers of limestone and dolomite. The Minturn Formation is divided into multiple units, two of which directly underlie the site: Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr) Marine limestone and dolomitic limestone, gray to yellow gray, fine to medium grained, and locally contains fossils. Comprised of four separate sequences (each about 60 feet thick) of limestone interbedded with pinkish tan, light tan, cross bedded, mica rich sandstone and grayish pink sandy siltstone and shale. The sandstone, siltstone, and shale layers weather in rounded forms, and the limestone and dolomite beds weather in relatively angular forms. Outcrops of the Robinson Limestone member are visible in the steep cliffs northwest and are also exposed directly upslope from the site. One large boulder dislocated from upslope and came to rest near the base of the slope along Fall Line Drive is sandstone containing purple gray coral, possibly representative of a reef facies within the Robinson Limestone member. The Robinson Limestone member is about 360 feet thick north of Gore Creek. Lower Member (Pml) Conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale, pinkish gray, gray brown, gray green, mottled maroon, and gray green. The Lower member may contain clasts of Proterozoic age granite (2,500 to 541 Ma). This unit is generally obscured by vegetation onsite and outcrops were not identified during our site visits. The Lower member of the Minturn Formation can be up to about 1,200 feet. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 13 CESARE, INC. DIAGRAM 1. Cross Section D -D' D D' fliF F£Er 12010 approximate downslope approximate upsbpe 12AD PPM extent of site extent of site 11.000 Gn Pf,i GORE FAUN SYSTEM 11.080 ..-....---------------' % 10.000 r _ _ _ _- Qtb 10 000 mwq Pmm 9=0 iprnr Ga ' --- 9.1.1108 9.(700 8.000 7=0 SonY�tfunwr[rG�l dapoart5 ifal Shown 7'000 OR I Alluvium (Holocene) :. Colluvium (Holocene and upper Pleistocene) Qtp Pinedale Till (upper Pleistocene) Qtb Bull Lake Till (middle Pleistocene) FiPu1 Manxm Formation (Lower Permian to Middle Pennsylvanian) �m Minlurn Forlr7atinn, smdi(feranlialed (MFddle Pennsylvanian) Pmf Jacque Mountain Limestone Member Lipper sandstone and conglomerate member �mwq While Quail Lim"lune Member AMM Middle member 1p01111 Individual limestone bed Prnr Robinson Limestone Member rl Individual limestone bed Lower member 4�mis Individual lirnestolle IMI Cross Creek Granite S. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Cross section D -D' excerpted from the Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle (Kellogg and others, 2003). This cross section is located immediately east of the project site and schematically depicts the surface and subsurface geologic conditions in the site area. The current study focused on the geologic hazard related specifically to slope stability, including rockfall and landslides in particular. Rockfall was analyzed using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) for one study section located on the west side of the site where development is most likely (per client communication). The landslide hazard was characterized primarily through review of published maps and site reconnaissance to verify the nature, extents and evidence of recent movement. Debris flows are a significant potential hazard in the site vicinity, although debris flow susceptibility has not been determined for Vail or Summit County to date. The site is not included in the Official Debris Flow Hazard Map for the Town of Vail, although Pitkin Creek located near the southeast corner of the site is considered to have moderate to high hazard potential. One debris flow located on the east -facing slope of Booth Creek (about 3,700 feet from the western site boundary) and visible from the site is shown in Photograph 12. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 14 CESARE, INC. Photograph 12. View looking west toward Booth Creek. The project site is located beyond the trees in the right side of the photograph. Features are labeled. Debris flows and rockfalls have damaged buildings in the Gore Creek area since development increased in the 1960's. Debris flows can be triggered by intense summer rainstorms or rapid melting of deep snowpack. Debris flows generally form on fan deposits, such as those composed of glacial till. Freeze -thaw cycles in the spring tend to pry rocks loose, resulting in rockfalls of varying magnitude and runout distance. The rockfall hazard is also related to a combination of weak shale beds between harder sandstone and limestone beds, joints, and a regional bedrock dip toward the valley. Large boulders from cliffs comprised of the Robinson Limestone member of the Minturn Formation fell and damaged several residences in the Booth Falls subdivision in the 1980's. As a result, the homeowners and Town of Vail created a Geologic Hazards Abatement District (GHAD) which aided in construction of a rockfall catchment ditch and berm that has generally proven to be an effective protection measure (shown in Photographs 9 through 12). The exception would include the event in 1997 when a large scale rockfall skirted around the western end of the catchment structure, rolling downslope, and damaging structures below. This event resulted in the construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls to add protection for the downslope condominiums (some of which were not included in the original GHAD). A report issued by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS; undated) summarizes the event: 'At 11:20 p.m., a ledge of Minturn Formation limestone at the highest exposed outcrop of the upper cliff, just below the exposure of glacial t111, failed similarly to that shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A. The ledge dimensions that detached and toppled is roughly 20' x 8' x 8: As it fell, it impacted and broke additional rock blocks from outcrops below. The rock mass broke apart as it tumbled down the cliff. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 15 CESARE, INC. As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that the ,Hath of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they came to rest. [..] Approximately one third of the swath of rolling rocks were retained by the ditch and berm. [..] The remaining two-thirds of the event came to rest, scattered around the condominiums " 5.1 ROCKFALL Rockfall is a potential hazard for the site and poses a risk to the property. Rockfall is the fastest category of slope movement and is common in mountainous terrain near cliffs of broken, jointed, or faulted rock, on steep slopes comprised of rocky material, or where cliff ledges are undercut by erosion or human activity. Stability of a rock mass is generally influenced by the underlying support provided to that rock mass and the structural nature of the rock, including the orientation and spacing of discontinuities. After a rock dislocates from a rock mass, the controlling factors for how far that rock will travel downslope include characteristics of the falling rock (composition, size, and shape), characteristics of the slope (form, length, and angle), the presence or absence of obstructions on the slope, and the height of the initial fall. The rocks exposed upslope from the project site are comprised of the Robinson Limestone member of the Minturn Formation. The rock exposures contain fractures and thin layers of siltstone and shale. As time passes, cracks can be enlarged by weathering of the rock, accumulation of soil or vegetation growth, and the forces associated with freezing -thawing of moisture within the cracks. 5.2 LANDSLIDE Landslide deposits in the area occur on unstable slopes typically underlain by Minturn Formation shale, siltstone, claystone, or glacial till, and are largely considered inactive. The extents of a large landslide onsite were mapped during field visits, and the published boundaries were verified and refined using available light detection and ranging data (LiDAR). Refer to Figure 7 for the approximate landslide extents mapped for this study. Geomorphic features across the landslide have been masked by heavy vegetative cover, and obscured and smoothed by natural processes. The block sliding mechanism responsible for parts of the landslide mass enable large, relatively intact bedrock masses to slide downslope. These masses may appear to be in-place, when in fact they have moved downslope from their original position. Based on the high level of detail offered by the LiDAR view, Cesare has confidence in the mapped extents of the landslide as depicted in Figure 7. The toe of the mapped landslide deposit is abruptly cut off by Fall Line Drive. The downslope extents and western flank of the landslide are steep and form a recognizable break in slope shown on the topographic map (Figure 2) and on the LiDAR (Figure 7). Photograph 13 is a view of the landslide toe and western flank, looking eastward. The retaining wall built near the Town of Vail shuttle stop is about 10 feet high and the slope above the top of wall is relatively steep (30 degrees or greater). According to Kellogg and others (2011), a large landslide was activated on the north side of I-70 due to undercutting from highway construction. The landslide is located about 1.5 miles west of the project site on I-70, involves the Minturn Formation (same unit that 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 16 CESARE, INC. underlies the subject site), and is failing by combination of shallow earth sliding and deep rotational movement. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 17 `��n� '- --i; j �' - �� .. �.•.. .ata:'- F S■. -cam .- h:l.?"�� , , Photograph 13. View looking eastward from the western flank of the landslide toe. The ground surface is relatively steep along the toe and flanks of the slide mass, visible in the photograph. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 17 CESARE, INC. 6. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS 6.1 ROCKFALL STUDY SECTION Cesare analyzed one rockfall study section through the west part of the site (Figure 8). The location of this rockfall study section is representative of the slope on the west side and passes through the area of the project site most likely to be developed in the future. The rockfall study section is considered a reasonable representation of the slope in the western part of the site. The section profile was derived from topographic maps available through the USGS, the Town of Vail, and a topographic map for a portion of the western part of the site provided by the client. The rockfall study section is depicted on Figure 9 and shown in Photographs 14 and 15. - ._ - - tea. _ �� s-• ' J y 01 LL _ T .61 1 0. Y r t .} - IL ar F r q� at: Photograph 14. View looking upslope along the rockfall study section. Notable features include the limestone bedrock exposures visible at the top of the slope and the dense vegetation on the slope. The limestone bedrock forming the cliffs at the top of the slope are considered the primary rockfall source zone. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 18 CESARE, INC. .1.4 ,c Photograph 15. View looking downslope along the rockfall study section. Notable features include the rock exposures visible at the top of the slope, the steepness of the slope, and the density of the vegetation. Fall Line Drive, I-70, and East Vail are visible in the background. The rockfall study section begins upslope above the primary rockfall source area exposed in the cliff comprised of Robinson Limestone and extends southward to Fall Line Drive, with a total elevation change of about 760 feet over a profile length of 1,530 feet. The analysis for the rockfall study section assumes the rockfall source zone is located in the exposed cliff face upslope from the site at an elevation of about 9040 to 9080 feet. Photographs 16 through 18 show the limestone bedrock exposed in the cliff face upslope from the site. Bedrock exposures (potential rockfall source zones) were not observed further upslope from this area, although the glacial till deposits above the primary rockfall source zone may be eroding and contributing to the rockfall hazard. The slope above the western part of the project site is incised with active drainages and covered in aspen trees, tall shrubs, and scattered boulders and outcrops. Rocks deposited along the rockfall study section slope are primarily blocky to slab shaped, and comprised of gray limestone interbedded with thin layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shale. Boulders comprised of sandstone were also observed. The rockfall study section appears to be an area of more recent rockfall events, compared to other areas of the site. A number of rocks in the rockfall study section area display a comparatively "fresh" appearance, relative lack of lichen or vegetative overgrowth, and some with minimal soil embedment. For other parts of the slope, a majority of the boulders are more deeply embedded in the soil and overgrown with lichen and vegetation (indicating much older rockfall events). Refer to Photographs 19 through 23 for examples of boulders observed on the ground surface in the area of the rockfall study section. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 19 CESARE, INC. Photograph 16. View of limestone bedrock exposure at the primary rock -fall source zone. Note the eroding shale partings and vertical fractures (spaced about 10 to 15 feet apart). _ ���; : � mow..• Nor Photograph 17. r a ` Close-up view of primary rock -fall R source zone p.: bedrock. Gray, hard limestone ^-. interbedded with 1 thin, weak shale layers. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 20 CESARE, INC. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 21 CESARE, INC. Photograph 19. View of limestone boulder, embedded. Blocky, angular, and about 3 feet in diameter. Boulders like this one are common on the property and are either embedded in the soil (older, ancient rock -fall events) or are sitting on top of the soil with minimal soil embedment or vegetation overgrowth. Photograph 20. Limestone boulder, embedded, lichen growth. Blocky, angular, and about 4 foot by 3 foot by 2 foot. Photograph 21. Limestone boulder, minimal soil embedment. Blocky, angular, and about 3 feet in diameter. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 22 CESARE, INC. Photograph 22. View of large, angular, slab shaped boulders near the base of the slope within the area most likely to be developed in the future. Boulder sizes were observed to be at least (1) 12 foot by 8 foot by 5 foot, (2) 7 foot by 7 foot by 3 foot, and (3) 21 foot by 12 foot by 9 foot. These boulders are embedded in the soil and have been resting here for some time. • .{' Eli,'y'#' • A ' ' -moi 'r .. _ ".. ...__. }', y. '. .. ' - _ ISP r klti' :- "-ai: .. '� .'•i-'`'- . At . .. .. �. �.;. �°�„ Mfr - •- ` - Photograph 23. Aerial view of lower slope in western part of the site. North is toward the top of the photograph. Notice scattered boulders as large as about 7 to 8 feet in longest dimension and slab shaped. Most boulders are 3 feet or less in dimension and are embedded in the soil, representing older, ancient rock -fall events. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 23 CESARE, INC. 6.2 ROCKFALL MODELING - CRSP ANALYSIS Factors which influence the runout distance, mode of travel, speed, and energy of a rock traveling downslope include: • Type, size, and shape of the rock. • Type, length, height, and angle(s) of the slope. • Potential launch points along the slope. • Presence of obstructions on the slope (including trees, shrubs, and existing boulders). • Height of the initial fall. Based on site observations, the types of rocks traveling down the slope are comprised primarily of blocky to slab like limestone. Rocks are also comprised of sandstone to pebble conglomerate and a minor percentage of small, granite boulders (derived from the glacial till capping the slopes above the cliff -face rockfall source zone). Sizes generally range from about 2 to 6 feet in diameter, but can be as large as 20 to 30 feet in longest dimension. The larger dimension rocks are slab shaped, irregular, with angular corners. The falling mechanism for the slab shaped rocks would be primarily sliding after detachment from the source rock, although these rocks may roll downslope end -over -end along the shorter dimension. Based on our experience with similar conditions, site observations, and on opinions presented by the CGS for the rockfall hazard at Booth Falls to the west of the project site, the limestone rocks falling from the cliff source zone tend to break apart during their descent downslope. Cesare opines that some of the larger blocks on the scale of 20 to 30 feet in diameter may have been entrained in block slide movement of the landslide complex onsite. CRSP requires that the section analyzed be divided into regions (cells) based on areas with uniform slope and characteristics. Cell boundaries are determined based on characteristics, such as slope angle, material comprising the slope, and the presence of obstructions. Surface roughness was estimated with consideration for the size of the rock and the irregularity of the slope surface. The surface roughness (S) is defined as the perpendicular variation of the slope within a slope distance equal to the radius of the rock. This value varied based on rock size analyzed. Based on site observations and available topographic maps, there are no significant launch points below the rockfall source zone along the section. The tangential coefficient of frictional resistance (Rt) for the rock is the component of velocity parallel to the slope, which is slowed during impact. The tangential coefficient was chosen with consideration for the material which comprised the slope, as well as the amount of vegetation characteristic in each cell. Vegetation would tend to increase the frictional resistance in the direction parallel to the slope, thus decreasing the tangential coefficient. The normal coefficient of restitution (Rn) considers the change in velocity of the falling rock normal to the slope after impact, compared to the normal velocity before impact. For both the Rt and Rn coefficients for each cell, Cesare referred to the CRSP manual which provides ranges of suggested values based on different material types. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 24 CESARE, INC. Cesare calibrated the model using the current conditions of the slope (no rockfall barrier, native condition) and using rock sizes and shapes based on site observations. Simulation and slope profile parameters are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. TABLE 1. CRSP Simulation Parameters Parameter Study Section A Length of section analyzed (ft) 1,530 Elevation difference across section (ft) 760 Total number of cells 6 Analysis Point 1 (x-coordinate) 1,000 Analysis Point 2 (x-coordinate) 1,200 Top starting zone (y-coordinate) 9,080 Base starting Zone (y-coordinate) 9,040 Number of rocks simulated 500 Starting velocity (x) 1 ft/sec Starting velocity (y) -1 ft/sec Material density of modeled rock 160 Ib/ft3 Rock shape Spherical Rock dimension (diameter) 10 Starting cell number 2 Ending cell number 6 TABLE 2. Slope Profile Parameters Rt: Tangential coefficient Rn: Normal coefficient Surface roughness varied based on rock size analyzed. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 25 Approx Cell Begin (x,y) Rt Rn Slope Angle Description of Slope Geologic Unit 0 1 0,9140 0.65 0.15 35 Vegetated slope above rock -fall Glacial till (Pinedale). source zone. 2 100,9080 0.85 0.20 Near Cliff face, rock -fall source zone, Robinson Limestone member vertical approximately 30 to 40 feet high. of the Minturn Fm. Vegetated slope below rock -fall Colluvium overlying 3 110,9040 0.70 0.15 30 source zone, runout accumulation Robinson Limestone/Lower zone. members of the Minturn Fm. 4 930,8540 0.60 0.15 20 Vegetated slope, accumulation Colluvium overlying Lower zone. member of Minturn Fm. 5 1180,8438 0.60 0.15 8 to 16 Vegetated slope, accumulation Colluvium overlying Lower zone. member of Minturn Fm. 6 1411,8382 0.90 0.60 Paved roadway Fall Line Drive, asphalt paved Not applicable. flat roadway. Rt: Tangential coefficient Rn: Normal coefficient Surface roughness varied based on rock size analyzed. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 25 CESARE, INC. 6.3 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS The results of the analysis using the current condition of the slope are summarized in Table 3. Reported are results for common rock sizes observed at the site (3 feet diameter) and an estimated maximum case (10 feet diameter). Although boulders as long as 30 feet in longest dimension were observed embedded near the base area of the slope, these are considered more likely to have been placed during block sliding of the landslide mass. The rocks were modeled as spherical in order to represent the worst case scenario. Rocks which are spherical will tend to have longer runout distances and higher velocities and kinetic energies associated with them. Elongate, angular rocks will tend to lose momentum sooner than a rounded rock as they travel downslope. Analysis Point 1 was placed about 200 feet upslope from the property boundary and Analysis Point 2 was placed right at the upslope property boundary. Based on observed runout and accumulation zones and calibration analysis results, it is Cesare's opinion that the input values listed in Tables 1 and 2 adequately model the slope in question. Rockfall analysis results are listed in Table 3. TABLE 3. Summary of Rockfall Analysis Results AP = analysis point ft/sec = feet per second ft -Ib = foot-pounds 6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS The CRSP analysis results show that a 10 foot diameter, spherical limestone boulder rolling downslope along the rockfall study section from a source zone between 9040 and 9080 feet elevation will have an estimated maximum kinetic energy of 1,846,786 foot-pounds (ft -Ib), an equivalent of about 2,500 kilojoules, at the upslope property boundary. The slope gradually 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 26 Number of Rocks Velocity (ft/sec) Bounce Height (ft) Kinetic Energy (ft -Ib) Kinetic Energy (kilojoules) P_TassiAP ng Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Rock Shape = spherical; Rock Size = 3 ft (2,262 pounds), API 492 37.6 19.2 4.3 0.7 65,545 18,906 90 26 AP2 21 16.9 8.0 0.3 0.1 13,957 3,649 19 5 Rock Shape = spherical; Rock Size = 10 ft (86,394 pounds) API 499 52.9 35.7 3.9 1.1 4,570,623 2,240,805 6,197 3,038 AP2 497 33.2 20.8 2.7 0.7 1,846,786 800,467 2,504 1,085 Rock Shape = discoidal; Rock Size = 12 ft diameter by 5 ft thick (90,478 pounds) API 499 46.7 37.6 3.4 1.0 4,112,846 2,861,685 5,588 3,880 AP2 499 33.8 24.7 2.6 0.8 2,243,475 1,270,950 3,042 1,723 AP = analysis point ft/sec = feet per second ft -Ib = foot-pounds 6.4 DISCUSSION OF ROCKFALL ANALYSIS RESULTS The CRSP analysis results show that a 10 foot diameter, spherical limestone boulder rolling downslope along the rockfall study section from a source zone between 9040 and 9080 feet elevation will have an estimated maximum kinetic energy of 1,846,786 foot-pounds (ft -Ib), an equivalent of about 2,500 kilojoules, at the upslope property boundary. The slope gradually 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 26 CESARE, INC. decreases between Analysis Point 1 and 2, resulting in a decrease in kinetic energy of a rolling rock between these points. The area of Cell Number 4 along the profile is a zonal transition from rockfall runout in Cell 3 to rockfall accumulation in Cell 5. For comparison, the worst case scenario considered in the CRSP analysis performed by the CGS for Booth Falls was a spherical boulder 7 feet in diameter with an impact force of 5,000,000 ft -Ib (about 6,800 kilojoules). This estimated energy is extreme when considering rockfall fences (flexible mesh barriers) currently on the market are rated for impacts up to a maximum of 8,000 kilojoules. The ground surface in the area of the slope analyzed at Booth Falls is generally steeper and vegetatively bare compared to the section analyzed for this study. CGS recommended the design height for the proposed rockfall mitigation structure be at least 12 feet, if placed at the analysis point located 30 feet upslope from the existing condominiums. An added option to mitigate for smaller rock fragments which tend to break from larger rockfalls, included adding a fence to the top of the berm or wall to be constructed. Cesare understands that for Booth Falls, a pair of soil walls reinforced with geotextiles and sized 8 feet high by 10 feet thick and 12 feet high and 12 feet thick were constructed after the 1997 rockfall event. The nature of the ground surface at the project site acts to dissipate rockfall energies compared to the slope above Booth Falls. The ground surface on the west side of the site is comparatively less steep, heavily vegetated with aspen trees and large shrubs, dotted with scattered, embedded boulders, with incised drainages that act to channel and slow rockfalls. Vegetation, incised drainages, and embedded boulders act to increase surface roughness of the slope, creating obstacles which decrease rockfall energies. Comparison of the ground surface characteristics and the CRSP results for both the project site and the neighboring Booth Falls indicates the rockfall hazard is higher for the Booth Falls area than for the project site. 7. LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAPPING The extents of a large landslide complex were mapped on the east side of the site (Figure 7). A landslide study section passes through the middle of the landslide, location shown on Figure 8 and profile shown on Figure 10. The landslide study section begins upslope above an exposed outcrop comprised of Robinson Limestone at about 8900 to 8920 feet elevation and extends southward to Fall Line Drive, with a total elevation change of about 588 over a profile length of 1,220 feet. The elevation of the Robinson Limestone bedrock exposure can be correlated to the rock exposures to the west which are the primary rockfall source zone for the Booth Falls subdivision, although the outcrop on the subject site is not as pronounced or as exposed as areas to the west. Based on the landslide morphology visible in the LiDAR image, this bedrock exposure at about elevation 8900 likely slid down from a higher elevation upslope. The LiDAR bare earth surface and the landslide study section both display a benched and hummocky pattern characteristic of landslide terrain. The flatter parts of the benched areas range from about 15 to 20 degrees, while the toe areas of the benches range from about 30 to 40 degrees. A slope map is shown on Figure 11 and depicts the range of slope angles across the site and surrounding area. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 27 CESARE, INC. Cesare understands that the Pitkin Creek townhome development located southeast of the site and also at the toe of the mapped landslide extents has not reinforced the slope above the residences. It was beyond the scope of this study to research potential landslide movement causing distress to the Pitkin Creek development townhomes, and at this time Cesare is not aware of landslide movement or related structural distress in the southeast area of the site. Chen and Associates, Inc. (Chen) issued a soil and foundation investigation report for the proposed Pitkin Creek Townhomes (dated September 20, 1978) which included subsurface exploration using test pits to a maximum depth of 10 feet. The soils encountered were described as 1 to 3 feet of topsoil over dense, sandy gravel, with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored. Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. The Chen report mentions how the slope of the site rises steeply to the north and that several large boulders were observed on the ground surface, but does not discuss landslide or rockfall hazard or potential. 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report presents findings of a geologic hazard study specifically focused on rockfall. During the course of the study, a significant landslide hazard was identified and is discussed in this report. 8.1 ROCKFALL CONSIDERATIONS Based on the CRSP analysis results and existing rockfall mitigation structures on the neighboring site to the west, a rockfall barrier or wall at least 12 feet in height is recommended. Based on site conditions, including such aspects as slope angle and property boundaries, a rigid wall would be more ideal than a flexible fence or berm/basin. The flexible fence system would require a downslope buffer zone for flexure during rockfall events. A berm and basin system would require a significantly sized footprint on the slope, something this project site does not necessarily have flexibility towards. Cesare's CRSP model represents an estimate of rockfall energies at the analysis point placed at the upslope property boundary along the section line and is not representative of other locations on the slope. Changing the placement of the rockfall barrier will require changing the location of the analysis point. Rockfall energies were modeled to be significantly higher at Analysis Point 1 located 200 feet upslope from the property. A catchment zone large enough for accumulation of boulders and for equipment to access the area behind the barrier will be necessary, a width of at least 10 or more feet. It is the responsibility of the wall designer to provide criteria for a wall that will withstand impacts with the sizes and energies predicted by the CRSP analysis, and one which will allow for successful implementation of recommended maintenance requirements. For rigid rockfall walls similar to those constructed at the Booth Falls site, the height to width ratio is typically a 1:1 relationship. The rockfall catchment will be reducing the rockfall hazard for a potential residential development and should be designed with consideration for the nature of the structures (full-time occupancy). 8.1.1 Placement of the Rockfall Catchment Structure Factors which influence the placement of the catchment structure include the rockfall energies, sizes, shapes, and bounce heights estimated in the CRSP model for that analysis point on the slope. Other considerations include site topography, site boundaries, and the spatial footprint of the proposed rockfall catchment structure. The mitigation structure must provide an adequately 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 28 CESARE, INC. sized catchment zone behind the wall and a buffer zone in front of the wall. The catchment zone behind the wall must be sized to allow for accumulation of large boulders on the scale of 10 feet in diameter, as well as access for equipment to remove accumulated debris from behind the wall. Design considerations should include access for excavation equipment and adequate surface drainage. Based on topography, the west side of the property provides adequate access for a track mounted vehicle from Fall Line Drive and possibly a rubber tire vehicle (although access depends on actual site development/grading plans, not available at the time of this study). An adequately sized buffer zone in front of the wall is necessary in order to allow for a certain amount of potential outward deflection in the event of an impact. The amount of deflection depends on the type of wall to be constructed. The downslope buffer zone must be designed and maintained as an open, empty space. The type of catchment structure has not been decided, and may vary from a flexible barrier to a more rigid design, so it is important that this buffer zone is a consideration during design stages. A flexible catchment fence will require more consideration of outward deformation than a rigid wall, and will require a conservatively sized buffer zone. The intent of flexible barriers is to slow the velocity and decrease the energy of the falling rock, not necessarily to stop it completely. Rigid barriers have the limitation of being prone to damage during high energy events, but this is generally the case with most constructed rockfall barriers. The barrier should be designed to withstand the types of energies predicted by CRSP analysis results described in this report. The catchment structure will require periodic and routine cleaning of the accumulation areas to remove debris. The rockfall remediation should be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure hazards impacting adjacent or downslope properties are not aggravated. In its current condition, the western half of the site is impacted by rockfall consisting of boulders the size of 10 feet or more. These boulders have historically rolled and slid down the slope from the steep cliff faces exposed upslope from the site. The vegetative cover on the slope above the project site acts to slow rockfall events in its current condition. If this vegetative cover were to be removed for some reason (e.g. clear cutting, wildfire), these obstacles would be removed and the rockfall hazard would increase. 8.2 LANDSLIDE CONSIDERATIONS Cesare did not observe evidence of recent landslide movement at the project site. The retaining wall for the Town of Vail shuttle stop which is located at the toe of the landslide, appears to be performing adequately. The landslide area displays benched and hummocky topography with over - steepened toe and flank areas, however, fresh landslide features, such as tension cracks, scarps, slumps, and other features, were not observed. Figure 7 shows the bare earth land surface and provides a convincing depiction of the landslide extents. Cesare is not aware of landslide movement causing distress to the townhomes in the Pitkin Creek subdivision notched into the toe near the southeast corner of the site. Based on the lack of evidence of recent landslide movement as observed onsite and through aerial photographs and LiDAR imagery, Cesare does not recommend monitoring of the landslide at this time. Slope stability should be a primary consideration if ground modifications and development 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 29 CESARE, INC. are planned in or near the landslide mass. The landslide has the potential to destabilize if the ground is disturbed or modified in adverse ways. Slope stability of the over -steepened toe and flank areas, as well as large-scale global stability should be considered. In addition, the bedrock is dipping gently out -of -slope, exacerbating the slope instability issue. 8.3 DEBRIS FLOW CONSIDERATIONS Although the site is not within the limits of the Town of Vail Debris Flow Hazard zone, there exists the potential for debris flows at the site. Material and debris which could mobilized in a debris flow event cover the slopes at and above the site, including glacial till capping the ridge above, and rock talus and colluvium on the slope above the site. Incised drainages actively flowing with water are present on the west side of the site, and ground surface patterns visible in the LiDAR imagery suggest erosive processes are underway in this area. A significant precipitation event has the potential to trigger or increase the probability of a debris flow event, additionally, ground modifications may alter or increase this debris flow hazard in some areas. Cesare recommends the debris flow hazard potential be considered in future development stages. 9. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geologic and geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Cesare reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel 06.19.17 30 70 Fro[I a9e r -- 81 4 to � � J Own V ■ �uu a o N � ro `o a = o o Qr- QTown Boundary �� , Vail Debris Flow Hazard r-z g -High Hazard Debris Avalanche � -High Hazard Debris Flow N z z z z r Moderate Hazard Debris Flow o o q� � i mr�\ � � _ ,ice f •_ � .'�� ��,� ��� / ;, t°, Z Qt --- Pmis Pml 69 /. 17 Ot a 5 , J 6 QtP32 10 Pm r Y Q ! 20\ !` ~ J75 g I i ° Qa,� 76 1 �'� 0 a; 76 17 12 /[Pmr LL Of Of s / Qf � Qtp of —. Qtp 1� to Qa �� �:: �1�� ojj rri m � P , y LEGEND: /� SCFE BOUNDARY Of d U [P MaP Source. USCd ICellog9, Bryant and Red • • ' • • \� �1 i `'. \\\\\\ - a a LI a �' 41 w tj vu �4 e� �o W Y e di Ns IN aa Map Source: US Kellogg, Bry-tand Redo-, a a Q p 6s y 7 s y 9 � i ;y- -- I As LEGEND QSde Boundary '" Landslide B—d, L� — — . a� 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 w 8800 8]00 8600 8500 8400 8300 0 Rockfall Study Section 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 8800 8]00 8600 8500 8400 8300 0 Landslide Study Section 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 Length of Profile Line (ft) LEGEND Q Site B—d.ry y Slope Angle �o p6-10 " F—I11-p .. O ©21-30 E41-86 0 0 CESARE, INC. Geoferhniral Engineers & C'nu.vtruction Meterittls Consultants APPENDIX A Documents and Drawings Reviewed References CESARE, INC. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED DOC1. Chen and Associates, Inc., Soil and Foundation Investigation for Proposed Pitkin Creek Townhouses Near Interstate Highway 70, East Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Project No. 17,046, dated September 20, 1978. DOC2. Chen and Associates, Inc., Geologic Hazards Reconnaissance, Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing, Vail, Colorado, Project No. 25,474, dated January 26, 1983. DOC3. Colorado Geological Survey, Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums, and Proposed Mitigation, prepared for the Town of Vail, Colorado, undated. DOC4. Nicolas Lampiris, letter re: Unit #13, Pitkin Creek Townhomes, prepared for Nedbo Construction Company, dated September 12, 1987. DRAWINGS REVIEWED DWG1. Topographic Map of a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, prepared by Peak Land Consultants, Inc., dated January 10, 2017. REFERENCES REFI. Kellogg, K.S., Bryant, B., Redsteer, M.H., 2003, Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2375, Version 1.1. REF2. Kellogg, K.S., Shroba, R.R., Premo, W.R., Bryant, B., 2011, Geologic Map of the Eastern Half of Vail 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Eagle, Summit, and Grand Counties, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3170. 17.5029 Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel Documents and Drawings Reviewed, References, Appendix A CESARE, INC. Geoferhniral Engineers & C'nu.vtr wdon Meterittls Consultants APPENDIX B Rockfall Hazard Assessment at Booth Falls Condominiums and Proposed Mitigation (Colorado Geological Survey) 1 1 w r 1 1 1 ROCKFALL HA UM ASSESSMENT AT BOOTH FALLS CONDO S AND PROPOSED MMGATION pmepared far The Town of Vail, Colorado by Jonathan L. White Colorado Geological. Survey 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 ph, (303) 894-2167 fax (303) 894-2174 0 CONTENTS Introduction Marsh 26,1997 Rockfall Event Hamrd Assessment Rockfall Mitigation Options Rockfall Analysis and Design Criteria Recommendations Current and Future Actions Appendix A. Booth Creek RockNU Hazard Area by Bruce K. Stover Appendix B. Rockfall Mitigation by Jonathan L. White List of Figures and Photos: 6800th Creek Rock0d[ Report, Pale 1 Page 2 2 4 G 6 7 x Figure #Z Site map and location of March 26, 1997 rockfall. .1 Figure #2 Screen dump of CRSP slope profile 7 Photo 01 Booth Creek rockfall source area 4 Photo 42 Top Cliff rockfall source area 5 Photo #3 Close-up of top cliff source area 5 Photo #4 Location of pioposed mitigation at Condos 8 Photo #5 Lower cliff above district to be monitored 9 1 0 0 Booth Fails Roddall Report, Pse 2 1 INTRODUCTION The Colorado Geological Survey has assisted the Torn of Vail in assessment of the rockfall hazard at Booth Creek since May 1983, when a severe rockfall event occurred there. Since then the town and property owners in Vail Village Filing 12 formed a Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD). The District has mitigated much of the hazard by the construction of a ditch and berm on the slope above the residential area. As far as the Survey knows, the ditch and berm configuration has been 100% effective for rocks that continually fall from the cliffs of the Mintu m Formation. On March 26, 1997, another very serious, potentially lethal, rockfall occurred that incurred substantial damage to the Booth Falls Condominiums that exists to the west of the CHAD and outside the protection envelope provided by the ditch and berm. Under the auspices of the Critical Geologic Hazards Response Prograrn and our concerns expressed in earlier involvement, the CGS can assist the Town of Vail in assessment of the hazard that the condominiums hear, options for mitigation for that portion of slope west of the ditch and berm terminus, and design criteria for said mitigation systems. Included in this report are two appendices. Appendix A, Booth Creek Rocld'all Hazard Area by Bruce Stover, is a report on the general geology, geomorphology, and the mechanism of rockfall for the Booth Creek site. Appendix B, Ruckfall Mitigation, is a short paper on types of rockfall mitigation systems that are available. THE MARCH 26, 1997 ROCKALL EVENT At 11:20 pm., a ledge of Minturn Formation limestone at the highest exposed outcrop of the upper cliff, just below the exposure of glacial till, failed sinmuilaarly to that shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A_ The ledge dimensions that detached and toppled is roughly. 20'x 8'x 8'. As it fell, it impacted and broke additional rock blocks from outcrops below. The rock mass broke apart as it tumbled down the cliff As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that the path of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they came to rest. See Figure #1 of this report. The location of the rockfall source is shown by arrow in Photo ## I and #2 and the scar easily seen in Photo #3. Approximately one third of the swath of rolling rocks were retained by the ditch and berm. See Figure #l. The remaining two-thirds of the event came to rest, scattered around the condominiums. The condo structures received three rock impacts and several near misses. Rock sizes ranged from 2 to 5+ feet in average diameter. Surrounding the condos several items were also damaged or destroyed, (i.e., small haul trailer, trampoline fume, small wooden deck and chairs, wood wallcway). Of the three impacts, one was minor and the other two major. The minor impact was from a - 3 foot diameter rock that obviously had slowed almost to a stop upon impacting the westemmost condo structure. The rock came to rest, ominously so, next to a large boulder from an earlier rockfall. A major impact, also about 3-4 feet in diameter at high velocity, had just missed the ditch and berm catchment. The rock impacted and smashed the corner of the easternmost condo, snapped offthe side balcony support, and destroyed a trampoline frame along its path before coming to rest in the subdivision below. The third and worst impact was a 5+ foot block that broadsided the easternmost condo. Sufficient rock velocity enabled the boulder to smash through the outside wall, interior walls, and the floor, finally being caught in the crawlspace below. Lucldly the resident, whose bedroom this rock smashed through, was not home at the time of the rockfall. 1 1 • Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard Area - Vail, Colorado 1 Areal extent of rockfall impacts from 11:20 pm, 3/26/97 event. { 2.764.OLC Ir igure #X. Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Par Rockfall Source; Limestone bed at highest point of pepper cliff. See companion photos in report. Location not shown on town GIS map. i one inch = 200 feet 4 The berm was 100% effective for that portion of the 3/26M event that fell into it. X ti k 0 Booth Falls RockfalI Report. Page 4 The CGS made an initial inspection of the site Thursday, March 27, 1997. Our preliminary assessment was that it appeared that the ledge broke away reiativeiy clean and the hazard risk in no greater or less than the day before the rockfall; which is to say that rockfall can occur from this source area anytime. It was on our preliminary inspection of the ditch and berm where we discovered that an earlier rockfall event occurred, either earlier this year or sometime after the town last cleaned the ditch out. Several rocks (s4 foot diameter) had fallen and, by lithology, could be differentiated from the March 26 event (sandstone vs. limestone). This rockfall occurred without anyone's knowledge because the entire event was contained within the ditch and berm. Friday, March 28, 1997 an aerial reconnaissance was conducted of the source area and while the preliminary assessment has not changed, we reiterate that rockfall of similar magnitude Jkeantinue at this site. During this inspection we did see several loose rocks on the slopes and rock features with questionable long-term stability. HAZARD ASSESSMENT In a ranking of a rockfall hazard the parameters are source area, a steep acceleration zone, proximity of structures to both, and history of rockfall impacts. In two aspects the condominium location is worse than most of the special district to the east because the upper cliff is more fully exposed at this location (it is mostly soil covered to the east) and the slope between and below the cliffs steepen where the slope curves around into Booth Creek Valley. See Photo #1 and Figure #1 map in Appendix A. to .Wrar I - .-,r,=w-r*WUEEErEEE&L,;W- _�-_ _-- , - - The main source area for Booth Falls Condominiums is the upper cliff. The exposed, lower cliff of sandstone reduces in height as it trends to the northwest. Photo #1 and a close-up photo #2 show the extent of the upper cliff f J /S - where it is not soil covered. They reveal a benchy cliff of r beds of limestone, thin shales, - - and minor sandstone. It is the -- - ;t dense, hard, gray limestone that creates the largest y rockfall boulders in the Booth *' Creek area. The report by B. Photo #1. Booth Creek rockfall source area. Note enlargement of upper cliff Stover in Appendix A exposure and corresponding rockfall source area, northwest of the ditch and provides further in-depth berm terminus. discussion on the source areas. Photos #1 and 92 also show the exposed shale slope, between the cliffs, steepening to the left. The general lack of soil and vegetation suggests that this slope is harder and smoother, compared with the right. A further close-up, Photo 43, reveals limestone blocks, pedestals, and Iedges, defined by the crisscrossing joint pattern, being undermined by the quicker- 0 0 Bouth Fails Rockfall Report, Page 5 eroding interbedded shale partings. Also in photo #3 are several slumped and isolated limestone blocks on the rock slope that have not yet fallen. The history of reported rockfall events at Booth Creek and the physical nature of the slope merits our assessment that. Booth Falls Condominiums is in a severe rockfall hazardous area. Photo #2. Top cliff rockfall source area. White arrow marks location of March 26, 1997 rockfall, Photo #3. Close-up aerial view of source area. New ledgy appearance with joint defined blocks undennined bv eroding shale partings. 'LXrhite arrow A marks scar from March 26. 1497 rockfall. White arrow B marks rock pedestal that was hit by rockfall and may be destablized. Note loose blocks, marked by black arrows. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Booth Falls Rockfall Report Page 6 ROCKFALL MITIGATION OPTIONS Appendix B contains most of the recognized forms of rockfall mitigation and protection devices commonly used. Rockfall mitigation is divided into two types: stabilization of the rock mass at the source area to prevent rocks from falling; and rockfall protection systems that acknowledge that rocks will fall but structures or public areas are protected from the impacts. At the Booth Creek site stabilization of the rock mass at the source area is not being contemplated for several reasons. They include: 1. The source area is in the USFS Eagles Nest Wilderness Area; 2. Source area stabilization at this site would need to cover a large area, be labor intensive, require technical rock climbing skills, and helicopters for mobilization that would make the project cost prohibitively high; 3. Source area stabilization construction activity would present unacceptable risks that rock could be inadvertently knocked down, by workers or equipment, onto the residential areas. Rockfall protection systems that will be considered at this site are ditch and berm configurations and impact barrier wall systems. Fences will not be considered because they can have high maintenance cost and generally cannot withstand high impact forces without being destroyed. ROCKFALL ANALYSIS and DESIGN CRITERIA Proper analysis of the hazard for design purposes requires accurate slope geometry and a determination of appropriate rockfall sires. For the slope geometry we used information gained from our earlier investigation for the special district mitigation, the Town of Vail GIS 1:2440 scale maps, photos, and the USGS 1:24,000 scale reap. For the rockfall size using the maximum sine boulder that is found on site would be prudent. We used the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) ver. 3.Oa for our analysis. Four to seven foot diameter boulders were modeled, and weight was calculated using the unit weight of limestone. The analysis seemed to bear out observable results of rockfall in the area. Bounce heights were highest on the cliffs and at the transition to the lower, softer slopes the rocks begin just to roll. The critical design factor is the high impact energies developed by these larger rocks. A screen dump is shown on Figure 42 of the CRSP program slope profile. An analysis point was chosen 30 feet upslope from the condominiums where the slope breaks to a grade of 40% to 50%. In modeling rockfall with CRSP we arrived at the following bounce heights, impact kinetic energies (K.E), and velocities at this analysis point. Rock Rock Bounce K.E (max.) K.E.(avg) Wel.(rnax-) Vel.(avg.) Size weight t, ft -U. - ft -lbs fusee fusee 4' sphere 5458 3.0 1,000,000 800,440 98 83 5' sphere 9878 2,1 1,900,000 1,440,000 95 81 6 sphere 17069 2.0 3,000,400 2,300,000 96 78 7' sphere 27106 1.7 4,600,000 3,300,000 89 74 4'x7' cyl. 13272 1.7 2,500,000 1,700,000 93 74 5'x6' cyl. 17775 1.9 3,600,000 2,400,ODO 94 76 6'x6' cyl. 25640 1.9 4,900,000 3,500,000 89 74 60' cyl. 30000 1.8 5,700,000 3,700,000 90 72 Booth Falls Roekfall RepaM Page 7 Figure Z. Screen dump of CRSP program of Booth Creek -west side. Analysis point arrow is 30 feet above condominiums. Horizontal and vertical are not at the same scale. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations and design criteria are based on modeled rolling rocks analyzed at 30 feet upslope from the condominiums, so are only valid at that point on the slope. Mitigation design should not only insure that rockfall is contained but also the impact structure remains sound and does not require costly reconstruction afterwards. The CGS recommends that design criteria for mitigation at the condominiums should be capable to withstand and retain a worst case scenario, which is believed to be a boulder in the 6 to 7 foot diameter range. An examination of the source area, the most recent rockfalI, and earlier research done by Stover and Cannon for work the CGS did in 1989 seems to confirm this scenario. That translates to a rolling rock with an impact force of 5,000,000 ft -lbs at the analysis point. Besides withstanding the impact force the mitigation system would need to prevent any rock that encounters it from climbing and overtopping, or bouncing over. The impact face should be vertical and have an effective height that prevents overtopping. Design height will be specific to siting of the structure. At the analysis point it should be no less than 12. These design parameters do not take into account smaller rock fragments that separate from larger boulders. During inspection of the site following the March 26, 1997 event there was evidence of smaller rocks snapping off the tops of Aspen trees, 25 feet high, near the condos_ These rock fragments do not reflect actual bounce heights but display the high rotational velocity of the rock and the centrifugal force acting on fragments as they detach. Options to mitigate these highly random rock fragments are limited to moving the protection system farther up the slope (which will change design criteria) or constructing a low capacity rockfail fence at the top of the berm or wall. 0 0 Booth Palls Rockfall Repon, Page 8 Only a stout protection system can be designed at the _ criteria stated above. Both ditch and berm systems and inertial impact barriers, or a - combination of both, can be f' i - -. V, designed for the site and be cost - - effective. No rockfall fence on the market can probably `-may �L . _ - -i; c iO x withstand the impact forces thato end art � .Y are being contemplated, The rockfall protection must be 3& `1 designed to begin at the road and extend to the southeast to au , - point where sufficient overlap = exists with the existing berm above, a length no less than 350 •- ;: feet. Rocks that skint the edge 1 of the top berm must be caught Photo 44. Location of proposed impact barrier or berm site. Note by the lower. See Photo 44, At accumulation of rocks in existing ditch. The largest are 5 feet in diameter. the high impact velocities and corresponding impact forces both ditch and berm and reinforced impact walls will need to be carefully designed. In a ditch and berm option a careful look will be needed to determine whether the berm of only compacted soil will have the strength to withstand these forces. The earthen berm may need to be reinforced with geotextiles. A rockfall impact barrier or earth wall will need to be reinforced with geotextiles in lifts of $-12 inches and have a width no less than 10 feet. We recommend that the Town of Vail retain the CGS for review of the mitigation design and our approval be a condition for design acceptance by the town. CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIONS Adverse or highly variable weather prevented the CGS from doing a site inspection of the source area immediately after the March 26 event. Later this spring we plan to conduct this site inspection where the failure occurred and examine those impacted rock features below that may be of questionable stability- During our aerial inspection we also found a rock feature above the special district ditch and berm that may require long term monitoring. See Photo 45. While we believe this feature will not be a threat for many years it bears watching because of its size. If this feature were to fail the vohune of the fall would quickly overwhelm the capacity of the ditch and overtop it. We will provide the Town of Vail a supplemental report based on our field studies later this summer. For the interim, residents of Booth Falls Condominiums who are concerned about their safety can take precautions to lessen their exposure to rockfall hazards. As stated the larger rocks are basically roiling when they reach the condos. The safest area in these condos presently is the top floor on the side facinu downhill. The worst case rockfall impact can put a big hole through a 1 0 9 1 Booth Falls Rockfall Report, Page 4 Photo #5. Lower sandstone cliff above district ditch and berm. The CGS will visit this feature this spring and install movement gauges for future monitoring. I structure and possibly condemn it, but probably will not tear it down. Our advice to residents is that they not establish living areas where they spend the bulk of their time, such as bedrooms and the sitting areas of living rooms, against the exterior wall that faces upslope. Bedrooms should be moved upstairs and/or beds placed against the wall facing downhill, Do not place beds directly in front of, or below, windows that face uphill. The Home Owners Association and Town of Vail should act quickly so that these structures are protected from the next rockfall of similar magnitude. Ll 1 J 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 0 Brace R. Stover Colorado Geological Survey,1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Deaver, C4 WM Rcsiodmm *m ted at the base of the w kywal at the ttaonth of Bao& Creek it Va il. Valky are exposed to verft degrees of rwidan hazard (Figure * The l wmd ranges h om low to moderata for structacs near the limits of the rumatrt mae on the valley fluor, to vmy high for some rcmdeaees consUuatcd in the lower part -of the acacleration zone at the base of the diRL The area yr s developed prior to the time when Vat had adequate geo14r, hazard mapping or zDmng completed. The rocldall _hazard was thus not identdod prior to developmeaL Tlac problem was iavrs6pted i a decal after a major rocklail evert in May 1483, caused scoops damage t o several sumcn s. In the. years since the original hazard investi4gadoe was con- ducted, several mare significant raclrfsll events have occurred; boulders have destroyed timber patios and log retaining walls, damagcad 4:7aerior walls, and smashed cotupletely through struc- tures causing coasidcrabk damage to ioteriors and furnishings. The town of Vail and affected property owners are Current- lypmmulpSa means andframework for administermgdessgn and oDnaructio n of protective rod&E slrrtctures and barriers in an attempt to safeguard tho reddoctial area Geology of Roddail Soo= Mats The grol4c make-up of the cliffs above Val VWW Filing 12 is shown yin Figura 2 Sedimentarystrata ex- poscd in the cliffs are part of the Minturn Formation of Wddla Pennsylvanian age, and include beds of mndstour, shale, gait, conglo=ratc, and liar► one. The bade strike N85OW and dip 151 to IV into the valley axis. The lawer cliff remises of shaley sandstone beds about 12 m thick resting on a weal-, fissile, rapid- ly eroding black to gray abate. The sandstone uail taxa two prominent joint sets striking NRS'W and N55"W. These joints combine to separate large slag and de#'ine the cliff face angle visible from the valley belaw Above the sandstone is a soft, fri- able coarse sandy coiW)omcratic bed 1 m thick which weathers to a smooth rounded ledge and continually undercuts a 0.6 to 1 m thick deme, bard grab lumestotic unit mating above it. The limestoneis so "subangular blocks (S x,bx 1 m) con- tinuoarsly detack bar the bed and fall off the sloping diff edge - Thew li mestone bkxft aro commonly iinvoly ed in the more fire- gmdly recurring events that can often cause damage to strut tures in the nmout zdne- A thick shale unit between 6e upper and lower digs has weaftred back to a 68 pdreent slope. The shale is soft, clayey, andsbowerxk=ofk da.edslippageandmaaallelopefgum wWch probably occim during intense rainstorms or heavy mow- mtb- Very small mudflows appear to start on this steep slope and spill ops the lower d fl`r-dM They ase capable of&turb- lognt initiw*rwJ6Ilsifboulders happen to be is their paths, or are resting near Poirot of mixt Ems. Above this soft eroding shale is a thidotr cliff forming unit of the Robinson LamasW= This bed of dense, hard, gray li m - stone varies fi-om 13 to 10 m #hick in the study arta and is the source for the largest rodtfall boadders encountered in the runout war- The limestone boulders that detach front the diff are quite resistant and tend not to break up or sbatter on their way dowralope- The largest boulders faamd in the runout zone appear to be derived from this upper diff forming limestone. The shale.ww upon which the upper iimcsto= d$s rest is weak and by erosion umiercnts the massive lirnesione. lodges, creating pcde:M&M= blacks which eventnaUy topple off their pardaeLThe limedoneis jocntod snc&thatblocim approximate- ly 3 m x L2 m x 13 m are separated from the cEff and tilt out- ward hard the cls edge. Tbinner beds within the limtstoue dig produce mare slabby blocks that, if net turned onto their edgrs by cbancc during the initial fall, remain flat -side down on the steep s{opm An eroding slope in pia" till rests directly above the cliff - forming upper Enwstone in the northern part of the study area. The eroding slope periodically sheds smooth, rounded granitic boulders which tumble down the cliff into the runout zone. Other areas of this till fartba east aloogthe cliff appear relative- R 5* W F%WV 1. L a md= map of study area, scale, ItZ4PW ly Stable, and are not actively di Aft large rocks to the slopes Ahme this til, slopes flatten dramatically to grades afO to 35 percrmL Iarge stand of mamr, aspen indicate that these gentle upper till slopes are reh±ivtly stable. No other rnckfall sources exist. ab Qw these gentle slopes, which start at an clevatiOn of V- proodmately 9,450 ft. Physical Configuration Tkmsteep soothwrst-fadugslope and rocky cfifftowcr 1,000 ft (305 m) above Vail Vi age Filing 12 on its northexu boundary. nese heists are attained within a horizontal distance of VD0 h (520 m) resulting in an average slope of 58 percent. The slope can be divided into several tones (Ffgurc 2) A) Runout pane - slopes of 2.8 to 45 percent along the foot of the valley wall. This arca is moderately wooden with Fairly young aspen and has been developed as a residual subdivision- 'l o majority of rocks falling from the cliffs came to rest in this xnnc. 0) Acceleration tope - dupes of 55 perCM to 65 PU- ccnt and steeper immediately below source area_ No boulders of Apific ut size Mn remain at rest as Chase. slopm due to the stctpue s- Sparse, stunted aspen occur in small stands, but gen really the slopes do not support much vegetation- Rods traversing this portion of the slope will continue to pin Momen- tum as they rag and skitter downslopr- G) l,..oww vertical cliff source area- A 50 ft high (16 M) cliff of jointed sandstone andlimestone rmpouts 560 vortical ft (175 m) abm the runout zone. Largo slabs 15 to 20 ft (4-5 to 6 m) in diameter, peti"cally detach from Ihr,cWface and tilt outwards until they topple over and shatter, showering boulders onto the accekration-zone slopes below. (Figure 3) D) Upper shale -slope acceleration zone - A steep (68 percent) shalt s]apo above the lower Vertical cliff b- lows boulders from a higbcr cliff to gain Momntum before becoming airborne at the cliff edge. E) Lipper vertical cliff source arca - Minted slabs and boulders 1,000 vertical ft (305 m) above the runout zone periodically detach from the diff and free fall and bound downslope and o8 the kmer CM Most rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact ap- proximately 8 by 5 ft (23 by L5 m) limestone boulders which are capable of reaching the iaribost Emits of the runout zona (figure 4) 11) Eroding upper till stupe - Glacial till resting on top of the upper cliff sheds rounded granitic boulders er"IG GLACIAL .0a UPPER L OMMIONE CLIFF ROCKFALL SOURCE AREA UPPER SHALE A+CCFLER►4MN SLOPE f LOWER SANDSTOM � LEDGE LOWER SANDSTONE •� *��—� CLIFFS ACCELEFtATtON SHALE BEDS CC&LUVM ON RtIHO�l T ZONE SLOPES STRUCTURES 9Ol1LDERS H RI MOUT ZONE ¢ r POOr�rrrr F>pre a. Gednoc diapam of a mpmad rvdt-tali mopes in siadx mace. Drawn to scale with so vel CmgpratLoo. Nola dip of Strata tgNard vaUq- downslope which roll and fall off the cliffs. This till slope is considered to be a part of the upper soum area. Rodkbil Meebaoisms Several natural gwlogie and topographic factors combinc ttk cause racldaits frons the cliffs exposed on the north valley wall of C arc Crctk in the study area. These factors include joint Pat- terns, atteras, dim' i weed ring of various rack type-, dip of straSta, and the slope of cliBs and acceleration names. Jointing and Differmtiai weathering of CHH Faces joint patterns in the cliff forming racks are caused by stress relief and physical properties of the rock. 7 he joints so formed define planar, c+ertical cliff faces and act to separate large scc- tio>ns of the cliff intoslabs alcngjointssubparaBel to I he cliff lace. Once a slab has detached from the sedimentary bed, it bepns to creep outwards owing to gravity and frost wedging in the joints. The joints widen with time, and are often wedged farther apart by tree roots, and smaller rocks that fall into the cracks farmed by the joints. (Figure 3) Dff,-rw#al weathering of shafts has midarcat the mode resis- tant Mcrlymg sandstones or limega= acaiang a 130=atal gropm or overhang at the base of the diff which removes sap- pixrt for the Locks above. Eventually, the am-han g ledge be- comes incapable. of Supporting its own weighL and falls or top- p1m from Lbc cla tram overhanging slab has already detached form the cliff along joints and is resting precarioudly on the sbalc, undercutting and diffemntial weathcring a=k4-04, the PracO.s which fina y results in inevitable toppling of the slab. As the lugeslabs topple tmto the acceleration slopes flaw, theyusual- ly shatter into many smaller boulder sized rhuahs which ac- celcraie downslope to the runout woe. The toPPEDg maY big- ger adjacent unstable parts of the Cfiff to fall as well. Dip ofStrata and Topography The dip of the rock ledges making up the source area also contributes to rockfall along dds in the study area- ne strata is the two cliffs dip approAnwely 13 degrees into the valley, ca"4 any to= stones, cabbies., or boulders on the ledges to inevitably move down to the edge of the 16 m vertical CI'iil•. Limestone blacks separated from their beds by jointing and weathering creep down toward the valley slang these dipping bedrock surfaces (Figure 5)• Rounded glacial cobbles and gravel 1. 03. Fpm 3. Tagpll■g Smb4Wilsa Segoes w L Inldd diff aayaeatio�. Z. Dit l weatherLg of shale beglas to natderca! naasi� did iaeaehrg aWre. �dms open � widen daw to slope creep said trust & Spriaga issae iroen contact beneath � 3=Undw= t awditu .jaiotswidenandmm -IS derby=&lhrrocks.causlagshlbMiltooiwards.4.Slab lhllsb mdW face woto moa slopes, lrrl dawn a� nets• & Slab bppks sad shatters, shoRerlpg runout zme below wild bouldaa,andcak aftsearc>if&ce tosredm TLL MERT 1411,11 ■M. milii FOre 4. I3mestane slabs resting on weak shale pedestals, upper da source arra. LJMESTO"E o EMGE Fignme S. Slope aup causing limestaae blocks to mare down bedding planes and off lower diff edger Modcs are Vnerailly a !t x 3 R Ws mccim m is responsible for bequot rock tllls In the study ores. 11 r � � r _ Fpm 3. Tagpll■g Smb4Wilsa Segoes w L Inldd diff aayaeatio�. Z. Dit l weatherLg of shale beglas to natderca! naasi� did iaeaehrg aWre. �dms open � widen daw to slope creep said trust & Spriaga issae iroen contact beneath � 3=Undw= t awditu .jaiotswidenandmm -IS derby=&lhrrocks.causlagshlbMiltooiwards.4.Slab lhllsb mdW face woto moa slopes, lrrl dawn a� nets• & Slab bppks sad shatters, shoRerlpg runout zme below wild bouldaa,andcak aftsearc>if&ce tosredm TLL MERT 1411,11 ■M. milii FOre 4. I3mestane slabs resting on weak shale pedestals, upper da source arra. LJMESTO"E o EMGE Fignme S. Slope aup causing limestaae blocks to mare down bedding planes and off lower diff edger Modcs are Vnerailly a !t x 3 R Ws mccim m is responsible for bequot rock tllls In the study ores. 11 1 OLDER ROCKFALL BOULDER GRANITIC BOULDERS IN TILL {. SOIL PROFILE DEPRESSION IN SOIL Pn1M WEATHERED SURFACE 0 FRESH ROCKFALL BOULDER INCONSISTENT NO DEPRESSION DISCOLORATIONS EDGES EX POSED t- . ,.,.4 .......-. 4 COLLUVKM rZIN -I ILL •� 47 1 • O + K 6. PhyAmI diliereawes between r0efdall sad &dally dgmd ed b=141ers In =90 acute. Rm*M betters am all KwMae or samldoto ne, while p,IilW boolders are mostly roanded graalte our mdamor'phic N&dOgk& Note that soil =lM bekw reciftil bookers, while It is abw mt beneath gfactel beiddera. skmO down along the dip slopes and atutually fall, into open direction radiating foam be. point of initial fall. The. pallernt air cracks famed bye wedging slabs fanthez apart trajectory a given boulder owld follow is so u ctabia that The glaciated valleysof GoreandBooth CmAs both possess it is imprac&W to ddineato individual hazard zta= based on reladvelyflatbottoatsanddeep nearlyvadcalsideL7Udopes the physicaloa damsavarious swamt, of the cofaces.is are so stip that once a boulder or slab topples from the offs, the present situation- hazard mones arc mare practically:dated kumallyamwtoomnctaVes VBdtreacbestbckm koWopes to ba bontal.dism=Irraindie xwce areas. woes fardwaway ofthe valleywali. An mon of the runout zone 9wws that experieacing a smallmkaW 9 of Being cacompowd. by a large boulders and slabs have travelled onto and am= parts of gim event. This approach yields an appraAm&dyradW aeries the valley Saar due to the tremendous momentum they acquire of zones radiating out fi om the source arca; the mea acme in the aomleratiaou zone, hazards are dkkmslyr doscst to the difis. It dK mid be pointed out, ho w+cm, that any area within the extent of the tvtroot zone Factors ming Rod&lls is snbyeet to same degree of rodM hasard. Mast of the rociddis repotted in this area appear to be re- lated to alternating ficeme-thaw coadkKws. Events have oc- cuurcd at might is wino, spring, and fall, after warm days of mckioghave. introduced runoff into joints and fmacturrs, Upon freezing, the ice expands in the cracks sufficiently to topple an unstable block. Some events have also occurred an the other side of the cycle, as sunshine thaws the from cliffs, releasing a precariously perched block or boulder. Hazard Classification and Zonation The rockfall hazard associated with geologic and topographic conditions and the proximity of dwellings as descn'bcd above is considered to be severe. Tho majority of large boulders found amongstructurm in the runout zone have fallen from the cliffs. i�icld study indicates that the question is not, "Will skmitcant rockfall occur?", but rather, "Whatis the rc=- rence interval between ftffwm rockfall events?". Acceleration slopes are so steep and smooth that rocks traversing them are free to deflect and skitter laterally is any Hazwd Zorn Delineatioa Varying degrees of rockfall hazy scvwity can be ap- proximated by emunh ation of the :nature and positions of boulders and slabs in the ranoat zone. Each large boulder was examined to debmine several factors which ware used to ap- prammat,e the emu of the runout zome, and estimate the time spans since each rockfall boulder came to rest. These factors are: 1) Whether or not a bo"r was of rocck M orWn or 2j Whether or rat a rockfall boulderwas resdggundis- turbed in its original position or had been mored by human activities. i} The physical nature of undisturbed rockfallboulders with respect to basal contact, (resting on surface+ cme bedded, partially covered, etc.) and fichen, moss, and weatbenog patterns on exposed surface& 4) The comparative size distributions of boulders within the nwout zone. 0 RockfaR Versus Glacial Origin of Boalders In order to detmainc the extent of the rodtfail runout zone, it is necessary to determine whether boulders encountered belowthe cliffs in Vail Village have fallen from one of the source areas and come to rest on the surface, or if theyw+ere transported in and deposited by icy or autwasb dureug Pleistocene gbda- tions. This &tinttioa can be made by cmparing the character of boulders found embedded in undisturbed glacial deposits with the limestone and sandstone boulders derived from the cliffs (Figure S). Glacially deposited boulders are mostly rounded to subrou nded smooth granite or metamorphic rocks which are imbedded in the snrrotmd:agglaasl dCPOSkL The ex- posed. surfaces of &se boulders are almost totally wvered with lichens and moss. The Leavy lichen cover and other wall dcveloped surface rock w6atherimg feantres such as pits and etched reef of indiviidual mineral grains, mWea that these boulders have been in plays for 20 to 4t] thousand yearL m gla- cially deposited oobbles and bouldrrs act- 15 to 40 percent granitic and metamorphic ruck types, and very few limestone or sandstcmr- cobbles or boulders r -an ax found in the till. 'i'hi, is due to the fad that elm only source area where valley glaciers could smiur and irtuurpor ate lirucstonc blocs is u narrow hand of rock ant axile upstream from the runout zone. The extensive ripper basin which spawned the glaciers is composed of Precambrian igneous and metamorphic lithologies, which make-up ibc vast majority of the rod type -s encountered in Q depots found in the rockfall runout woe. in contrast* targe boulders and slabs of rockfall origin aro angtrfar nr poorly rounded, rest directly on the ground surface, do not show an equal amount ofwcaihc6ng oa all exposed surfaces, and are al- mtsst txehtsivcly limestone or sandstone. A fowgraaitic rockfalI boulders are also present, and arc dc= v d From till in the upper source area. `l hese difl;ereirion were used to map the it m6uas of hose boulders of rockW origin and dtstermine the ap- prttximate limits of the MOM zona Dbtu rood vmw undiatarbed Rodthll Ream= OUCC a Specific boulder was identified as being of probable rockfall ongjsx, its position ou the foot slopes could be used to predict (he nature.and Mout of the runoutaoaa. Apmblem with using the positions of rorldA boulders in the sabdivision and adjamm areas to delineate the rtwout zones is that many have beca disturW and mored from their anginal positions duri4 devclopmcnt and construction activities_ Many of the bou.ldcrs are too large (some weigh up to 15 torus) to be moved rally, eveuby heavyequiprnent, and it is assumed thattheyttre tuovW only a few feet to several tens of feet from their or4in.11 position in order to carry out constni tion of roads and buildinr, fotmda- uoa& The accuracy of this amumption is not easily determined, and the present positions of the disturbrri boulders as indicAtors of nwaut zone and hq?ard zone cha_n4cteristics arc not entirety reliable. Disturbed or transpf)marl rockfall boulders always shwa' fresh gongm :md abrasions caused by 4cavy earth muting cquiptnenL Additionally, the9 and lichen growth patterns, if any, arc in- consistent wisie the present orientations of the boulders, indicat- ing that they have been rmued after the pauterns were cstab- tL,,,hed_ DiscalOrafi0ns of tbF- disturbed boulders cause+l by soil CiWWL mon be observed on the sides or top of those which have been pushed aver and moved. The boulders often leave trails or M arks where they bane bees pvshcd along the ground, creating a small berm of scraped up soil along one of their basal edges. Undisturbed roddall boulders do not shove fresh gouges or pe,% havecon silent hep and moss growth pawns, do not show soil disoalmdous on their sides or tops, and are often Sur- rounded by young busbes, aspen trees, or natural verAation, which has obviously poi been disturbed. The positions of these boulders can be used to more aomiratcly project the nii num limits of the run oot. 700 since [lacy can be inferred to have crime to rest in their present ptzitioas after falling From Lbe cliffs. Factors Used to Approximate _#gam and Recarrence Intervals W of Major Rod&H Events Certain diaracteristks exhibited by undisttttbed rocldall boulders and slabs in the ranovt some, suggest approat Mate or relative Elm spans since they eame to rest after falling, and give a rocto estimate of the recurrence =weal$ between large slab - failure evemtL The contact made by a boulder with the surface suggests how hong the rock has lean resting in its present posi- tion. As the length of tient: in.Lmascs, the rock will tend to press into the gra and slope wash, soil cxocp, and frost wedging will net to fall in amm d the bwe of the rock with soil. matorialS. knclrs which have been sitfi[ig for lung periods tend to be some - what embedded in the sci� and if mower, would reveal as inden. talion in the ground. RoW which have rceeatty fallen icer ae tly on tlta ground surface, and may lit ars brush or small trees they have clushe d beneath them. One can push a stick beneath the edps of such a rock in some places` ❑lldesrocimalsohavemoreoons gmAHebertgrowthpatterns than me eently moored rocks which have trached fkrm the mufti. Reoeotly 3numd rock mq possess differendally weatbcrcd stu- faces, as a result of their former positions on the cliff- IF " bonfder acquired a surEam weathering and color pattern mobile on the cliffs, it is unlikely to rofl to a stop in the same pasitiotJ and the sulfa= which we Tr previously a inst the ground or faring joints may still possess a characteristic coloration coa- trastitrg with ok r, exposed weathered surfaces. Con_sidcrabie� bane is necessary for natural weathering processes to remove. ihis discoloration and create a new uniform surface color on tate rock. I Distribution of Recktall Emmts Examination of the svurm area and runout tone revealsthat two basic types of rockW events take place in the 0*siva. The first and most commom involves Smaller individual boulders generally m the (0.5 x 1 m) size ram, which detach froug sedimentary beds and eventually fall from the cliffs. These faM commonlyinvoinseveralbouldexs, many of which are set in mo- tion after being struck by the initial falling rock. Ibis type o� 11 1 [l 11 1 1 1 minor roddall is common, and based on examination of the runout zone and cliffs above, can be expected to occur everyone to three years -'This is the type of rockfall which occurred in the Mid events of May 1953, January 1984, and September 1997, damaging several structures. Many rockfall events go un- reported unless significant damage to structwes oocars. The second type of rockM is much less frequent, but of far greaterdanger and destructive potential. It involves massif cslab failures of the cliff faces, along joints which liberate large (45 x 6 m) slabs and (25 x 15 m) limestone boulders, showering them outothe acaelen6mslopesbelow:Tbe next rockfall ofthismag- nitude will ahnost certainly result in extensive damage or destruction to structures in the runout zone below. Animprease prefimnwyesbmateof rc,==noaintcm&for these large slab -failure events, based ou etaminatiaa of the source area and undisturbed rorkfall boulders in the runout zone, is on the order of 40 to 100 years. Large boulders set in mubm during these ewers can travel through the runout zone as far as the maximum probable limit. An estimate of the last 00- currence of this type ofewnt, based on the freshes4 undisturbed rockfall boulder in the nmout zone, and weathering patterns on the cliffs, is on the order of 40 to 60 years ago. Pokabai Solutions to Recideli Ekmnls The feasibility of protective sructures and other wevendme measures w= evaluated during the study. Smaller boulders commonly falling off the levier diff oonld probably be arrested by pr+otechn atnxWes buk no the lower aceelerabon zone on property within the platted sub- division.l7te structures must be capable of absorbing the ener- gies of one ton b x&lus traveling at 50 mplt, and vvould probab- ly umAve energy absorbing metcrials held within timber or ro& aU tug.Maintcaanoeofthesuatchmesworldbt:aoocssaulyeach time a boulder is stopped, since the eneW disdpation will damage or deform that puri of the structure involved. It is probably not fcauVe to build an armoring wall or other type of structure which attempts to arrest the boulders through rigid strength, due to the extremely high momentum rocks gain througltthe acceleration zone. The unpredictable paths and pat- terns foilowed by roc1m skktaing down slope makes it difficult 0 to determine the best places to site the protective structures. One approach would be to construct individual protective struc- tures for each building within the runout zone. Alternatively, a Single large structure above the subdivision might provide as much protection and create less overall disturbance to the area. The structure would have to be carchAy designed and con- structed to be free draining and to prevent adverse snow or ice acctumuladws from fwmmgabove the prommve barrier. Siting a conmmmuty typo protector structure appears to be feasible if based on the detailed siting studies which woouldbc necessary to determine the most suitable location. In either case, oasts for theca structures are estimated to be on the order of 0.75 to one million dollars, and could be higher. Unfostumatdely, these strue- tures would do little to prevent larger boulders or slabs derived through toppling failures from destroying structwcs in the runout zone. The energies possessed by such subs or boulders are simply too great to contain within the restricted space avail- able between the souroc areas and emstmg residences. I IS M 4 51 R Maii-K Mears, A.I., 1479, Colorado snow avalanche area studies and guidelines for avalanche -hazard planning: Colorado GeoWwW Survey Special PuMl cation 7,124 p. RobW on, C.S., and AwodatM C,eologicai Consultants, 1975, Geologic hazard maps for emarammental and land -use plan - mg, Eagle Catmty, Colorado. Rogers, w.P-, ct al., ]974, Guidelines and c riwk for kkzdfi- cation and land -use controls of gedo& hazard and mineral resource areas: Colorado Geological Survey Special Publication 6,146 p. Sheltoan, D.C, 1974, Rockfall: variables which determine the hazard Unpublished repeat, Colorado Geological Survey Geologic hazard files, Deaver, Colorado. Twct% Ogden, and Lovering, T,S-,1977, Geology of the Wm- nun mturn U -minute Quadrangle, Eagle and Summit Counties. Cdorado: U.S_ GooWmml Survey Professional Paper 956, 96 p. 1 1 i 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ROCHFALL MITIGATICO Jonathan L. White Colorado GeologleW Survty 1WRGDUCTIDN Rockfall is a geologic hazard that is catastrophic in nature. For the most part it is viewed as a nui- sance by highway maintenance personnel who are required to clean the debris off the roadway and periodically clean out the fallen rocks with- in the roadside ditches. When rockfall occurs in populated areas or areas frequented by people, lethal accidents can occur. In general, rockfall occurs where there is . source of rock and a slope. Within the rock mass, discontinuities (bedding planes, joints, fractures, etc.) are locations where rock is prone to move, and ultimately, fail. Depending on the spatial orientation of these planes of weakness, failures occur when the driving forces, those forces that cause movement, exceed the resisting forces. The slope must have a gradient steep enough that rocks, once detached from bedrock, can move and accelerate down the slope by slid- ing, falling, rolling, andlor bouncing. Where the frequency of natural rockfall events are consid- ered unacceptable for an area of proposed or current use, and avoidance is not an option, there are techniques of mitigation that are avail- able to either reduce rockfall rates and prevent rocks from falling, or to protect structures or areas of use frorn the threat. There have been important technological advancements in rockfall analysis and mitigation techniques m the last several years. They include rockfall simulation software, rock mechanics software, and research and develop- ment in new, innovative mitigation techniques. This paper emphasizes mitigation techniques. There are many facto)s that influence a selection and design of a mitigation system to reduce or elindnate a rockfall hazard. They include: 1. The rock source (lithology, strength, struc- ture, and weatherability) and expected re- sultant fallen rock geometry (size and shape); 2. Slope geometry (topography); 3. Slope material characteristics (slope surface roughness, softness, whether vegetated or barren); 4. Proximity of the structure requiring protec- tion to source area and rockfall run -out zone; 5. bevel of required rockfall protection (the acceptable degree of risk); 6. Cost of the various mitigation options (con- struction, project management, and design); 7. Constntctability (mobilization difficulties, equipment access, and other constraints); 8. future maintenance costs. For any public or private land use proposal, in steep sloping areas, the geologic hazard investigation should initially recognize those physical factors listed above. If rockfall has been identified as a hazard thea a detailed rock - fall hazard analysis is warranted. The conclusion of such analyses, in addition to the determina- tion of the factors above, must include: 1. An accurate determination of anticipated risk and frequency of rockfall at the loca- tion of the proposed land use, and; 2. Site specific calculations of the velocities, bounding heights, and impact forces for the range of anticipated rockfall events. Once all physical characteristics and calcu- lated falling rock dynamics are determined then the appropriate engineering and design can be completed for mitigation of the rockfall threat. ROCKEALL M MGATION TECHNIQUES The available techniques in effective prevention and mitigation of rockfall, fall into two cate- gories. One is stabilization of the rock mass at the source to prevent or reduce rockfall occur- rences. The other is the acceptance that haz- ardous rockfall will occur, but with the place- ment of protective devices to shield structures, or public areas, from the threat of impact. There is a third category that, while not a form of miti- gation, is a method that can diminish the cata- strophic nature of rockfall. It is rockfall warning and instrumentation systems. Systems, electrical and mechanical, that either will indicate that a rockfall event is imminent, or has just occurred. 0 Stabilization and Reinforcement Techniques that require in-situ or surficial treat- ments of the slope to induce additional stability to the exposed rock mass are termed rock and/or slope stabilization aid reinforcement. Stabiliza- tion can be accomplished by any combination of the following: removing unstable rock features, reducing the driving forces that contribute to instability and ultimate failure, artdlor increasing the resisting forces (friction or shear strength). I. Scaling (hand scaling, mechanical seal- ing, and trim blasting). Scaling is the removal of loose and potentially unstable rock from a slope. on slopes of poor rock conditions scaling is generally viewed as a continual maintenance procedure because the loose rock removed exposes the rock underneath to further weathering. 2. Reduce slope grade. Laying a slope back can prevent rocks from falling from a source area.. 3. Dewater or drain rock slope to reduce water pore pressures. The installation of drainage holes in rock can reduce the pore pressure in rock fractures --one of the dri- ving forces mentioned above. 4. Rock dowels. Rock dowels are steel rods that are grouted in holes drilled in rock, generally across a joint or fracture in the rock of unfavorable orientation. It is a pas- sive system in which loading or stressing of the dowel occurs only if the rock moves (slides) along the joint plane. (See Figure 1.) 5. Ro&bolts. Rockbolts are installed mucin like dowels but are usually loaded or stressed, which imparts a compressive force on the rock. The loading of the steel rod during the installation increases the shear strength of the joint or fracture and pre- vents ro-vents movement, reinforcing the exposed rock mass. There are wide varieties of rock- bolts, ockbolts, including mechanical, grouted, and binary epoxy resin systems. 6. Steel strapping. Steel strapping► also called mine strapping, is a strip of steel that bridges between offset rockbolts or dowels to support the rock mass between them. 7. Anchored wire mesh or cable nets. Fence wire or, depending on loading criteria, cable nets are draped on a rock slope and anchored to the rock mass by the beariDg plates of rock dowels or rock bolts. The anchor pattern is set so that the wire mesh or cable nets are.in continuous contact with the rock face so that there is complete con- finement of the loose rock material. (See Figure 2.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 8.5hotcrete. Shotcrete is the sprayed applica tion by compressed air of concrete on rock or rocky soil slopes for reinforcement and containment_ Shoterete applications can be strengthened by the addition of nylon or steel fibers to the concrete mixture, or the placement of a wire grid on the rock slope prior to application. Weep holes are usually drilled into the shotcrete to ensure that the contained material is free draining. (See Figure 3.) Yrj �... t3� fi?- a��•�•�-ayy�� c�r �a'x 'tib••. ��:;, �xx .H _ •� �_}"' 1..�: rhe ��y�k,-«., �• Sir: _.:''. {•Lit' ,,.,pt'a*G'.�:',c:.. ?ice -'•f, '�;.� mare 3. Shot"ete. 9. Buttresses. Buttresses are used where over- hanging or undermined rock features become potentially unstable and require passive restraint. Buttresses can be con- structed from many types of material- For concrete buttresses, rock dowels are gener- ally enesally installed into stimmriding competent rock to anchor the buttress in place, (See Figure 4.) 10.Cable lashings. Cable lashing is the wrap- ping of high capacity cables around a potentially unstable rock feature. The cables are then attached to anchors (rock dowels) installed in adjacent competent rock, (See Figure 5.) U.Ground Anchors. Ground anchors are generally used to prevent large, potential landslide -type. failures in heavily weathered, fractured rock and rocky soils. Their installation requires the drilling of deep holes and the grouting of thick bundles of high-strength wire strand, which are ached to large load -tag panels and then stressed (pulled) to a desired WWonal load and locked off. Figure 4. Anchored concrete buttress. ftm"s S. cable lashing. Rodcfall Protection Devices When stabilization of rock slopes is not practical and sufficient room exists, protective devices or structures can be constructed to shield areas from rockfall impact. I. Fences. Rockfall fences come in a variety of styles and capacities. They tend to become less effective and are damaged if not destroyed by larger rockfall events. (See Figure C.) F m G. Rock&U fence. 2. Ditches. Ditches excavated into slopes can provide excellent rockfail protection. Care is needed in analysis and design to insure that bounding rocks cannot span the ditch width. (See Figure 7.) 3. impart barriers and walls. Impact barrier and walls can be made from many types of material, from fill mechanically stabilized by geowAtiles, rock gabion baskets, timber, steel, concrete, or even haybales. Highway departments commonly use Jersey barriers on roadsides to contain smaller failing rock in the ditch. The inertial systems, able to absorb the forces of momentum of the mov- ing rock, have nigher capacities, without costly impact damage, compared to more rigid systems. (See Figure 8.) 4. Eartben berms. Berms are elongated mounds of fill, commonly used in associa- tion with ditches to increase the effective height and catchment of the protection device. (See Figura 7.) 5. Hanging fences, nets, and other attenua- tion device$. In well-defined gall chutes in steeper rock slope area it is possible to anchor cables to span the chute and hang fence mesh, cable netting, or rock attenua- tion elements. Rocks that roll and bounce down the chute impact these devices, which attenuates (reduces) the rock velocity. (See Figure 9.) r CMNnTW aARRER ' anr� yALWAV x Figure 8. M.rhmically stabilized baelrlI barrier. FgWn 7. Rockfall ditch and berm 1 1 1 1 ROCK oLTrCR�P it0[3GpALL CHUM STACKED t au ros�na mom CABU i 1 P -figure 9. Ttm impact attenuator. 6. Draped mesh or netting. Draped mesh is similar to the stabilization technique anchored mesh but is only attached to the rock slope at the top. Rocks from the slope are still able to fail but the mesh drape keeps the rock fragment next to the slope where they safely "dribble" out below to a catch- r*,=t ditch or accumulate as small detrital fans. (See Figure 10.) Figar+e 14. Draped mesb- 7. Rock sheds and tuusels. Rock sheds and tunnels are mentioned here only because they are used mostly for transportation corri- dors. They have little or no application in most types of land use. AYaIDANCE— THE 100 PERCENT SOLU17ON There is one more mitigation method that is nei- ther a stabRizadonfreinforcement system nor pro- tection system_ It is strongly recommended at locations where rockfall hazards are very severe, andlor risks very high. Mitigation designs pro- posed in such areas may not afford the necessary level of protection. Bear in mind that no rockfall mitigation is 100 percent guaranteed, even in mild rockfall hazard zones. Avoidance is excel- lent mitigation and must be considered where cir- cumstances warrant. Any professional in rockfall analysis and mitigation (as with any geologic hazard) must, at tines, inform developers, plan- ners, and the public that a proposed Iand use is incompatible with the site conditions. SUGGESTED READING Federal Highway Administration, 1989, Rock slopes: design, excavation, and stabilization: Publication FHWA-TS-89-045, prepared by Golder and Associates, Seattle, Washington, fended by the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, U.S. Depwtment of Transportation: McLean, Virginia, Research, Development, and Technology, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 1373] p. Federal Highway Adruinistration, 1994, Rockfall hazard mitigation methods, participant work- book; Publication FHWA SA -93-085, pre- pared for the Federal Highway Administra- tion, U.S. Department of Transportation Publication by SNI international Resources, Inc.: Washington, D.C., National Highway Institute (NHF Course 13219), (357] p. Hambley, D.F., ed., 1991, Association of Engineering Geologists, 34th annual meet- ing, Chicago, Minois, Sept. 29-W. 4, 1991, Proceedings, national symposium, highway and railroad slope maintenance: Association of Engineering Geologists, ISO p. Hoek, Evert, and Bray, John, 1981, Rock slope engineering, (rev. 3rd ed.): London, U.K., The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 358 p. Pfeiffer, TJ., et al., 1995, Colorado rockfall simu- lation program, version 3.0a: Colorado Department of Transportation Publication CDUT DTD ED3-CSM-89-2B. Available from: Colorado Geological Survey Miscell- aneous Information Series 39, diskette, 50 p. 0 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Roam 715 Denver, Colorado 80243 Phone: (303)866-2611 FAX. (103) 866-2461 March 12, 2002 Mr. Russell Forrest Senior Environmental Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 0 STATE OF COLORADO - SM-98-OC04 RE: Review of Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominiums. Dear Russ: P F p7t, 7 W, i0A NATOr- URAL RESOURCES Bill Owens Governor Greg E. Walcher Executive Director Michael B. long Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director The CGS was requested by you to provide some additional comments on the completed rockfall mitigation at the Booth Creek Condominiums in the Town of Vail. At your earlier request,l inspected the rockfall mitigation structures on October 22, 20011 after construction was completed last fall and sent comments to you in a letter dated November g, 2001. A question arose concerning any potential impacts to adjacent owners from the construction of the inertial barrier walls designed for rockfall impact. During my site inspection last fall I did not note any way in which these structures would adversely impact adjacent owners, except for a remote possibility to the access road to the Town water tank. There should be sufficient room to stockpile the snow against the foot of the western wall if the water tank road needs plowing for access during the winter. Also the issue of maintenance and inspection of the structures was raised. The mechanically stabilized earth impact walls are basically maintenance -free. One concern 1 raised last fall was potential for sloughing or slumping of soil into the catchment zone from the bare cut slopes. If not cleaned out, the soil accumulation could effectively reduce the wall height. The cut slopes behind the walls (re -vegetated and stabilized as recommended) should be inspected every spring or after an unusually heavy precipitation event. The barrier walls should also be inspected after any rockfall impacts. Crushed portions of the wall facing after impact should be quickly repaired. Yenter Companies can provide guidance on recommended repair techniques for the wall facing. The only other type of failure of the system that could arise is a hearing failure of the native soils that the impact barrier wall is ftaunded on. If tilting or sagging of portions of the walls is observed, the homeowner's association should inform Yenter Companies and require their staff to inspect the structure. Slight undulations along the length of the walls by differential settlement will not effect the performance of the structures. While an unlikely scenario, adverse tilting of the structures could be more problematic. Inspection of the walls and catchment zone behind should be part of a normal maintenance item of the condominium grounds by the homeowners association. I do not believe this action needs to be conducted by city staff unless distress of the wall parallel to the water tank access road is observed, which could possibly affect the roadway. Again, I believe it is very unlikely that this would occur. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the original rockfall assessment report the CGS prepared after the March 26, 1997 rockfall event. If you have any questions, please contact this office at (343) 866-3551 or e-mail: jonathan.white a@state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Engineering Geologist EVWHS Development Application - Exhibit 6 Transportation Impact Study for Triumph Development's East Vail Residential oh l �p FdSt6oG�b Rte, n F/OrQ R fps Ory February 14, 2019 Revised May 21, 0219 PREPARED FOR: Triumph Development Attn. Michael O'Connor 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 PREPARED BY: McDowell Engineering, LLC PO Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 970.623.0788 Contact: Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE Project Number: 1379 Statement of Engineering Qualifications Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE is a Transportation and Traffic Engineer for McDowell Engineering, LLC. Ms. McDowell Schroeder has over twenty-two years of extensive traffic and transportation engineering experience. She has completed numerous transportation studies and roadway design projects throughout the State of Colorado. Ms. McDowell Schroeder is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and has her certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 2 Transportation Impact Study for East Vail Residential Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................................................................7 2.2 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................................................7 3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS............................................................................................................... 9 3.1 EXISTING & COMMITTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.......................................................................................9 3.2 PLANNED OR EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS..............................................................................................9 3.3 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR...........................................................................................................................9 3.4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH...........................................................................................................................9 3.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FORECASTS........................................................................................................................9 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC...................................................................................................................................12 4.1 EXISTING SITE TRAFFIC.......................................................................................................................................12 4.2 PROPOSED LAND USE........................................................................................................................................12 4.3 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................12 4.4 MULTIMODAL REDUCTION.................................................................................................................................12 4.5 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC..................................................................................................................................12 4.6 SITE -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................14 4.7 SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT................................................................................................................14 4.8 TOTALTRAFFIC.................................................................................................................................................14 5.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS....................................................................................................19 5.1 SITE DESIGN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION EVALUATION.............................................................................................19 5.2 MULTI MODAL CONNECTIVITY............................................................................................................................19 5.3 AUXILIARYTURN LANE REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................19 5.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................20 5.5 SITE ACCESS SIGHT DISTANCE..............................................................................................................................20 5.6 STATE HIGHWAYACCESS PERMIT.........................................................................................................................20 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................21 7.0 APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................22 East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 3 Tables and Figures FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP.................................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3: YEAR 2017 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................................................................. 8 FIGURE 4: YEAR 2019 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................10 FIGURE 5: YEAR 2040 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................11 TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION................................................................................................................13 TABLE 2: PROPOSED EAST VAIL RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS........................................................13 FIGURE 6: PROJECT -GENERATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................15 FIGURE 7: PROJECT -GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT.....................................................................................16 FIGURE 8: YEAR 2019 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 9: YEAR 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC................................................................................................................18 TABLE 3: AUXILIARY TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................20 East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 4 1.0 Project Description The East Vail Residential project is proposing a new residential apartment complex. The development will provide both market rate housing and affordable housing to the local workforce. The purpose of this CDOT Level 2 study is to forecast and analyze the impacts of the site's additional traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. This traffic analysis was scoped with both the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. The proposed site is located north and west of the existing 1-70 and East Vail interchange. The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. The project location is shown in Figure 1. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1: Vicinity Map East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 5 Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan m _ a Oul - A X2019 TRIUMPH Sh..t pace, 5/m2/2BI9 Stamp Sheet title Revisions: Y�1�77 T� �(pU p CITEPLAN EAST VAIL OOl Il fUNIT`I' - E5OOTN LATe 1l I.UIIbel Jill Projecc No. � Al � Drawn ey MEF VAI L, OOLOFAF-)O alro57 'Re'aeeo Checked dy, MEF 2.0 Existing Conditions 2.1 Description of Existing Transportation System North 1-70 Frontage Road: The North 1-70 Frontage Road is a two-lane, paved roadway that parallels the north side of 1-70. This Frontage Road connects East Vail to Main Vail and West Vail, sometimes crossing under 1-70 as a South Frontage Road. In the vicinity of the site, the North 1-70 Frontage Road has a posted speed limit of 25mph eastbound and 45mph westbound. Big Horn Road: Big Horn Road is a paved, two-lane road that connects the residential homes in East Vail to the East Vail 1-70 interchange. The posted speed limit on Big Horn Road is 40mph. 2.2 Traffic Data Collection Existing Traffic Volumes: Existing turning movement counts were collected by McDowell Engineering. Traffic data was collected on Saturday, December 30, 2017 per direction of the Town of Vail Engineer. Turning movement counts were collected from 7:00 — 9:00am and 4:00 — 6:00pm. This count date and time are considered a seasonal peak for the Town of Vail. The resulting Year 2017 traffic volumes for the weekday morning peak hour and weekday afternoon peak hour are shown in Figure 3. The raw traffic data is also included in the Appendix. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 7 Figure 3: Year 2017 Existing Traffic lj o o LO/0 2 O L0/0 00 0 0 71/92 0 O O 411111111111111112/1 41 Lo 411 Lo r 3/5 0/0j 0/0=J41 1 �' 53/128 2/0 ==� rn � O N 51/128 � m J ro o L5/26 n v o 4�0/1 41 Lor 11/65 0/0 =j 1 �' 0/0 y O 0/0 En m m L O/O \ o � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 7,18 MJ I r O 56/146 m ' LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 3.0 Future Traffic Projections 3.1 Existing & Committed Capital Improvement Projects There are no existing or committed capital improvement projects that will impact this analysis. 3.2 Planned or Existing Land Development Projects There are no planned or existing land development projects in the immediate vicinity. 3.3 Seasonal Adjustment Factor The data collection date and times are considered a seasonal peak for the Town of Vail. Therefore, no seasonal adjustment factor is required for this analysis. 3.4 Background Traffic Growth Long-term background growth was based upon the Town of Vail's historic 1.5% annual growth rate. This is consistent with the Town's latest Vail Master Plan forecast methods. 3.5 Background Traffic Forecasts The resulting peak hour forecasted Year 2019 and forecasted Year 2040 background traffic volumes can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5, respectively. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 9 Figure 4: Year 2019 Background Traffic ljOO LO/0 0 0 73/95 41 Lo 0/0 55/132 J O O O L O,O 1 o 0 0 2/1 41 � r 3/5 2,0 ° O N 53/132 E J N o L5/27 N o 4�0/1 41 Lor 11/67 0/0 =j t �' 0/0 y N o O 0/0 m a rn LO/O \ M O � � � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 7/19 t r 1/2 ro N O 58/150 o m . N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 5: Year 2040 Background Traffic ljOO L0/0 0 0 100/130 41 Lo 0/0 75/180 J O O O L �,0 I 0 0 0 40M 3/1 �1 Lor4/7 0/0=j t �' 3/0 ==� O 72/180 EM% J N O L7/37 m O 4�0/1 41 Lor 15/92 0/0 =j t �' 0,0 y o O 0,0 N N LO \ O � m � 0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 10/26 r 1/2 N O 79/205 v ' N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 4.0 Project Traffic 4.1 Existing Site Traffic The project site is currently vacant and is not producing any significant traffic. 4.2 Proposed Land Use The proposed development will include up to 73 dwelling units. This includes 31 market rate townhomes and 42 affordable housing apartments. The proposed townhomes will serve a mix of local residents and second homeowners. The apartment units are intended to be affordable for Vail's ski resort and hospitality employees. 4.3 Trip Generation Analysis These dwelling units fall under two separate land use definitions. The market rate townhomes are included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual a land use #221 Multifamily Dwelling Unit. This land use applies whether the units are occupied as primary dwelling units or as second homes. ITE's trip generation rates were utilized for this analysis. The Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments in Vail have similar characteristics to the proposed affordable housing apartments. They primarily serve work force housing, have similar amenities, and have direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and amenities. Both CDOT and the Town agreed that the trip generation data from the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge accesses could be applied to the anticipated trip generation calculations for this development. 4.4 Multimodal Reduction A 10% multimodal trip reduction was used when calculating the total number of vehicular trips from the market rate townhomes. This reduction was used to accommodate the projected number of transit trips from the site's bus stop to the resort and local businesses. The multimodal reduction for the affordable apartments was intrinsically included in the Lions Ridge and Timber Ridge Apartments observations. Many residents were observed using the adjacent transit stop. 4.5 Site -Generated Traffic The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. Refer to Table land Table 2 for trip generation calculations and further breakdown of these trips. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 12 PROJECT NUMBER PREPARED BY: CDOWELL DATE: ENG INLERING«< REVISED: Table 1: Existing Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Trip Generation Analysis Vail, Colorado Estimated Site -Generated Traffic' M1379 KJ S 2019-05-21 Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Trin Generatinn Rate -1 WeekdaV3 Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound ITE Code Units z Avg. AM PM Weekd Peak Peak ay Hour Hour Trips (VPD) o Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips % Trips Trips Existing Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments 210 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 690 32% 14 68% 30 54% 37 46% 32 Observed Trip Generation 690 14 30 37 32 Table 2: Proposed East Vail Residential Trip Generation Analysis Vail, Colorado Estimated Site -Generated Traffic' Average Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Trin Ganarntinn Rntac1 WaakdaV3 Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Notes: 1 Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. z kSF = 1,000 Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units 3 Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. ° Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 5 Multimodal reductions are intrinsically included in the Timbar Ridge and Lions Ridge trip generation rates. Avg. AM PM z Trips o % % % ITE Code Units Weekd Peak Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips (VPD) Trips Trips Trips Trips ay Hour Hour Proposed East Vail Apartments - Workforce 42 DU 3.29 0.21 0.33 138 32% 3 68% 6 54% 7 46% 6 Housing1,s Subtotal 138 3 6 7 6 Proposed East Vail Townhomess - Second Homes ° (ITE Land Use 221) 31 DU 5.44 0.32 0.41 169 27% 3 73% 7 60% 8 40% 5 Multimodal Reduction -10% -17 0 -1 -1 -1 Subtotal 152 3 6 7 4 !Anticipated Trip Generation 290 5 1 12 1 14 1 10 Notes: 1 Values obtained from field counts at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartment Accesses during ski season on December 1, 2018. z kSF = 1,000 Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units 3 Assumes a dhv of 10% of ADT. ° Values obtained from Trip Generation, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 5 Multimodal reductions are intrinsically included in the Timbar Ridge and Lions Ridge trip generation rates. 4.6 Site -Generated Directional Distribution The directional distribution of site -generated traffic on adjacent roadways is influenced by several factors, including the following: • The location of the site relative to other facilities and the roadway network, • The configuration of the existing and proposed adjacent roadway network, • Relative location of neighboring population centers. Within the Town of Vail, it is often easier for residents and employees to take local transit than to drive a personal vehicle and find parking. Google Maps driving directions were used to compare travel times between the site and the closest grocery store, post office, Vail Village, etc. This analysis supported the following project -generated directional distribution: • Eighty percent (80%) of site -generated traffic will originate to/from the 1-70 interchange. Of this traffic, sixty percent (60%) was assumed to originate from the west. Twenty percent (20%) was assumed to come from the east on 1-70. • Twenty percent (20%) of site -generated traffic will originate to/from the west on the North 1-70 Frontage Road. Figure shows the project generated directional distribution. Per CDOT's request a sensitivity analysis of alternate distribution assumptions were also reviewed assuming a 30%/70% split and 10%/90% split. Refer to Section 5.4. 4.7 Site -Generated Traffic Assignment When the trip generation expected for this site is applied to the estimated trip distribution, the result is the anticipated assignment of trips on the roadway system. Figure depicts the traffic assignment. 4.8 Total Traffic For the short term forecasted Year 2019, the background traffic (Figure 4) added to the site -generated traffic (Figure 7) yields the total Year 2019 traffic in Figure . Similarly, for Year 2040, background traffic (Error! Reference source not found.) is added to the site -generated traffic (Figure ) to yield the total Year 2040 traffic in Figure . East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 14 Figure 6: Site -Generated Directional Distribution 1 0 0 L80%(or) 0 0 �o 41 Lo. 20%(0%) j Ell 3 0 0 L 20 %(0%) 00 0 0 Lr Ell0 o L 41 60% (0%) -j "I I r Intersections: 1. Cooley Mesa Road / Site Access 2. Cooley Mesa Road / Spring Creek Road / Eldon Wilson Road (West Airport Access) 3. Cooley Mesa Road / Buckhorn Valley Blvd. / Eldon Wilson Road (East Airport Access) LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound%(Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn Ren RTAT-N EN—EERINu GUNNULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 7: Site -Generated TrGffic Assignment lj t.4 /12 N m 4�0/0 41 Lo 1/3 0/0 \ J. o O L 0/0 O O O 0/ 0 «.� i �-► r 0/0 0/0=J41 t �' 0/0 ==� � 0 0 11/9 4 0 0 J N O L 1/3 \ 0 4� 0 / 0 «.� 1 �-► r 0/0 0,0 =j t �' 0,0 y ° O M O 0,0 Molk LO/O O O N O �0,0 1 0,0 *r I 3,9 MJI r 0/0 O O o 00 0 0/0 , LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 8: Year 2019 Total Traffic lj rn t.4 /12 N m 73/95 41 Lo 1/3 55/132 J O O O L O/0 I 8 8 8 2/1 411 Lo r 3/5 0/0=j 1 �' 2/0 0 o o ro O N 64/141 3 \ N o L6/30 N O 4�0/1 4l Lor 11/67 0/0 =j 1 �' 0/0 y N o _ O 0/0 v LO,O O � � � N �0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 10,28 I r 1/2 O ro N O 58/150 o m . N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO Figure 9: Year 2040 Total Traffic lj rn t.4 /12 N m 100/130 41 Lo 1/3 75/180 J O O O L O/0 I 0 0 0 40M 3/1 �1 Lor4/7 0/0=j t �' 3/0 O 83 / 3 \ ° o L8/40 � o X0/1 41 Lor 15/92 0/0 = If* 0/0 y m 0 0/0 N N LO \ O � rn � 0/0 1 �Lor 0,0 13/35 MJ 41 t r 1/207 o N V O 79/205 v ' N LEGEND: C DOW E L L Directional Distribution = Inbound% (Outbound %) ENGINEERING. LLC AM/PM Volumes= XX/XX VPH (in PCEs) TRwn RPORTAT-N EN—EERIMM CiONEULTANT. t r Project Number: M1379 Turning Movements Prepared by: KIS East Vail Residential May 21, 2019 Vail, CO 5.0 Transportation Impact Analysis 5.1 Site Design and Traffic Circulation Evaluation The conceptual site plan (Figure ) depicts the site's proposed access to the North 1-70 Frontage Road. The proposed site access is located on the northwest corner of the site and meets the minimum access spacing distance of 400 feet per Section 4.4 and Table 4-1 of the Access Code. Internal circulation has been designed to accommodate two-way traffic and backing motions from parking stalls. 5.2 Multi Modal Connectivity The applicant is currently working with the Town of Vail staff to determine a new bus stop location and layout at the northwest corner of the site on the frontage road. Multimodal connection details such as paths and sidewalks will be determined with Town of Vail staff as the project develops. 5.3 Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements Turn lane storage is determined by CDOT'S State Highway Access Code. Based upon each roadway's posted speed limits and projected Year 2040 traffic volumes, additional auxiliary turn lanes will not be required. Refer to Table 3. North 1-70 Frontage Road & Site Access: The anticipated traffic volumes at the site access do not warrant the need for construction of auxiliary turn lanes at the site access. North 1-70 Frontage Road & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliary turn lanes are required at this intersection. 1-70 Westbound Ramps & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliary turn lanes are required at this intersection. 1-70 Eastbound Ramps & Big Horn Road: No additional auxiliaryturn lanes are required at this intersection. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 19 Table 3: Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements 'Based upon State Highway Access Code requirements for an R -A roadway with posted speed of 45mph. EBL = Eastbound left, EBR = Eastbound right, WBL = Westbound left, WBR = Westbound right, NBL = Northbound left, NBR = Northbound right, SBL = Southbound left, SBR = Southbound right Triggered by State Highway Access Code Volumes 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed for directional distribution shift of 10% in either direction of the original analysis. Based upon this analysis, there is no change in the turn lane recommendations. 5.5 Site Access Sight Distance The proposed site access to the North Frontage Road has sight distance in either direction that exceeds the 450' requirement per Table 4-2 of the Access Code. 5.6 State Highway Access Permit The proposed development will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the site access onto CDOT's North 1-70 Frontage Road. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 20 Posted SHAC Year2017 Year2019 Year204O Year2019 Year204O Access Existing BG BG Total Total Existing Code Speed Trigger Trigger # Intersection Mvmt Turn Required Limit Volume Condition Lane Turn (MPH) (VPH) AMFPM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM pM Lane North 1-70 EBL 25 >25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 3 1 3 None None Frontage WBR 45 >25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 11 4 11 None None EBR is major EBR 25 >50 51 128 53 132 72 180 63 140 82 188 None None movement. WBL 25 >25 3 5 3 5 4 7 3 5 4 7 None None North 1-70 Frontage Existing 60' NBL is 2 Road & Big maximum available NBL 40 >25 69 91 71 94 97 129 75 105 101 140 None Yes Horn Road distance between intersections. NBR 40 >50 2 8 2 8 3 11 2 1 8 3 11 None None Existing 125' NBL is 1-70 maximum available 3 Westbound NBL 40 >25 139 125 143 129 195 176 143 129 195 176 None Yes distance with back to Ramps & Big back turn lanes to Horn Road ramps. SBR 40 > 50 5 1 15 5 15 7 21 12 1 21 14 1 27 None None NBR 40 >50 35 28 36 29 49 40 36 29 49 40 None None 1-70 Existing 125' SBL is 4 Eastbound maximum available Ramps & Big SBL 40 >25 12 38 12 39 16 53 14 41 18 55 None Yes distance with back to Horn Road back turn lanes to ramps. 'Based upon State Highway Access Code requirements for an R -A roadway with posted speed of 45mph. EBL = Eastbound left, EBR = Eastbound right, WBL = Westbound left, WBR = Westbound right, NBL = Northbound left, NBR = Northbound right, SBL = Southbound left, SBR = Southbound right Triggered by State Highway Access Code Volumes 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed for directional distribution shift of 10% in either direction of the original analysis. Based upon this analysis, there is no change in the turn lane recommendations. 5.5 Site Access Sight Distance The proposed site access to the North Frontage Road has sight distance in either direction that exceeds the 450' requirement per Table 4-2 of the Access Code. 5.6 State Highway Access Permit The proposed development will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the site access onto CDOT's North 1-70 Frontage Road. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 20 6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions The East Vail Residential project is proposing a new residential apartment complex. The development will provide both market rate housing and affordable housing to the local workforce. The purpose of this CDOT Level 2 study is to forecast and analyze the impacts of the site's additional traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network. This traffic analysis was scoped with both the Town of Vail and CDOT prior to completion. Site Access and Circulation: The site is proposing to take access directly from the north 1-70 Frontage Road. Sight distance meets the minimum spacing sight distance requirements per CDOT's State Highway Access Code. Trip Generation: The buildout of the site is expected to generate a total of 290 external vehicle trips over the course of an average weekday, including 17 trips during the morning peak hour and 24 trips during the afternoon/evening peak hour. Auxiliary Turn Lane Requirements: No additional auxiliary turn lane construction is required. State Highway Access Permit: The project will require a new State Highway Access Permit for the proposed North 1-70 Frontage Road access. Transportation Recommendations: Based upon the analysis and recommendations presented in this report, the East Vail Residential Apartments are anticipated to be successfully incorporated into the Town of Vail's roadway network. East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 21 7.0 Appendix Reference Documents 1. State Highway Access Code. State of Colorado, 2002. 2. CDOT OTIS Data. http://dtdapps.coloradodot.inf%tis Included Documents 1. Scoping Form 2. 2017 Existing Traffic Counts East Vail Residential Revised May 21, 2019 Page 22 Traffic Study Scoping Form CDOWELL y ENGINEER_ING.«C TRwnero rtiwi�ory EwCirvccR............ s Contact Information Consultant Name: McDowell Engineering Tele: 970-623-0788 E-mail: kari@mcdowelleng.com Developer/Owner Name: Triumph Development Project Information (Attach proposed site plan. ) Project Name: East Vail Residential Project Location: 3700 North Frontage Road West, Vail. Parcel # 2101-024-03-001 Project Description: Application type (rezoning, subdivision), acreage, new or re- development, etc. North: North Frontage Road Existing/ Proposed ITE Code Land Uses #units or Existing/ Proposed ITE Code #units or Existing/ Proposed ITE Code #units or Size Land Uses Size Land Uses Size Apartments #221 143 Intersections to be Evaluated 1. All site entrances 6. (Attach map if needed.) Please attach Trip Generation Summary table for large or mixed use projects. Assumptions Study Horizons Current Year: 2018 Buildout Year: 2019 Long Term Year: 2040 Study Area Boundaries North: North Frontage Road South: I-70 Eastbound Ramps (Attach map if needed.) East: Big Horn Road West: Site Access Intersections to be Evaluated 1. All site entrances 6. (Attach map if needed.) 2. North Frontage Rd &Big Horn 7. 3. Big Horn & I-70 Westbound Ramps 8. 4. Big Horn & I-70 Eastbound Ramps 9. 5. 10. Trip Distribution See attached sketch. Trip Reductions* Internal Capture Use: % Pass By Use: Multi - Modal Use: % Use: *Include in Trip Generation table if provided. Submit calculations based upon ITE's Trip Generation Handbook Page 1 of 2 McDowell Engineering Traffic Study Scoping Form Assumptions (continued) Anticipated Future Study Time Periods ❑ AM (7-9) Traffic Growth Rates Based upon historic data... (Describe (Check all that ❑ methodology.) apply) PM (4 6) ❑ SAT (noon) ❑ Other: Other Factors (Proposed/assumed transportation Counts were collected in December 2017 with direction from the Town of Vail and CDOT. improvements, other studies, nearby proposed developments, etc.) Analysis Methods & ® Synchro Issues ❑ HCS (Check all that apply.) ❑ aaSidra or Rodel ❑ Intersections ❑ Roadway Sections ❑ Signal Warrants Safety/Sight Distance ® Queuing & Storage CDOT (Access Permit, etc.) ❑ Identify Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit Accommodations ❑ TDM ❑ Neighborhood Impacts ❑ Other: Attachments, Notes, & Other Assumptions: Signed: Ales Review Agency: (Applicant or Consultant) Department: Print Name: Kari McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE (Signed: (Applicant or Consultant) Date: 11/13/2018 Print Name: Date: Page 2 of 2 10-20% on N. Frontage Rd. 70-80% on I-70 FrgMeg.Noad ©Retry Ford IO% Alpine ,d— �M°atlC n- f 1 � l �. Go,gle CDOWELL ENGINEEIi]NG��� I/A l o : lidg. Apl Left Thru Right Left Thru Right o of oo of of of o oo o of oo of of of o ao ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® ®®®® ®®® ®®® ®®® LO 5 0 11 4m 129 0 «J 1 L► r° 0 1 '"1 t ri tLo t180 0 0 0 4 00 05 0 I..kHo.,oI.(C—&—k:) PeakH... ae:„a..I. PeakH... . 1. IIIGI 1111 oMPt we11 sow ate sA&R aNSRotINa111J o1a kcDOWELL Lt�lGINEER]NG..� R 1 B M R r,oI.g. a R/A li B. Apl C..pl.. Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2'.00 PM NEMo 2'.30 PM 3 o 245 PM o( o o( o f o f o o o o o o o o 3'.00 PM a 3'.15 PM a o 3'.30 PM o f o o( o f o f o o o o o D o o 345 PM f f f 4'.00 PM o( 1 4'.15 PM o o o o f f o o o o 3 o o z o I o( 4'.30 PM I I Io( o o oI I II I I I I o o o o 445 PM 5 -MM a o( 1 5'.15 PM o f o f o f o o o o o z o o o Overall 1-111dion: (IDD -4:UUPM( Acres Movements Only: (3:15-4:15PM( etls/9lkes at ln[erseRion RIc (All -)al L 9 ° �1 L1 6 ° 1° � 495 ° ° ° ° ° 2 *J1 L» r° 1 1 4J1�► r° 11 � ~1 t ■'' � TL000-w ° ° T° ° ° 9 ° ° 1—H..,oI.(C—R„«:, PeakH... Data PeakH... n Data Overall ln[erseRion: (8:00-9:99AM( Access Movements Only: (8:00 - 9:99AM( eas/alkes at intersection nclAll tlesl at L L 11 0 3 4m131 o 0 0 0 0 4- 0 «JlL► r° 1 1 4 IL. r 174 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 1 0 p I—H...oI.(C—�. «:I PeakH... ..I. PeakH... . CDOWELL ENGINEEIi]NG��� r,7A ,mee, lidg. Apl Left Thru Right Left Thru Right o of oo of of of o oo o of oo of of of o oo IIIGI A-111 C011 - len Tnlu Right len Tnlu Right 2'.15 PM 2'.45 PM 3'.00 PM 3'.15 PM o f o a z o o 110 a( z( o 3'.30 PM 3'.45 PM 3 o o 0 0 35 3 z o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 D o o a5 z a o 4'.00 PM o z o o -MT. it 0-11111-11Rion: (3:15-4:15PM( Acres Movements Only: (3:15-4:15PM( -M,- at ln[erseRion hc(All -)al L IL 5 0 11 *= 479 R R R R 0 2 *J1 L► r° 1 1 4j1 ro J «1tr i t D J 1 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 � PeakHo.,oI.(C—&—k:) PeakH... ae:„a..I. PeakH... y i !4k+ r •J b ,n �� } 1 1_ .... � .:: -. y .. ... _ ,� ,. 9 k qi., *� 4 " X.*4 Io 01 I 1 1 �I� a 1 � - gyp.' _. _-,• � - � I I , ;.!' � i ' � I �'./.. e:.. P 1 y.4 1� I�; Y kliY I I tl L :lk "�`4' �' .u:.?%J .. ., x�..� _✓x i - .. 4 i` �r�'i 3']�4,ru.kf\�/..'K R���1M [L���� .'i25�� ......... 07C _lk 14 -b .." " -1 ice., i !4k+ r •J b ,n �� } 1 1_ .... � .:: -. y .. ... _ ,� ,. 9 k qi., *� 4 " X.*4 Io 01 I 1 1 �I� a 1 � - gyp.' _. _-,• � - � I I , ;.!' � i ' � I �'./.. e:.. P 1 y.4 1� I�; Y kliY I I tl L :lk "�`4' �' .u:.?%J .. ., x�..� _✓x i - .. 4 i` �r�'i 3']�4,ru.kf\�/..'K R���1M [L���� .'i25�� ......... 07C _lk 14 -b .." " -1 ice., For: PEC & Town Council PEC Meeting July 22, 2019 From: Anne Esson In addition to my overwhelming and growing fear that the Triumph's proposed Booth Heights project will doom the Bighorn Sheep herd, after listening to hours of the developer's testimony, I have additional concerns as follows not assuaged or relieved by what I have heard so far. 1.The traffic study of Dec.30,2017, is a farce. Vail Mountain School, a very major contributor to congestion on Frontage Rd. twice a day & some evenings, was not in session, and a paucity of snow kept skiers, esp. savvy Colorado ones, away. Turns at the East Vail Exit 180 seem to be the only ones the survey addressed, though it is the twice a day turns at VMS, as well as overflow parking along Frontage Rd., that impede traffic flow including buses when school is in session. 2. Geological Rockfall Hazards have not been considered sufficiently by decision -makers as addressed by me in prior communications with PEC and Town Council. Safety hazards posed by the imposing spring waterfall directly above the building site and two streams running through it destabilize rocks on the cliff rim above and soils on the steep slope. According to the author of these studies, a substantial berm above the proposed buildings cannot be counted on to catch all rocks or debris pitching down from above. If you have doubts about the risk, consider this year's rockfall closing of 170 through Dowd Jct. and the effect of saturated soils on a 5 yr. old Front Range expressway Hwy. 36 to Boulder. Of course, we have photos of boulders as large as 20ft. x 20ft. in the Rockfall Hazard Study, as well as historical awareness of such rockfall at both the west and east end of Booth Creek residential development, the latter after the berm was built to protect those residing below. 3. Risk to Pedestrians both in crossing the Frontage Rd from the eastbound bus stop day and night, as well as traversing the tunnel under 170 where no protections for those on foot exist is substantial. Insouciance by the developer who suggests this would be an easy route for his renters to reach a grocery store, is astounding. 4.Further glib dismissal by the developer of concerns expressed about governance and rules enforcement by a foreseen Homeowner Association is baffling. Consider an HOA's difficult task in governing a mixed use housing project including 270-350 seasonal renters, subsidized townhome owners, and private market townhome owners who can be expected to rent their homes short-term. Tenants may express in surveys enjoyment of living in housing representing various ages and circumstances, but governance of such a grouping by one association would be a nightmare at best, impossible at its worst. Assurances that the HOA can enforce well-meaning rules for protection of the Bighorn Sheep sharing the same space, or even parking regulations, leave most of us incredulous. 5. The use July 8t" of a sheep winter range map of 1800 acres pre -development of Vail is flat out deceptive. As the finally -commissioned studies by independent biologists stated, today's winter sheep range before any Booth Heights project is 150 acres. These sheep are not "habituated" to human disturbance, they are on starvation rations and desperate for forage. I fully concur with the analysis submitted this week by Grace Poganski of the criteria the PEC must use in deciding whether this project merits approval or not. I furthermore share her conviction that should it go forward you will do irreparable harm to our environment and doom the Bighorn herd, but also think you may cause great harm to the very people you are trying to assist with housing. Danielle Couch From: Anne Esson <alesson055@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:06 AM To: Christie Hochtl Cc: PEC; Council Dist List; mgennett@vailgove.com; Chris Neubecker; pamelas Subject: Re: Bighorn Sheep Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Thank you! Christie this letter reflects a sensible, knowledgeable famili's perspective on a difficult community choice. In fact, there are other sites which could be turned to workforce housing without exacting a devastating blow on our struggling wildlife. We can have both! There is support in Council & on PEC to do this. Broad, declared community support will help them move forward. Anne On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 5:25 PM Christie Hochtl <chochtlgmountainmax.net> wrote: Attached is a letter regarding the Bighorn Sheep population and the Booth employee housing. Thank you, Christie Hochtl June 7, 2019 Vail Town Council, My name is Christie Hochtl. I reside at 890 Red Sandstone Circle in Vail. I have been a valley resident since 1972. My husband, Karl has lived in Vail since 1965. 1 have a degree in Biology from Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. I have read the studies and letters from Gene Byrne, Rick Kahn, Matt Yamashita, and Melanie Woolever. I believe these letters and studies were included in the Vail Town Council packet for the meeting Monday July 8, 2019 at 1 pm. I also attended the Wildlife Forum in January 2018 presented by Bill Andree, Rick Thompson, and two others. After reading these letters and studies, coupled with my own observations over many, many years. The proposed development for employee housing at the East Vail interchange will spell the demise of a very special population of Bighorn Sheep. The Gore Range Eagle's Nest S2 herd is native and has occupied this area for hundreds maybe thousands of years. Sheep are creatures of habit and go to the same winter and summer ranges year after year after year. It is estimated we only have between three and five percent of the historic numbers of Bighorn Sheep. Do we want to lose them completely? Some of the biggest factors accompanying development are loss of critical winter range, habitat, and human encroachment. I know there are proposals to keep people out of the winter range area but I feel the enforcement is unrealistic. For example, years ago when the Cascade Lift was installed it was never intended to be a ski run and the area west from Eagles Nest to Dowds Junction is closed and designated critical wildlife habitat. How many ski tracks do you see after a powder day under this lift? How many ski tracks do you see through the trees dropping down to the Donovan Bench? How many ski tracks do you see coming off the cliffs on much of the south facing slopes of the valley north of 170? This is also critical winter habitat for elk and other wildlife. Restricting dogs was also mentioned and Rick Kahn suggested no dogs in the area. Good Luck! The development would also negatively impact our declining deer and elk populations, and the peregrine falcon. The studies suggested there would be more bear encounters with humans and trash. While I realize the need for housing, this development is way too big for the site with inadequate parking and little regard for the view corridor entering Vail. The building east of Red Sandstone Elementary School is massive and overpowers the landscape and the Booth development would have even more of an impact. Do we want to look any urban area or preserve what's left of our beautiful valley? Please vote to keep our wildlife for generations to come. Saving the Bighorn Sheep habitat will also boost our populations of deer, elk, and peregrine falcons and keep our bears from human conflict. Sincerely, Christie and Karl Hochtl, son Kevin and wife Sarah, son Karl and wife Jenny and grandchildren, Annelore, Karl IV, Mattias, and Nikolas Hochtl July 7, 2019 pe� Im Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Planning Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Colorado Dear Commissioners and Planning Manager Neubecker: Wildlife FEDERATION Colorado Wildlife Federation (CWF) is a statewide nonprofit organization, and National Wildlife Federation affiliate, comprising wildlife enthusiasts, anglers, hunters, photographers and other outdoor recreationists. We are pleased to submit our comments on the proposed Booth Heights/East Vail Workforce Housing Development. CWF is well acquainted with the extensive experience and expertise that wildlife biologists Rick Kahn, Melanie Woolever and Gene Byrne bring to their assessments of the impacts to the bighorn sheep herd. We commend you for seeking their expert opinions. In addition, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, our state's wildlife management agency, has cited the direct and indirect impacts to this bighorn sheep herd should the project be approved in its current form and notes the attention that will be necessary to address long term cumulative impacts. We accord considerable weight to their assessments. In broadest terms, their thinking seems to be that the plan has not adequately examined or addressed the impacts to the bighorn sheep herd to the satisfaction of these experts. CWF also notes that the project would constrain a big game movement pattern. Wildlife viewing is a large economic driver. An indicator of the importance of wildlife to Coloradans is the finding in the 2019 State of the Rockies bipartisan poll that 82 percent believe loss of habitat for fish and wildlife is a serious problem. Therefore, our impression is that the plan, as proposed, has not benefitted from enough scrutiny to render it ripe for approval. CWF urges the Commission to decline to move forward the project, as proposed, given the impacts to this bighorn sheep herd. We hope that this Commission will devote genuine thought to the long term and short term implications and consequences of the decision. Sincerely, ,r,..-,566Lq Suzanne O'Neill, Executive Director, Colorado Wildlife Federation 1410 Grant Street, Suite C-313 Denver, CO 80202 Phone (303) 987-0400 Fax (303) 987-0200 coloradowildlife.ore cwfed@coloradowildlife.org Danielle Couch From: cbartmd@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 7:15 AM To: PEC Subject: Two issues -underpass and environment My name is Donna Mumma, I live in East Vail across from Simms market. Again, I am writing to describe the East Vail underpass, this time with regards to highway closures. In the winter months, closures are extremely common. Snow and ice pack the dark underpass Congestion and chaos frequently ensue as cars and trucks exit the highway in search of things like- public restrooms, gas stations, coffee shops or rest areas.None of which exist, as East Vail has no amenities. The underpass provides NO divisions between people and cars even in congested, dark and icy conditions, #1 On July 8, 1 was disappointed in McDowell's responses to underpass pedestrian safety. The words "safety" and pedestrians were not noted in their original report and no evaluation was made regarding underpass safety. The remarks of one of McDowells representative stated that no past history of injuries at that site has occurred. That statement is irrelevant without taking into account the exponential increase in the coexistence of pedestrians and cars which will be created by the Booth Heights development. She also mistated the width of a pedestrian lane which doesn't really matter as that lane is frequently not present in the winter months. Another McDowell representative said a sidewalk in the underpass would be possible, without actually looking at the underpass. I am not confident that Triumph's choice for the traffic study has the expertise to notice the safety problems and evaluate the underpass objectively I recommend a safety study by a company more skilled in the area of pedestrians and traffic. Please consider a site visit in winter months. #2 1 was very surprised that the environmental report presented by Triumph only discussed the environment of the site! Isn't the job of the PEC to look at the effects of development on the community and environment of our valley as a whole? There are no amenities in East Vail which will require lots of increased driving miles for residents. Adding busses adds busses to a dangerous underpass. I believe the broader picture of the environment should be taken into account with such a large development in such a poor location for walking. Booth Heights will not only destroy the environment of the site itself, effecting the surrounding wildlife and their health and well being, it will also add to the greenhouse gases in the valley by confining the work force to an isolated community 7 miles by car and two busses from the amenities they will need to access. Please take the shortcomings of the East Vail underpass seriously as the stakes are high. In my last decade as a pathologist, I evaluated pedestrian encounters with vehicles in terms of pedestrian donors--- organ donors! Donna Mumma,MD To: TOV Planning and Environmental Commission, Chris Neubecker, Matt Gennett, Dave Chapin Re: East Vail Parcel proposed development Leaving the PEC meeting on July 8, 2019, 1 had more questions than answers in general, and more specifically in regard to whether Triumph has satisfied all the necessary criteria for permission to develop the East Vail Parcel. I believe these questions need a closer look. Who gets to choose which wildlife biologists' reports are considered valid? After the presentation was finished, and after many of the public comments were finally heard, Triumph's representative, Mr. O'Connor, was allowed to voice his indignation about the addition of reports from the wildlife biologists commissioned by the Town of Vail to study the issue of bighorn sheep impacts and the proposed mitigation plan. He disparaged those reports, with the exception of Mr. Byrne's report, as incomplete and lacking in depth. He stated that the only reports that should be considered were by those people who were well versed in the unique aspects of the Vail herd of bighorn sheep. He mentioned Mr. Byrne in particular, who concurred on many points with Triumph's own biologist, Rick Thompson. The irony is that Mr. Thompson is apparently not so knowledgeable about our unique Vail herd, having clung to the idea for months and stated over and over again that our bighorns were nocturnal. He finally allowed that the two bighorn sheep that he captured on camera one evening were, perhaps, an abberation. This admission came only after all the other wildlife biologists, including Mr. Byrne, each of whom have years of experience studying bighorn sheep, and the CPW, stated that bighorn sheep are in fact diurnal. ( I note that the TOV Community Development Dept. Memorandum, July 8, 2019, Chapter 12, 12-12-5, says that the " C: Environmental Inventory: should contain 'sufficient information to permit independent evaluation by reviewers of factors that could be affected by the proposed project'...".) If Triumph does not satisfy all the criteria set out by the TOV, do they still get to develop the parcel? Section 12-61-13, Development Standards/Criteria for Evaluation of the zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail... It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed Development Plan complies with all the applicable design criteria. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. I submit that Triumph has not met this criteria. The surrounding neighborhood does not contain any high density apartment projects. Nor does the design and proposed materials for these buildings match the character, scale or mass of its closest neighborhood to the west or any in the East Vail neighborhoods. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. There is no preservation or enhancement of the natural features of the site. The entire footprint of the proposed development site will be bull dozed, clear-cut and paved over. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. I submit that the proposed mitigating measures are insufficient. Mr. Byrne, as well as the other wildlife biologists and the CPW, questions the effectiveness of proposed wildlife enhancement on the adjacent NAP parcel and the likelihood that it will be used by the bighorn sheep. In addition, the Geologic Analysis report states that an existing landslide occupies the eastern approximate 18 acres of the EVP, in the proposed NAP. The report's conclusions and recommendations state "Ground modifications and development around these ancient landslides will increase the potential for re -activation and re -mobilization of the landslide mass,..". So, if mitigation of the NAP goes ahead as proposed, the potential for re -activation of this landslide mass will increase. Also, since the Geologic Analysis goes on to state that the "Planned development" of the 5.4 acres "extends up to the limits of the steep western flank of the landslide extents...", the geological consultant "recommends avoiding development within or near the mapped extents of the landslide. Site improvements and regrading near the toe of the landslide may re -activate slope movement and should be avoided. A barrier wall will still be cutting into the toe of the landslide. How does Triumph plan to develop this portion of the 5.4 acre site that is directly adjacent to a landslide site without disturbing said landslide site? F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans. 2009 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. The bighorn wildlife biologists and the CPW agree that the proposed mitigation plan will not effectively sustain Vail's bighorn sheep herd. This is in direct conflict with the stated goal of maintaining the habitat to current or improved levels. To quote Mr. Byrne, "I concur with Thompson (section 9.3.2) that 'the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel is located adjacent to the most important block of bighorn sheep winter range in the valley.' I also suggest that this winter range is the most limiting factor to this sheep herd and that this is the only known late season winter range for these sheep. Anything that diminishes the quantity, quality or effectiveness of this area will be detrimental to this herd. This is the only herd of bighorn sheep in the Vail valley and it probably represents a population of around 100 sheep that fluctuates from year to year based mostly on winter severity. The loss of this native sheep herd, that has probably existed in this area for thousands of years, would be a tragedy not only to the residents but the whole state of Colorado." 2018 Open Lands Plan Update, Purpose — Protect environmentally sensitive land from development and or mitigate development impacts on environmentally sensitive land. The entire parcel, including the proposed 5.4 acres of development, is, as stated by geologists and biologists, environmentally sensitive. Rockfall hazards and debris flow hazards exist across the parcel and the geological analysis "explains how a rockfall or a severe debris flow can occur through natural processes such as freeze -thaw or intense prolonged precipitation or rapid snowmelt, or through "modifications to the existing natural condition", which "may increase debris flow susceptibility." Although there is a proposed mitigatation berm or barrier system, according to the conclusions and recommendations of the report, the proposed "mitigation system will reduce, but not eliminate rockfall and debris flow hazards in the area of the proposed development." (Ex2 Environmental Impact Report, Section 2.3.2 Geologic Hazards: Together with the landslide issue, I submit that this development does not satisfy Criteria F. 12-12-11: A. Criteria for Decision (by the PEC) This section states in part: "The planning and environmental commission shall approve the project unless it finds that... the project will have significant long term adverse efffects on the environment with respect to the natural systems...". According to the Environmental Impact Report, the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep is on the U.S. Forest Service designated "sensitive species" list, which includes "species declining in number or occurrence or whose habitat is declining, either of which could lead to Federal Endangered Species listing." The State of Colorado has put bighorn sheep on their list of species of greatest conservation need. If this project goes forward, the wildlife biologist bighorn sheep specialists, commissioned by the Town of Vail agree, despite the developer's disparagement, that our bighorn sheep herd cannot be sustained. If this assessment, among all the other factors - geological, biological, aesthetic and otherwise - does not convince the members of the planning and environmental commission that the East Vail Parcel Project Proposal will have long term adverse efffects on the environment, then what will? At what cost, environmentally and personally, do we allow ourselves to go down this path? Respectfully submitted, Grace Poganski Vail CO Danielle Couch From: Shelley Bellm Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 10:59 AM To: PEC Cc: Chris Neubecker Subject: FW: East Vail Housing Project Support Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed From: Jennifer Law[mailto:JlawlCa)vailresorts.com] Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 10:56 AM To: CommDev Subject: East Vail Housing Project Support Dear Mr. Stockmar and the Planning and Zoning Commission: My name is Jennifer Law (Schofield). I am the Senior Director of Human Resources for Vail Resorts in Eagle County. Thank you for your service on the PEC. My dad was a long-time member on the PEC so I know firsthand the amount of reading and diligence this role plays. I am writing to you today regarding the proposal for the East Vail Housing project. I am proud of what our company has done for employee housing. We are truly a leader in the industry in Colorado. We are always asked to do more as the need for affordable housing continues to grow. I am also proud of the commitments both Triumph and we will make to enhance wildlife, following approved rules and regulations and respecting the 18 acres of NAP. Our company did the right thing in down zoning the parcel in East Vail for open space and housing and being able to add to the inventory of housing with a master lease. The master lease is not only important to the developer but to our employees who are living a short bus ride away. As you know many of our employees are waking up early to prepare for our guests and leaving late in the day after providing an experience of a lifetime for our guests. In order to continue to be the world's premier mountain resort, we need to provide an experience of a lifetime for our employees as well. One of the main ways we accomplish this goal is to ensure basic needs are met. Affordable housing, close to work is an essential part of achieving this initiative. Thank you for your support of this important project. Jen Jennifer Law, SPHR, SHRM-SCP Senior Director, Human Resources, Eagle County, CO 0: 970.754.3040 Cell: 970.331.6457 Welcome to your new HR — Making life easier Direct Connect Take Action I Learn More & Get Help -S AIL Lilo nothin on earth:' Wem� 6eex4. VAILRESC -TS® EXPERIENCE OF A LIFETIME VAtiIL RESORTS The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender immediately, stating that you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you. VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION July 15, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Booth Heights proposed development Dear Chairman and Commission Members: We write to provide comments on the reports of the three independent experts and the CPW and to offer suggestions for a way forward for this project. We are providing these comments by letter because we cannot make them in the three minutes allowed for public comment. Taken together, the reports of the independent experts and the comments from the CPW make a number of key points which show that the dangers for the bighorn sheep are much greater than envisioned before. As set forth below, the reports exposed many flaws in Triumph's EIR and mitigation plan and show that the dangers for the sheep would not be offset by Triumph's mitigation plan. Contrary to Triumph's claims, the winter range of the sheep is only 150 acres. The CPW report should, categorically, put to rest one of the most outrageous and heavily promoted of Triumph's claims which forms the foundation of its entire approach to mitigation, that the bighorn sheep have a winter range of 1,800 acres. According to the CPW, the so-called "1,800 acre winter range polygon" for bighorn sheep "is not representative of current available habitat," and the actual effective winter habitat number is "less than 150 acres," a number far less than Triumph's biologist claimed. That scarcity of range totally changes the analysis of the potential harm to the sheep. Contrary to Triumph's claims, the area from which the sheep would be displaced is 80 acres or more. Triumph has been trying to gloss over the full extent of the loss of range for the sheep. These reports, however, make clear that the sheep will be displaced from far more than just the 5 acres of the project and the 2 acres between the project and Frontage Road. According to CPW and all three experts, the impact of indirect or offsite habitat loss from human disturbances at the site would be much greater than the direct loss of the site itself. As explained by Rick Kahn, a bighorn sheep expert with over 40 years' experience, bighorn sheep are very susceptible to human disturbances, and sheep can be impacted up to'/4 mile (440 yards) away, meaning that the loss of habitat from this development extends outward all around the project site, displacing the sheep from upwards of 80 acres. That means the sheep will lose over 50% of their range which will be devastating. This is a point that VHA has been making from the beginning, although VHA's estimates didn't capture the full extent of that loss. Those impacts will be even greater during construction of a project of this size when heavy equipment, compressors, nail guns, power tools and other construction equipment are in constant use and banging and hammering is always going on somewhere. Triumph originally tried to gloss over these facts and the absence of any mitigation plan to address them by claiming that the sheep would return at night to forage under the cover of darkness. When Triumph's biologist finally had to admit that he was wrong about that (see next point below), he touted out a new "theory"-- that the sheep will become habituated to the project and, therefore, will not be harmed by it. We urge the PEC to ask the independent experts what they think about that theory. Triumph's EIR and mitigation plan are based on pseudo -science. Rick Kahn also examined the so-called '17—'18 winter sheep study done by Triumph's biologist which formed the basis for Triumph's EIR and mitigation plan. He found that the study was not adequate in design or results; it was "highly speculative" due to its short duration (7 months), and its recommendations "should be considered speculative." As he noted, professionals use spatial collars, not trail cameras, to collect information and studies should be over much longer durations for data to be reliable. More pseudo -science is the persistent claim by Triumph's biologist that the sheep will forage at night. He used that claim to dismiss off-site displacement of the sheep due to construction and/or resident activities. It was not until confronted with the reports from both Rick Kahn and another of the experts, Gene Byrne, a wildlife biologist with 30 years' experience, that he recanted and acknowledge what VHA has been repeatedly saying, that bighorn sheep are not nocturnal animals. So that claim can no longer be used as a justification for inadequate mitigation plans. Triumph's plans to mitigate 14.6 acres in the NAP parcel will not help the sheep. The CPW and all three experts also agreed that, while Triumph's proposed mitigation plan might benefit elk and deer, it will not benefit the sheep. As Gene Byrne explained, the area Triumph plans to mitigate is to far from the sheep's escape cover for the sheep to take advantage of it. And as Rick Kahn noted, ewes and lambs have "very high site fidelity," making it pure speculation to think that they will move to the NAP area, and he concluded that the proposed mitigation could result "in further loss and potential extirpation" of the herd. Gene Byrne's conclusion was that the actual winter range "is probably the most critical factor for the herd's long-term vitality and this area must be protected." And the third expert, Melanie Woolever, a wildlife biologist with over 30 years' experience, over 20 years of which was in bighorn sheep conservation, found the scale and approach to habitat improvement was "inadequate and will not ensure persistence" of the herd. Obviously, there is a direct conflict on this point. Ordinarily that would tip in favor of the independent experts who have no axe to grind. Also telling is that Triumph's biologist did not take issue with any of the reasons offered by CPW and independent experts' as to why the planned mitigation in the NAP parcel would not benefit the sheep or offset the loss of habitat that will be caused by the project. And if Triumph's plan was the be-all and end-all it makes it out to N be, it could have already done the mitigation, and if it worked, it wouldn't have to play coy about when it was going to do that work (see below). After all, Triumph earlier said that since the NAP property was privately owned, they did not have to get any permissions to do that work. The fact that it has not speaks volumes. Real mitigation requires habitat restoration in the areas north and west of the project site. What is really needed according to CPW is large-scale mitigation to the north and west of the project and that should take place as soon as possible which is another point that VHA has repeatedly made. That land is owned by the TOV and the USFS, and, so far, nothing has been done by either. The TOV, apparently, does not have any current plans to treat its land, although it may have been waiting on the USFS plans. According to a recent report to the Town Council, the USFS is now moving forward with the planning process to clean and treat its land, but due to wilderness regulations and budgetary and manpower limitations, no actual work can take place until FY 20/21 at the earliest or even perhaps later. That means, under a best case scenario, work cannot begin until the fall of 2020. Since improved areas need a year of growth to yield results, as a practical matter, that means that winter habitat on USFS land (and perhaps the TOV land) will not see any improvement until the winter of 21/22. If construction were authorized before then at the East Vail site, the implications for bighorn sheep are huge. Any delays caused by this schedule is a self-created problem. Vail Resorts and Triumph have had two years to initiate action to get this process underway and yet have done nothing. Of course, Triumph can now try to speed up that schedule if it so desires, but no construction should take place until mitigation has been completed (see next point). Mitigation needs to take place before any construction. Triumph's plan was to start construction and mitigation at the same time. The CPW recommended that mitigation work should take place before any construction, so it can be evaluated before proceeding further. As stated by Melanie Woolever, habitat improvement needs to be completed before any construction and demonstrated effective before it can be said that losses due to the project have been mitigated. Faced with those reports, Triumph refused to do the mitigation first, playing coy by only offering that it hoped to start mitigation before any construction. What that meant was unclear—did it mean before excavation or only before building work? In either event, it would be too late to provide any meaningful relief to the sheep, especially since Triumph only plans to mitigate an area that is of no benefit to the sheep. There should be no construction during winter months. With the sole exception of clearing and excavation, Triumph planned to build year-round. The CPW and all three experts concurred that there should be no construction during the winter months; construction should be limited to the summer and fall (a "July 31St to a November 15th time frame") because there is no meaningful way to minimize construction impacts on the sheep. There should be no site access from the west end of the project. Triumph plans to locate the main access to the project a road, pedestrian walkway, bus tops and a bus shelterat its western end. Because of the proximity of prime grazing land to the immediate west of the project and also between the project site and Frontage Road, the CPW and all three experts 3 recommended that all access to the project be from only the eastern end and that the proposed driveway, pedestrian access and bus stops at the western end of the project be eliminated. The same is true for sidewalks; the experts recommended no sidewalks along Frontage Road. Faced with these recommendations, at the last hearing Triumph brought up the possibility of eliminating the bus stops and moving the pedestrian access to a mid -point in the project, but it was unclear whether those changes would actually be made; Triumph was clear, however, that it would not move the driveway access. At the last hearing, Triumph also floated a bus turn -around plan from Vail Public Works that had not been seen by CPW or the independent experts. Nonetheless, it seemed clear from their reports that they would all oppose that plan since it would encroach even more on prime grazing areas. There should be no dogs at the project. Contrary to what Triumph has planned—to only prohibit dogs in the apartment units --the experts agreed with the Vail Community Development Department's recommendation that there should be no dogs allowed in any part of the project. Triumph refused to accede to that recommendation. There should be funding for on-going mitigation maintenance. In earlier iterations of this project, there were provisions for some on-going mitigation funding; Triumph dropped that in the current version. The CPW noted that mitigation is not a "one -and -done" proposition and that it requires continual maintenance. In that regard, CPW recommended that there be annual funding for mitigation. Triumph has declined to provide any funding. Triumph has complained about these reports, but it has no one to blame but itself. If it had produced a sound and responsible environmental protection plan there would have been no need for independent expert reviews. Likewise, if Triumph had followed the recommendations of CPW there would have been no reason for CPW to further comment. But Triumph did not, and its complaints now only underscore the importance of these reports. The PEC has the authority and responsibility to determine the parameters of this project; that doesn't mean an all or nothing result but rather finding a middle ground. It should do so in a manner that balances the use of the parcel with the preservation of the surrounding environment. VHA urges that in carrying out those duties, the PEC should: 1. Reject the current EIR and mitigation plan. A project EIR and any mitigation plans must accurately identify all environmental impacts and offer plans to mitigate their impact. One thing that the CPW and independent experts' reports make clear is that Triumph's EIR does not accurately describe the dangers for the bighorn sheep, nor does it present a mitigation plan that will not offset those dangers. If and when a new EIR and mitigation plan are submitted, they should be immediately reviewed by independent experts. 2. Direct staff to utilize the independent experts and the CPW to determine what is an appropriate carrying capacity for the parcel that is concomitant with the surrounding environment. 3. Reject any plan that exceeds the carrying capacity of the parcel. Triumph is trying to squeeze as many residents as possible on the site, resulting in massive apartment :i buildings with four story elements facing Frontage Road (the apartment units alone would house 168 to 234 residents). The PEC should not simply go along with that approach to this project. In particular, no building should exceed three stories in height and the overall population should be significantly reduced so that it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the property. A reduction in size would have the salutary effects of protecting the environment and also keeping the project compatible with the East Vail community and eliminating the visual pollution of massive box -like apartment buildings looming over Frontage Road and I-70. 4. Asa part of any approval of a revised project: a. Reject plans for access to the project from its west end. That would include rejection of the bus turn -around if it is actually proposed. b. Require the full number of parking spaces (two per unit) for any apartment buildings. A reduction in the size of the project will allow the accommodation of more parking. c. Require screening landscaping of the project to block views from the east, west and south. d. Require mitigation be completed and demonstrated effective before any construction, including clearing and excavation, can commence. e. Require that no outside construction take place during winter months when bighorn sheep are within 1/4 mile of the project. f Require on-going funding for mitigation. In that regard, the PEC should direct staff to consult with the independent experts to develop a realistic mechanism and an appropriate amount (not the paltry $5,000 per year that Triumph earlier proposed). 5. And, finally reject the project as proposed if Triumph does not agree to make the necessary changes to provide real mitigation for the sheep and reduce the scale and mass of the project to fit its carrying capacity. We hope these comments are helpful and will provide a way to move this project forward in a responsible and appropriate way. Very truly yours Ji amont E cutive Director Vail Homeowners Association Post Office Bog 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 E-mail: vhana vail.net Web Site: www.vailhomeowners.com Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Commissioners: Per your request at the last meeting and because I am out of town at this time, I am putting my concerns about the Triumph project and the Big Horn sheep on record. As I said at the last meeting, we labored over the words on the council chamber walls. In fact, it was tedious and sometimes painful to sit through all of the discussions of the correct wording and even where the commas should be. But there was a motive. Because the whole purpose of the exercise was to provide the very words that would guide all future decision making. In the case of the project under discussion, clearly the mission statement to "preserve our surrounding natural environment" and the vision statement of "environmental stewardship" should provide enough guidance. But I have an additional take on the subject. We have been led to believe that affordable housing is such a severe crisis that we should throw all other considerations to the wind in the pursuit of its solution. And perhaps I, too, would fall into that trap if it weren't for my long history of support of affordable housing. Because unfortunately, I remember the squander of possibilities on the first phase of Timber Ridge. And while we are on Timber Ridge, would it not make sense to complete that fiasco before disturbing the last refuge in Vail for these the sheep? I also find it difficult to work up a lather over this when our last big project was for subsidized housing of high end units sold to people who arguably could have afforded places to live without being underwritten by the Vail taxpayers- but of course, I just a regressed. Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that this project is being spurred by Vail Resorts and their sudden urgency to solve the housing crisis. So, I must ask, if the crisis is so severe as to finally bring them to the table, why not develop property for which they have already received the green light, for which no one will challenge, in fact for which most will applaud- namely Ever Vail. Tell them to go for it - knock themselves out. And leave the big horn sheep to fight another day. My personal opinion is that this property should only be under consideration when we have exhausted all other options. Disturbing the natural environment and endangering these beautiful creatures is a decision that should only be made when there is no possibility of solving the problem in another way. Fortunately for us, we have other choices and I hope you have the common sense to acknowledge that fact and act appropriately. Unlike many people who spoke at the last meeting, I do not think you have a difficult decision. It is as clear as the writing on the council chambers wall and should be apparent to anyone who reads it, understands its original intent and is committed enough to act accordingly. Kaye Ferry 1007 Eagles Nest Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 TO: Town of Vail PEC and Town of Vail Council FROM: Craig and Kyle Denton RE: Support of the "Booth Heights Neighborhood" To Whom It May Concern: We are local Vail Valley residents that have been in the valley since 1976, and support the "Booth Heights Neighborhood" project for the following reasons: 1. This valley continues to struggle with affordable "for -rent" and "for -sale" residential units. We need to continue to work towards providing our loca workforce with affordable options to live here in the valley a. Especially up -valley where people actually work. This helps benefit the entire community by reducing traffic on the roads, less car - emission and noise pollution, and alleviating overcrowded parking in the Village core. b. We work in Vail Village and see "first-hand" and every -day the struggles that we and other business face with the lack of affordable up -valley housing options. We ourselves face the same challenges when we are trying the find good quality workers who would benefit greatly from living in the Town of Vail c. As a real -estate -agents working with young families, there is a definitely a need for the mix of units that is being proposed in East Vail. The supply of affordable up -valley options continues to decline inevitably forcing families further and further down -valley 2. Environment Concerns a. To our knowledge, the developers have put forth and are proposing a substantial Wildlife Mitigation Plan that goes above and beyond what has been required in the past of other developments. Having a viable Mitigation Plan makes sense given the sensitive environmental situation. Get this plan right. But the nearby sensitive environment has never stopped development before and should not stop this one. I We are proponents of personal property rights. a. To our knowledge, the developer is asking for No Variances and everything that they have proposed is in accordance with the current allowed uses of the land. We believe this land was actually "Down - Zoned" from what it was once was in order to create the housing that our community needs. b. The development review process for this new neighborhood should not be any more or less difficult than any other plan, and not allowing owners to develop/build on land that has legal zoning and allowable uses is unprecedented. Sincerely, Craig and Kyle Denton Larry S. Stewart 5146 Gore Circle Vail, CO L55tewart@stfblaw.com July 17, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Booth Heights proposed development Dear Chairman and Commission Members: Unfortunately I will be out of town next Monday, July 22nd, and therefore cannot attend the meeting on the proposed Booth Heights housing project. I feel very bad about that since I have been one of the proponents of allowing more time for public comment. However, since I cannot be at the meeting, I am sending this letter in substitute for the remarks I would have made had I been able to be present. Because this site is "H" zoning, the PEC has the authority and responsibility to decide whether the size and mass of a proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and whether the environmental impacts caused by the project have been mitigated. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence now shows that this proposed development is wrong for this site and is being proposed at the wrong time It is wrong for the site because the mass and size of the project is incompatible with East Vail. East Vail is a residential neighborhood with no multi -hundred resident projects and no buildings in excess of three stories. This project is slated to have 270 to 350 residents (168 to 254 in three large apartment buildings and 102 more in the town homes) and the three large box -like apartment buildings are planned to have four story elements fronting on Frontage Road and I-70. The landscape plans have no screening for those buildings, nor for the rest of the project, (there is only a single tree on the south side) so the project will stand out like a sore thumb in an otherwise natural landscape. And, that situation cannot be corrected because the proximity of the project to the roadways and the steep slopes involved will not accommodate any meaningful landscape screening. There needs to be substantial down -sizing before any project is considered. The project is also wrong for the site because of the irreversible environmental harm it will cause, primarily to the resident bighorn sheep herd. Much has already been said about this subject. The loss of habitat for the sheep would be much worse than Triumph will acknowledge and Triumph's efforts to gloss over that harm with the now discredited NAP parcel mitigation plan and the equally discredited claim that the sheep would forage in affected areas "under cover of darkness" have failed. The independent wildlife experts' reports and the report of the CPW make it clear that the proposed mitigation of 14.6 acres on the NAP parcel to the east of the project will not benefit the sheep and Triumph's biologist finally had to admit that the "uncover of darkness" claim was scientifically wrong. Most recently, Triumph's biologist claimed that the PEC should "trust us" because the sheep will habituate to the project. If that were so, one would have expected it to have been put forth at the outset, not brought up as a last gasp claim. More important, that claim is undermined by the independent experts who explained that sheep are very susceptible to human disturbance and human impacts during the winter grazing time, when the sheep are most vulnerable, can be devastating. Before this or any other project can be considered, there needs to be a new EIR which realistically sets forth the potential harm to the sheep and other wildlife and which proposes sound and science -based mitigation. The project is also being proposed at the wrong time because the environmental harm of this or any other project in this environmentally sensitive area needs to be mitigated and demonstrated effective before any construction is permitted to occur. Only mitigation on the lands to the north and west of the project can improve sheep habitat. That land is owned by the TOV and the USFS. While the TOV has begun some mitigation on its land, it is nowhere near complete and the USFS is still only in the planning stages of any mitigation on its land (under a best case scenario it would not be complete until the `21/'22 winter season). Triumph and/or the owner of the land, Vail Resorts, could have taken steps to engage both the TOV and the USFS at any time over the past two years (VR was already working with the USFS on the Golden Peak expansion). In particular, funding (whish will be wasted on the NAP parcel) could have been provided to the USFS to start mitigation on its land to the north of the project. That they didn't so act and instead hired a biologist to come up with a junk science mitigation plan has created a situation where the PEC is being asked to take it on faith that the sheep will not be harmed by this project. But the PEC does not have to act on blind faith and should not be put in that position. No project approvals should be considered until real mitigation has been completed and demonstrated effective. Nor should the PEC be swayed by Triumph's complaints made at the end of the last meeting about the fact that independent experts had been retained to review the project. Triumph has no one to blame but itself. Had Triumph presented a plan based on real science that provided for meaningful environmental mitigation there would have been no need for independent experts or for the CPW to weigh in. That Triumph is now complaining about those reports only underscores their importance. For those reasons, I urge the PEC to vote "no" on the approval of this project. This is not to say that no project could ever be built on this site. If there were a project that was of an appropriate size and scale and the environmental harm had been mitigated, it would be possible to proceed. That is not this project. Thank you for considering my comments. Ve truly yours, L4 Stewart Danielle Couch From: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:09 AM To: PEC Cc: Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett Subject: Questions about proposed East Vail housing Dear Chairman Stockmar and Commissioners, While there are many questions about so many aspects of the Triumph proposal for housing on the East Vail parcel, I will only address a few of them here. First, while this might be considered history as it. relates to this project, it is my understanding that the developer is responsible for selecting which neighborhoods or households receive notice about a proposed development. Accordingly, as I have been told, Triumph selected the neighborhood to the east and a neighborhood across I-70 but not the homes just to the west on the north side of the Frontage Road. The homes to the west will be within clear view of the massive development. People in the Lupine neighborhood across the Interstate may have to drive past the East Vail project but probably won't experience as significant impact as homes to the west of the site. -Shouldn't neighbors who will suffer the effects of this development every day into the future have been notified at the onset? -Should the PEC have insisted that notice be sent to a broader reach in fairness to nearby neighbors? Next, we have seen sketches of the development that clearly show three hulking boxes situated right on the Frontage Road. One of the PEC design criteria is that a new development fits within the neighborhood. Triumph has conveniently pointed out that there aren't neighbors right next door. That said, what is being proposed is not consistent with housing in East Vail, along the Frontage Road to the west or anywhere in the Town of Vail, for that matter. Proposing to build three massive boxes that have no character or redeeming architectural features and are clad with cheap looking materials should be an embarrassment to the developer and to Vail Resorts. The design of the apartments and townhouses is better suited for the Denver Stapleton neighborhood than is is for Vail. The often maligned Middle Creek Housing has varied rooflines and building heights; it is a far better example of architecture that meets the needs of workforce housing while not being a blight on the landscape. Can the Developer and PEC learn from this example? Some commissioners have asked for visuals that will show the true layout and effect of this project - after the entire hillside has been bulldozed and a massive berm constructed. To have to be asked for detailed visuals hints that Triumph was hoping not to be questioned on the mass and impact the proposed project will have until it was too late to make appropriate adjustments. Will the developer be required to present visuals, possibly models and video, that will adequately show what citizens will see coming down Vail Pass and along the Frontage Road into the future? Visuals should be easily understood by all members of the PEC and the public, not just those who are adept at interpreting plot and architectural drawings. Citizens have to live with these developments into the future and deserve to be able to visualize what they will see whenever they come west on Vail Pass or travel along the Frontage Road. Triumph frequently references comparable properties including Timber Ridge, Lion's Ridge, Middle Creek. There is very little these lodgings have in common with the East Vail site aside from being designated for employee housing; each of the `comparable' properties actually are within reasonable walking distance to jobs in the Town or Lionshead and to the post office, real grocery stores, other shopping and restaurants. Listing Simms Market as a reasonable option for grocery shopping is a stretch. All the `comparables' actually are a short bus ride to jobs and all of the aforementioned services and shopping. Residents of the East Vail site will either have to drive or take two busses each way to get to the post office, shopping and services. Considering that many employees in this community have two or more jobs, when are they going to be able to take half a day off to ride two busses each way to do shopping or run essential errands? Regarding parking, while many believe that the parking plan is inadequate, I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps Triumph's calculations of parking use will ring true. And if the developer or future managers find that parking is a problem, it is THEIR problem to deal with. Not increasing masses of asphalt for parking is potentially good as it could modestly limit additional damage to habitat and the hillside. Considering transit, Mr. Kassmel briefly presented a proposal for a bus turn -around, bus stops, sidewalks and pedestrian access. Presumably he had not had the opportunity to review the reports of independent wildlife biologists that came in on Friday July 5, during a Holiday weekend, prior to the PEC meeting on July 8. Hopefully the PEC will direct Triumph and Mr. Kassmel to consider the biologist's reports and make adjustments to the recommendations. Per the biologist's reports, eliminating all bus, pedestrian and vehicle access from the west end of the proposed development is essential to preserving wildlife habitat. Vail Resorts has touted this development as workforce housing, yet the developer is considering short term rentals in some of the townhouse units. Is it or isn't it workforce housing? If this is truly workforce housing no short term rentals should be allowed at any time. If Vail Resorts, VVP and others want to celebrate this property as workforce housing it needs to be exactly that, not just more units that become AirB&B or other short term rental properties. Finally, NO dogs should be allowed anywhere on the site. It is not a `right' to have a dog anywhere, it is a privilege that carries responsibility, not just to the dog but to neighbors and the environment. Wildlife biologists have unanimously stated that dogs should be excluded. When the developer says they will `control dogs', how do they propose to do that on a 24/7/365 basis? Consider the fact that for $45 nearly anyone can get a certificate stating their dog is an `Emotional Support Animal'. The developer or it's management company should first disallow dogs on the property and be called to task to verify that any animals claimed to be Service or ESA truly qualify and are not being presented as such by owners who don't actually have needs. I support Service and legitimate ESA animals but find fault with the owners who abuse the system through online services that erode trust in the Service and Emotional Support programs. If this project is approved, the PEC must require that strong management procedures be written into covenants and association documents to protect those who truly need a support animal and not allow fake certification and dogs who don't qualify. If it isn't addressed at the outset rampant abuse will be the result. Thank you for considering my concerns. Your request that interested parties submit letters so you can read and digest content is undoubtedly a daunting task. Regards, Pam Stenmark ramela 5tenmarL pamelas@vail.net ��) 970-376-1 t ?�- Danielle Couch From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: pamelas <pamelas@vail.net> Monday, July 8, 2019 8:32 AM PEC Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett; Council Dist List; Kristen Bertuglia Urgent Request to PEC - Timely Response Requested Follow up Completed TO: Planning and Environmental Commission The PEC meeting on July 8 is a significant one for the future of Vail, its brand, image and direction into the future. Triumph Development has submitted their development plan and essentially has unlimited time to present their story. On the other hand, citizens with legitimate questions, concerns and ideas have been limited to three minutes per person to present information, ask questions, request information or voice opinions. This seems unbalanced and unfair. Today's hearing will address the critical environmental issues. We do not believe that they can be intelligently or adequately addressed in just three minutes time. We are requesting that the Commission allow a group of us, who will be in attendance at the meeting, to cede our three minutes to a single presenter. We feel this would offer an organized, concise, cohesive and very understandable response. It is estimated that this presentation will take less than 20 minutes and will be much more efficient than people speaking in disjointed three minute intervals. We respectfully request a response not later than 11:00 AM on Monday, July 8 so we might be adequately prepared. Regards, Pamela Stenmark cc/ Chris Neubecker Matt Gennett Vail Town Council Kristen Bertuglia ramela 5tenmarL pamelas@vail.net (c) 970-576-1 12+ Danielle Couch From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 7:55 AM To: PEC Subject: No response Hello to all of you, I think you should know that I have not received an answer to the email below, with the June 22 meeting fast approaching. I hope you agree that this is unfortunate at best, unprofessional at worst, and will understand that it undermines my faith in the process. Pete From: Pete Feistmann Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 2:25 PM To: Chris Neubecker Subject: Re: Booth Heights info web page Hi Chris, Has the applicant been required to prepare a complete visual presentation of the project, in a format that allows community members who are not versed in reading plans, to understand what the project will look like, including its visual impact when descending Vail Pass westbound on 1-70? It's my understanding that with current technology this can be done in a video format. Given the uproar the project has created in the community, I believe the staff and/or the PEC has a moral obligation to require this before a final vote is taken. Thanks, Pete 1 Danielle Couch From: Peter Casabonne <casaent@vail.net> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 1:27 PM To: PEC Subject: FW: Booth Heights From: Peter Casabonne [mailto:casaent@vai1.net] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 12:18 PM To: 'pec@vail.goV <pec@vail.gov> Subject: Booth Heights PEC, Regarding the Bighorn Sheep and other resident wildlife : After reviewing the recommendations by CPW and 4 wildlife professionals including Rick Thompson and Bill Andre, one point is clear to me. Not one of these experts will tell you that the proposed mitigation and habitat enhancements will ensure the survival of this herd of Bighorn Sheep. I think reasonable solutions can be found to the other challenges to this development, for the threat to these resident animals. Are you, the PEC, willing to take that risk ? If not "NO" on this proposal due to environmental factors, then no to what ? This really is the last stand for wildlife in this valley. Housing...... yes, very important, but not as important as making sure our land use decisions do not cause the loss of these animals. At what point does this place we call home become the place our paying guests are escaping from ? Consider this part of the Town's Mission Statement : " Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natura environment ...... " Respectfully, Peter Casabonne West Vail Virus -free. www.avast.com 1 Chris Neubecker From: Peter Suneson <p.suneson@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:07 PM To: PEC Subject: Sheep and Homes Good evening Vail PEC, My name is Peter Suneson and I live in deed -restricted housing and I'd like to take just a minute of your time to share with you the story of my first 5 years in the valley. I was hired directly out of graduate school to start a dream job in my chosen career field. I walked across the lawn in Missoula on a Saturday, and on Tuesday I was at work in Avon. Finishing up school didn't allow much time for house hunting, and needless to say I totally underestimated the situation as we charged towards winter 2015 (remember that!?). Fortunately, my employer had an innovative partnership with a local business (Vail Resorts) that allowed me to spend my first summer in lifty housing, rent free. I was able to save a few pennies. My second residence, just a little further west down highway 6 (this will be a theme), was also the result of an innovative and dynamic relationship. As we hurtled towards the 2015's I spent the entire summer on craigslist looking for a home until stumbling across a very affordable "roommate needed" situation. Lo and behold, the woman looking for a roommate was ski buddies with a friend of mine from my undergrad, 10 years ago in far away in New York. The affordability came about as Kelly was an employee of the ERWSD and was living in district -owned housing. Thus, I was back in an affordable housing situation, brought to me by an innovative program from a thoughtful municipality. Again, I saved a few pennies. Just a little further west down highway 6 I moved into my third residence in 2 years. As luck would have it, I had found a partner who was willing to live with me forever and also help provide the stability necessary to venture into the open market. Our landlord was one of the good ones, a part/time resident who bought during the recession and kept rent reasonable and didn't bother us. The place hasn't been listed publicly for years since we all have friends who need a place to live. Great for a certain lucky few, but not so great for anyone new moving into town. Again, this time very fortunately, I was able to save a few pennies Our savings on rent in Sunridge, Liftview, and Rivers Edge allowed us the means necessary to buy a condo in Miller Ranch this past October, hopefully the destination of our journey down highway 6! Purchasing a home not only comes with the tangible benefits of space, clean carpets, and a carport(!), but the intangible benefits of stability, sustainability, and the feeling of being part of a community (not to mention the huge convenience of the ECO bus stop at Freedom Park). All these things would not have been possible for us without innovative partnerships, deed -restrictions, and foresight from leaders in our dynamic valley. With that said, it's worth noting that I spent my first five years in the valley educating locals and visitors alike on the ecology, natural beauty, and wildlife of Eagle County. It seems I did not do my job well enough because the argument being put forth by a select few seems to be wildlife vs. housing. Although I assume we all agree this is not the case, I think the vitriol coming from the detractors of affordable housing has empowered me, and many of my peers, to believe their argument is not in fact wildlife vs. housing, but rather the choice between wildlife or ME, my peers, and other young professionals looking to call the Eagle Valley home. I urge the PEC to continue be leaders in our communities' quest for affordable housing, continue to be innovative when it comes to deed -restricted housing options, and to continue to do what it can to ensure a diverse and equitable community. Sincerely, Peter Suneson Danielle Couch From: Suzanne Silverthorn Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 10:04 AM To: PEC; Council Dist List Subject: Fwd: East Vail Booth Heights proposal FYI Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Director of Communications Town of Vail 970-479-2115 970-471-1361 (cell) Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Zinn <AZinng ail ov.com> Date: July 8, 2019 at 10:01:14 AM MDT To: Suzanne Silverthorn <SSilverthorngvailgov.com> Subject: FW: East Vail Booth Heights proposal -----Original Message ----- From: infogvailgov.com [mailto:infogvailgov.com] Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 9:56 AM To: Info Subject: East Vail Booth Heights proposal Dear Mayor Chapin, It seems like you may be casting the deciding vote on the Booth Heights development. I know you love the open space in Vail and will work to preserve it. The respect that we show for the bighorn sheep reflects who we are in Vail. Let's not send the wrong message. We care. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in Vail are trying to help preserve the environment for our future generations. I hope that you will do the right thing and vote against the proposal. Sincerely, Sharon Smith Vail, CO Submitted By: Name:: Sharon Smith Telephone:: 9706880136 Email:: liebchen l ghotmail. com Submitted From: https://www.vailgov.com/contact 1 Chris Neubecker From: Susan Bristol <susan.bristol@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 8:19 PM To: rkatz@vailresorts.com Cc: PEC; Dave Chapin Subject: Letter to Rob Katz Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Rob Katz CEO and Chairman of the Board Vail Resorts 390 Interlocken Crescent Broomfield, CO 80021 rkatzgvailresorts.com Dear Mr. Katz, Your establishment of Vail's mission "Experience of a Lifetime" with its "Great Outdoors" ethic has in a relatively short time encompassed both U.S. and international Vail Resorts properties. As a Vail resident since 1970, former stockholder before the company went private years ago, and Game Creek Club member, I am one of the many people who treasure Vail for its many natural outdoor opportunities, its community and our wonderful mountain. Your farsighted role in the Camp Hale Preservation and your position as a "Global Game Changer" indicate that you have acute concern both for history and for our environment. I know Vail Resorts together with entities such as the Vail Valley Partnership and the housing department at the Town of Vail are anxious to find workforce housing in the Vail area, both for your employees and those of the town. When Vail Resorts discovered in 2016-17 that it owned a tract of land previously thought to be Open Space for the payment of a portion of back taxes, it must have seemed the perfect site to solve the housing challenge. Offering a contract for development to Triumph, riding high on its success with the Chamonix deed -restricted housing, was an obvious choice. And yet, there is the issue of historical land use. I'm certain you are aware of the community's widespread concern for Vail's single legacy Bighorn Sheep herd that resides on the Booth Creek site and adjacent hillside. It has been proven that "mitigation" of natural environment is the beginning of herd death within a few years' time. This is tantamount to killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg. These two challenges to Vail — housing working people and protection of the natural environment which makes Vail what it is — need not be placed in such conflict. With the many public and private resources that could be drawn upon to contribute to a solution, it would be a public relations coup for Vail Resorts to take a broad look at these two issues and be the one to lead in solving both challenges. Enable Vail Resorts to work with the Town of Vail with its RETT funds and entities such as the Eagle Valley Land Trust, Colorado Open Lands, Great Outdoors Colorado and private donors to re -place the East Vail parcel in its original designation as Natural Area Preservation District. Enable Triumph to make its profit via for sale, workforce and deed -restricted housing on a site such as the following: land set aside within the seemingly moribund EverVail development, the old Roost site, or looking toward the future, the Vail Municipal area site as envisioned by the proposed Civic Area Plan. Looking far to the future, air rights above I-70, as Boston has developed, would solve our noise issues and open a tremendous amount of developable land. Unlike the Booth Creek site in East Vail, all the above are within easy walking distance of jobs in Vail/LionsHead. With Vail Resorts' far reach and resources, it has the opportunity to champion both development and conservation. It would seem that Vail Resorts investors would be proud to have ownership in a corporation dedicated to sustainability of existing land and environmental resources promising continuing income generation, as well as farsighted care for the workforce upon which that sustainable success depends. I look forward to your timely consideration and reply, as this contentious issue insistently troubles and divides the Vail community, long-time residents and workers alike. Respectfully, Susan Bristol, Hon. AIA Box 431 — Vail, CO 81658 970-476-2608 susan.bristol a,gmail.com cc: Brian Stockmar, Chair PEC Vail — pec(cr,,vailgov.com Dave Chapin, Vail Mayor and Town Council Chair — dchapingvailgov.com Chris Neubecker From: Shelley Bellm Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 11:38 AM To: PEC Subject: FW: housing From: RMR Vail Shop Finailto:vail@rockregro.com] Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:51 PM To: CommDev Cc: Council Dist List Subject: housing To the Town of Vail Council, My name is Tom Towey and my wife Polly and I are the owners of Rocky Mountain Reprographics here in Vail. We do support the housing development in East Vail. We know that developments like this can be controversial, but this is about more than whose backyard it is in. People need to be able to live near where they work. We currently have a home in Glenwood Springs and have considered moving to the Vail area, but we have found that we cannot afford anything in Vail. We might be able to find something as close as Eagle or Gypsum. This housing project would not help my wife and I get a home in Vail, but maybe a future employee could have a home there. Sincerely, Tom Towey Rocky Mountain Reprographics Vail, Colorado COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1801 Moly Road Golden, Colorado 80401 June 21, 2019 Chris Neubecker Planning Manager Community Development, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Location: S%2 Section 2, T5S, R80W of the 6' P.M. 39.6473, -106.3125 Karen Berry State Geologist Subject: East Vail Housing — Rockfall Hazard Mitigation Town of Vail, Eap-le County, CO; CGS Unique No. EA -19-0007 (previously reviewed as EA -18-0002) Dear Chris: Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the East Vail Housing proposed development plan, geologic hazard studies, and rockfall hazard mitigation plans. I understand the applicant proposes a 73 -unit residential development on the north side of I-70, at the East Vail (Exit 181) interchange. The available referral documents include: • Development application narrative (May 28, 2019), • Set of 11 civil plans (Alpine Engineering, Inc., February 21, 2019), • Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel (Cesare, Inc., June 29, 2017) • Geologic Hazard Analysis, East Vail Parcel (Skyline Geoscience, February 12, 2019), • East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan (Skyline Geoscience, May 24, 2019) CGS reviewed this site, and Cesare's June 19, 2017 Rockfall Hazard Study, at rezoning; comments were provided in letters dated September 18 and September 19, 2017. Skyline's rockfall hazard analysis and recommendations are valid. The rockfall hazard mitigation berm shown on the civil plans appears to be consistent with Skyline's recommendations. However, the proposed berm will require periodic and ongoing inspection, maintenance and possibly repairs to preserve its effectiveness. Maintenance may include cleaning out accumulated debris to maintain the design berm/catchment height on the upslope side. CGS recommends that the Town require an inspection and maintenance plan for the rockfall hazard mitigation berm prior to final plat approval. The plan should include an inspection schedule. Debris flow, avalanche, landslide, and construction -related slope instability hazards. Skyline discusses debris flow, landslide, and construction -related landslide reactivation hazards, but does not provide specific recommendations. It is possible that the proposed rockfall berm could provide some protection from debris flow hazards, but this should be evaluated. Two, possibly three "small avalanche" paths are located within the proposed Lot 1 area. Mears (CGS Special Publication 7, "Colorado Snow -Avalanche Area Studies and Guidelines for Avalanche -Hazard Planning) describes these as "not wide enough to be accurately displayed at the mapping scale of 1:24,000, so they are indicated as arrows. Although they appear small at this scale, they can also be very destructive." EA -19-0007_1 East Vail Housing Rockfall 4:14 PM, 06/21/2019 Chris Neubecker June 21, 2019 Page 2 of 2 CGS continues to recommend that the Town require completion of an avalanche hazard analysis and design of any necessary mitigation prior to final development plan approval to ensure that the proposed mitigation will provide adequate protection from avalanche hazards and can be maintained to ensure future performance. CGS recommends that any such hazard analysis and/or mitigation design be reviewed by the Colorado Avalanche Information Center. Based on hillshade imagery derived from high resolution LiDAR data, proposed Building A appears to be located in the headscarp area of a small landslide located immediately west of the large landslide in proposed Tract A. Proposed Buildings E and F are also located within this smaller landslide. Skyline states (page 2 of the 5/24/2019 Review of Updated Site Plan) that slope stability and other geotechnical considerations are being addressed by Cesare this summer. CGS is available to review any additional geologic and geotechnical information and geologic hazard mitigation plans submitted for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or require further review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or e-mail carlson@mines.edu. Sincerely, Jill Carlson, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist EA -19-0007_1 East Vail Housing Rockfall 4:14 PM, 06/21/2019 Town of Vail COLORADO Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Area 8 - NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 1 F 970.947.2936 Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 Dear Mr. Neubecker, June 27, 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Booth Heights/East Vail Workforce Housing Development. At the request of the Town of Vail (TOV), local residents, and Triumph Development, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) found it of significant public interest to provide comments on the impacts of the proposed development to wildlife and wildlife habitat, and assess the efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures. CPW has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado. This responsibility is embraced and fulfilled through CPW's mission to perpetuate the wildlife resources of Colorado and to provide sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire future generations. In coordination with many other efforts, we fulfill this mission by responding to requests for comments on wildlife impact reports, land use actions, and consultations through public-private partnerships. CPW has reviewed the applicant's materials to include site plan, Environmental Impact Report, and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. We offer the following comments for your consideration. General Comments: CPW would like to recognize that the developer has worked with and collaborated with us throughout the planning of this development. Projects such as this can have significant impacts to wildlife and CPW believes that early and continued communication produces the best results for all interests. Triumph Development has proposed construction of a high-density workforce subdivision located in East Vail. The proposed development lies on a 23.3 acre undeveloped private parcel bordered by U.S. Forest Service land, Town of Vail property, and a CDOT road right-of-way. The East Vail parcel itself contains and overlaps with a variety of wildlife habitat. In assessing impacts to wildlife, it is increasingly important to understand that residential developments result in both direct and indirect impacts. While direct impacts are easily quantified and can be identified as direct loss of habitat, indirect impacts such as human disturbance, light pollution, and auditory and olfactory impacts are much more difficult to quantify. Indirect impacts can have as great or greater degrees of impact than direct impacts; indirect impacts are often more insidious and can take years to manifest themselves in wildlife populations. of Coto Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 With this in mind, human activity on landscapes inhabited by wildlife has varying degrees of impacts based on six factors identified by Geist (1971) and Knight et al (1995): type of activity, human behavior during the activity, predictability of the activity, frequency and magnitude of the activity, timing (e.g. during migration or breeding seasons), and location of activity (e.g. above or below the animal). Findings from these studies suggest that human disturbance is greatest when it is frequent, unpredictable (Knight and Cole 1995) and occurs when animals are in poor condition (e.g. severe winters) (Geist 1970). The introduction or increase of human activity in close proximity to wildlife can subsequently modify animal behavior. Modification of behavior can take the form of changes in home range, altered movement patterns, altered reproductive success, altered escape response, and altered physiological state (Tromulak and Frissell 2000). The resulting consequences for wildlife can be complete abandonment of preferred habitat (Geist 1978) and overall population decline (Phillips and Alldredge 2000). These elements as they apply to all wildlife species are important considerations when assessing the impacts of developments in wildlife habitat. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep: The proposed development of the East Vail parcel is poised to generate both direct and indirect impacts to the local bighorn sheep population. This particular sheep herd is referred to as S2 in CPW reports and is considered a native herd, which received supplementation of six ewes and one ram in the late 1940s. Estimated herd size reached 100 animals as recently as 2007. The current size of this ewe/Iamb/young ram group was estimated between 45-50 during 2019 winter surveys. The proposed development site lies within this herd's winter range and severe winter range. It should be noted that the 1,800 acre winter range polygon referenced in the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Plan is not representative of current available habitat, current habitat use, or on -the -ground observations of this herd. Many bighorn sheep herds and populations in Colorado do not appear to fully use the suitable habitat available to them for reasons that are not clear (George et al. 2009). The aforementioned occurrence is visible in the current viable winter range for the Booth Creek herd. The most consistently available and suitable winter range is predominantly restricted to the development site and the area below the Booth Creek cliff band. This area encompasses less than 150 acres, which does not include the winter range of the ram group that winters further to the west. The proposed development will result in the direct net loss of 5.4 acres of wildlife habitat, to include bighorn sheep winter range. While difficult to quantify, the indirect impact of human disturbance has the potential to be significantly greater. Both direct and indirect impacts will serve to further restrict available winter range for this herd—effectively increasing the concentration of sheep on an animal to available habitat basis. Reduction in forage resources on winter range may also result in lower Iamb recruitment. Furthermore, small herds often become sedentary and their continued, concentrated use of small patches of available habitat could result in paradoxical density -dependent effects wherein habitat actually does become limiting despite an apparent abundance of potentially suitable habitat being available. These characteristics serve to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of winter range for the Booth Creek herd. Proposed mitigation for direct loss of habitat includes on-site habitat treatments on 15.6 acres of the Natural Area Preservation (NAP) area. While CPW recognizes the need for habitat enhancement, it is unclear if on-site treatments will offset the impacts associated with the direct loss of winter range. In the absence of disturbance, bighorn sheep exhibit strong site fidelity and often occupy ranges because of their openness, high visibility, and proximity to escape terrain over sites with higher quality forage of Coto Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 (Bleich and Wiedmann 2014). CPW encourages the use of treatments to enhance adjacent habitat to the proposed development; however, it remains unclear if it will result in any meaningful winter use by the Booth Creek herd. The proposed on-site mitigation also occurs on a historic debris flow, which may comprise future mitigating features of the NAP. CPW recommends that on-site habitat treatment occurs prior to the construction phase and is timed appropriately in order to provide productive alternative winter range. Additional off-site habitat enhancement is proposed as part of the mitigation plan. CPW recognizes the need for large-scale habitat treatments to potentially convert areas to more viable bighorn sheep habitat. However, the time frame and scalability of such treatments remains a concern. Off-site areas identified for enhancement are characterized by significant fuel loading, steep slopes, and broken terrain. As such, mechanized treatment and other scalable options are unfeasible, resulting in the need for hand -treatments. Thus, the time frame associated with off-site enhancements likely exceeds 1-2 years. Regardless, CPW recommends that these off-site treatments should take place as soon as possible in order to serve to inform of their efficacy and potentially provide alternative range in the event of herd displacement. Similar to on-site enhancements, it remains unclear whether large-scale off-site treatments will in fact increase the carrying capacity for the Booth Creek herd given the prevalence of other population -limiting factors. CPW emphasizes the strong need for collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service, and the TOV to help achieve desired herd management goals with or without the development of the East Vail parcel. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan lays out measures for minimizing construction related impacts to wintering sheep. Because there is no meaningful way to negate the auditory, olfactory, and human presence disturbance associated with the construction phase of this project, CPW recommends restricting all construction to a July 31st to November 15th time frame in order to minimize impacts to wintering ungulates and nesting peregrine falcons. CPW recommends realignment of the planned wildlife fencing. The current alignment unnecessarily excludes potential wildlife habitat. We recommend the relocation of this alignment from north of the rockfall berm to south of the berm and immediately behind the building structures. This will further discourage access to critical wildlife habitat by residents and potentially provide for additional useable habitat for wildlife. We encourage additional dialogues surrounding the addition of one-way wildlife passage structures within the length of proposed fencing. A modular design could allow for passage if trapped wildlife within the development becomes an issue. CPW largely supports the proposed "Wildlife Requirements for Residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel." Restrictions on human access to the NAP portion of the parcel will prove critical to minimizing the degree of human disturbance. We recommend that the developer and property manager implement a continuous year round closure of the NAP. Currently, the NAP, surrounding TOV, and USFS lands see recreational impacts during all four seasons. A year round closure of the NAP will help solidify the potential for this area to act as mitigating habitat, and will help accommodate seasonal variations in habitat use by the Booth Creek sheep herd. Pet control measures are also instrumental in minimizing impacts. Human disturbance involving dogs are well documented as eliciting greater impacts on wildlife than human disturbance alone (King 1985). Therefore, education of residents and the subsequent pet restrictions detailed in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan should be an integral component of living within the proposed development. However, the mitigation plan states "Housing Management reserves the right, at any time and from time to time hereafter, to modify, amend, repeal, and/or re-enact these Wildlife of Coto Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 Requirements." CPW recommends that in order to ensure minimization of impacts, occupancy of the housing development be contingent on adhering to all the elements of 9.3.2 of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Alternative locations for the driveway access to the housing development were explored during conversations between CPW staff and Triumph Development. Per these conversations, CPW recommends relocating access to the housing development to the eastern side of the 5.4 acres. Driveway relocation to the east of the development site will help alleviate traffic concerns—vehicular, pedestrian, cycling, and otherwise—with current bighorn sheep habitat use. In conjunction with driveway relocation, CPW also recommends any buildout of ADA access and a public transit bus stop be located on the eastern edge of the 5.4 acre parcel. The presence of pedestrians/human disturbance in close proximity to wintering sheep will generate greater stressors than vehicular traffic and run the risk of flushing wildlife onto the frontage road or I-70. Elk: The proposed development site lies within Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-12, with 1-70 being the dividing line between DAU E-12 and E-16. Both of these units have experienced significant declines in elk populations, and to a lesser degree in mule deer populations. The Wildlife Mitigation Plan states, "In recent years, CPW have increased their hunting permits to increase harvest and reduce the elk and deer populations to levels that the smaller winter range acreage can support." This is inaccurate. CPW has dramatically reduced hunting quotas for both elk and mule deer since the mid -2000s. In the last 5 years, E-12 and E-16 have seen a 50% and 99% reduction in limited elk licenses, respectively. Cow elk hunting in E-16 has ostensibly been eliminated. These reductions in cow quotas are in an attempt to protect the reproductive, calf bearing, portion of the herd. Habitat loss and human disturbance continue to be significant concerns in managing the E-12 and E-16 elk herds. The few remaining wintering elk in proximity to the proposed development have not habituated to the increases in human disturbance in the Pitkin and Booth Creek areas. Continued loss of winter range and increased human disturbance may lead to total abandonment of this winter range. While the scale and proximity to human disturbance of proposed enhancements on the NAP is unlikely to yield meaningful results for the elk herd, CPW still encourages the on-site habitat enhancement treatments for the potential benefit of elk. Recommendations for mitigation measures previously discussed for bighorn sheep are also applicable to the elk within E-12. CPW emphasizes the need for continued collaboration with the TOV and USFS in order to implement large-scale habitat enhancement projects off-site that will serve to benefit the E-12 elk population. Black Bear: The proposed development site lies within a black bear/human conflict area, with a minimum of 2 reports of conflicts between bears and humans per year. CPW generally supports the proposed mitigation to reduce conflicts with black bears. Given the close proximity of proposed habitat enhancements to the development, CPW emphasizes the importance of adhering to all elements set forth in 9.3.1 of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan to include prohibiting fruit bearing vegetation from on-site of Coto Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 landscaping and providing bear resistant trash containers. CPW further stresses enforcement of Chapter 9, Wildlife Protection, Ordinance No. 20, Series 2006 of the Vail Town Code. Peregrine Falcon: The American peregrine falcon is listed as a state species of concern in Colorado. The proposed development site lies within the CPW-recommended half mile buffer of an active peregrine falcon nest. CPW guidelines recommend that no surface occupancy beyond historical occurrences take place within this half mile buffer zone. This nest was established under the current levels of disturbance, with no new development in the area for the peregrines to habituate to. Human disturbance has the ability to lead to nest failure or total abandonment of historical nesting sites (Olsen and Olsen 1980). Despite the presence of the 1-70 corridor and adjacent human disturbance to nesting sites, habituation does not necessarily beget additional habituation in the face of new disturbances. CPW asks that the developer continue communication throughout the project to evaluate specific concerns regarding peregrines at which time CPW can provide additional recommendations to mitigate disturbances during critical periods. Additional Recommendations: Previous application submissions by Triumph Development allocated annual funding contributions earmarked for future maintenance of proposed mitigation measures. There is no discussion of these payments in the current application. CPW recommends continued discussions to determine the details of these payments and an appropriate receiving party. In order to ensure the longevity of the NAP portion of the East Vail parcel, CPW recommends future discussions with the TOV'local land trust organizations, and the developer to explore conservation easement opportunities. CPW also recommends limiting short-term rentals within the development to reduce any potential shortfalls in education of residents on wildlife considerations. In considering the rockfall berm, CPW seeks clarification on any maintenance trail for berm access. We recommend that this trail be gated and signed in order to minimize the potential for any residents to access sensitive wildlife habitat. CPW also seeks clarification on the means, methods and funding for enforcement of the "Wildlife Requirements" set for in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Mitigation of impacts is not a "one -and -done" approach, but necessitates continual maintenance in order to achieve desired results. As such, clarification on who specifically will be responsible for enforcement and with what frequency enforcement will occur are essential to ensuring compliance. Closing Comments: In closing, CPW wants to emphasize the importance of viewing proposed developments through a comprehensive impact analysis lens. In light of proposed housing developments in the vicinity of the "Town Shops," which is also within sheep winter range, and the 1-70 expansion project, a holistic approach of impacts to wildlife should be used. This approach will serve to better inform decisions surrounding the conservation of wildlife and enlighten stakeholders about the impacts humans have on a landscape scale. of Coto Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 CPW values the opportunity to provide comment. If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to District Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at (970) 930-5264. Sincerely, Matt Yamashita, Area Wildlife Manager cc: JT Romatzke, NW Regional Manager Devin Duval, District Wildlife Manager Julie Mao, Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Taylor Elm, NW Region Energy Liaison Danielle Neumann, NW Region Land Use Specialist File c°� Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett H� Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair « r * 1876 Work Cited: Beale, C. M. 2007. The behavioral ecology of disturbance responses. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:111-120. Behavioral Response of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Human Harassment: A Comparison of Disturbed and Undisturbed Populations, By Michael M King, A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Fisheries and Wildlife. Berger, J. 1990. Persistence of different -sized populations: an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 4:91-98. Brett P. Wiedmann,l North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 225 30th Avenue SW, Dickinson, ND 58601, USA, VERNON C. BLEICH, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA. Wildlife Society Bulletin Geist, V. 1978. Behavior. In Big Game of North America: ecology and management, J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: a study in behavior and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. George, J. L., R. Kahn, M. W. Miller, B. Watkins. 2009. COLORADO BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT PLAN 2009-2019. Knight, R.L and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands. N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Krausman, P.R., R.C. Etchberger, and R.M. Lee. 1996. Persistence of mountain sheep populations in Arizona. Southwest Naturalist 41:399-402. McKinney, T., S.R. Boe, and J.C. DeVos Jr. 2003. GIS -based evaluation of escape terrain and desert bighorn sheep populations in Arizona. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31:1229-1236. Olsen, J. and Olsen P. 1980. Alleviating the Impact of Human Disturbance on the Breeding Peregrine Falcon. Corella 4: 54-57. Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive Success of Elk Following Disturbance by Humans during Calving Season. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64: 521-530. Singer, F.J., L.C. Ziegenfuss and L. Spicer. 2001. Role of patch size, disease, and movement in rapid extinction in bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 15:1347-1354. c°� Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett H� Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair « r ♦ 1876 Trombulaka, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology. Volume 14, No 1. Wehausen, J.D. 1996. Effects of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada and Granite Mountains of California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:471-479. OF COLO Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert. W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Nc Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * 1876 To: Kirsten Bertuglia, Town of Vail Sustainability Manager From: Rick Kahn- Wildlife Biologist Re: Wildlife Mitigation Plan Comments, with an emphasis on bighorn sheep, on East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Vail Colorado 7/3/2019 Rick Kahn- Qualifications- I have been a professional wildlife biologist for over 40 years. I have a B.S. degree in Wildlife Biology and a Masters in Wildlife Science. I spent 32 years with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDW) in many capacities including: District Wildlife Manager 10 years, Statewide Big Game manager 4 years, Wildlife Management Supervisor 15 years and Terrestrial Section Manager for 3 years. During my tenure with CDW I worked on many bighorn sheep projects including trap and transplant, disease monitoring and testing, development on statewide policies and presenting regulations and policies to the Wildlife Commission, Executive leadership and the Colorado legislature. I was a co-author on the Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2009-2019 and represented CDW on the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies Bighorn Sheep Working Group. After retirement from CDW I spent 7 years with the National Park Service as a system wide wildlife biologist and worked on bighorn and Dall sheep issues across the western United States and Alaska and represented NPS on the Bighorn Sheep Working Group. As both a CDW and NPS employee I was involved in numerous land use issues and either directly wrote comments or had employees under my direction write comments on impacts to wildlife from many entities including private developers. I am familiar with the various aspects of wildlife mitigation and have been involved in both management and research efforts to determine the effectiveness of various mitigation techniques. My Masters of Science work looked at the impacts of pinyon/juniper chaining on mule deer and small mammals. At the present time I am the owner and principal wildlife biologist for RHK Consulting LLC and working with the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society by providing technical assistance. Executive Summary The Wildlife Mitigation plan and in particular the 2017-2018 East Vail Winter Sheep bighorn study is not adequate in both design and results to be able to make decisions on either short or long term impacts on bighorn sheep. The study is too limited in time to account for year- to- year changes and the data collected were not analyzed with any analytical tools with which to base decisions on. In short, it is a short term observational snap shot with many inherent biases. The plan does not take into account the already compromised nature of this bighorn herd (population reduction of —40% in the past 12 years) and the already very limited and compromised winter range. The plan does not acknowledge the value of this herd in the recent past or today for both the recreational and watchable wildlife perspective. This is one of the most viewed bighorn herds in the state. The proposed mitigation based on offsite habitat treatments may not be adequate to compensate for both forage loss and impacts of disturbance. Given these parameters, this author does not believe that the proposed mitigation will enhance this wintering herd and in fact could result in further loss and potential extirpation. Comments on the Wildlife Mitigation Plan by Western Ecosystems Inc. 3.1.1- Bighorn Sheep. The Plan does not mention the status of bighorns in Colorado or range wide which I believe is a significant omission. Of all the native ungulates in Colorado, bighorns are the only ungulate species (except for bison for which recovery is a political and social issue not a biological one) which has not recovered from the late 1800's to the present day. This lack of recovery is not due to lack of effort as both state and federal land management agencies have been involved in bighorn sheep restoration work for over 70 years in Colorado. While there is no specific evidence on how many bighorns were present in Colorado at settlement, there are anecdotal accounts which state they were common and widely distributed in suitable habitat across the state (George et al 2009). Some have estimated the pre -settlement population in the west at 2 million sheep. If that is correct, then the Colorado estimated population could have been in the 200,000 range. At the present time bighorn sheep numbers are approximately 6800 animals, about 3-5% of the pre -settlement estimate and the trend has been slightly downward for the past decade. These trends are shared by many western states and provinces. The sheep wintering in east Vail are known to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife as the Gore —Eagles Nest herd or S-2. The present estimate of this herd is approximately 50-60 animals down from around 100 in mid -2000. This herd is a native high altitude herd which was only supplemented by transplanted bighorns once in the late 1940's with <10 sheep from the Tarryall herd. The S-2 herd for many years was one the largest herds in the Northwest part of Colorado and provided not only a small number of rams for hunting but given the propensity for wintering along 1-70 was one of the most visible and watched herds in the state during the winter time. Thus, it is important to consider the larger context of bighorn sheep in Colorado and also in the area west of the Continental Divide and north of 1-70 when considering impacts and mitigation for this herd of bighorns. The Gore -Eagles Nest herd and in particular the sub herd that winters along 1-70 (a small % of the herd may winter at higher altitudes during some winters) is of high importance both statewide and regionally. It is also important to note that this herd has already experienced significant reductions over the past 20 years. At the present time this herd had declined by about 40% from the average during the period from around 1990-2005. The specific causes of the decline are unknown but it is suspected that during 2 the winter of winter of 2007 there was significant loss due to deep snow and limited winter forage due to constrained winter range. There is also the likelihood that disease may have played some role in keeping Iamb recruitment at a low level in subsequent years but this had not been documented, but mountain goat populations also declined during this same period which could have also been due to a disease event. Pneumonia related disease impacts many bighorn herds in Colorado and is responsible for not only all age mortality, but reduction in Iamb survival for long periods of time. The loss of wintering habitat over the past 30 years to development along the 1-70 corridor is also a likely contributing factor to declines as this herd has been restricted to a smaller area of winter range over the years. The Wildlife Mitigation Study 2019 references a 2017-2018 winter sheep study and the results of said study are noted often in the document. The study uses observation and trail cameras as the means for detecting sheep presence, absence and movements. The siting of the trail cameras was also not random and the coverage is only on a partial section of the winter range and thus could result in a biased sample. One must be very careful about using such short term studies (7 months total) to make accurate judgments about any wildlife species. In general, the wildlife profession tends to use longer term (minimum 2 years and longer) studies to make determinations about habitat use and preferences. How sheep use the area during one winter may not be indicative of how they use it in another winter and in particular given the relatively small area how they use specific sites and the relative importance of those sites to long term fidelity and ultimately sustainability of the sheep herd. The conclusions stated on page 6 and 7 are in my opinion too definitive and need to be qualified as indicative of only one year's observations and are not long term trends, nor should significant land use and mitigation recommendations be based on such limited temporal data. Making statements such as "foraging (on the proposed development area) was stressful due to traffic" is highly speculative. In addition there are numerous statements as to why the bighorns are using some areas and not others; again this is very speculative and based on one seasons observations it can be very difficult to determine why the bighorns are in specific areas and what is keeping them from using other habitats, including the area that is proposed for development. Typically wildlife researchers use more sophisticated tools such as 24 hour spatial collars to determine how individuals and groups of animals are using specific areas. These types of studies give decision makers and wildlife managers site specific information in the amount needed to use statistical analyses to actually determine use. It should be noted that bighorn sheep ewes and Iambs tend to exhibit very high site fidelity based on a variety of factors including historic use. In general groups of ewes and Iambs are poor at pioneering to new habitats even if they are nearby. Thus making statements about bighorn sheep behavior due to disturbance forage quality and availability, as the study does, is not based on any statistical analysis of spatial nor forage data. In summary, the 2017-2018 study is extremely limited in its ability to show specific habitat use over time, has no statistical analysis or power to let decision makers understand the quality of the information and thus of the inferences and due to only one year of data its recommendations should be considered speculative. 7.3 Rockfall Berm This section notes that screening may not be necessary if bighorns return to the area during the night time. While bighorns can be active at night that is not their preferred time period for foraging or movement, bighorns rely primarily on sight as the key sense to detect predators and thus night time activity periods are generally avoided (Valdez et al 1999). In a number of instances this document speculates that if sheep become active at night and use that time period to move into or through developed areas that could mitigate the disturbance. In my opinion, if sheep are forced to move at night they are already being put in a compromised position and thus are more at risk to predation and other factors. 7.5 Aspen Screen The statement that "such inanimate objects are generally ignored by most wildlife" lacks any citations and is entirely dependent on context. An inanimate oil well has been shown to be problematic to sage grouse is some situations and there are many other examples where manmade objects are avoided by wildlife. This section acknowledges that smooth brome cut slope foraging area may be lost due to development. However, it continues to state that this could be mitigated by night time use. As stated above this is not a desired situation for bighorns and put them at greater risk. In addition, the document states that this forage loss could be mitigated or offset by habitat development on surrounding lands. As stated earlier, bighorn sheep ewe and Iamb groups are very difficult to move to new habitat, it is not at all certain that the types of habitat manipulation proposed, hand tool manipulation, will get the desired habitat type necessary for bighorns or that they will find and utilize such habitat. 7.8 Unit Numbers The study states "The paramount issue associated with this project is not habitat loss to development, or temporary construction disturbances, but keeping the residents away from the important surrounding habitats, particularly in winter. If this bighorn herd had robust population performance and lots of undisturbed winter range this may be a valid statement. However, given the past population issues, the already hugely constricted amount of winter range available and utilized, this is an unsupported hypothesis. This sheep herd is already in a very difficult winter range situation. Losing additional acreage and the increased disturbance from both construction and increased proximate human activity puts this herd in a much worse situation. Managing people is important, but so are maintaining existing habitat and managing short term disturbance from development. The literature is full of studies that have documented that bighorn sheep are very susceptible to disturbance by humans (Popouchis 2001, Keller 2007, Schoeneker 2005, George 2009). Human impacts are difficult to quantify as some sheep can develop some levels of tolerance to some human activities. In general, bighorns are more tolerant of vehicles moving at steady speeds than they are of humans walking, bicycles or vehicles stopping and starting (which occurs routinely during construction) (Popouchis 2001). Some studies (Miller et al 1991) have found raised 4 cortisol levels in bighorns adjacent to human disturbance and this has been linked to lower recruitment and survival rates. Distance from disturbance also appears to matter; Holl and Bleich (1983) found that at distances >645 meters sheep appeared not concerned about human presence but at 440 meters (aboutl/4 mile) sheep moved away from humans. 7.11 Maintaining Sheep Movements above the frontage road I agree with the study that it is critical to maintain the limited movement corridors already in place. Additional trails, bus stations and roads put an already compromised bighorn sheep herd at significant additional risk. 8.0 Project -related wildlife effects Based on my experience with bighorn sheep I can find absolutely no beneficial effects of this project on bighorn sheep. There will be a net loss of habitat, significant human- related disturbance and the potential impacts of habitat improvement may never be fully realized due to bighorn sheep behavior, elk impacts on aspen regeneration and the highly variable responses of bighorn sheep to vegetation manipulation. This project increases the likelihood that an already compromised bighorn sheep herd will have an increased risk of extirpation. Part of this concern is based on the number of herds in Colorado and throughout the west with less than 100 sheep and the long term viability of these smaller bighorn herds. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks have stated that 125 bighorns are the minimum needed to maintain a population for > 50 years. Other scientists have stated that 175-200 animals are needed to maintain a population for 100 years. Whatever the specific number it is significantly greater than the number of bighorns in the S-2 herd for the past decade. 9.1 Winter Range Enhancement The project acknowledges a loss of bighorn winter range and also elk range. The proposal is to enhance almost 15 acres to create better habitat and encourage bighorn sheep use of new habitat. The proposed area to treat for improved winter range may not have access to the escape cover (steep slopes) that bighorns need. Bill Andree (personal communication) has noted mountain lion predation on a bighorn ram in this area in the recent past and attempting to move ewe and Iamb groups to this area could result in increased lion predation. The proposal is to use hand cutting of aspen and shrubs and then burning slash piles. The study also acknowledges that controlled burns would offer the best and most effective tool to enhance habitat. I agree with that assessment. There has been a burn proposed in this area since the late 1990's (B. Andree personal communication). This has not been done due to local citizen concerns and existing federal land management requirements for burns in areas of population interface. The literature (Nelson 1976, Peek et al 1985, Beecham et al 2007) on bighorns is clear that fire offers the best opportunity to treat enough land, obtain the visual landscape needed by bighorns and add vital nutrients to the system in the form of new palatable vegetation. The impacts of fire are much longer term than those from habitat manipulation via hand tools. The impacts from using hand tools to manipulate aspen stands are unclear when the goal is bighorn sheep habitat improvement (Dibb 5 and Quinn 2008). However, when mature aspen stands are managed the observations of data suggest that elk will take advantage of the new growth. The proposed manipulations will certainly be positive for elk and mule deer but the impacts on bighorn sheep would most likely be limited. This is due to the lack of pioneering by ewes and Iambs, the aggressive nature of elk in recently disturbed aspen stands, the difficulty in actually opening up enough sight lines to truly make it bighorn habitat and quick regeneration of aspen and shrubs so that in a relatively short time (<10 years) the impacts that are positive to bighorns are minimal. Fire is longer lasting, adds nutrients, done correctly has significant more impact on canopy and is more cost effective. 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep The general goal here is to screen visually the bighorn wintering areas from the construction areas. The mitigation offered may not be adequate to protect bighorns particularly in winters of deep and persistent snow. Again, the concept proposed is to limit construction to daylight hours, but as mentioned earlier, bighorns are largely diurnal and if there was a desire to protect sheep during the construction phase, then construction should only occur at night when bighorns are more sedentary. The best solution to protect the bighorns is to not allow construction during the winter time period when bighorns are in the immediate area. Sound control is needed in addition to sight line control. If blasting is needed it should absolutely be prohibited during time periods when sheep are in the area and should be restricted to later in the summer after peregrines have fledged and before bighorns arrive. 9.3.1 Requirements for the Developer of the East Vail Workforce Housing Parcel Will the developer put money into an account so that future (100 years?) vegetation manipulation will be done? To benefit bighorns, and the benefit is questionable, these activities should be done at least every 10 years so that open sight lines are maintained. 9.3.2.1 Recreation The concept of allowing some residents to own dogs and others not to have them seems a bit ridiculous. As the document mentions dogs are a big problem for all wintering wildlife and during heavy snow years can be a significant issue resulting in stress and mortality. All dogs should be banned from the property. Allowing some residents to have dogs raises the potential that accidents will happen and that bighorns will be compromised. The rationale to allow some people, the careful ones (?), to have dogs and others not to should be better explained. Many of the human- caused impacts on bighorns are difficult to enforce and the plan states that the local residents will be involved in reporting and maintaining control. Given the transitory nature of the 11 local workforce this may not be a good option. The constant changeover in some residents also makes education and enforcement more difficult. Literature Cited Beecham, J.J., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Dibb, A.D. and M.S. Quinn. 2008. Response of bighorn sheep to restoration of winter range revisited. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council. 16(221-247). George, J. L., R. Kahn, M.W. Miller and B. Watkins. 2009. Colorado Bighorn sheep Management Plan. Special Report No 81. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Holl, S.A. and V.C. Bleich. 1983. San Gabriel bighorn sheep. USFS, San Bernadino NF Administrative report. Keller, B.J., L.C. Bender. 2007. Bighorn sheep response to road -related disturbance in Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2). Miller, M.W., N.T. Hobbs and M.C. Sousa. 1991. Detecting stress responses in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep: reliability of cortisol concentrations in urine and feces. Canadian Journal of Ecology. 69(1). pp 15- 29. Nelson, J.R. 1976. Forest fire and big game in the Pacific Northwest. Proc. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf 15. Peek, J. M., D.A. Demarchi, R.A. Demarchi, and D.E. Stucker. 1985. Bighorn sheep and fire: seven case histories. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT -186. 96pp. Popouchis, C.M., F. J. Singer, W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3). P573-580. K.A. Schoeneker, P. R. Krausman. 2005. Human Disturbance on Bighorn Sheep, Pusch Ridge Wilderness. Arizona -Nevada Academy of Science. Vol 34 (1). P 63-68. Valdez, R, P.R. Kruasman. 1999. Description, distribution and abundance of mountain sheep in North America. University of Arizona Press. P 3-22. 7 East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Independent Review Prepared for: Kristen Bertuglia Environmental Sustainability Manager Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Prepared by: Gene Byrne, Wildlife Biologist 566 36 Road Palisade, Colorado 81526 970-270-6082 Gene B566a-Gmail. com July 5, 2019 0 Introduction and Purpose: Kirsten Bertuglia, Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability manager hired me on June 26, 2019 to provide an independent review of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Environmental Impact report. I am a retired wildlife biologist. I worked for the Colorado Division of Wildlife from July 1972 to August 2002. 1 have a B.S. Degree in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University and graduated in 1968. In 1972 1 was hired by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as a trainee. In 1973 1 was assigned as a Wildlife Conservation Officer, now known as a District Wildlife Manager, for the Rifle South District. In 1979 1 took a promotion to be the game damage specialist for the NW Colorado region. In 1985 1 was reassigned to the newly created position as an Area Terrestrial Biologist for the Glenwood Springs area that included the Roaring Fork, Crystal, Eagle and Upper Colorado river drainages. During this time, I became familiar with the wildlife in the Vail Valley. One of the projects that I worked on was the Gore Range Bighorn Sheep study. DWM Bill Andree and I were the key people managing this study. This is the first, and as far as I know, the only bighorn sheep study of this herd that used radio collared sheep. I have also worked on many other bighorn sheep herds and projects in the NW region. Since the results of the Gore Range Bighorn study were not cited or discussed in the Environmental Impact Report and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, I have a written a brief summary of this study to provide additional information about bighorn sheep associated with proposed development (Appendix A). I did not have a lot of time to do this review since Kirsten needed the final report by the morning of July 5, 2019. This did not allow me time to do an on-site visit of the proposed development. Due to other time constraints, I only had a couple of days during this period to work on this report. However, I am quite familiar with this area since I worked in this area a lot during my career. I have assisted with other comprehensive deer, elk, lynx and mountain goat studies in the Vail Valley and surrounding area. I have hiked, ridden horseback and flown many wildlife surveys (fixed wing and helicopter) in the area as the as Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist. In my review, I will focus on what I feel are the significant wildlife issues discussed in the documents. The writing style will be more of a popular article rather than a scientific report with lots of literature references. I will be relying mostly on my professional knowledge and judgement that I developed over my 30 -year career and other experiences. Also, I will focus most of my attention on the main species of concern for this proposed project - bighorn sheep. Bighorn Sheep Biology, Ecology and History: While the documents that I reviewed contained a lot of good, detailed information about the scope of the project, the physical features of the land and general information about the local wildlife. I do not think that it provided some of the more basic information about the biology and ecology of bighorn sheep that I feel most readers of this report would need to understand the potential impacts and issues of bighorn sheep regarding this development. There are two main groups of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in North America: "desert" and "Rocky Mountain" bighorn sheep. Both are very similar except that the desert sheep sub- species may differ more from environmental factors rather than genetics. Bighorns range from low elevation deserts to the higher peaks in North America and from Mexico to the Northern Canadian Rockies. Like all big game they need the same basic things: food, water, cover and space. What is different about bighorns is their cover is "rocky escape cover" in close juxtaposition to food and water. Bighorn sheep avoid forested areas but prefer more open habitat with good sight distances to spot predators from a long distance away. When threatened, they run to the cliffs and steep slopes to seek the protection of their "cover". Bighorns are primarily grazers, eating mostly grass plants along with some forbs and they will browse on shrubs especially in the winter. They are diurnal and will feed 3-5 times during the day and then bed down to chew their cuds. They will seek out well established and frequently used bed grounds at night on cliff faces or other steep areas. Bighorns have strong fidelity to well established home ranges and migration patterns that have developed over many years and generations. During most of the year bighorns are segregated by sex. Older rams form bachelor groups and move off to established areas while the ewes, Iambs and some younger rams seek out different areas. During the rut in late November and early December both sexes are together, and the rams fight to establish themselves as the prime breeders. They are polygamous. The main predator of bighorn sheep are mountain lion which are capable of lots of stealth and can pursue sheep onto their steep, rocky escape cover. Coyotes, bobcat and bears can also be predators, and Golden Eagles have been known to kill small Iambs on the lambing cliffs. Bighorns can become habituated to various forms of human activity such as hiking, biking and cars/highways. Hunted populations and sheep that do not have close association to humans tend to show a higher avoidance to people. Bighorns were one of the most common ungulates in Colorado prior to European settlement. They were the preferred protein source of the early market hunters to supply the miners in the late 1800s. In 1887 the Colorado government became so alarmed by the rapid decline in the bighorn population that they closed the whole state to sheep hunting and it remained closed until 1953 (Bear and Jones 1973). In the 1990s biologists determined that bighorns were extremely susceptible to various forms of pneumonia (Pasteurella spp.), and it was proven that the vector for this disease was close association with domestic sheep. Domestic sheep are old world species that evolved over 25,000 years to be resistant to most forms of pneumonia, but they are carriers. Since they are closely related species, when domestic sheep graze near bighorn sheep they tend to mix, and the deadly pneumonia can be passed to bighorns. This can be especially deadly to Iambs. Domestic sheep were brought into Colorado and other western states in the late 1800s and this has become the biggest management issue facing bighorns today. Bighorn sheep are designated as the State animal for Colorado. The Gore Range herd is special since it is a native herd vs. one that has been reintroduced. Many native herds of sheep have been extirpated in Colorado probably as a result of disease or habitat loss. In 1946 the Colorado Game and Fish Department supplemented this herd with six ewes and one ram. On May 5, 1946 44 sheep were counted in the Booth Creek area. Methods: I reviewed the two documents prepared by Western Ecological Resources. Inc.: Environmental Impact Report, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision (I will refer to this report as EIR) and Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, Colorado (I will refer to this report as WMP) I prepared a summary of the 1989-94 Gore Range Bighorn Sheep Study. I consulted with retired CPW DWM Bill Andree and Julie Mao CPW biologist about questions, clarification and potential impacts from this development. Results and Discussion: I will attempt to address issues in the two reports that I feel are significant to the impacts to wildlife in this project area, especially to bighorn sheep. I will state if I agree with Certified Biologist Richard Thompson's assessment or not and suggest other alternatives or recommendations. I will mostly organize my comments to follow the same order that they appear in the document. Some comments are combined from multiple sections of the reports. will bring up some issues that are not directly related to the project but may have an important effect on the health and viability of the wildlife in this area. Some of these issues and recommendations are beyond the responsibility of the developer and are primarily off-site. Environmental Impact Report, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision (EIR) 2.6.1.1 Habitat Present and 5.6 Cumulative Impacts to Wildlife Resources — I concur that the 5.4 -acre (2.7 acres direct loss) development is a small part of the overall habitat in the Vail Valley. However, the area is impacted by cumulative impacts that transformed this area from an undeveloped area in the early 1960's to what it is today. The development now stretches from the base of Vail Pass on both sides of 1-70 to Squaw Creek, a distance of over 17 miles (1-70 mile posts 163-180). Cumulative impacts are like nails in the coffin, while each one is maybe small and insignificant, eventually the coffin will be nailed shut and irreversible damage and wildlife extinction could occur. Each project that is developed from this day forward will be getting us closer to the final nail. Retired Vail DWM Bill Andree's comments about cumulative effects of habitat loss, increasing recreational activity and other factors are having a negative effect on the local elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep (Andree 2017). 1 also concur that forested habitats are not desirable and beneficial for bighorn sheep but are essential for other big game species such and deer, elk and black bear. These are tradeoffs that land managers need to consider. 2.6.1.2 Factors Currently Reducing Wildlife Effectiveness — I concur that 1-70 and the frontage road is a huge issue and is 24/7/365 impact. Bighorn sheep have can habituate to the predictable and constant noise and smells. I also agree that when normal traffic flows are interrupted by car stopping along the road to view bighorn sheep, etc., this creates a disturbance to wildlife. Bill Andree (prsnl. commun.) reported that when he observes these sheep along the highway, they are also bunched up and appear to be under stress. Human recreation is a random and unpredictable event that can cause increased stress on wildlife. Studies have been done using radio telemetry heart rate monitors on wildlife and one of the largest stressors appears to be a person on foot. If the person has a dog, the impact is even greater. The CPW has indicated that human recreation in the project area is one of its major concerns regarding the impact to the bighorns. I concur with this statement. Fire suppression and habitat deterioration — fire is a natural process on the landscape and historically created the natural mosaics and age diversity of plant communities that were beneficial for habitat and wildlife. Since the early 1900s, this cycle has been interrupted by fire suppression and this had a detrimental effect on the land. Land managers have attempted to incorporate more controlled burns and let -burn philosophy back into their management, but this is sometime met with public resistance and legitimate concerns about the urban interface areas making the risks too large. Aspen stands are relatively fireproof but will sometime burn. Many aspen stands are only present for a short period of time (early seral stage) then transform into coniferous forest. Other stands appear to be a climax stand, and this may be the case in the project area. Dead and down aspen and trees does negatively impact the use of these habitats for most wildlife species. Also, clear cutting aspen can sometimes stimulate regrowth of aspen and the result can be a younger and denser stand. This type of management would be detrimental to bighorn sheep that prefer open area to trees. It is unfortunate that the 1998 USFS habitat plan was not able be implemented in the Booth Creek area. In my opinion, habitat projects focused in areas close to rocky escape cover (Booth Creek cliffs) could have the most positive impact on the bighorns in this herd. 2.6.2 Focal Species I feel that the preservation of the Booth Creek bighorn sheep winter range is the most significant issue for this development. This is the only mapped area for bighorn sheep winter range for this herd. Thompson notes that the CPW has not defined dates of the winter use. It appears that from a small sample of radio collared ewes (N=4) from the 1990s study (Appendix A) that the four radio -collared ewes spent the first part of the winter in the Black and Slate Creek drainages (early December to early/mid-February) on the North end of the Gore range and then made a dramatic, mid -winter migration to the Booth Creek winter range (see Table 1 in the Appendix). This migration has probably been established for many years and generations of sheep. Therefore, the Booth Cr. winter range must be extremely important to these animals or they would not be making this risky migration. I would suggest that the Booth Creek bighorn winter range is probably the most critical factor for the herd's long- term viability and this area must be protected. Winter range for all big game species in Colorado is usually considered the most limiting factor to population size. It is usually the smallest area in their home range and the most critical for their survival. It is also possible that some sheep may stay on these northern winter ranges (Black and Slate Cr.) and not migrate. I recommend that the Colorado Parks and Wildlife might want to do further research into this hypothesis. Thompson also suggests that the severe winter range boundaries are not accurate. I agree and I also recommend that the rocky cliff and slide area on the west side of Booth Cr. be mapped in the winter range and as a winter concentration area. I have observed groups of rams bedded on these cliffs and feel that it is probably the main bedding and rocky escape cover for the sheep that winter in this area. This area appears to be the main winter range for rams in this herd. I have included an aerial photo and a polygon drawn around this area. The current winter range map only includes the lower portion of this area (see Fig 6). Thompson suggests that the natural mineral lick areas are not mapped accurately. These should be updated as well. Mineral licks are very important to bighorn sheep. Sheep can be drawn into areas that are not safe, suitable habitat to obtain salt. Apparently, this is already happening as on the existing rock berm area. It may be wise for the USFS and CPW to consider establishing some salt licks in appropriate habitat on top of the cliffs. This could also prevent sheep from taking the risky move to lick salt on the edge of the frontage road (see page 21 EIR). This should not cause any concern about using illegal bait by bighorn sheep hunters. Rams would not usually be present in this area during the hunting season. Thompson provides some other considerations about salt placement for bighorn sheep in WMP section 9.3.2.6. In Thompson comments that during his study approximately 277 acres of the 1,800 acres of mapped winter range was utilized. This data may be useful to the CPW to redefine the boundaries of the winter concentration area. Thompson comments that the sheep preferred the Booth Creek cliffs and that this is the most heavily used and important block of winter range in the mapped area. I concur and feel that this is because the sheep feel the safest in this area that is near the rocky escape cover. While sheep will travel through timbered areas that lack rocky escape cover, they do so at a high risk of predation and will probably not include these areas in their core home ranges. On page 9, Thompson commented that the minimum number of sheep during the winter of 2017-18 was based on the highest count of 41 sheep. On the previous page (8) Thompson makes the point that "the present population of 41 sheep" inferring that this is a total population number. I want to clarify that this is a minimum population size based upon the highest count during the study. Numerous studies have proven that it is very difficult to impossible to count all the animals in a population. The CDOW conducted a research project to count all the deer in several 160 acres fenced paddocks, in the Piceance Cr. area, using an observer in a helicopter. Biologist were only able to count on average 2/3 of the known number of deer in the fenced areas. It is very possible the sheep population could be more than double this number (41 sheep). There are many reasons for inaccurate wildlife counts especially in a large and rugged area such as the Gore Range where the animals can occur almost anywhere. CPW biologists commented the loss of the 5.4 -acre parcel of habitat due to the development was not the biggest impact but the potential for displacement and reduced habitat effectiveness on the nearby winter range below the Booth Cr. cliffs and in the NAP area. I concur. This is a very sensitive place. Human presence in this area will impact the sheep and this should be avoided. 2.6.2.2 and 4.6.1.2 Peregrine Falcon —The nesting site is located 0.36 miles from the closest point on the East Vail Parcel and this is closer than the recommended 0.5 miles recommended for protection of nesting site. I concur with Thompson and do not feel that this proposed development will be an issue since the 1-70 corridor and other developments are much closer to the nesting area. The pair has successfully fledged at least two young during 2011-17. Suggest that monitoring continue and determine if there is a nesting failure, like in 2018, and elucidate potential causes. 2.6.2.3 Elk — Thompson commented that the approximately 15 elk that wintered in this area during the 2017-18 study were in the highest elevation winter ranges in the Gore Creek Valley. The East Vail interchange is located at approximately 8,400 ft in elevation. This is very high for most elk to winter. Elk will usually only winter in these areas if they contain steep south facing slopes that do not accumulate a lot of snow. Thompson points out correctly that this winter range would be used mostly early in the winter and during mild winters. I also concur that this is still important winter range for elk due to the massive amount of winter range lost down valley due to the cumulative effects of over 50 years of development. I also concur that elk will be mostly nocturnal when using these areas. I also concur that the elk winter range map should be updated to include all the habitat in this area down to the frontage road. 2.6.2.4 Black Bear — Serviceberry shrubs do have mature fruit prior to Aug. 15. After this period, bears readily seek out other ripe fruits such as chokecherry and acorns gorging upon them almost 24 hours to build up critical winter fat reserve. Bears in this area are probably being attracted by the human food and trash that has not been properly secured. 4.6 Wildlife Resources - Concerning the 14.6 -acre parcel that will remain undeveloped. I recommend that this parcel be put into a permanent conservation easement. Without this protection, future projects could be developed on the parcel and the mitigation values would be negated. While this parcel is rather steep, anything could be developed given enough money. It appears that most of this parcel is in aspen woodland. Thompson says that it, "would be enhanced as big game (bighorn sheep and elk) winter range." If it is going to be enhanced for bighorn sheep, I recommend that the trees be removed, and the landscape opened to support more grass, forbs and shorted shrubs. Currently, I would consider this to be poor bighorn sheep winter range. Even if it is cleared of trees, it is still a long way from rocky escape cover and probably would only be used marginally. Elk would probably continue to use this area during the cover of night. 4.6.1.1 Bighorn Sheep — I concur that the effectiveness of the approximately 1.7 acres of sheep habitat along the cut slopes above the frontage road would be reduced, but I would suggest this area would be lost to sheep. Thompson suggests that the sheep may still enter that area to forage under cover of darkness. I believe that this will not happen. It is my impression that sheep are diurnal and feed during the day and bed down at night. However, elk may use this habitat during the night. (Fitzgerald et. al. 1994) I have concerns about the enforcement of the sheep related rules that I discuss in the WMP section. Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, Colorado (WMP) 3.1.1.2 Results of the East Vail 2017-18 Winter Sheep Study — Thompson reported that during the study, sheep used the 5.4 -acre development parcel on two occasions and a single animal traveled through the Natural Area Preservation (NAP) portion of the development parcel. I suggest that this is not surprising since the parcel, in its current condition, is mostly an aspen woodland forest and the area is located a fair distance from rocky escape cover. This area could be enhanced as bighorn sheep range if the standing trees and jackstrawed, dead and down timber were removed. The tall serviceberry shrubs would also hinder sight distance that would make it less suitable for bighorn. Cutting down the aspen forest might be short lived. This could stimulate re -growth of a younger and more vigorous stand of aspen. While this would be very beneficial to elk and deer, it could make it worse for bighorns. 3.2.4.4 Mountain Lion - Retired CPW DWM Bill Andree suggests that the Vail Valley, "mountain lions have seen an increase in their population levels over the last decade" (Andree 2017). This could be detrimental to the bighorn sheep that are very susceptible to lion predation. 7.8 Unit Numbers — Clustering and concentrating the development onto the 5.4 -acre parcel, including the rock fall berm 2.3 -acres rock fall berm, the 17.9 -acre NAP and building the development close to frontage road will reduce the wildlife impacts and is a better option than spreading the same development out on the whole 23.3 acre parcel. Not having any trails onto private open space, closing use of the Booth Creek rockfall berm road, possible closure of the TOV open space, no on-site use of the National Forest Service lands north of the rockfall wall, no sidewalk along the Frontage Road, no dogs, no drones, resident education about living with wildlife and enforcement for non-compliance (penalties) 0 would all be beneficial to reducing human impacts from the development. Some of these restrictions would have to be worked out with the Town of Vail and the USFS. 7.9 Internal Parks — the small community park and BBQ shelter at an internal location at the center of the site will reduce human impacts on the adjacent lands and is better option than upper level outside decks, especially facing to the open space areas to the North. 7.11 Maintaining Sheep Movements above the Frontage Road —The 1.7 -acre cut bank below the development and above the frontage road has been used by the sheep. It is doubtful, with all the development pressure from above and the cars below, that the sheep will feel secure in using this area again and this area will probably be lost as sheep winter range. As pointed out earlier, nocturnal animals such as elk might wander into this area in the quiet and dark of night, but sheep will be on their bedding grounds at this time. 7.12 Fencing — I am going to take issue with the recommendation from my former employer, CPW. Building a fence along the rock fall berm will not prevent people who want to get to the protected and closed area of the berm or further north onto the USFS lands. The fence will have to start and end some place and it will just be a matter of walking around it and facing the punitive fines that could result. This will impede the wildlife from using the berm and could force them onto the frontage road despite the planned use of "jump gates." The berm could be useful to wildlife such as elk at night and possibly bighorn sheep during the day. After the rock berm was built to protect the homes in the area west of the here, I noticed bighorn sheep using this area. Apparently, this is still going on today. I suspect that this is due to the steep south -facing slopes that shed snow more readily and using a different mixture of grasses and improved soil fertility from imported topsoil and fertilizers. Instead of spending money on this fence, I recommend taking the money and spending it on off-site enhancement to the habitat near the Booth Creek cliff. 8.0 Project -related Wildlife Effects — I concur that the 14.6 -acre parcel that will remain undeveloped could be improved to benefit wildlife such as elk and bighorn sheep. Creating more open habitat with a more vigorous understory of grasses and less decadent shrubs would be beneficial. As stated earlier, I recommend that this area be permanently protected in a conservation easement that would prohibit future development. I also concur and have stated earlier the best benefit: cost ratio to improve the habitat for bighorn sheep will be off-site and closer to the rocky escape cover and away from the development and frontage road. Much of this would probably involve cutting and stacking of aspen logs and then burning them during the early part of the winter, after the first snowfall. This is expensive work but effective and it has been done in numerous places around the west including Rocky Mountain National Park and along the urban interface. There will be a very low risk starting a larger wildland fire. There is very low probability that the bighorn sheep will be in this area at this time and it will be a short-term impact. 9.1.1 On-site Enhancement — I concur that the habitat on the NAP parcel can be enhanced for deer and elk. This will not be a one-time project and over time, 10-15 years, a re -treatment will be necessary. It would be beneficial for wildlife if provisions are made in the development permit to fund future habitat work on this parcel. Thompson recommends a similar funding proposal in 9.3.1.4. I am doubtful that cutting aspen and reducing the height of serviceberry and chokecherry will benefit black bear. Black bears seek out ripe chokecherries and will straddle the tall shrubs between their front legs and wallow them down to glean all the fruit. However, reducing the 7 height to them to make the browse more available to elk and sheep would benefit these species. I concur with Thompson about leaving a thick buffer zone west of the Pitkin Creek trail. 9.1.2 Off-site Enhancement — Reviving the 1998 USFS habitat enhancement plan for the bighorn sheep winter range could result in huge benefits for the sheep. Most of the effort will probably be focused around the Booth Creek cliffs east of Booth Creek. If the area west of Booth Creek is not included, I recommend that if should be and especially the area around the cliff and slide area (Figure 6). This would be very beneficial to the rams that tend to winter in this area. 9.2.1 Wintering Sheep — Scheduling the dirt work, foundation and framing projects during the late spring and summer would be beneficial to the wildlife. Likewise, working during the day light hours would allow the wintering elk to be more comfortable using this area at night. Building the fence to exclude humans to the rock berm area would reduce the effectiveness of the east -west migration corridor for wildlife. Recommend that the berm be well posted with sturdy "no trespassing/access signs" and this be strictly enforced. 9.2.3 Other Construction -related Mitigation — I concur with all these measures. 9.3.1 Requirement for the Developer of the East Vail Worksforce Housing Parcel — I think all of these are beneficial recommendations and should be part of any HOA agreement and strictly enforced. 9.3.2.2 Pet Control — I concur with these recommendations but request that #2 be changed to only allow two dogs under the weight of 15 -lbs. or one dog over the weight of 15 -lbs. 9.3.2.3 Resident Education regarding Black Bears — I concur with all of this. Black bears have become a huge problem in resort communities around the state. Thompson is correct in his assessment of the problem and it is always related to trash and human supplied food sources. This will result in trauma to the bear to be captured, ear -tagged and transplanted. Under current CPW policy, on the second strike the bear will be put down. Remember "a fed bear is a dead bear." 9.3.3 Enforcement — I appreciate the detailed process for enforcement of the rules. Violations that occur on the TOV lands will be more enforceable under the criminal codes of the municipality. The violations that occur on the development lands and enforced by the developer, Housing Management, and the HOA could be more problematic. This will be more peer to peer enforcement and civil vs. criminal fines. Hopefully, the adaptive management process will work to correct any problems that might develop over time. The USFS should be encouraged to designate a winter closure on their lands in this area to protect the sheep winter range from human interference. This has been done successfully in other areas of the White River National Forest such as the lower Avalanche Creek bighorn sheep winter closure south of Carbondale. Conclusion: I concur with Thompson (section 9.3.2) that "the East Vail Workforce Housing parcel is located adjacent to the most important block of bighorn sheep winter range in the valley." I also suggest that this winter range is the most limiting factor to this sheep herd and that this is the only known late season winter range for these sheep. Anything that diminishes the quantity, quality or 0 effectiveness of this area will be detrimental to this herd. This is the only herd of bighorn sheep in the Vail valley and it probably represents a population of around 100 sheep that fluctuates from year to year based mostly on winter severity. The loss of this native sheep herd, that has probably existed in this area for thousands of years, would be a tragedy not only to the residents but the whole state of Colorado. If the Town of Vail approves this development, the measures proposed in the EIR and WMP should be adopted and the restriction on the human use of the area should be followed and enforced. Follow up monitoring, habitat enhancement and adaptive management is also necessary to ensure the sustainability of this herd. 0 Appendix A Gore Range Bighorn Sheep Study 1989-1994 Summary by Gene Byrne, Wildlife Biologist Introduction and Purpose: This is a summary of the bighorn sheep study that was conducted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) in the Gore Range and Eagle's Nest Wilderness. The summary was completed to share the study results for the review of the East Vail Worksforce Housing Subdivision since these results were not documented in the environmental impact report (EIR). The objective of the study was (Schoep 1990): 1) Estimate the population size 2) Identify seasonal ranges and migration corridors 3) Estimate herd age and sex ratio 4) Estimate survival rates and causes of mortality 5) Determine bighorn sheep habitat preferences Methods A total of 24 sheep (15 ewes, 5 Iambs and 1 ram) were captured and marked, eight with radio collars. Clover traps were helicoptered to the top of the first cliff in the Booth Creek sheep winter range in 1989. The traps were located so that they could be easily viewed from the frontage road. The traps were baited with salt blocks. All the captured sheep were marked with ear tags in each ear with a different color scheme so the biologist could ascertain individuals by color even if we could not read the numbers. Eight sheep were radio collared with VHS radios that had mortality sensors: 6 ewes in 1989, 1 ram in 1990 and 1 ewe in 1991. During the period 5/22/1989 to 12/6/1993 a total of 38 flights were conducted to re -locate the radio collared sheep and record the location, group size, habitat descriptions and other parameters. The DOW used their Cessna 185 to make the flights. Also, during the flights other random sheep and wildlife observations were noted. Another clover trap was carried up the slopes on the west side of the Booth Creek drainage to try and capture some of the rams that tended to winter in this area. No sheep were captured in this trap. In the summer of 1989 and 1990, temporary employees Dan Stubbs and Dave Schoep respectively were hired to do ground surveys in the Gore Range and collect additional information on this sheep herd (Byrne 1994). Results and Discussion: Movements and Seasonal Ranges: We collected 188 aerial relocation and 60 ground relocation data points on the 6 ewes and 1 ram radio collared sheep. The radio collar on the Ione ram (G3) quit after approximately 16 months but several ground observations of him were made over a year after the collar malfunctioned. Some truly amazing movements were documented by these sheep. All four of the surviving radio collared ewes made incredible mid -winter migrations. The sheep would spend the early 10 part of the winter from early December to around mid-February in the Slate and Black Creek drainages and then they would head south to the Booth Creek cliff to spend the remainder of the winter. Some of the sheep would then return to lambing areas in Slate and Black Cr. between May 21- June 15. These migrations were probably made along the top of the ridge in the highest part of the Gore Range while there was deep snow and avalanche danger. On one flight, I was able to get visual locations on several of the ewes as they were making their treacherous journey heading south along the highest spine of the Gore Range. See Table 1 for dates when these sheep were last known to be in the northern Slate and Black creek winter ranges and when they were first detected at the southern Booth Creek winter range cliff area. We were able to get several visual locations on the radio ram even though the radio collar quit working. The ram was originally collared on 2/17/1990 on the Booth Cr. cliffs. It was observed on 9/27/1991 in Pitkin Cr. by a sheep hunter. Bill Andree saw him again in Sept 1992 in Pitkin and Bighorn Cr. and Bill McEwen saw him during the spring of 1993 in the Booth Creek area. While we do not have good data on ram movements and seasonal ranges, based upon this one sheep and other observations, the rams appear to summer in the South end of the Gore Range in the Pitkin, Bighorn and Deluge Cr. drainages. Then they probably head north into the Slate - Black Creek drainages during the late -November for the rut. Eventually, the rams appear to return to the Booth Cr. area and appear to favor cliffs on the west side of Booth Cr. Sometimes they are observed along the frontage road in the area of the road cuts. Mortality: These are native sheep that have evolved here and have probably persisted in this area for thousands of years. As such, these sheep know their seasonal ranges very well and can navigate this extremely rugged terrain very successfully. We did document some mortality during the study: Ewe G4 was collared on 4/16/1989 and found dead on 5/23/1989 in the Booth Cr. cliffs. She probably died due to the stress of capture. Ewe G7 was captured on 3/9/1990 and was found dead on 4/30/1990. She also probably died as the result of capture stress. Ewe G8 was captured on 4/3/1991 and the damaged and bent radio collar was discovered in an avalanche chute on Guyselman Mt. No remains of the sheep were found but it is suspected that she died in an avalanche the previous winter sometime after 11/13/1992. One ewe's (G7) radio collar fell off less than 2 months after she was collared. However, it did not survive and was recaptured the following year but only 2 months of data was collected from the radio collar. Minimum Population Estimates (highest documented number sheep for one group or at one time/location): 1989: Aug. 10. 1989 — 43 sheep, helicopter survey of Gore Range — Gene Byrne, Observer 1990: April 30, 1990 — 45 sheep observed from fixed wing airplane survey — Gene Byrne, Observer 1991: April 3, 1991 — 35 sheep Booth Creek area, both sides — Andree and Byrne 1992: 18 rams, minimum number observed by Andree during sheep season — Bill Andree 11 1993: May 10, 1993 — 13 sheep both sides of Booth Cr. — Byrne I have attached a document that shows the explanation of sheep observations in the database. This includes the date ranges for each activity code: summer range, winter range, lambing, etc. I am also attaching 6 maps of the movements of the sheep that survived greater than one year and did not lose their collars. It would be possible and beneficial if the CPW would re -analyze this dataset using the modern mapping software and overlay it on topographic maps to better visualize these areas and habitat parameters. Literature Cited Andree, B. 2017. Letter to Pete Wadden concerning wildlife populations within the Gore Valley. 8pp. Bear, G. D. and G. W. Jones. 1973. History and distribution of bighorn sheep in Colorado. CO Div. of Wildlife. 231 pp. Byrne, G. 1994. Gore Range bighorn sheep and mountain goat management study — 51" annual report. Unpub Rpt, CPW Glenwood Spgs, CO.14 pp. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado — Ovis canadensis section. Denver Mus. Of Nat. History. Univ. Press of CO. 467 pp. Schoep, D. A. 1990. Gore Range -Eagle's Nest Wilderness bighorn sheep study. Unpub. Rpt., CPW Glenwood Spgs., CO. 44 pp. 12 Bjhmn Sbap and Mnunta,!� Goat Otu,,t,n-vntjon Database Exgilaention, 1. D, Nw ne unique T.D. number thal. is assigned to each individual animal i.e. "GM FRIA Us fromwmy nr the ra,dio collar in, 1-18,2�2l MUI.7, ',CO NO The sequRnUal number of each relocations, both 9vound and aerial, made on thp animal. The trap date and location le numbered W. ACT CDE Activity code - this oorrespoa,,Js to the sctivity pt?rdod code fur a particular relocaUrr, time of the yaar'Ic f"'11(awlag codes are nsc& Vvy WIN! Alt 1v An E—erin-a"'ates s summor June 16 - Sept 15 F Fait Tran. Hept 16 - Rov. 20 W t"inter Dac21 - April 1.5 T sprg Tr'--t"Aprii 18 - t1my 20 L Leak i ug May 21 - Junn15 DATE -slur data uf the relocalAun. TIME The time of the relocatiuH. Military time is used i.e. ON, fi-,— P!00 am and LOG, fo r- 2 t V - vis A vi-eual ,n,-, made on, the ani -mal - yo�, !cr no.. Met method - A (air} or a I ground) tion, GRP SIZE size of the ;,cup i r a visuai was maw HART TY-Fi Hab-tat Type - enter rovi ,Fr uioic of the. codes-. A Alpine C Ceniferovz 0 Urass S shimb P Aspen Supulus) J Viton/ Juniper T Talus Crack) IF the Wma! was on the edge or plow: to no W enter the, two type5 j,p. A - C (h1pine & canirmank 'Me first cod--, should he Lhe predominate type, Lhercfory in the rase abovc- tive ani.mal appeared to wlentog Uve xbbw over ths. uunlEprous type. Thie is -,ttictly a jjudgmont �all AS ;wuect - Nis was detmined by map Inspection and recorded to the nearest 45 degreens I—e. Ni!:, 5s NW et e,. -3 L F 71 Sloija w. was determined usi"g the UST"s slope W i:T,F'V Elevation n, tho rclecatLon in 1`ret to torr -'ifares�' 100 it:et� UAY. x Thu Univernal Trmsvmse Mm,-,ator --location fur Lime wordigate. All TNN a=e for et,-,ne, 13 nPless otherwise Lucations deLarnined by Pap instead,, gar uswdly romAed of t' Q the nvwvsL 25 meters. Aerial lucaLiwts that w; determined Mug the LORAN uys'tem ate usuzHy entered to the wearest meter, altlw"gh the accuracy le probably ± 500 meters. QTAI Y S"P as ahovc eycept. f.-ar the "Y" r,'o�rd-nate. COMMENTS A ver:v brief stmtemen; 62 characLars ur iequ, of the dewription Q the Wcation, other collarm! apimaLs in the group, unusual circumstumues, Box &Rd age compawsMon, etc. DMS LOT LW. Number A days sinae the last rel,�catio: was Wo. MST LAST LUC (Kn) The dIsLanue in kHometers the animal has moved S5.nce tbe last 0 Fie. I . "I'm show tserelocation da ---a for c,.qe G1 in the Gore -Rarae since 4-27-85. Coila- -,,,a-,/ nave ta-*-j-ed after 4-27-92, BIGHO N L 0 C 4 C I'l S CF S 1 17E 77 P 31 ,4 I- SPRING SITINGS 2 SITINGS DURTI,,,G CA -i 2 + Su2MEn SITINGS FA' - L Sl I !'%OS D I "laintrrz S7'TNG",D; " RING PUI x sITINGS Fig2. Map showing the relocation data for ewc S2. in ,. F Gclr` tinge sinc,= 4-27-89, OCA - Gids OF cc , rh Gm SPR -,NG Si7iNOS SIT-.' LGS U U " J, LA a P ALL s m a iNcls OU 11,111-cl 91 -IT SCALE 1: IMCCC GIG,"HORN SHEEP - GORE RAk,-Gr- iCi'-'ATI,,-)NS Q-' SHEEP G3 RIVER + TKIN ry FFK x / K SCALF 10OVIVa ESITINGS SITINGS DURING, LAV,,HP-jG + v�IjpMER SITIINGS FALL, SITINGS D'U"ING PUT x WINTER SITING:� Fig. 3., Map Showing the rialocatlao data for ram G3 in the Core Range since 3-9-90 t;7 5-24-91, aftpr thiz date the caller evidentally malfanction ed. Fig. iP Map e wise to =elocati data £o= : § � = a G5 in tr � ze Range t=om 4-23-85 to 12-21-92. 1� t.S 2% — 2 < E \ ._� LCC& NS OF SHEEP : + » s _ SIT I I tea; s e sitIN RI I� . < w y e./: yT ° FAI S e e x J SifiNGS DISIN,13.R U, I x e;. E R % I i N G . . 7icf. 4. Map sho,,v:incT .`cc fcif, ewe --6 in t} e c Range f-rom 4-12-89 to 12-21-92, T 'HORN Si-iF—P G CORE Flllc,'. -E:. LOCATIO,;,N`Se SHiEEEL-rP GE, SPRING SITINGS �,TTINJSS DURING L. A tAl R T Ni fl S,.1-,JtjrR SI .'NGS F 'ALL SITTN�-is SITINGE DLJRTNG RUT ik WTNTER STTT, N G 3 F:al S. Map showing -.1 relocatio- dat-a, for e0a in the Go= RanQ,e 2 2-11-5T --0 1221-92. _E7 'G;--�]RN SH'- "F SHE F, SITING'S :UR=NS -AiMBING S"JiAMEER SITINGS ::?seas 7N _ , - , 3S 17TNGS D"RING ��UT x -- wig SITPiGS SCALE iOfOQc- W L w r qw rn O V n., !'.. Table No. t Winter movements dates for radio collared bighorn sheep in the Gore Range. "Last Date on North Winter Range" is the last date the sheep was on detected on the non Booth Creek winter ranges. Sex ID Last Date on North Winter Range Location of N Winter Range First Crate Detected On Booth Cr. EweC,1 (2/6/1990 ..._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._..... Slate Cr..:._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._...._I 2/17/1990..._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._....._..... 14/19/1991 Black Cr. 7/1/1991 112/4/1991 Black Cr. 11/24/1942 0=!: Ewe G2 :12/6f1990 Slate Cr. 2/17/1990 0E-,1/22/1991 61ackCr. 4/3/1991 1;0112/4/1991 IBlack Cr. 1/29/1992------� '=f-112/21/1992 (Brush Cr. 13/2/1993 1 01 .._ ..... _... ._....._...._....._....._...._....._.__._..._..._...._..-.._._.-..._... I __._.____..._..._...-.....__._....-...._._.__..._._..._._.__._.-------- Fam G3 11/29/1990 ISlate Cr. 1/22/1991 0�1 I I Ewe GS 2f6J1490 Pitkin -Booth Cr Ridge 2J17f1990 D�11/29/1992 Black Cr. 3/13/1992 11 11 F 0E-1 I f � Ewe Go 2/6/1990 Slate -Black Cr. 2/17/1990 1/29/1992 IBlack Cr. 3/13/1992 3f2f1993 JIGUysornan Mt.5/12f- IF - - 0 Ewe G8 1/29/1992 Black Cr. 3/13/1992 To: Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, pec(&vailgov.com and Kristen Bertuglia, KBertu0ia(&vaiNov.com Subject: Wildlife Mitigation Plan pertaining to East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision impacts to bighorn sheep Good morning, Planning and Environmental Commission members, My name is Melanie Woolever. I have a B.S. and a M.S. in Wildlife Science and have been a professional wildlife biologist for 43 years. I have worked for a variety of agencies and organizations, but the majority of my career was with the U.S. Forest Service (FS) working at all levels of the organization. I was the Regional Wildlife Program Leader for the Rocky Mountain Region for over 20 years and was the Forest Service's Full Curl (bighorn sheep) Program Leader for 26 years. I worked internally providing guidance and technical expertise to FS specialists and leadership as well as with other Federal, State and local governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals to provide for bighorn sheep conservation. I have continued my involvement with bighorn sheep conservation issues since my 2015 retirement. I currently represent Colorado Wildlife Federation on the Colorado Statewide Bighorn Sheep Working Group, am on the Board of Directors for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, a member of the Professional Resource Advisory Board and Legislative Affairs Committee for the Wild Sheep Foundation and contract with CSU helping the National Park Service enhance their bighorn sheep conservation program. I have been very interested in the proposed East Vail housing development referenced with specific concern regarding the likely impact to the struggling bighorn sheep herd occupying the area. I have read Rick Kahn's comments on the mitigation plan. I concur with his assessment of the situation and the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation and would like to underscore his comments and observations while adding a few of my own. As Mr. Kahn clearly described, bighorn sheep, west -wide and in Colorado, are somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5% of their historic numbers and distribution. Unlike deer and elk, bighorn sheep recovery, even with concerted effort, has not occurred. Consequently, the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region and surrounding Regions have included bighorns on their Sensitive Species lists which requires additional protect to insure activities do not result in a trend toward Federal ESA listing. The State of Colorado has also included bighorn sheep on their list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. There is clear, science -based recognition of the vulnerability of our declining bighorn sheep populations. Small herds such as this one are particularly vulnerable to extirpation. Loss of habitat, lack of ability to utilize habitat because of disturbance and disease events could all be factors affecting this herd's ability to survive. As Mr. Kahn mentioned, the herd has experienced a 40% reduction over the last number of years and has very limited winter range. Additional habitat loss, whether through actual structures or from preclusion of use as a result of the gamut of associated human activities, during and post construction, will further stress an already stressed population during the most energetically demanding time of year. The activities are likely to severely reduce if not preclude use entirely, sharply increasing the risk of herd extirpation. Mitigation of habitat loss, particularly for bighorn sheep, is problematic with highly variable response. Habitat improvement would need to be completed beforehand and demonstrated effective before a conclusion that loss of habitat has been mitigated and therefore, before any construction begins if there is a desire to maintain the bighorn sheep herd. In any case, it is clear that the scale and approach to habitat improvement will not likely meet the desired outcome for bighorn sheep as Mr. Kahn clearly describes. I am hopeful that the citizens and local Vail government appreciate the amenity and the potential economic value this bighorn sheep herd provides, particularly in light of the high winter visitation when the sheep are easily seen. The bighorn sheep enhance visitor experience and frankly that of the local population as well. If keeping and even potentially exploring ways to recover the bighorn herd are a goal, then it is important to recognize that the suggested mitigation for the subdivision is inadequate and will not insure persistence. Respectfully submitted, Melanie M. Woolever mmwoolever@gmail.com TOWN OF DO VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: July8, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHM ENTS: File Name Description oec results 070819.odf July 8, 2019 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) July 8, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John - Ryan Lockman, Brian Stockmar, Karen Perez (arrived at 1:20 PM) Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone 30 min. district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of the property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. The proposed rezoning would change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC19-0022) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Jonathan Spence presented the application. He stated that this application has been before the PEC a few times over the past year and a half. Mr. Spence stated that the PEC previously approved a subdivision for this site. Relying upon a zoning map, Mr. Spence demonstrated that the lot has two different zoning designations. He noted that the parcel is under the same ownership and the applicant is seeking to change the zoning to one designation. He noted that two letters in opposition have been submitted into the record. Chairman Stockmar called for questions from the commissioners. Mr. Stockmar inquired about the court order quieting title. Mr. Spence stated the court order did not opine on the local regulatory structure or zoning and pertained only to ownership. Mr. Stockmar noted that the staff memo provides details that this is a unique situation. Upon inquiry from Chairman Stockmar, Mr. Spence stated that in terms of the Community Development Department, having two zoning designations on one lot creates regulatory problems. He stated that in terms of setbacks and other calculations determining what is required is difficult. Chairman Stockmar noted that this is a de novo review and the PEC shall base their decision solely based on the materials in their packet and public testimony given today There was a discussion over the protected covenants versus the change in zoning. Mr. Spence noted that the private covenants are not handled within the Community Development Department and are outside of the PEC or Staff's purview. Ms. Sara Baker, representing the property owner, noted that the staff report states that all criteria have been met and requested that the PEC approve the zoning change. Ms. Baker noted that whatever covenants are in place today will not be impacted by any zoning change. She noted that the property is currently zoned Agriculture/Open Space and that development is permitted. Ms. Baker stated that the uses that are allowed by right are different in each district and is a unique situation and the application is a clean-up. Ms. Baker stated that the court order did not order a change in zoning and just addressed ownership. She noted that this is not the first time the town has rezoned property in identical situation. Relying upon the town zoning map, she referred to an application to rezone on Hanson Ranch Road. Ms. Baker provided additional examples of rezoning and stated that there is precedent for rezoning. Upon inquiry from Commissioner Hopkins, Mr. Spence stated that all setbacks are measured from property lines. There was a discussion regarding the flexibility in setbacks for Public Accommodation (PA) zoning districts that the PEC has discretion in setting. Chairman Stockmar called for public comment. Mr. Jonathan Stauffer, resident, asked how we got here and stated that it has been zoned open space since the first mayor. He noted that it is open space that makes Vail such an attractive community. He stated if this proposal is allowed any developer can do the same thing. Mr. Wendell Porterfield, counsel for Christiana, and two others, stated that this is a self-created problem by quiet title. He stated that there is a statement in the memo that goal #4 has been met and a statement that the public has always perceived this as part of the residence. He concluded that they do not support the requested action. An owner of a condo unit abutting the property stated that all three groups sent a statement of objection and hope that they have received and read it. She stated that the applicant is asking the town the same question over and over. She noted that green space of any kind is valuable and stated that if the PEC approves the request it will set a bad precedent. Mr. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that the covenants were Vail's first land use constitution. He noted that in a constitution you have two things: the rules and how to change those rules. Mr. Lamont stated that it would be best if not totally appropriate to have those rules amended before the application is brought before the board. A resident spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that it frightens him to see where development is going and encouraged the board to look at the open space encroachment across Vail Lu Maslak, resident, stated that they came to Vail after looking at many ski towns and chose Vail because of open space and sentiment in the valley to keep these open spaces and noted that she's observed an erosion of that concept. She stated that she is opposed to the encroachment on open space. She stated she is imploring them to consider what the PEC is doing. Herman Stafford, Vail resident, echoed everything that has been said so far. He stated that they have an obligation to protect open space public and private. He stated they must protect what we have and not let other people to take it away and let them redevelop the house but keep the open space. Chairman Stockmar closed public comment. Commissioner Lockman stated that he appreciated the public comment and stated that the PEC must look at this application as if no prior applications have been submitted. Mr. Lockman stated it is a challenging application and noted their duty for the town is to review the criteria in an objective way to see if the application meets the criteria in the town code. He further noted that you cannot have two zoning designations on one property. Mr. Lockman stated that, in reviewing, the criteria it does comply. Commissioner Hopkins stated that she is an old timer as well. Ms. Hopkins stated that she would have liked a plan delineating where the zoning district transects the property and stated she is inclined to vote against it. Commissioner Perez stated that she does not see that it meets Goal #4 of the master plan. She noted that she would like to see the final development and will vote against it. Commissioner Kurz stated that he would like to see the development plan as well. Mr. Kurz noted he is not ready to vote in favor at this time and would like to see the proposed development plan along with the zoning change. Commissioner Gillette stated that he also did not feel it meets Goal #4 of the master plan and is inclined to vote against. Commissioner Kjesbo stated that he would like to see the development plan before voting in favor. Chairman Stockmar stated that the issue before the PEC is the zoning and not the project, building, or anything presented to the board previously. He stated he is in agreement with the other commissioners and would like to see the development plan. He stated he would like to see the proposed building as well as everything brought before and invited a motion to table. Ms. Baker stated that the PEC has seen the development plan which they previously reviewed. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant would agree to table this request and urged the PEC to review the a)derior alteration application. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Ms. Baker stated there have been no changes made from the previously reviewed development plan. There was a discussion regarding the application for a major a)derior alteration. Chairman Stockmar stated reviewing both the zoning and development plan together would be beneficial. Mr. Spence stated that while both applications can be reviewed together, zoning approval can not be tied to a development application. Ludwig Kurz moved to table to a future date. Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (1) Gillette 2.2. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120 min. 11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Chairman Stockmar opened the hearing for PEC19-0018 and noted that written comments are encouraged as it gives the board time to review them ahead of time. Mr. Stockmar stated that he does not support allowing the consolidation of comments for one person to speak on behalf of several. Planner Neubecker stated that some comments were received by staff after 12PM on Friday and noted that while the comments were not in the packets, they were forwarded to the board for their review. Mr. Neubecker gave a presentation for the Booth Heights Neighborhood. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted to the town and recommendations made to mitigate impacts to wildlife. Mr. Neubecker noted that the application includes a landscaping plan and a wildlife enhancement area to create a better habitat for sheep. Mr. Neubecker noted that this area would be an ongoing commitment for the applicant to maintain for the sheep habitat. Mr. Neubecker stated that the previous application there was a discussion regarding the location of the bus stop design. He noted that a recommendation from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) was to move the bus stop out of the west end. Mr. Neubecker presented an alternative design giving buses an area to turn around as suggested by the town's Public Works and Transportation department. Another alternative, Mr. Neubecker, presented was to provide access to the east bus stop and not have a bus stop on the west side. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Neubecker stated that coming west bound there is one stop on the north side of the Frontage Road. There was a discussion regarding access to crosswalks and bus stops. Mr. Neubecker reviewed four questions staff is requesting feedback on from the PEC. Mr. Lockman asked about the 3D model requested. Mr. Neubecker stated that the applicant is working on those additional materials and is part of the reason they are requesting to change the timeline for public hearings Michael O'Conner, Triumph Development, provided the PEC an update. He noted that the concept of getting massing and project level elevations is something that makes a lot of sense and they can make progress on that by the next meeting. He stated it will be an update. Chairman Stockmar stated that they would like to see massing, sections and other visuals to help with their review. There was a discussion to have a meeting on July 22, 2019 to review massing. Mr. O'Conner stated that their technical experts are available to the PEC to answer any questions. Mr. O'Conner stated that the agenda today is to talk about items C, D and E. Mr. Koechlein, Professional Geologist, analyzed the geology for the site. Mr. Koechlein stated that the Colorado Rock -fall Simulation Program was utilized for the analysis. Mr. Koechlein stated that the area proposed for development does not have as much impact as the adjacent property to the west (Booth Creek). He reviewed the rock -fall design recommendations to create a means of dissipating the rock -fall and collecting the rock when it reached the property. Upon inquiry from Ms. Hopkins, Mr. Koechlein stated that the berm will be approximately 20' above existing grade, depending on the slope conditions. Chairman Stockmar asked if there are diagrams that show bolting or pinning of the potential rock -fall and to what extent is that being proposed? He asked if you were to pin the fascia does that create less risk in terms of likelihood or potential greater risk that a larger chuck of the fascia could fall. Mr. Koechlein stated that rock bolting is done on many rocks and being able to accomplish that on this site would be very difficult and getting equipment to do that would be difficult. Mr. Koechlein stated that rockbolting would probably not be appropriate in this case. Mr. Gillette asked how this berm compared to another berm. Mr. Koechlein stated they are very similar, the shape is the same and the 1:1 is the same. He noted that they are similar in terms of slope however the rock -fall analysis for this site is less of a concern as it was for the site to the west. Mr. Koechlein then reviewed the rock -fall berm location and storm drainage. He reviewed the property to the west and location of the rock -fall berm on that site. Showing photos of existing conditions, Mr. Koechlein reviewed the rock -fall berm of the abutting site and noted a similar berm is proposed for the Booth Heights proposal. Mr. Koechlein reviewed the historic landslide map and noted that the major landslide is to the east of the yellow zone (as indicated on the slide). He noted the mass has moved down the slope and the building that may be affected by this, to be investigated further, would be the building to the very right. Mr. Gillette asked if the buildings on the right would be mitigated if it is a problem. MR. Koechlein stated that mitigation is possible and would require the construction of a concrete mass and install tie backs through the block and the tie blocks go into the formation and most cases back into the bedrock to stabilize and support to keep it from moving. Chairman Stockmar noted that a huge portion of the mountainside has slid off. Mr. Stockmar asked what the potential was that the same kind of event could happen over this project. Mr. Koechlein noted that the question is a good one and that is what the investigation would look into. Chairman Stockmar stated he would be interested in the results of the soil study and is a concern. Mr. Koechlein agreed and stated that is what the investigation will do. Chairman Stockmar stated that he would like to know what the likelihood of a similar event to happen. There was a discussion over risk evaluation. Ms. Perez noted that the reports date back to 2016 and asked if this report is limited to the 5 acre site or the entire site. Mr. O'Connor stated that they have updated the math and the model based on the relocation of the berm. He noted it's been an evolution in studying the situation and then ultimately finalizing what is in the PEC package. He noted the initial reports dates back to 2016 and there are supplemental reports. Ms. Perez stated that she was looking at figure 2 in the report for Caesar Inc. on page 337 in the PEC packet. Mr. Neubecker confirmed that Ms. Perez is looking at the entire site, all 24 acres. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the 5 acres within the larger map where development is proposed. Ms. Perez stated that she wanted to make clear that Mr. Stockmar was looking at the entire site. Mr. Stockmar stated that the topographical image does clearly show the landslide and shows the massive elevation change that delineates the two parcels. There was a discussion over the landslide indicated on the topographic map and that there is a concern that another similar event would happen on that elevation. Mr. Stockmar stated that he looks forward to the investigation into the risk of landslide as Mr. Koechlein stated they were studying. Ms. Sandy Gibson, landscape architect, Outside LA in Steamboat Springs, presented the landscaping plan. Ms. Gibson stated that their goal was to balance a lot of the opportunities of the site inwardly due to wildlife issues. She noted that some internal open spaces have been curated for the residents versus pushing to the outside. She noted to the east of the large buildings exists a community area with trellis features; they have removed the gas firepits. Ms. Gibson stated that the communal gathering space with seating area and utilizing the fire turn around area with permeable pavers. Ms. Gibson then reviewed the site lighting plan and noted that it is similar to the plan at the Chamonix development. She noted they are wayfinding lights with cutoffs. Ms. Gibson reviewed development standards and noted as following: Criteria C is met as their plan is functional and aesthetic and noted substantial topsoil will be used and no substantial retaining walls are proposed. Upon inquiry from Ms. Hopkins, Ms. Gibson stated the boulder retaining walls are proposed. Mr. O'Connor interjected that they will not be more than 3' in height due to front yard setback requirements in the Town Code. Ms. Gibson stated that the existing trees in the right-of-way will be preserved. Ms. Gibson noted that staff comments will be integrated into the final landscaping plan. She noted that the seed used will be acceptable to CDOT as well as the adjacent forest land. She noted cottonwoods will be planted in appropriate places, away from structures. Ms. Gibson further stated that the site plan will be revised to preserve all offsite trees. She then asked if there were any questions. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed "Criteria D" for pedestrian and site circulation. He noted traffic and the underpass, parking and circulation bus impacts. Kari McDowell, traffic and transportation engineer, 1099 Capital Street, Eagle, CO. Ms. McDowell stated they met with CDOT and Town of Vail staff to discuss traffic. Ms. McDowell stated that the first page provides the site plan relative to the access. Relying upon the slide "Traffic- Project Access and Circulation" Ms. McDowell stated the curb cut is approximately 1000' from Big Horn Road and over 2000' from Katsos Ranch Road. She noted that the internal streets are 26' and multiple turnarounds are provided. Mr. Neubecker stated the fire marshal has reviewed the plans and the applicant has made changes based upon his feedback. Ms. McDowell stated the North Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway. She stated the traffic data was collected during Christmas time so should capture peak use. Ms. McDowell then reviewed the existing traffic conditions and findings of their traffic study. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Kassmel reviewed the pedestrian improvements to the interchanges. Mr. Kassmel stated that the east Vail interchange does not have connecting sidewalks or high pedestrian traffic so it has not been a priority. Mr. Kassmel noted this additional development would bring more pedestrians to the area and it would be important to understand what the pedestrians would be walking to. Chairman Stockmar noted, anecdotally, that the underpass is very dangerous to walk under and noted he is looking for some way to make that a safer pedestrian experience year round. Mr. Kassmel stated that adding a sidewalk would provide that option for a pedestrian. Mr. Gillette stated that the town should explore how to connect this development safely to town for pedestrians. Ms. Kassmel stated they have had discussions to have one continuous path. He noted that while it is not in the master plan, it has been discussed whether there would be space to do that. Mr. Kassmel stated that if there was a desire for that connection there would be space. Chairman Stockmar noted that to get to the closest grocery store would require you to go under the underpass. Mr. Gillette inquired into the process is to get the sidewalk connection. Mr. Kassmel stated that it would need to be budgeted by Town Council for to create the sidewalk. Ms. McDowell continued her presentation and presented an alternative traffic circulation and showed an exhibit that would decrease the lane width and create room for bike lanes. Ms. McDowell then reviewed the anticipated traffic for the workforce housing portion and the portion that is not workforce housing and the other portion they used standard rates. Mr. Gillette inquired if national numbers were used in lieu of local numbers if they are higher or lower? Ms. McDowell stated workforce housing was 40% lower than the national. She stated they looked at the transit ridership as well in their analysis and so used the same ratios and makes up for the difference between those. Ms. Perez inquired whether the developer will have mail delivery at the site She noted that some of the traffic and ins and oust are to the post office which may have implications for the vehicular trip number. Ms. Hopkins stated this is an employee housing project and asked the number that will live there. Ms. McDowell reviewed the traffic analysis. There was a discussion regarding growth in traffic in the future. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the opportunity for additional parking. He noted that an item the PEC brought up was a concern for the parking availability for the workforce housing units. He stated they reviewed the site plan and have found a way to add a net additional 11 parking spaces. He noted the ADA required parking is noted on the site and discussed the possibility to have the electrical in place for EV charging stations. The snow storage plan is considerably above the town's requirements at 39% with a required 30%. He stated this change creates 56 parking spaces with a ratio of 1.33 spaces per unit. He noted that is brings in line with PEC approval for Lion's Ridge. Mr. O'Connor stated that those residents are more likely to own a car than the residents at this development. Mr. O'Connor showed a summer and winter pedestrian circulation plan and discussed the ADA needs. He noted they are only required to have 2 units ADA compliant but more that are adaptable. Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the proposed bus stop configurations. He noted there are many competing interests in consideration of access to the bus stop and location. He noted they have the east west connectivity. He stated to build the bus stop, Public Works recommends would mean not doing some of the features the wildlife mitigation would are proposing. Rick Thompson, Western Ecosystems, Inc. Wildlife Biologist, reviewed Criteria E Environmental Impacts, Mr. Thompson stated that in 2017 he did a wildlife study while he was retired, then he was asked to give a presentation on optimal development design on wildlife. He stated that in developing design criteria he saw as an opportunity to put in some wildlife standards to protect the wildlife. He stated he agreed to work with the applicant based on their guarantee that they would incorporate wildlife design criteria. Mr. Thompson stated that he worked on three reports: August 2018, Wildlife Monitoring Report, Wildlife Mitigation Plan and the El R Wildlife sections of the proposal. Relying upon a map with a pink polygon showing winter range in east Vail, Mr. Thompson discussed the CPW-mapped Bighorn Sheep summer and winter ranges. He then discussed wildfire suppression effects and the results of the 1998 Environmental Assessment (EA). He then provided an overview of sheep life history, specifically noting that with sheep winter range is escape cover represented by cliff bands and shrub habitat on south and southwestern facing slopes with good snow shedding. He noted sheep do not use forests and described the Booth Creek herd history and identified a preferred shrub of the sheep. Mr. Thompson described the sheep population. Mr. Thompson described the 7 -month wildlife study with the purpose to evaluate the sheep. He then showed where game cameras were located for the study and described how winter severity affects spatial and temporal sheep habitat use patterns. Mr. Thompson then presented a winter range polygon based on his study and reviewed the findings of his report. He enumerated the design criteria and proposed mitigation strategies such as fully enclosed trash structures, no sizeable internal parks and minimum parking and fencing to restrict residents from surrounding habitat. There was a discussion regarding fencing. Mr. Thompson stated that Colorado Parks and Wildlife wanted fencing. Mr. Thompson and another biologist were against fencing due to the reduction of viable habitat. Mr. Thompson stated that the other biologist was opposed to the fence because "fences end" and it would be more appropriate to educate the residents. Mr. O'Connor stated that education, signage and other components are important for residents. Mr. Thompson then reviewed the proposed mitigation plan components. Restrictions include no heavy construction outdoors during winter range period, and screening with a berm and landscaping. Supplemental feeding of sheep could be done if warranted due to the weather. Enhancement would be done on site, up to 14.6 acres, removing downed logs, remove aspen stand, reclaiming habitat. Mr. Thompson then reviewed his outreach with the Forest Service and the Town of Vail. He then discussed mitigation plans outside of the proposed development area to create paths for the sheep to move back and forth and maximize habitat conditions by addressing an overgrown forest. He noted another critical component is the occupancy related management prohibiting year-round access and recreational use of surrounding lands. Mr. Thompson stated that resident education is a critical component and everyone must read and sign a wildlife mitigation plan. He noted the first violation is a fine of $250, second fine $500, and a third violation is a $750 fine and 1 month notice to vacate the premises for rental units. He stated for the employee housing Vail Resorts will have a disciplinary action for their employees. Mr. Thompson then discussed the impacts of the development to Elk and Peregrine Falcon. He then reviewed impacts to a variety of other wildlife groups. Mr. Thompson concluded his presentation by stating that the project effects have been avoided, minimized, and offset, by project design, construction and enhancement commitments, and implementation and enforcement of the mitigation. He noted that the real benefit of the project is the increased awareness of habitat quality. The PEC took a 5 -minute recess. Chairman Stockmar closed the recess and continued on with the hearing. Mr. Stockmar stated he would like to create an opportunity at the ne)d meeting reserved for public comment, though he was not sure if that would be entirely possible. Mr. Thompson presented his response to CPW's July 3, 2019 comment letter. He stated that the literature cited is correct but noted the literature doesn't address the impacts on habituation. Mr. Thompson stated that he did not agree with the comment from the letter that states "The most consistently available and suitable winter range is predominantly restricted to the development site" Mr. Thompson continued to review his slides that outline his response to CPW's July 3, 2019 comment letter. Mr. Thompson then reviewed a summary of independent biologist reviews. He stated that the reviews did not consider his (2018) wildlife monitoring report or his 2018 peregrine nesting attempt brief, both of which detailed wildlife use that is only summarized in the E I R and Mitigation Plan. He noted that the Booth Creek herd is unique due to its habituation to human activity which the other biologists do not take fully into consideration. He continued his response to the independent wildlife biologist reviews and through his slides. Mr. Gillette stated there are proposed parking areas, multi -family buildings and townhouses. Mr. Gillette asked which of the uses is the least disturbing to the herd. Mr. Thompson stated the most disturbing will be traffic entering and exiting the parcel when the sheep are using that area as winter grazing range. He noted that this sheep herd is habituated to predictable unchanging events. He noted that they would not be impacted by cars going up and down the street as traffic flow, however, if someone were to stop and get out of the car that would be out of context and be impactful. Mr. Gillette reiterated the proposed uses and asked if the site layout is appropriate and asked which use should be closest to the west Mr. Thompson stated he did not design the layout but did encourage development be located as close to the Frontage Road as possible to create the largest possible buffer between good foraging habitat and the residences. He noted the human activity that might be more regular outside of the townhomes should be most separated. He stated the parking lot provides a buffer from the west end of the parcel whereas the townhomes are screened by the north because of the aspen. Mr. Lockman inquired about the western berm. Mr. Thompson stated that that is an area that has not been completely resolved and would like to meet with Parks and Wildlife to discuss further. He stated the goal is to mitigate the sightlines of traffic with a buffer. He stated landscaping might be more effective at blocking the view, his concern is the level of landscaping that may be required might actually force the sheep out on the Frontage Road. He further stated the sheep are habituated to traffic on the existing road. Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Thompson, stated the western bus stop may be an impact of the project with the possible benefit that sheep that might use that during the day might not freak out from getting caught between the housing and road. He stated with this development he did not think the sheep would graze in that area anymore. Mr. Kjesbo inquired about the timeline for habitat mitigation. Mr. O'Connor stated that they could commit to the adjacent NAP improved site work done before the first winter of construction. He stated the sooner they receive approval, the sooner they can begin those mitigation efforts. He noted that they would only do the initial heavy construction from April 15 to November 15. There was a discussion regarding not allowing owners to have dogs and fences. Mr. Gillette voiced a concern regarding the impacts of dogs on the sheep. Mr. Kjesbo stated that this site is a very environmentally sensitive site Upon inquiry of Ms. Perez, Mr. O'Connor stated that the mitigation that Mr. Thompson reviewed proposed design criteria which informed a site plan. He noted as an example the multifamily building was placed lower on the site. He stated from a wildlife standpoint, building one home has a significant impact. Mr. O'Connor concluded their presentation. He stated that they meet the standards of the code which is there to make development happen responsibility. He reviewed impacts of recreational use of backcountry land that are impacting wildlife. Mr. Gillette inquired about ongoing funding for maintenance of the NAP parcel. Mr. O'Connor stated the he wants to present a plan that is completely on private property to control and commit to maintain. He stated if they need to set aside some money for permanent maintenance and can be added into the plan. Mr. Gillette stated that the CPW was asking for money for offside enhancements. Mr. O'Connor stated they are already doing a lot on their private property. Chairman Stockmar called for public comments. Larry Stewart, East Vail Resident, stated that he is glad there will be another meeting. Mr. Stewart stated this meeting was surreal that included a long explanation from the applicant. He stated what the independent biologists have to say is a game changer and say some unbelievable things. CPW stated it is not an 1800-acre polygon, more like 150 acres that the sheep have which make it even more critical that we get this right. He pointed to findings in the independent biologist find that the report by Mr. Thompson was not scientific. He stated the experts should present to the PEC and encouraged the PEC to allow them to complete their work. Charlyn Canada and Clair Rose Kelly, Ms. Canada stated Vail Resorts serendipitously realized they owned the land and stated that the Town of Vail should buy the property. She stated with Vail Resorts touting itself as an ecofriendly business it could work to preserve the land. She stated to allow development would give Vail Resorts a public relations black eye and by association the entire valley. She stated there are options to limit short- term rentals to help impact employee housing. She described how as a child she taunted her pet ram, Captain Video who would run around in circles in the chicken coop. Ms. Canada described an encounter with a big horn ram and that she hoped he did not have the temperament of Captain Video. She stated observing the sheep for over three decades and we have encroached to a critical point which necessitates the denial of further development. Ms. Canada described weather conditions and hazards that are above this employee housing unit and we should not subject employees to that environment. Ariana Aghevli, 39 Fall Line Drive, she stated that buses using the Falls at Vail bus station gets very busy during the winter and the buses are already packed by the time they get there. The underpass under the highway is unsafe and on the idea of education of the residents, while it's all good and great you can't expect people not to have dogs. She stated that there is no real enforcement for 24/7. She then stated the population of the sheep is already declining and look to environmental stewardship as a core value. Rol Hamelin, stated the three wildlife biologists submitted their letters in writing. He stated that the independent reviewers were critical and noted that indirect human disturbance is a greater threat than direct. Mr. Hamelin stated that the study is not adequate in design and results is not sufficient to make a decision and not analyzed properly. He pointed out that everyone is asked to sign a paper and agree saying they understand everything above and noted that the rules are immediately broken. Sherry Dorward, 1515 Buff her Creek Road, landscape architect in the town for 30 years. She stated one of the other elephants in a herd of them is how we treat land. Ms. Dorward stated that's what happens when you taken a 5 acre piece of property and scrape it up and take every bit of natural vegetation and change the grade so that it can be made to work for a lot of development. Mr. Dorward asked what kind of place are we creating. She noted that internal circulation at the main driveway is over 8% in Vail that requires snowmelt. You look at a parking lot that is double loading you would want 60', however only 45' are proposed. She asked how cars are going to be accessed and asked where they turn around. She stated that the landscaping that is meant to be an amenity and it isn't just the absence of pavement, its something that feels natural. She stated the small shade trees are not going to work. Scott Hintz, stated that there are only 7,000 big horn sheep. He stated they are blessed with this herd and stated the migration pattern is the only one in the entire Gore Range. He asked if we are willing to destroy these natural environments and pave over the paradise they live in. Kirstine Hintz- An endangered species becomes that way for two reasons: loss of habitat and genetics. She stated that project by project, and community by community, habitat is being lost and stated we are a microcosm. She stated with this project we have another example of how local economic interest is trumping the bigger picture. She noted that one of the criticisms of the reports states that it does not to take into account the larger picture. She asked where is the environmental stewardship of the big horn sheep. She stated there is no need for this project and no need to feed the sheep during the construction of this project. Mark Herron, Vail Valley Partnership, stated they represent businesses in the valley. He stated that they have reviewed the project as a business community. He stated that environmental standards need to be maintained as existing conditions and stated the developer is proposing the largest private mitigation in the history of the town. He stated that affordable housing continues to be a major issue. He stated it is clear to them that the project meets the town requirements. He stated doing the right thing is not always easy but following the guidelines should be. Suzanne O'Neill, executive director Colorado Wildlife Federation, stated that they really are pleased that this is not an action item and commended the PEC for hiring outside experts. She stated that one of the reviewers did not have much time to do much research was recently retired. She stated all three are big horn sheep experts. She stated she appreciated the work Colorado Parks and Wildlife has done and if what we have to go on is a 7 -month study, there are a lot of questions that remain. She stated that working with parks and wildlife, their studies are a minimum of two -years and are well crafted. She stated that the study should include the experience of the spring lambing and the following rut afterwards. She stated that the topic of feeding of wildlife in winter is discussed at CPW, it is a robust discussion and a big deal. She stated it is not a quick Band-Aid solution. Elyse Howard, resident Vail Intermountain neighborhood, stated that balance in this community, the environment is critical as well as the wildlife. She stated that Vail's vision to be the premier mountain community needs to be considered. She stated that the developer is not asking for any variances and should be taken into consideration. She stated it is the rule, not the exception, to see many families in one housing unit. She stating adding housing units adds to the inventory. Peter Casabonne, resident of west Vail, stated that the parcel was thought to be owned by CDOT and was considered open space on the Comprehensive Open Lands plan. He stated Vail Resorts and the Vail Local Housing Authority knew in the early stages of planning that the building areas of their newfound asset included winter range sheep. He stated to satisfy criteria E the developer has submitted a short-term study and it has been used to downplay the risks of this singular herd of the bighorn sheep. He stated that the residents feel strongly and feel its review by CPW and three independent wildlife biologists have dedicated a significant portion of their career to the bighorn sheep. They suggest that the study done was too limited in scope to fully assess the impact. He stated that because Vial Resorts and Vail Local Housing Authority have been pushing their project forward before anyone asks what happens to the sheep. He urged the commissioners to consider the wildlife biologists recommendations. He stated this is not a win-win for wildlife biologists. Jonathan Staufer, west Vail resident, stated that he is a business owner and member of the community. He stated this is not the only workforce housing option. He asked if we have the moral right to consign the bighorn sheep herd to oblivion and that we have a moral obligation to protect these little creatures. He stated this project cannot be mitigated. He stated if we allow this development this herd will cease to exist. It will happen slowly. They will starve to death and these creatures calling this place home since the end of the ice age will be gone. He stated the PEC should call upon the Town Council to purchase this property to project it. Bill Andree, stated he is not a sheep expert, but was a game warden for 30 years he put every collar neckband on them. He stated he was not called to review this as an expert. He is the one that wrote the Town of Vail is not sustainable. He stated he has done a lot of work with Rick Thompson but disagree greatly on many of his conclusions. He stated you do not know if that animal is habituated without property monitoring. He stated winter time is starvation mode and the ewes are pregnant and they are trying to put on enough pounds for lactation. He stated habituation is not good for these sheep. He stated the sheep will not let you get anywhere near them. He stated when you see them along the road they take on a herd mentality. He stated he has reviewed many plans in Washington, North Dakota, and Idaho. He stated wildlife has never won a battle. He stated he is sympathetic that it is tough here to live here as an employee. Donna Mumma, east Vail resident, stated the east Vail community is walled off. She stated that people are critical and people who use that underpass are critical and pedestrian safety is critical. She stated that is it not a 4' wide passage way and barely allows a wheelchair or stroller, and in the winter it does not exist. She stated that she has an issue with the traffic study: they were looking at the passing lanes which obscure long sight vision though they did not say anything in their traffic report about pedestrians. She stated she would like Mr. Kassmel to prove that this intersection can have pedestrian safety features. Peter Seibert, 2381 Upper Traverse way, happy Chamonix Resident, stated they did a great job there at Chamonix and they had a nice Fourth of July block party. He stated that the project is zoned for this use. He stated this project is a lot like Vail when he grew up as it has a mix of seasonal employee, residents and second homeowner. Ms. Andi Saden, stated that the locals and the experts have provided a lot of information. She asked if this was compatible for the big range sheep and asked when common sense comes in. She stated she is counting on the PEC to represent the community's interests. She stated maybe there is no balance with this project. Joel Stauffer, stated that between January 5, 1963 and April 1St he and his wife moved 11 times, so he is very sympathetic to the housing issue. He stated this project should never have been. He stated you come up from Denver to take a weekend in the mountains and the first thing you will see is this humongous building. I mean welcome to the mountains and all you see is a suburb of Denver, and that's where we're going. Mr. Stauffer stated that employees will get cars as soon as they can afford them and most of the time there are two people in a bedroom so each two bedroom apartment has a potential need for four cars. He stated the project is all the wrong things. Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, stated that when the East Vail parcel was made in 2017 that the request was odd, both PEC and Town Council approved and the citizens were ensured a thoughtful process would be followed. She stated the PEC is charged with unpacking every detail of the environmental report. She stated three independent wildlife biologists and parks and wildlife submitted reports and pointed out that the study was inadequate in design and results. She stated there is no funding in place for wildlife mitigation. She stated all the reports give new reason to question the scale and mass of this project. Bill Eggers, stated that Triumph Development has been sincere in their development. He stated they are coming to the PEC and the PEC's decision on this is one of the most important in a long time. Mr. Eggers stated that the PEC has the information from the wildlife biologists and they have an important decision, they can roll the dice and hope its alright with Triumph Development. He stated the other decision is how we do business in Vail. He stated this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. He stated it's critically important and is for a corporation that is worth $10 billion. Tom Vucich east Vail resident, stated that he has read all the environmental reports. He stated that these reports need further review. He raised a concern regarding the extent the Colorado Parks and Wildlife has had in the plan. He stated that all report reviewers have extensive credentials and experiences and he stated these are the experts who speak for the animals and who can appropriate speak to the efficacy of any wildlife plan. He stated all these documents shed light on the inadequacy, too limited content of the plan submitted by Triumph. He stated the PEC now has legitimacy to go back to Triumph and request a report that adequately meets the Vail standards. He provided examples of mitigation meaning loss of wildlife habitat. He then defined insanity as defining the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. He stated if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten. He stated our wildlife populations are in crisis. He stated as another wildlife expert said we are mitigating them to death. He urged the PEC to listen to the experts and stated this plan on this parcel needs much more scrutiny. Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber and Business Association, stated that there are two sides on every coin. She stated that the balance comment hits the nail on the head. She stated this project is crucial to the local workforce. She stated that finding employees is a struggle and there is a way to find a middle ground. She stated the Town of Vail, developers and stakeholders involved can figure it out. Barb Keller, Booth Creek resident, questioned the design intensity and impact to sheep. She stated that after weeding through all the reports she is scared to death for the sheep. She noted that the reports indicate the sheep right now are in a dangerous situation and very vulnerable and could be pushed to extinction. She noted they are limited by grazing areas. She stated that sheep use the area and they hit the west corridor and tip toe around it. She stated the experts recommend testing the effectiveness of their usefulness before construction can proceed. She stated habitat restoration is not a one shot deal and requires dedication. She stated the experts recommend that no construction occur during the winter months and noted that it is hard to believe strategies implemented to project the sheep would not impact them. She stated the experts tell us the idea that the sheep will move elsewhere is not true. Pam Stenmark, Vail Resident since 1969. She stated that Vail Valley Partnership continues to state is that the 1800 acres of habitat that is available for the sheep. She stated that some of that acreage includes Frontage Road and other areas. She stated the usable land the sheep has is about 150 acres. She noted that the 14 acres of space in the NAP is not used by the sheep, the mitigation proposed in the section won't help the sheep. She stated that currently the wildlife mitigation Triumph is proposing is woefully inadequate. She stated it is not just one project, but the life of the project. She stated we need to start over with the mitigation. Grace Paganski, Vail resident, stated that most of what she was prepared to say has already been stated. She referred to a report from Melanie Woolever, a wildlife biologist, 20 years experience in bighorn sheep. She stated that bighorn sheep are considered by the US forest service in the sensitive species. Colorado has placed bighorn sheep in the greatest need category. She voiced a concern about the enforcement of the rules and regulations being done by the HOA with seasonal employees, part-time owners and full-time owners she stated that she did not think you could put together an HOA that can address the needs of that community. She stated it is hard to enforce the rules. She stated in regards to the sheep habituation, they have been habituated to traffic on the highways and homes. They have not been habituated to large apartment buildings with lots of people and traffic coming and going constantly. Mark Gordon, Vail Resident and Business owner, stated if you live in Vail and are upset with the wildlife situation look in the mirror, because everyone is guilty for degrading the quality of wildlife. He stated we need to make sure we have a fair process and we have many residences existing in bighorn sheep territory. He stated he is worried of the fairness of the process. He stated the public comments and boards should identify flaws and suggest how to make it better. He stated he is worried when the process is done dishonestly and the goal is to kill the project. He stated the board must filter through and come up with the suggestions that are best for a private company to stay on private land. Lu Maslak, Sunburst Drive resident, stated that she is concerned about parking, traffic flow, and under the underpass, pedestrian traffic, and mitigation plans that don't appear to be addressing the total need. She stated the only entity that hasn't been represented are the big horn sheep. She encouraged the PEC to listen carefully and read more. Kaye Ferry, resident of Vail Golf Course, stated that she is a big advocate for affordable housing. She stated that the four panels on the wall took a lot of time and effort and were arduous to go through she stated that we made a commitment that the things we outlined there would forever define the way we moved forward in the town of Vail. She referred the town's mission to "preserve and environmental stewardship" she stated that every decision to be made in this room was to be measured against those things. She said we are not talking about the environment in a responsible way which was the goal of those four panels when they were originally written and it is imperative their decision is based on those four things. Pete Fesitmann, Vail Resident, relying upon "Site Section A" stated that in his opinion, spending all this time on wildlife has minimized the time spent on the fundamental environmental question: should land which has been long determined open space be developed? He stated he is not ignoring Vail Resorts property rights. He stated the 2019 tax appraisal for $4 million and the town can manage that for ownership. He stated given the community's desire to balance environmental needs and housing needs — if the PEC were to say yes to this proposal — what would they say no to? Chairman Stockmar then closed public comment and stated no action will be taken. He stated their comments could be deferred to further meetings. Mr. O'Connor asked to speak to the PEC in response to some comments from the community. He stated that he is not happy with the process as it relates to the environmental review. He stated it has been mismanaged and is extremely unhappy with the timeline. He stated the fact that three people were hired at the finish line to review the environmental reports is not fair. Mr. O'Connor reviewed his concerns with the three independent wildlife reviewers. Planner Neubecker referred the PEC to the questions posed in the memo and in the PowerPoint, so that the applicant can have some direction. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he is on the fence on the wildlife mitigation plan and more reading needs to be done and he is not ready to make a decision on that. In regards to the landscaping, he thinks it is probably ok. The location of the bus stop he preferred the in and out similar to what is over at Middle Creek. He stated it's safer. He was not concerned about the lower area near the road being an area of grazing sheep. Mr. Gillette stated that the additional information that they did not see, the wildlife patterns, should be sent to the independent reviewers. He stated there is a lot of mitigation that can be done at the west end and one would be moving the bus stop out of the location. He stated he is curious what the town's biologist would recommend of what's best at the west end — what uses and whether they agree with the developer's biologist. He stated the parking should be per the housing developments recommendations and they need to keep going. He stated as far as moving the bus stop west, he thinks that the bus stop fine where it exists and one should be added with a crosswalk, and need decent access, and need to get a sidewalk under the underpass and over to the southside of the interstate. Mr. Gillette stated the fence going to the south side of the berm is good and wondering if more aspen screening could be provided on the western side, and perhaps moving the berm. Mr. Gillette stated he wanted to discuss more construction and timing of construction activities. He stated it is reasonable to limit outdoor construction from November 15 to April 15 to and he noted this would extend the duration, and impact the phasing of the project. He stated we should not allow blasting or chipping until after July 31St. He stated short term rentals and dogs should not be allowed, except for service and emotional support animals. Mr. Kurz asked the applicant if the grade of the road through the project is over 8%. Mr. O'Connor stated that all of the grades meet the town of Vail's requirements and do not require snowmelt. He stated in terms of the wildlife mitigation plan, he is not ready to make a determination, that they received information from wildlife biologists at 10AM this morning and stated that he would encourage anybody from public to send comments in writing. He stated in terms of the landscaping he would encourage the developer to improve landscaping near the frontage road and mitigate the impacts. In terms of the bus stop, he would prefer the town's preferred idea of the in and out loop on the north side without crossing the frontage road. Ms. Perez stated that she needed more time to review the studies that were sent today. She stated the extent of the mitigation plan is significant and wondered if this is going to be limited to Triumph. Ms. Perez stated that more parking is needed versus less parking. She stated this is a tough site and a tough development. She noted the PEC has a charge and must go through the criteria and the amount of time taken for this application is not the norm; the PEC is taking the time needed to review the project given what a difficult site this is. She stated there is a lot of material to process and more to come. She stated she preferred the bus turnaround on the same side of the highway as it works well at Lions Ridge. She stated she is concerned for pedestrian safety and going under the underpass. Ms. Perez stated she would like a response to what could have been built previously on this site with former zoning. Ms. Hopkins stated that she is concerned about the wildlife mitigation plan. She stated that on the landscape plan she has an issue that the berm is being counted as part of the calculation. She stated it's not natural to make it that way and takes a long time to establish and will use a lot of water. She stated to excavate this site will require large retaining walls or to go beyond the property. She stated she did not like the bus stop out on the west and preferred it be tucked in and not have such an impact on that parcel. Mr. Lockman stated that he concurred with most previous opinions on needing more time. He stated that they do review the materials. He stated that the developer has done a good job and put good faith into this process. He stated on the west end, that we can protect the wildlife and mitigate the impacts from the community. He preferred a similar Middle Creek type bus stop for safety reasons. Mr. Lockman stated he liked the additional parking though has a concern over snow storage. He stated he is still concerned about the town's underpass. Mr. Lockman stated that ongoing research is important and having long term monitoring. Chairman Stockmar stated, in regards to the wildlife issues, he still does not know and still needs to review the reports. He stated there is a lot of information left to absorb and digest. He is concerned about the wildlife. He stated he has to rely on the work of experts in this area. He hopes information comes to them sooner for their review. He stated he is concerned about the compliance of both buildings in terms of the fencing and access to the area outside of the development. He stated he did not know if they can enforce those restrictions. Recreational activity could cause significant environmental damage to the area. The landscaping needs to be such that it will hide the buildings; otherwise, he is concerned about the Middle Creek looming problem. He would like to see that they hide behind decent landscaping and is concerned about highway noise. He stated he has friends who live in west Vail near the highway and cannot use their decks. He stated that parking is a little better but due to the location of the project, even with enhanced bus service, the parking may not still be adequate. He noted there will be a lot of people living in those buildings that may or may not use public transportation. He noted they've not received full evidence that the residents will not have cars. Mr. Stockmar stated that the bus stop on the same side of the road is preferable. Crossing the street is a dangerous situation waiting for an accident. He noted that the underpass, while not part of the project, is not a safe condition. He stated there may be straightforward solutions; however, the existing condition is not safe. Chairman Stockmar stated he wanted to know more about compliance and enforcement and about parking. There was a discussion regarding continuing the meeting to July 22 to provide an additional opportunity for public comment. Mr. Gillette added for the mitigation plan a Developer Improvement Agreement for the NAP site maintenance and possibly putting NAP parcel into a land trust and berm maintenance in the mitigation plan. Mr. Stockmar stated he would like to hear clarification on the short-term rental situation to restrict short-term rentals, which may be a condition of approval. Ludwig Kurz moved to Table to July 22, 2019. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 30 min. 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) Applicant: Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker Ludwig Kurz moved to table to July 22, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 24, 2019 PEC Results Minutes should have page numbers; on page 6 in the minutes Michael O'Connor comments, word "manor" should be "manner", and additional hanging pages — last two should be deleted from a previous meeting. Karen Perez moved to approve with corrections. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000450696-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/5/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/5/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 7/5/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 7/5/2019. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SCHl1LTi NOTARY PaJBL1C. 5TA.TE.OF C=E'Arc N OTA.RY ID g19994Q30615 Fly Co.mmisslcnI fres Nava -1.20'18 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tcwn of Vail it hold a public hearing in accordance with ...it- 12- 3-6, Veil Town Cctl9, o, my 22, 2019 at 1:00 pm In the Town of Vail Munl 1pal Building. No new items have been submi0ad for this mee0ng Tabled or continued items hom previous meetings may be scheduled 1a this meeting date. The applications and irdormation about the propos- Is are available for public inspection duringoMce hours at the Town of Ve11 Communtry Development Department 75 South Frontage Road. The public had to attend site visits. Please call 9]04]9- 2138 or visit www.vailcov.coMolanninc for addition - a1 intormation. Sign language Imerprstatlon available upon requesl wig 24-hour nobficaGon, dial 711. Published July 5, 20191, Me Vail Dallb, 0000460696 Ad #: 0000456331-01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM COMMISSION July 22, 2019, 1:00 PM Tpwa C°aacil Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Your account number is: 1023233 1. Cao to Omer PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2. Main Agenda VAIL DAILY 2.1. A reCounquest for. recommendation to the nm°ena e" Vada nCode too Section 1293-g Veil Town Code, prescribed re STATE OF COLORADO Ill amendments he Till. 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Tin Cotle, to update tlefin8ions, including thr a a redundant defbubns, the consolidation of definitions defined multiple times, relocation of COUNTY OF EAGLE 20% 6 nt toortiheaa pingto rami allow up to ping ego p 11%permeable hamscard space, and setting forth details in reg rtl thereto. (PEC19-001]) 30 min. I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Applicant Town of Vail Planner: A.hley Clark the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in �2. Arequ..unrm.r.view.taCondiuon- Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Condition- al Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the con whole or in art and published in the Count of Eagle, P P Y 9 auction of dwelling unix -hin the Hl (R) di hint, located at 3700 North Frontage Road State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; EastlLOt 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subtlivisior Booth Heights Neig hborhootl"), end setling tenth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 miu. that said newspaper has been published continuously and Applicant. Triumph D.-Ii Planner: Chris Neubecker uninterruptedly in said Count of Eagle fora period of P Y Y g P me A requeatfar`he re°iew °' a De°el°p- N Plan, pursuant to sermon 12-61- 11, Develop more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the n...in9 aevel Pme°( meals d! atn3roo Moth Front- first publication of the annexed legal notice or ge Read EasVLot 1, East Vail Workforce Housin, subdivisipn (°Boob Heigh Neighborhood'), and aetling forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018 advertisement and that said newspaper has published the ;;0u,i, ,Triumph Do aid requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. Paanar: Ohri. Neube.ker 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. July 6, 2019 PEC Results The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, 4. Ad;°ummem only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home The applications and information about the propos- ala ar..vail.bb 1.r public b. durbgr.gmar Rule provision. p.mion office hours at the Town of Vail Communi�ryo Develop mbli.°aluMurim'av5 Sout Frun,peenta ad, Th, the site visits that precetle therpubllc hearing in the That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Town of Vail Community Development Department. Time,andaaa ea not oe noted upon W doue°m'ae published in the regular and entire issue of every number at what time the Planning and Environmental Com - mi.e will .M.id.r an hem. Please.all (979)-- of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and 2133 for callinformation. Please call 711 to I lgn language In1e prela,len 49 "aur pder 1° meet- g9me. that the first ublication of said notice was in the issue of P commwny Development DecalPubl.hed m he Veil Deily July 19, 2019 0000456331 said newspaper dated 7/19/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/19/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 7/30/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 7/30/2019. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. 3CHLIL-Ti NOTARY PU IJLIC. 5TA.TS.OF COLORADO N OTA.RY ID 9109940309]5 k" Co.mmisslcn Erfres Naramh.rt, 2019