No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR94-178 Adam's Rib extension part 2Commissioner Er -yam, _ moved adoption of the following esolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 94 -/73' IN RE THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ADAM'S RIB RECREATIONAL AREA FOR EXTENSION OF P.U.D. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL - RESOLUTION ALLOWING EXTENSION FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEREAS, On October 14, 1982, nunc pro tunc August 25, 1982, the Eagle .County Board of County Commissioners approved the application of Adam's Rib Recreational Area ( "ARRA ") for P.U.D. Sketch Plan, File No. PD- 189 -82 -5, attached hereto as Exhibit " A " and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the project area, located approximately fourteen air miles south of Eagle, Colorado, in the Brush Creek Drainage both above and below the confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries, is generally described as: A parcel of land located within the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, lying in Tract 79 of Section 25, Tract 80 of Sections 25 and 26, Tract, Tract 81 of Section 26, and Tracts 85 and 86 of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; the W 1/2 SW 1/4 of Section 7, and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29 and 33, Township 6 South, Range .83 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; and the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 6 South Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; and WHEREAS, in June of 1988 and July of 1991, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granted extensions of the P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval originally granted on August 25, 1982; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 1994, ARRA filed a request with the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners for extension of the Adam's Rib P.U.D. Sketch Plan based upon material progress and due diligence in pursuing the requirements of the Sketch Plan approval, as more fully described in the Chronology attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, a public hearing in accordance with said request was conducted by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, Colorado on August 8, 1994. The hearing was continued and heard on August 23, 1994; and WHEREAS, said request for extension was considered at the public hearing before the Eagle County Board of County Commission- ers; and WHEREAS, interested parties and members of the public were allowed to make statements and present evidence to the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS; the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners has reviewed and considered the comments and evidence presented at said hearings, a listing of said evidence attached hereto as Exhibit 11 THAT, having heard the statements and comments of those who spoke at the hearings before this Board of County Commissioners; having examined the plans, maps, photographs, reports, studies, letters, documents, charts, articles, exhibits and other evidence submitted to the Board of County Commissioners; and being fully advised thereon, the Board of County Commissioners hereby resolves to adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and make the following decision. NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT, having heard the statements and comments of those who spoke at the hearings before this Board of County Commissioners; having examined the plans, maps, photographs, reports, studies, letters, documents; charts, articles, exhibits and other evidence submitted to the Board of County Commissioners; and being fully advised thereon, the Board of County Commissioners hereby resolves to adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and make the following decision: 1. The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners hereby finds and determines as follows: a. ARRA has made material progress, through the com- pletion and submission of appropriate documents, in the realization of the conditions to approval specified in the 1982 P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval; b. ARRA has acted in a diligent manner in pursuing necessary local, state and federal approvals as required by the 1982 P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval. 2. The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the ARRA request for extension of the 1982 P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval for a period of three (3) years, until August 23, 1997, and as an integral part thereof, makes the Findings of Fact and draws the Conclusions of Law in this matter attached hereto as Exhibit "D ", and which are incorporated by reference as if set forth in their entirety herein. 3. That on August 23, 1997, it will be almost fifteen (15) years from the date of original sketch plan approval, and unless the ARRA or its successor has made and is diligently pursuing a preliminary plan application prior to that date, the Board directs staff to schedule a hearing for ARRA or its successor to show cause, if there be any, why the sketch plan should be found to be no longer valid. It being the intent of the Board by this Resolu- tion to express its intention that this be the last extension of this sketch plan approval. MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State o Colorado, at its regular meeting held the day of � 1994. ATTEST: COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Johnnette Phillips a �l Commissioner James E. Johnson, Jr. Commissioner George A. Gates This Resolution passed by vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. r \extens.adm 80 -8 3 County Commissioners Ge'6rge . Gates, Commissioner g 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE,.STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 82- 9 5 IN RE THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ADAM'S RIB RECREATIONAL AREA FOR P.U.D. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL, FILE NO. PD- 189 -82 -5 - FINDINGS AND ORDER PROCEEDING Adam's Rib Recreational Area, a totally owned subsidiary of the HBE Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri ( "Applicant "), submitted on or about January, 1982, an application requesting Sketch Plan approval of "a Planned Unit Development ( "P.U.D. ") referred to as the Adam's Rib Recreational Area, File.No. PD- 189 -82 -5 ( "Project Area" or "Proposed Development "), pursuant to Section-2.06.13 of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, 1979, as amended, and Section 2.17 of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County., Colorado, 1972, aq,amended, as the same are set forth and incorporated in Chapter II of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, 1982, as amended ( "L.U.R. "). The project area is presently zoned R /Resource, is located approximately fourteen air miles south of Eagle, Colorado, in the Brush Creek Drainage both above and below the confluence of East and - T4esC "Btus�i�re iEucsries, and is generally desczibea - - - - -- as follows: A parcel of land located within the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,'lying in Tract 79 of Section 25, Tract 80 of 'Sections 25 and .26, Tract 81 of Section 26, and Tracts 85 and 86 of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; the W 1/2 SW 1/4 of Section 7, and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 33, Township 6 South, 83 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; and the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. EXHIBIT A Consistent with the recommendations of the County Department of Community Development (Exhibit Nos. 76, 77 and 79), the Eagle County Planning Commission at-the conclusion of the hearing determined that the subject application was in accordance with the Eagle County Master Plan adopted April 1, 1981, and the sketch plan review criteria as set forth in the County's Land Use Regulations. The Eagle County Planning Commission further recommended approval of the subject P.U.D. sketch plan application with the following conditions: 1. That the proposed Brush Creek Road improvements be clearly worked out with a timetable in accordance with the conclusions specified in the staff road recommendations, paragraphs 1 -8. 2. That the water plan consider possible relocation of the Eagle water intake upstream on West Brush Creek, with diversion works to include East Brush Creek into a storage reservoir or other cooperative measures with the Town of Eagle to work out a potable and adequate water supply prior to preliminary plan. 3. That the water augmentation plan be approved by the water court. 4. That the wildlife and environmental concerns on private lands be catalogued and concisely identified. 5. That the proponent seriously consider the feasibility of individual concerns expressed during the public hearings. 6. That the wetlands mitigation measures be clarified and approved under the 404 procedure and approved prior to preliminary plan. 7. That the proponent seriously-consider the employment of local people to the maximum possible. 8. That employee housing agreements be developed to assure long term employee availability as well as pre- construction housing. 9. That financial ability and project economic viability be provided by the proponent. (Exhibit No. 201.) M The revised P.U.D. sketch plan application was scheduled for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado ( "Board "), on August 23, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., and hearings were held on August 23, August 24, and August 25, respectively, 1982. The Board received oral evidence in the form of sworn testimony and informational statements, and written evidence in the form of letters, statements, comments, . recommendations, reports, studies, and other documentation. Such evidence was submitted by the Applicant; County planning staff members; various groups and governmental entities such as the Forest Service, the Division of Wildlife, the Town of Gypsum, the Town of Eagle, the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Concerned Citizens for Upper Brush Creek and Eagle County; and members of the general public including residents of surrounding communities, ranchers, businessmen, professionals, developers, and environmentalists. Three hundred and thirty -one exhibits were tendered, all of which were admitted at the conclusion of the hearing into the record of proceedings before the Board. The evidence was weighed accordingly based upon the probative value placed thereon by the Board, and the following findings are based on the record as a whole. References to exhibits and testimony herein relate to the record of proceedings before the Board in the above - entitled matter. Such references are for convenience only and do not necessarily compile all portions of the record on which the findings are based. PROPOSA The proposed Adam's Rib Recreational Area consists of a four season resort on 2,480 acres of private land which 4 v includes 3,939 dwelling units consisting of condominiums, single family homes, duplex homes, and apartments, some of which would be affordable housing for employees of the resort; hotels; retail and commercial facilities; a convention center; a fine arts center; athletic and health facilities; a mass transit system; public services; service maintenance support centers; and recreational facilities to include two golf courses, indoor skating arena, cultural center, and development of downhill winter skiing on 2,920 acres of public lands. The revised P.U.D. sketch plan application was based upon the premise that the Forest Service would issue a Special-Use Permit to develop a ski area capable of accommodating 9,000 skiers -at- one -time. The project area would entail one major center of activity with two other areas in support. The major community center referred to as the Transit Served Community would be located primarily in Vassar Meadow, and would contain a series of residential clusters, linked by a mass transit system, and centered on a dense commercial core. At the confluence of East and West Brush Creek would be the Service Support Area which would contain no residential, recreational or commercial activities but, rather, would provide an area for maintenance shops, equipment storage and an interceptor parking facility for skiers. The second support activity area would be the Golf Course Resort Site Offch wcul'd be located 'S 112 miles south of the Town of Eagle an - Wou1d'c3fi9i.Tt 5f go courses surrounded by a limited number of clustered home sites. DISCUSSION i Section 2.06.13(3) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, 1979, as amended, and Section 2.17.02(3) I i 5 � of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, 1972, as amended, as the same are set forth in Chapter II of the L.U.R., require the Board to make a determination that a P.U.D. sketch plan application is in accordance with the following requirements prior to its approval thereof: (1) there are special physical conditions or objectives of development which the proposal will satisfy to warrant a departure from the standard regulation requirements; (2) resulting development will not be inconsistent with the Master Plan objectives; (3) the area around the development can be planned to be in substantial harmony with the proposed P.U.D.; (4) the adjacent and nearby communities will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed P.U.D.; (5) the P.U.D. can be completed within a reasonable period of time, which shall be determined prior to final approval of the P.U.D.; (6) any proposed commercial or industrial development can be justified economically; (7) the streets are adequate to support the anticipated traffic and the development will not overload the streets outside the planned area; (8) . proposed utility and drainage facilities are adequate for population densities and type of development proposed; (9) the employee housing plan as provided is acceptable; (10) conformance with the Master Plan, policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable regulations; (11) suitability of the land for subdivision; (12) comments and recommendations from the agencies listed in Section 2.17.02(1) of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, 1972, as amended, as the same is set forth in Chapter II of the L.U.R. The Eagle County Master Plan sets forth various goals, objectives, and policies to serve as a basis and guide in the Board's initial determination of whether a specific ri development proposal is an appropriate use of the land. Such goals, objectives, and policies encourage the P.U.D. approach for proposed which would establish new community centers, and which are of such a' magnitude that flexibility in conventional land use controls is necessary. Further, the Master Plan specifies that new community centers should be developed in such -a manner as to, inter alia protect the open rural character of the county; provide land uses in harmony with the natural and social environment, and with adjacent land uses; establish a full range of public services, diversified housing including employee housing, and recreational uses; provide an economic determinant which is site - specific, and which will generate sufficient public revenues to minimize the costs of governmental services provided to and associated with the development; develop safe, adequate and energy- efficient circulation systems; and mitigate any adverse impacts related to the development on the natural and social environment, including wildlife; fisheries, wetlands, and water quality and quantity. (See Exhibit No. 77.) . Based upon the evidence received during the hearing process in conjunction with the foregoing land use requirements,. the Board determined that a number of the issues raised had been adequately addressed by the applicant or the applicable governmental entity; or were more appropriately the subject for review during the preliminary plan process at which time detailed studies would be required and specific mitigation measures would have to be addressed. The following discussion will focus on the primary issues which were properly brought before the Board during the P.U.D. sketch plan hearing review process. 7 DEVELOPMENT As set forth in the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application (Exhibit No. 1), the Transit Served Community within the project area would be developed as a self- contained community center with a diversity of concentrated commercial and residential land uses. Traditional public services including, but not limited to, water, sewer, fire protection, and circulation systems within the Transit Served Community and other residential areas within the project area would be provided by the Applicant on an organized and centralized basis. As a four - season recreational area with year -round employment opportunities, the new community center when established would provide an economic determinant through the generation of additional jobs and revenues to the county economy in visitor expenditures, and in addition, would strengthen the County's economic base by providing a capital attracting primary industry, namely recreation, which is labor intensive, non - polluting, and involves the use of renewable resources. The anticipated revenues generated throughout the construction stages and subsequent to the completion of the project area, along with the financial commitment of the Applicant to provide on -site and certain off -site public improvements, would offset 4ny additional burden placed upon governmental entities by reason of the development of the project area. The County planning staff, along with various members of the public, questioned the economic viability of the project and the major consequences to the County if the project failedi. Such reservations were based, in part, on skier demand, the location of the project area, and other major developments on the Western Slope which had 0 failed. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 79, 118, 164, 198, 245, 295 and 297.) In response, evidence was produced regarding the need for local employment, the increased revenues which would be generated by local businesses, the financial stability of the Applicant, and recent economic studies of the ski industry. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 39, 84, 85, 122, 127, 128, 169, 309 and 327.) Other primary concerns expressed by the public centered around the impacts the proposed development would have on local communities. Testimony in favor of the project area dealt with the need to establish a major industry in the Lower Eagle Valley, and the benefits which would be derived therefrom including employment opportunities and a generating source of revenue. (See generally Exhibit Nos. 110, 111, 139, 302 and 312.) Those opposed testified to the adverse impacts which would be placed on the operating and capital needs, and services provided by governmental entities, the inflationary cost of living,.and the social disruption and change in local lifestyles resulting from a rapid increase in population attributable to the development of a ski resort in the Lower Eagle Valley. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 46, 115, 117, 119, 189, 282, 294 and 307.) OPEN SPACE The project area encompassing 2,480 acres of private land would provide 1,420 acres of open space or 57.2% of the total land acreage. The open space provided would be used for various passive and active recreational uses and, in many instances, would occur in large solid blocks of land. The provision for open space in certain areas was considered 6f prime importance for several reasons. The 9 j Y ' 3 placement of private lands in the West Brush Creek drainage and Lower East Brush Creek drainage into open space under public ownership would insure the future preservation of the same, and would serve as a necessary buffer zone between the community centers of the Town of Eagle and the Transit Served Community, and the surrounding rural undeveloped private and public lands. The location of open space in the Golf Course Resort Area with only limited clustered residential uses allowed, in addition to serving as a necessary buffer zone, would prevent strip development along the highway corridor in the Brush Creek Valley. By concentrating the development density inside the Transit Served Community and clustering the residential uses around the Golf Course Resort Area, the Applicant has attempted to minimize the visual and physical impacts on the scenic and agricultural lands that characterize the Brush Creek Valley. EMPLOYEE HOUSING The revisdd P.U.D. sketch plan application provides employee housing for 71% of the estimated direct workforce and 48% of the estimated entire workforce generated by the proposed development. The employee housing, consisting of a diversity of housing types and densities, would be located in two areas, with 672 beds to be located in the Mill Park Subdivision or a similar location adjacent to the Town of Eagle, and 1,337 beds to be located in the Transit Served Community in the project area. An additional 220 beds would also be provided in the Transit Served Community for the temporary workforce employed during the construction stages of the development. Although the proposed location and distribution of the employee housing were not at issue during the hearing process, concerns were expressed 10 regarding the availability of long -term affordable housing for employees of the project area, the financial burden placed upon governmental services, and the need for housing and related services for the temporary construction workforce in the Transit Served Community. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 75, 79, 119 and 201.) TRANSPORTATION The primary circulation system would include a major - access road from State Highway No. 6 to the project area with an interceptor parking lot and shuttle busing system provided at the Service Support Area for day - skiers and non - guests of the ski resort. Although vehicular access roads and parking would be provided within the Transit Served Community for guests of the resort, the circulation system therein would primarily consist of a "horizontal elevator" and pedestrian paths. Service vehicles would be directed to a Master Loading Dock within the Transit Served Community at which point goods delivered would be distributed by an underground system: In addition, a mass transportation system using shuttle vehicles would be provided for employees not housed at the Transit Served Community, persons traveling to the project area from the Town of Eagle, and guests arriving to the area by means other than individual automobile. Present access to the project area entails use of the I -70 spur and State Highway No. 6 north of the Town of i Eagle, the primary highway system of the Town of Eagle, and Eagle County Road No. 307 commonly referred to as the j Brush Creek Road. Consistent with_the testimony and ' evidence presented at the hearing by the Applicant, the County, adjacent property owners, and members of the traveling public; the aforesaid roads as they presently 11 exist are inadequate to serve the anticipated additional volumes of traffic which would be generated by the project area.• By reason thereof, DeLeuw Cather & Company in May, 1982, prepared on behalf.of the Applicant, a report entitled "The Brush Creek Road Transportation Analysis." (Exhibit No. 2). In summary, DeLeuw Cather & Company recommended the following general road improvements; the reconstruction of Brush Creek Road consisting of two 12 -foot paved lanes and 8 -foot graveled shoulders; the relocation of the Brush Creek Road to connect with State Highway No. 6 west of the Town of Eagle; the realignment of the existing Brush Creek Road which would remain within the primary circulation system; and intersection channelization and signalization, acceleration - deceleration lanes, turning lanes and passing lanes on certain specified portions of the primary circulation system to minimize automobile congestion and provide safe, efficient and adequate access to the project area. As recommended by DeLeuw Cather.& Company, the design capacity of the reconstructed Brush Creek Road from the Adam's Rib Headquarters to the confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries should meet State standards for a Type B (improved design) two -lane roadway operating at a level of service "C" with a 60 mph design. The remaining roadway portion to the project area should be designed to accommodate 1997 design hour volume traffic flows operating at a level of service "E" with a 35 mph posted.speed limit. In order to accomplish the foregoing, a basic minimum of 80 feet of right -of -way would be required for the Brush Creek Road with additional right -of -way being necessary for certain 12 roadway portions depending on the final location, cross - sections, design requirements, slope and drainage requirements, cuts and fills, and acceleration= deceleration lanes. The construction of the primary circulation system to the project area would be phased consistent with the development of the project area. Phase I improvements to be completed prior to the opening of the ski area at a 2,500 skiers -at- one -time, would entail the construction of the improved Brush Creek Road from the project area to State Highway No'. 6, and the acquisition of right -of -way necessary for Phase II improvements. Phase II improvements to be completed before Adam's Rib reached 60 to 70 percent of its skier capacity, or as development .levels required, would entail the construction of the interceptor parking lot and the turn lanes associated therewith, the uphill passing lane on grades exceeding 7 %, channelization improvements on State Highway No. 6, and the establishment of a shuttle fleet, schedule, operation and maintenance to accommodate day skier traffic and employee traffic. (Exhibit No. 2.) The Applicant in its revised sketch plan application agreed to pay 100% of the construction cost for the phased improvements as recommended by DeLeuw Cather & Company. (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 35.) In addition, and as modified by the Applicant during testimony at the hearing, the Applicant agreed to dedicate a 120' right -of -way through lands under its ownership, and to fund the acquisition of necessary right -of -way across lands not under its ownership for the construction of the proposed primary circulation system. 13 Although the County Engineer concurred with the basic findings and conclusions of the road analysis by DeLeuw Gather & Company, he expressed concerns regarding the phasing of the recommended improvements and acquisition of the necessary right -of -way; the realignment of the Brush Creek Road as it relates to the Town of Eagle; the provision for graveled shoulders rather than paved shoulders on the Brush Creek Road; the need for additional right -of -way on the Brush Creek Road; and the need for an interceptor parking lot. (Exhibit No. 76.) Other evidence presented at the hearing by the public relative to the recommended circulation system pertained to the need for a four -lane highway, the phasing of road improvements, the need for improvement of the present Brush Creek Road, and a critique of the report prepared by DeLeuw Gather & Company. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 37, 38, 75, 162, 215, 246, 265, 266, 279, 295 and 330.) ENVIRONMENT 1. Wildlife The cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife resulting from the proposed development may include stream modifications affecting fishery habitats; the occupancy and use of approximately 80 acres of wetlands providing water, cover, and food to transitory wildlife; the loss of forage and big game winter range; the increase in human activity in conjunction with the reduction in wildlife solitude; and the construction of roads in movement corridors causing increased wildlife road -kill problems. Although mitigation measures were proposed within the FEIS and the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application, including by way of example only, the construction of 153 net acres of new wetland habitat, the 14 Y prohibition of dogs, and the construction of new water impoundments, concerns were expressed during the hearing process relative to the adequacy of such mitigation measures, and the irreversible effect the proposed development could have on the natural environment including the loss of natural resources. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 46, 113, 166, 245 and 285.) 2. Water quality and quantity. While water for the project area would originate from a variety of sources including wells, surface diversions and reservoirs, the major municipal source of water would consist of high yield wells located in the Joe Goode Meadow. Municipal water produced from the high yield wells would pass through a transmission main extending through the upper Brush Creek valley. Storage facilities would be located along the transmission line and in a variety of pressure zones to insure pressure and volumes for peak daily uses as well as fire flows. Waste water collection would be accomplished by a major interceptor line extended from the upper valley to a treatment facility. The-level of treatment would be tertiary to insure that the resultant effluent is superior in quality to the existing.stream.flow at the point of discharge. A storm drain system would be constructed to collect and conduct the storm run -off water to a central grit removal /floating material removal facility, whereat the settling sand and gravel particles, oil and grease, and floating material would be removed, with the water effluent conducted to a settling pond for final treatment before being returned to Brush Creek. To insure that minimum stream flow and water quality requirements are met, the Applicant additionally proposed a series of 15 reservoirs on East Brush Creek, lower West Brush Creek, and adjacent to Main Brush Creek. All of the foregoing would be constructed'and operated in accordance with Federal, State and local r.ules and regulations, and in such a manner as to insure the protection of existing water quality and the preservation of minimum stream flows, senior water users' rights, and stream character. A court approved plan for augmentation would be required for the municipal, green areas, storage, and snow making components of the project area. The Applicant represented that the total average annual depletion would not exceed 1,000 acre feet for the project area at full development. In comparison, the historic consumptive use of the Applicant's water rights has been an average of 1,660 acre feet per year over the period of record from 1958 to 1978, with such use being in the nature of agriculture. The main objections to the Applicant's proposal on water quality and quantity were embodied in a letter and testimony submitted by the Town of Eagle. (Exhibit No.. 75.) As a downstream water user, the Town's concerns were centered around the adverse effect the proposed development could have on the Town's water system, and the adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant. More specifically, the Town asserted that the proposed use of riparian and wetlands areas by the Applicant could potentially destroy the valuable natural water treatment processes associated therewith. The Town further asserted that the proposed wetland mitigation plan, i.e., construction of sedimentation reservoirs and replacement wetlands, did not adequately address the qualitative function of natural wetlands; the maintenance _ 16 of water quality through filtration of sediment; the timing of replacement; the sufficiency of the.Applicant's water rights for flood irrigation in the development of replacement wetlands; the maintenance of artificial wetlands; nor the interrelationship between the Joe Goode and lower wetland areas and the effect of the high velocity wells located in Joe Goode. In addition, the Town alleged that the revised P.U.D. sketch application neglected to address water quality problems resulting from vegetation disturbance, soil disturbance and earth movement, impervious cover, storm water runoff, domestic and industrial waste, and the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and chemicals. The Town further expressed a need for coordination between the Town's and other down valley treatment systems, and the Applicant's proposed sewage treatment and water supply systems and storm runoff collection and treatment systems, along with a specification by the Applicant of the legal entity responsible for the continued operation and maintenance of the Applicant's various water related systems. With respect to water quantity, the Town questioned the legal and physical ability of Brush Creek to supply not only the project area but also related growth in the Brush Creek Valley and the Town. The major points of contention included the reliability of the Applicant's water rights in dry years because of senior water rights; - "thz -- adequacy of a year= round" legal supply or "waTer for the Applicant's ultimate development needs; the ability of the physical flow of East Brush Creek and Main Brush Creek at times of critical low flow; and the cumulative impacts of all development related to the project area combined with minimum flows, federal reserved rights, and existing irrigation and domestic uses in relation to the physical ability of Brush Creek to supply. 17 The Town in testimony did acknowledge the fact that the majority of the issues raised were premature, and were more properly the subject for discussion during the [dater Court's consideration of the Applicant's plan for augmentation, the Federal 404 permitting process, and the County's preliminary plan review process and 1041 permitting process. FINDINGS AND ORDER Based on the record as a whole, including an analysis of the foregoing, the Board of County Commissioners finds that with the imposition of the conditions set forth hereinbelow: (1) there are special physical conditions and objectives of development which the project area will satisfy to warrant a departure from the standard regulation requirements; (2) the project area can be developed in such a manner as to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Eagle.County Master Plan as summarized in Exhibit No. 77; (3) the area around the proposed development can be planned in substantial harmony with the project area; (4) the proposed development can be planned and organized so that adjacent and nearby communities will not be detrimentally affected; (5), the proposed development can be completed within a reasonable amount of time; (6) the proposed commercial or industrial development can be justified economically; (7) street improvements and safe and efficient access can be accomplished to adequately accommodate the anticipated traffic generated by the project area; (8) proposed utility and drainage facilities can be adequately designed for ' population densities and type of development proposed; (9) an acceptable employee housing plan can be provided; and (10) the land is suitable for subdivision. M NOW,.THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: THAT, the Board hereby approves the revised sketch plan application of Adam's Rib Recreational Area for a Planned Unit Development in File No. PD- 189 -82 -S. THAT, the Board hereby imposes the following conditions on its approval of the subject revised P.U.D. sketch plan application, which conditions shall be fully complied with by the Applicant during the preliminary plan review process and prior to preliminary plan approval by the Board: 1. One comprehensive and all - inclusive P.U.D. development control document shall be established. Such a document shall constitute the master approval document governing the over -all phasing of development and the specification of permitted land uses within the project area, and in addition, shall identify with specificity and integrate all mitigation measures, restrictions and other' conditions imposed upon the Applicant by the Board and other governing entities having jurisdictional authority over the project area. 2. For purposes of this Paragraph 2, the primary circulation system to the project area shall be - - - - -- defined as commencing at I -70, thence southward on the I -70 spur, thence westward on State Highway No. 6 to a point west of the Town of Eagle whereat State Highway No. 6 will intersect with a realigned Brush Creek Road, and continuing therefrom in a southeasterly direction on a major access road 19 located in the general vicinity of the present Brush Creek Road and East Brush Creek Road to the project area. The Applicant shall provide detailed surveys, and road improvement drawings and specifications of the proposed primary circulation system commensurate with the general road improvements and design criteria recommended by DeLeuw Cather & Company in its "Brush Creek Road Transportation Analysis" (Exhibit No. 2). Such general road improvements and design criteria as set forth in Exhibit No. 2 are hereby approved by the Board. The detailed surveys, and road improvement drawings and specifications required of the Applicant shall include by way of example only, cross - sections of the primary circulation system; identification of the specific location of the primary circulation system where realignment is necessary or warranted; an itemized schedule for phasing of road improvements taking into consideration the recommendations of DeLeuw Cather & Company (Exhibit No. 2) and the County Engineer (Exhibit No. 76); establishment of site - specific locations for required intersections; and the depiction of the recommended length, alignment, and distances of overall grades of the recommended third passing lane on the roadway portion from the confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries to the project area. The detailed road improvement drawings and specifications shall further depict a basic minimum of 120 feet of right -of -way for the Brush Creek Road from State Highway No. 6 to the project area. In conjunction therewith, the Applicant shall re- evaluate the eventual need for a fill y basic minimum of 120 feet of right -of -way as opposed to 80 feet of right -of -way on the Brush Creek Road in relation to future traffic .volumes, the requirement of providing an adequate, efficient and safe primary circulation system, and the recommendations of the County Engineer. (Exhibit Nos. 76 and 331). For those proposed road improvements on the I -70 spur and State Highway No. 6, the Applicant shall submit the road improvement drawings and specifications as approved by the County Engineer to the State of Colorado Department of Highways for its review and consideration. With respect to the acquisition of the right -of -way required for the recommended road improvements on Brush Creek Road by reason of the proposed development, the Applicant shall develop a comprehensive plan detailing and outlining the process by which the right -of -way will be acquired; an estimate of the direct and indirect costs which may be incurred or associated with the right -of -way acquisition; and a schedule specifying the phasing of the right -off -way acquisition, taking into account the recommendation of the County Department of Community Development that all right -of -way acquisition be completed prior to the commencement of any project - related construction (Exhibit Nos. 76 and 79). The Applicant shall dedicate a 120 foot right -of -way through lands under its ownership. The Applicant shall also reimburse the Board for all direct costs incurred by the Board for right -of -way 21 acquisition of a basic minimum of 80 feet across lands not under its ownership for the construction of the recommended primary circulation system. The foregoing shall be in addition to the costs incurred in constructing the primary circulation system as recommended by DeLeuw Cather & Company (Exhibit No. 2), which costs shall be borne solely by the Applicant. The Applicant shall re- evaluate the need to provide paved shoulders as opposed to the recommended graveled shoulders on the improved Brush Creek Road. Such review shall adequately address the advantages and disadvantages of both alternatives relative to the issues of safety for motorists and bicyclists; maintenance costs; and impact on the natural environment. The realignment of the Brush Creek Road as it relates to the location of the intersection of the Brush Creek Road and State Highway No. 6, and the point of connection of the realigned Brush Creek Road with the present Brush Creek Road, shall be jointly determined by the Board and the Applicant, in cooperation with the Town of Eagle. The necessity of an interceptor parking lot at the confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries, and the skier access terminals at Fischer Gulch and Pipe Creek shall be re- evaluated by the Applicant and the Board, in cooperation with the Forest Service. As part thereof, consideration shall be given to the advantages and disadvantages of locating parking lots and /or shelter facilities for 22 i skiers and the traveling public at Fischer Gulch and /or Pipe Creek in lieu of the proposed interceptor parking lot. The provision for maintenance of the roadway portion from the confluence of East and'Wes't Brush Creek tributaries to the project area by the Applicant during the initial construction phases of the proposed development shall be further addressed and resolved by the Board during the preliminary plan review process. The provision for public access and the possibility of constructing a parking area in the vicinity of Yeoman Park for persons traveling to and residents of the Town of Fulford shall be considered and reviewed by the Applicant. 3. The Applicant shall further consider the establishment of a quasi - municipal corporation such as a metropolitan district, to provide public services including, but not limited to, water, sewer, fire protection, road maintenance both within the project area and from the confluence of the West and East Brush Creek tributaries to the project area, and the continued operation and maintenance of the proposed mass transit system. 4. The Applicant shall provide employee housing consistent with the densities, location, distribution, and diversity of housing types set forth in the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application and the testimony of the Applicant. The Applicant shall further develop an employee housing plan which ensures the availability of long -term employee housing in addition to housing for the construction 23 work - force, and which sets forth in detail, the specific location of the employee housing and the types of services which will be provided to the construction workforce during the initial construction phases of the proposed development, and the employee - resident population which will be located in the project area. 5. The Applicant shall provide a detailed itemization of all proposed wildlife and environmental mitigation measures which will be the responsibility and obligation of the Applicant, taking into consideration the mitigation measures proposed by the Forest Service in the FEIS, and the letters and testimony submitted by the Division of Wildlife. ( See generally Exhibit Nos. 3, 191, 192, 193, 197 and 256.) The mitigation measures which are subsequently approved by the Board shall be incorporated into the P.U.D. development control document referred to in Paragraph 1 hereinabove. 6. With respect to Exhibit No. 75, the Board encourages,.joint planning and facilities management and development between the Applicant and the Town of Eagle relative to their respective water and waste water treatment systems. In addition, the Applicant shall specify any changes that are proposed in the location of the Town's water facilities or the nature of existing treatment by reason of the proposed development. The Applicant shall obtain the approval of the Water Court relative to its plan for augmentation as generally described within the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application. Further, the Applicant shall 24 h submit to the Board an approved 404 permit from the Army Corps,of Engineers, and a plan detailing the phasing and design of.the construction of the replacement wetlands proposed as a mitigation measure for the Applicant's use and occupancy of natural wetlands located in the project area. Notwithstanding the foregoing conditions, the Board reserves the right to further evaluate and review the'Applicant's proposed water and waste water treatment systems during the Preliminary Plan review process and the County's 1041 permitting process. 7. In addition to the foregoing conditions, the Applicant shall adequately address those recommendations of the Eagle County Planning Commission as set forth in Exhibit No. 201 excluding therefrom Paragraphs 5 and 9, and those recommen- dations of the County Department of Community Development as set forth in Exhibit No. 79 excluding therefrom Paragraph 1, which were not specifically mentioned herein. 8. In addition to the foregoing conditions, the Applicant shall further comply with the preliminary plan requiiements set forth in Section 2.06.13(6) of the.Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, 1979, as amended, and Section 2.18 of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, 1972, as amended, as the same are set forth and incorporated in Chapter II of the 'Eagle County Land Use Regulations, 1982, as amended. THAT, the Forest Service and the Board shall cooperate with one another in the development of a memorandum of 25 understanding or other appropriate document which sets forth the respective roles of said governmental entities in'the event an increase in the scope of the Special Use Permit granted by the Forest Service is requested, including the right of the Board to require a Special Use Permit for such increase pursuant to its Land Use Regulations. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "increase" shall mean any increase in the land acreage as presently described or the number of skiers -at- one -time as presently specified within the Forest Service's proposed Special Use Permit. THAT, the provisions of this Resolution and the conditional approval of the Board of the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application contained herein shall not be deemed or construed to be deemed as conferring any additional rights upon the Applicant other than the right to proceed to preliminary plan in accordance with the County's Land Use Regulations. THAT, this Resolution is necessary to preserve the public welfare, health and safety. MOVED, READ AND, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, ��a,tti/its regular meeting held the /" day of %t..Nk_I:I:., ! 1982, non pro tune August 25, 1982. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO By and Through its ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: 4/? lC��/yC.•� iYc��i By: !/ 7l r�liit JoVnette Phillips, Clerk' Da e�F. Grant, 'Ghairman of'the Board of County Commissioners Ke hi Troxe , Commissioner Dan Wi liams, Commissioner 26 ADAM'S RIB RECREATIONAL AREA PROCEDURAL CHRONOLOGY AUGUST 8,1994 1970' Background studies and site analyses undertaken to locate suitable area for the development of a world class downhill ski resort and base village. 1971 Determination made that Adam Mountain and Mount Eve met selection criteria; land acquisition begun for Adam's Rib Recreational Area ( "ARRA "). December 27, 1973 Discussions with U.S. Forest Service advance sufficiently for HBE to file special use permit application for ski trails and facilities on national forest land at Adam Mountain site. September 3, 1975 In anticipation of the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS "), HBE has undertaken and completed to date studies on topics of Water Rights, 100 Year Floodplain, Engineering Geology and Groundwater availability, Socioeconomic Analysis, Phase 11 Engineering Geology, Three Year Winter Summary Report on Snow and Wind conditions, Preliminary Mountain Development Report, Water Resource Analysis, Geologic Investigations, Western Eagle County Socioeconomic Study and assorted internal studies. Study continued. September, 1975 thru Studies continued with topics including Snow and Rock May, 1976 Avalanche and Rock Fall Analysis, Phase III Groundwater Hydrology, '75/76 Snow and Wind Study, a Draft EIS for Forest Service review, Air Quality/Meteorology Assessment, and an Antiquities Act Permit of Cultural Resource investigation. May, 1976 HBE makes application to Eagle County for Sketch Plan approval for zoning and subdivision of the base area. This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission but subsequently tabled to allow Joint Review Committee examination. 1 EXHIBIT B August 26, 1976 HBE, the State, the Forest Service, and'agle County sign a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly study the project. Joint Review committee meetings commence. 1976 thru 1981 The U.S. Forest Service, the State of Colorado and HBE sign a Memorandum of Understanding to complete a Joint Review Process to ensure timely assessment and review of the Adam's Rib Recreational Area site proposal. The Joint Review Committee encourages public involvement and holds 35 public meetings in Eagle from November 1979 to March 1981 for public comment. March 1977 thru The compilation of Forest Service EIS reports continues. February, 1978 Reports include: Housing Forecast, Brush Creek Road Access Study, Population and Public Sector Finance Analysis, Road Design Criteria Report, 77 -78 Snow Wind Summary, Aquatic Biology Assessment, Wildlife Assessment, Phase IV Geologic Engineering, Hat Creek Geologic Engineering, Archaeological Survey, and Vegetation and Soils Assessment. July, 1989 thru Further EIS reports are completed, including: Mountain/Base Social Impact Assessment Reports 1, 2, 3 and August, 1981 Conceptual Plan, 4, Mountain Plan Critique, Economic Assessment Phases I, II, III and Summary, Brush Creek Water Quality - Wastewater Quality Impacts, Impact of Traffic on Air Quality Levels, Responses to Requests for Information from the USFS, Air Quality - Meteorology Assessment, Development Potentials for the Adam's Rib Recreational Area, Survey and Test Excavations for the Adam's Rib Recreational Area, Financial Feasibility Report, and the Ventilated Valley Model Analysis. May 1980 Sketch Plan Application is filed with Eagle County. ARRA with Colorado Department of Wildlife involved in discussions regarding impacts of proposed sketch plan. August 1980 Sketch Plan approval is denied by County Planning Commissioners because the timing was inappropriate. November 1980 ARRA working on mitigation plan for wetlands. August 5, 1981 Forest Service Draft EIS ( "DEIS ") is published. Additional completed reports include Adam's Rib Financial Summary, Alternatives 3 and 3A and the East Brush Creek Water Quality Program. September 1981 DEIS presented to Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. January 1982 A revised sketch plan, based upon further refinement of the project and work with the County is filed with Eagle County. The Brush Creels Road Transportation Study is completed. February 17, 1982 ARRA meets with Eagle County and the Town of Eagle to discuss Forest Service proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS "). July 12,1982 The United States Forest Service, after nine years of study and preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement, issues a Record of Decision to issue a special use permit to Adam's Rib authorizing development of ski trails and facilities on national forest land. August 10, 1982 Concerned Citizens of Eagle County appeal issuance of Forest Service special use permit. August 19, 1982 Eagle County Planning Commission recommends approval of ARRA sketch plan based upon consistency with County Master Plan. August 25, 1982 Eagle County, after nine years of study and two days of public hearings, approves a sketch plan for the Recreation Area. In issuing this approval, the County determines that Adam's Rib is in the public interest; that its development is consistent with the character of Eagle County; that its design provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and off - street parking; that its open space produces maximum usefulness for recreation and scenery; that it conveniently locates commercial and recreational facilities near residential housing; and that it employs cluster housing to encourage maximum open space and economy of development. October 14, 1982 Eagle County Board of County Cominissioners unanimously adopts resolution approving ARRA sketch plan (non pro tunc August 25, 1982). 1982-1985 Issuance of the U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit is challenged in Concerned Citizens of Eagle County v. Woodrow HBE /ARRA required to devote time and resources to litigation to uphold the issuance of the permit. May 23, 1984 Towns of Eagle and Gypsum both endorse the project. 1984 Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest is finalized.. Plan identifies ARRA as ski area location with approved capacity of 9,000 SAOT. April 1985 Technical Report on Present and Future Water Quality, Hydrology and Aquatic Life Conditions at ARRA prepared by Engineering Science, Inc. of Denver, Colorado ( "ES ") for ARRA. October 1985 Issuance of Forest Service Special Use Permit upheld by United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in Concemed Citizens of Eagle County v. Woodrow No. 83 -K -1968, slip op. (D. Colo. 1985). January 1986 ARRA involved in ongoing discussions with Department of Wildlife concerning potential mitigations that will be proposed as part of the U.S. Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Detailed modeling and study commences on water quality, replacement wetland quality analysis and stream rechannelization. August 1986 ES completes study on Conceptual Stream Channel Design for East Brush Creek at Vassar Meadow for ARRA. January.1987 ES memorandum on Technical Evaluation of Wetland Functional Values at ARRA completed. January 19, 1987 Section 404 permit application filed with Corps, 401 permit application filed with state. April 1987 Corps begins preparing and selects cw, ultant for production of Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Economic Feasibility analysis. June - November, 1987 At request of Corps, ES undertakes wetland mapping and inventory. June 1988 Eagle County Commissioners unanimously approve extension for ARRA Sketch Plan through August, 1991, based upon ARRA's "demonstrated material progress toward the goal of developing the project" (June 15, 1988 letter to ARRA from S. Vaughn). August 1988 Draft Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared by Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District and ES is released. September 1988 Pre- and post - project hydrological report identifying monthly stream flows in project area submitted by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado ( "WWE "). January 1989 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District with assistance from ES is released. February 1989 Final Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared by Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District and ES is released. February 1989 Colorado Water Court approves Water Augmentation Plan. The Augmentation Plan establishes that Adam's Rib can be developed without injury to other water rights. April 1989 ARRA submits report prepared by W WE re: "Impacts Due to Pumping of Joe Goode Aquifer and Brush Creek Water Quality Data ". June 1989 The Colorado Water Quality Control Division, after two years of study, grants conditional water quality certification. The conditional approval determines that ARRA, with proposed mitigation, will not cause significant degradation of water quality in Brush Creek drainage. August 1989 In continuation of 404 permitting process, ARRA submits initial plan to mitigate for wetland impacts in Vassar Meadow. Plan includes large scale drawings and specifics of mitigation for the Salt Creek mitigation site. October 1989 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS ") prepared by Corps with assistance from ES is released. November 28, 1989 ARRA submits to Corps report by WWE re: "Shallow Groundwater and Wetlands at Vassar Meadow ". This report provides an analysis of potential secondary impacts to downstream wetlands due to post - project hydrology. January 1990 Fish and Wildlife Service endorses a Biological Assessment finding that the development of Adam's Rib will not jeopardize threatened or endangered species. January 26, 1990 ARRA submits report to Corps prepared by WWE re: "Feasibility of Constructing and Maintaining Artificial Wetlands Between Buildings at Vassar Meadow ". February 1990 DEIS public hearing process completed. March 1990 ARRA submits to Corps a report prepared by WWE which analyzes the ability of retaining wetlands that are in hydrologic association with the East Brush Creek and the ecological significance and functional values of wetlands in Vassar Meadow. March 23,1990 ARRA submits detailed responses to Public Comments on the DEIS as requested by a Corps letter dated February 15, 1990. June 25, 1990 ARRA meets with Corps to discuss purpose of resort, development plan, functions and values of Vassar Meadows wetland, mitigation plan, existence of practicable alternatives. Meeting is following by ARRA's submission of report to Corps detailing the same. July 1990 WWE forwards memorandum to ARRA re: "Frequency of Occurrence of Wetlands in the Vicinity of ARRA ". August/September 1990 WWE, at the request of ARRA, delineates the existing wetlands in Vassar Meadow. August 7, 1990 Corps issues letter seeking considerable additional information from ARRA, much of which had already been provided. October 1, 1990 In meeting with Corps, ARRA submits information re: prior government approvals; environmental commitments/benefits of ARRA; socio- economic benefits of ARRA. ARRA also requests timeframe for completion of 404 permit process. October 9, 1990 WWE prepares Addendum to June 1989 Adam's Rib Water Quality Mitigation Plan. October 10, 1990 WWE sends letter to Corps re: wetlands evaluations of Vassar Meadow, responding to comments of David Cooper, Ph.D. October 11, 1990 ARRA submits technical report prepared by WWE re: "Evaluation of Existing and Post - Project Wetland Functions at Vassar Meadow and Proposed Replacement Wetland ". October 11, 1990 ARRA submits an Addendum to June, 1989 Adam's Rib Water Quality Mitigation Plan prepared for ARRA by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. November 8,1990 WWE correspondence to ARRA: "Our Response to Sepember 19, 1990 Letter from Paul Adamus to Sarah Fowler re: Vassar Meadow Wetland Functions ". November 20,1990 ARRA submits a revised wetland mitigation proposal. November 27,1990 Corps seeks additional information re: The "Confluence of East and West Brush Creek" as a practicable alternative and ARRA's wetland mitigation plan. The Corps also requests verification of newly produced wetland delineation mapping. (Note that request to analyze confluence site as practicable. alternative comes 46 months into the process after 19 separate alternatives were analyzed including a variation of the confluence site.) January 11, 1991 Corps requests that all wetland delineation completed in 1987 be updated. Corps indicates for first time that a "Second Draft" or "Draft Supplement" Environmental Impact Statement may be required. February 1991 ARRA submits "Documentation of Vassar Meadow Wetland Delineation" report prepared by W WE and request Corps immediately verify the delineation. February 1991 Corps reiterates its demand for information on evaluation of the. confluence of East & West Brush Creek as a practicable alternative and project specificity. Corps again seeks information which concludes that riparian area in Vassar Meadow will not be adversely impacted. Corps seeks information describing all land holdings of Adam's Rib and definitive long -term uses of such holdings. March 21, 1991 ARRA provides report "Evaluation of the "Confluence" Area as a Practicable Altemative /Additional Information Regarding Project Specificity in Vassar Meadow and Woodrun Area" which includes a Conceptual Master Development Plan for Vassar Meadow/Woodrun Area. April 1991 ARRA places extensive groundwater wells and spring -fall monitoring process to document natural groundwater levels at three primary sites for natural wetland identification purposes. Apri1.26,1991 ARRA meets with Corps and submits a Supplement Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan which offers 218.5 restoration acres to replace 47.2 wetland acres impacted in Vassar Meadow. Corps requests additional wildlife studies to be completed for production of any final EIS. May 15, 1991 Corps advises ARRA they have retained Economic Research Associates ( "ERA ") to conduct independent sensitivity analysis to evaluate material submitted by ARRA. Corps requests additional information on: 1) Detail of mountain development, i.e., ski trails, lifts; 2) Infrastructure costs by line -item, i.e., sewer, water; 3) Unit counts and types by development area; 4) Development layout of Golf Course; 5) Identification of project -wide infrastructure of program elements; 6) An update on "horizontal costs" applicable to real estate development. June 1991 Eagle County commissioners unanimously approve extension for ARRA Sketch Plan through August, 1994, based upon ARRA's "diligent efforts to continue addressing conditions and issues identified at sketch plan review." (July 9, 1991 letter to ARRA from Keith Montag, Eagle County Community Development). July 23, 1991 Corps and ES conduct field visit to Adam's Rib Recreational Area for verification of wetland delineations previously submitted by ARRA. September 3, 1991 ARRA submits updated Development Expenses and Project Phasing Plan which respond to requests for additional economic information for Economic Research Associates to conduct economic feasibility studies. September 13, 1991 ARRA submits "Adam's Rib Recreational Area: Wetland Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plans" prepared by ARRA and Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Inc., which presentee ARRA's sequence of mitigation proposals and incorporates input from the Corps. September 16,1991 ARRA responds to Corps request for additional wildlife studies. While having submitted this information previously, in the spirit of cooperation, ARRA initiates the wildlife studies. ARRA submits bird study entitled "Avian Distribution and Abundance in Riparian Woodlands, Eagle Colorado" prepared by Bio Resources, Inc., of Logan, Utah. September /October 1991 ARRA and Colorado Division of Wildlife negotiate collection agreement for monitoring and documenting the presence or absence of lynx and wolverine in the project area. September /October 1991 ARRA retains Bio Resources Inc. to undertake study relating to black bear critical fall feeding areas. September /October 1991 ARRA, with cooperation efforts of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Forest Service, and Eagle County, undertake a deer and elk study to refine site - specific mitigation. September 9, 1991 Aquatic and Wetland Consultants submits to Corps and Engineering Science a complete set of up -to -date piezometric groundwater logs. September 20,1991 Corps submits a schedule of events representing "best estimate of worst case scheduling scenario" which projects an additional 15 -26 months in the permit application review process. (Note that ARRA has been in the permitting process for 57 months at this time). October 30, 1991 ARRA submits report entitled "Adam's Rib Recreational Area - Results of Wetland Groundwater Monitoring, Golf Course . Development Site, 1990/1991" which substantiates premise that a number of inventoried wetlands representing significant acreage are supported by irrigation - induced hydrology and therefore non jurisdictional. November 15,1991 ARRA submits report entitled "The Demand and Public Benefits of Four Season Destination Resorts such as the Adam's Rib Recreational Area," a compilation of news articles, periodicals, and economic reports which support the viability of four season destination resorts such as Adam's Rib. December 16,1991 ARRA provides input on issues critical to a meaningful economic analysis including: 1) Number of units . in core perimeter wetlands 2) Housing unit sensitivity methodology 3) Project cost items including contingency and equipment December 17,1991 ARRA and Aquatic and Wetland Consultants submit report entitled "Adam's Rib Recreational Area Technical Memoranda: Results of 1991 Groundwater Monitoring at the ARRA Ranch and Salt Creek Sites." January, 1992 "Black Bear Fall Feeding Habitat at ARRA" submitted to Corps by Bio- Resources, Inc. January 28,1992 ERA issues the Draft Comparative Financial Analysis of Proposed Adam's Rib Recreational Area Development Plan prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. J January '11, 1992 ARRA submits clarifying and editorial comments on Draft Financial Analysis. ARRA indicates it does not agree with all the assumptions made, however it reserves substantive comments for the final report. February 21, 1992 ERA issues final report "Comparative Financial Analysis of Proposed Adam's Rib Recreational Area Development Plan" April 3, 1992 ARRA fully responds to ERA's Comparative Financial Analysis of proposed Adam's Rib Recreational Area Development Plan dated February 21, 1992. May 7,1992 ARRA sends article to Corps as supplement to report dated November 15, 1992 "The Demand and Public Benefits of Four Season Destination Resorts such Adam's Rib Recreational Area." Headline reads "Skier Visits Hit Record 10 Million." May 13, 1992 Corps requests information regarding ski lifts, skier circulation on the mountain, and the rib. May 19,1992 ARRA responds to May 13, 1992 request for information from Corps. June 3, 1992 ARRA follows up with letter re: minimization standards reiterating ARRA's position. June 9, 1992 ARRA first learns that another Corps consultant (Sno - Engineering, Inc. or "Sno -E ") has reviewed Conceptual Master Development Plan. June 12, 1992 ARRA receives copy of the final Sno -E report. July 22, 1992 EPA sends letter to ARRA requesting permission to access ARRA property at Vassar Meadow in order to survey "peat" wetlands. August 24, 1992 ARRA sends a comprehensive letter to the Corps outlining the Legal Standards Governing Issuance of Section 404 Permits and their Application to the Adam's Rib factual record. August 25, 1992 EPA sends another request to access ARRA's property. August 27, 1992 APRA requests the Corps clarify issues set forth in the Corps' 1101 ry s August 10 letter relating to peat soils and vegetation in Vassar Meadow. August 28, 1992 ARRA and the EPA agree to have a meeting in Denver to outline the specific research objectives of the EPA relating to peat soils and vegetation. August 28, 1992 ARRA provides the Corps a copy of the lynx survey completed in the winter of 1991 -1992 by the Department of Wildlife. No signs of lynx or wolverine were found in the survey area. August 28, 1992 ARRA provides Corps information on wetland delineation prepared by WWE on the recently discovered wetland in Vassar Meadow. September 4, 1992 Meeting with EPA in Denver, Colorado. September 21, 1992 Corps staff calls a government agency meeting in Glenwood Springs, CO with the purpose to provide a forum for the agencies and ARRA to exchange information and to update the agencies on the status of ARRA's 404 permit.. September 22, 1992 ARRA sends letter to the EPA authorizing EPA access to their property but expressing displeasure with the reasons EPA has stated for the need to do additional on -site investigative work, particularly this late in the 404 permitting process. September 23, 1992 ARRA receives lett er from the EPA to the Corps which primarily served to maintain EPA's ability to pursue elevation under the August 11, 1992 MOA. September 30,1992 ARRA provides Corps with the second and third quarter report from CSU regarding the deer-and elk censuring study. October 6, 1992 ARRA provides information to Corps responding to comments made by the U.S. Forest Service at the agency meeting relating to development in East Brush Creek and to an on- mountain (ski areal wetland scenario. October 7, 1992 ARRA sends information to the Corps relating to the demand for a four season resort market. October 13, 1992 ARRA sends comprehensive response to the September 23, 1992 12 t letter from the EPA to the Corps of Engineers re: the Vassar Meadow Wetlands with supporting materials from WWE. October 21, 1992 ARRA expresses concern that November 1, 1992 target date for "permissibility" decision will not be met. October 23, 1992 Corps provides updated schedule of events: November 20, 1992 - Draft response from Sno -E November 30, 1992 - Final response from Sno -E December 18, 1992 - Minimization decision. Corps indicates ARRA must also withstand public interest review. November 5,1992 ARRA provides an addendum to ARRA's and WWE's response to the EPA's September 23, 1992 letter, Supplement includes comprehensive tables of finds of various consultants. November E, 1992 ARRA provides Corps with inventory of documents. November 9, 1992 ARRA provides: 1) ARRA Report re: feasibility of intensive development in Woodrun 2) Letter of Dr. David Buchner re: Vassar Wetlands (Not Unique) 3) Outline of Qualifications of Experts 4) Letter from Dr. Crockett and Dr. Stoller re: Adam & Eve Mountain (No Mountain Wetlands) November 23, 1992 ARRA submits WWE's November 19, 1992 report which addresses: 1) Engineering and Technical development constraints in the Confluence Area, Woodrun, Lower Valley, and Vassar Meadow; 2) Whether Vassar wetlands can be considered unique; 3) Impacts on development in Vassar on existing surface water hydrology; 4) (b)(1) guidelines and assessment of proposed mitigation. November 24, 1992 ARRA receives Draft Sno -E reply which adopts most of ARRA's contentions. 13 November 24,1992 ARRA responds to Corps October 20, 1992 letter re: 1) monorib, 2) economic remodeling, 3) ski mountain wetlands, 4) White River National Forest Land Use Issue. November 24, 1992 Corps indicates their evaluation is continuing. November 3 0, 1992 (Received December 7, 1992) Corps indicates it will consider wetland mapping completed September 9, 1992 as a final verified delineation. December 7,1992 ARRA requests Corps complete its wetland mapping process. December 7, 1992 Corps requests ARRA respond to seven topics relating to minimization for the December 10, 1992 meeting. 1. Minimization a. Bases for the initial wetland impact of 250 acres. b. What is the actual extent of wetland impact for the proposed development? C. Can the number of units be reduced? d. Are the typical condominium units too big? e. Can ARRA eliminate subsurface structures? 2. Economic Model a. Can the monorib be deleted? b. Is the absorption rate appropriate? December 10, 1992 Meeting with Corps. Discussion of issues on agenda and additional issues. Col. Sadoff indicates he will make a decision by year end. December 12, 1992 ARRA submits to Corps fourth quarter report from CSU regarding deer and elk censuring study. December 14, 1992 ARRA submits follow up information relating to condo square footage and Eagle County's reaction to transportation and affordable housing issues. December 18,1992 ARRA receives a letter addressed to the Corps (Col. Sadoff) from EPA Region VIII, (Dale Vodehnal). The letter indicates EPA 14 contracted with Science Applications international Corporation (SAIC) to review the report prepared by Wright Water Engineers entitled Engineering Evaluation of Sno- Engineering, Inc. Document. SAIC proposes impracticable construction "solutions" with little information on specific site constraints. ARRA does not receive a copy of SAIC report. December 21, 1992 ARRA sends to Corps a technical memorandum from Wright Water Engineers that evaluates the engineering feasibility and practicality of "minimization" suggestions made by the Corps in December and EPA in its December 14, 1992 letter to Col. Sadoff. The conclusion is that the engineering constraints make the minimization suggestions infeasible and impracticable. January 14, 1993 ARRA provides report entitled Responses Related to EPA Letter of December 14, 1992 and SAIC Report dated December, 1992 to Corps which includes report letters from various experts evaluating EPA's /SAIC's proposed "Less Damaging Practicable Construction Design Alternatives" are not appropriate and practicable. ARRA also provides additional information for technical review. February 21,1993 ERA presents report to Corps entitled "Comparative Financial Analysis of Proposed ARRA Development Plan ". February 23, 1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated February 22, 1993 indicating that ARRA should submit a modified application for its consideration. The Corps indicates that the decision is Iimited to the issue of avoiding on -site impacts to wetlands by minimizing the amount of fill to be placed in Vassar Meadow. March 2, 1993 ARRA has conversation with Corps to discuss the current status of ARRA's permit application, from the Corps' perspective. Details for resubmitting a modified application are discussed and clarified. March 5,1993 ARRA meets with Corps in Sacramento, California and provides Corps with "Pictorial Concept of Revised Conceptual Master Development Plan, March 5, 1993" which further reduces impacts to wetlands in Vassar Meadow along with a document "Revised Conceptual Master Development Plan, March 5, 1993" which lists 7 bullets of information on the revised plan. 15 J March 8,1993 ARRA sends letter to Corps, again requesting Corps' completion of the draft final wetland delineation mapping. March 11, 1993 ARRA provides Corps copy of lst Quarter 1993 report from Colorado State University's Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Biology regarding deer and elk censuring study. March 22, 1993 ARRA sends letter to Corps enclosing two copies of ARRA's Conceptual Master Development Plan and Proposed Grading Cross Sections dated March 25, 1993. Letter also states that ARRA's modified 404 permit application will be submitted at the March 25, 1993 meeting with the Corps. March 23;1993 ARRA sends Corps details of their Revised Conceptual Master Development Plan. March 24, 1993 Corps sends letters to agencies notifying them of ARRA's submittal of a modified application and development plan and an interagency, pre - application coordination meeting to hear concerns, comments and suggestions to be held April 14, 1993 at the Ramada Inn, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. March 25, 1993 ARRA submits modified 404 permit application to Corps. April 5,1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated March 30, regarding ARIZA's letter to Corps dated March 4, which provided record of its conversation March 2, 1993 between ARRA and Lt. Colonel Ken Kasprisin. Letter also states that Corps has completed its review of the draft wetland delineation for the golf course area. April 5,1993 ARRA sends facsimile to Corps, attaching copy of Corps' April 5, 1993 letter to ARRA, requesting ARRA have the opportunity to review the wetland delineation maps for the golf course before they are finalized. April 7, 1993 ARRA sends letter to Corps enclosing a drawing, "ARRA Conceptual Development Plan April 7, 1993," and a document entitled "Evaluation of Wetlands Created by Artificial Irrigation in Vassar Meadow" which explains ARRA's rationale for depicting a portion of areas A & H as "Wetlands Created by Artificial Irrigation That Will Be Impacted by Development." Letter also states that a possible Alternative to the ARRA March 25, 1993 Conceptual Master Development Plan, dated April 7, Im 1993, which further reduces wetland impacts, has been sent under separate cover. ARRA also requests to arrange a meeting with Corps personnel prior to the regulatory agency meeting scheduled for April 14, 1993 to discuss these issues. April 14, 1993 Corps holds interagency meeting in Glenwood Springs, Colorado to discuss agency comments and concerns related to alternatives analysis. April 19, 1993 ARRA receives from the Corps a copy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to the Corps dated February 3, 1993, regarding wildlife data base information for ARRA provided by Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) which includes the boreal toad (Bufo boreas) as a federal candidate species, and increased concern with declining populations of the northern leopard frog and the tiger salamander, though having no status under the Endangered Species Act. USFWS recommends these species be included in an amphibian surrey of the project area "to adequately assess impacts of the proposed ARRA project." April 19,1993 ARRA sends facsimile to Corps personnel, attaching a copy of a joint letter from Dr. David Buckner (ESCO Associates) and Dr. Allen Crockett (Stoller) dated October 28, 1992 regarding their recollections concerning wetlands on the slopes of Adam Mountain, Mt. Eve and the Hat Creek area. ARRA states that the letter should sufficiently address the on- mountain wetlands issue. May 10, 1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated May 3, 1993 requesting additional information regarding on- mountain wetlands in the project area. Corps indicates they will make a determination on whether additional field investigations are necessary to adequately address this issue upon ARRA's submission of information. May 14,1993 ARRA receives draft letter from Corps regarding information needs for sdEIS requesting ARRA provide comments as soon as possible. May 24,1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated May 18, 1993 addressing additional information needs to produce a full disclosure sdEIS, resulting from oral and written comments from the April 14, 1993 interagency meeting in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Attached is a letter from EPA to Corps dated May 3, 1993 describing issues 17 _m concerning ARRA alternatives June 7,1993 ARRA receives response from Corps dated May 26, 1993 to its April letter regarding ARRA's continued concerns with Corps' handling of the 404 permit process. Corps' assures ARRA that the cominitments of the Corps' staff to move ARRA's permit application as rapidly as practicable to a final permit decision are both sincere and realistic. June 17, 1993 ARRA sends the Corps a copy of the Winter, 1993 Colorado Lynx Study prepared for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. June 25, 1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated June 25, 1993, which clarifies and expands on several topics including information relating to the production by Engineering- Science of the sdEIS; the amphibian survey; and on- mountain wetlands mapping. Corps encloses a copy of Engineering-Science letter to the Corps date June 21, 1993 regarding Preliminary Draft Schedule for ARRA sdEIS. July 1, 1993 ARRA provides Corps with a copy of the 2nd Quarter, 1993 report from Colorado State University's (CSU) Department of Fisheries and Wildlife regarding the deer and elk censuring study. July 2, 1993 ARRA submits additional alternatives for the sdEIS to the Corps. July 2, 1993 ARRA sends letter to Engineering-Science explaining the origin and basic features of the additional alternatives for the sdEIS. July 13, 1993 "Investigation, Fisher Gulch and Pipe Creek Areas" dated July 2, 1993 to the Corps. July 23, 1993 ARRA receives letter from EPA dated July 23, 1993 requesting permission to access ARRA property. EPA attaches copy of a letter to the Corps (no date) outlining the intent of EPA's requested site visit. (Assess functions of wetlands). August 2, 3993 ARRA receives copy of Corps letter to Engineering- Science dated July 28, 1993 regarding preliminary identification of the alternatives to be evaluated in the sdEIS. August 2, 1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated July 29, 1993 regarding its review of the potential project alternatives. The Corps Fi August 2, 1993 ARRA receives letter from Corps dated July 29, 1993 regarding its review of the potential project alternatives. The Corps generally agrees with ARRA's conclusions, except for Alternative E. Corps requests ARRA provide ES with additional information. August 16, 1993 ARRA transmits to Corps copy of "Results of Amphibian Survey, Adam's Rib Recreational Area, Eagle County, Colorado ". September 1, 1993 In response to June 30, 1993 phone conversation with Art Champ, ARRA presents information to the Corps re: feasible uses of Kummer Development Corporation's land holdings in area. September 7, 1993 ARRA responds to Corps letter of July 29, 1993 re: why Alternative E (reshaping the Woodrun Area) is not a practicable alternative. September 14, 1993 To address EPA concerns of May 3, 1993 regarding potentially significant uranium and chromium concentrations in wetlands soils in Vassar Meadow, ARRA sends t Corps a W WE memorandum entitled "Chromium and Uranium in Wetland Soils in Vassar Meadow ". September 28, 1993 Draft Revised Wetland Mitigation Plan for ARRA submitted to Corps. October 29, 1993 W WE submit technical memorandum on the "Impact of Withdrawing Groundwater from Joe Goode Aquifer on Spring/Seep Discharges on the East Side of Vassar Meadow". November 1993 "Engineering Geological Report: Adam and Eve Mountain" submitted to ARRA by John W. Rold and Dale M. Cochran. November 30, 1993 Study: "Results of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Survey" by David L. Buckner, Ph.D. of ESCO Associates submitted to ARRA. December 1993 ARRA responds to USEPA request of December 2, 1993 to USCOE for additional information on W WE report of October 29, 1993 re: withdrawing groundwater from Joe Goode Aquifer. December 1993 Ski Country Advisors submits "Adam's Rib Ski Area Market Data Review and Financial Viability Report" to ARRA. January 1994 ARRA develops "Resource Protection and Mitigation Plan" to consolidate and coordinate protection and mitigation practices to be used at ARRA. The RPMP is designed to incorporate additional information and requirements from agencies and additional planning by ARRA. January 7, 1994 S.M. Stoller Corp. completes "Conceptual Vegetation Management Plan for ARRA" and "Conceptual Wildlife Management Plan for ARRA ". January 17, 1994 ARRA forwards information to Corps re: Appropriate and Practicable Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts to Wetland Areas A, C, D, H and J. 7 January 17, 1994 ARRA submits to Corps W WE memorandum re: "Wetland H" in Vassar Meadow to support assertion that 3.5 acres of "Wetland H" failed to meet the hydrogeologic criteria defined in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. January 17, 1994 In response to request from Corps, ARRA forwards letter re: "Appropriate and Practicable Minimization of Unavoidable Impacts to Wetland Areas A, C, D, H and J ". February 1, 1994 W WE forwards copies of ARRA "Water Quality Mitigation Plan" to ARRA and ES/Corps. February 1994 ARRA forwards to Corps "ARRA Revised Wetland Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plans ". February 23, 1994 ARRA responds to Corps request to evaluate ways to avoid Wetland H, forwarding letter and memorandum from W WE entitled "Water and Civil Engineering Feasibility of Proposed "Platform" at North End of No Name Meadow ". March 1994 W WE completes "Supplemental Hydrology for ARRA ". April 2, 1994 ES forwards to ARRA comprehensive document list for ARRA project. (See attached Exhibit B) April 1994 S.M. Stoller Corp. completes "Expanded Report - Results of 1993 Amphibian Survey for ARRA. April 14,1994 Planning and coordination meeting held in Denver regarding preparation of ARRA supplemental draft EIS ( "sdEIS "). Attended by representative from the Corps, Forest Service and ES, this meeting resulted in requests for further studies, including: biological evaluation of sensitive species; biodiversity analysis; roadless area issue and evaluation; status and disclosure of USFS -ARRA land exchange proposal; and summer recreational use of the ski mountain. June 1, 1994 ARRA submits request to Eagle County Board of County Commissioners to extend the ARRA Sketch Plan for an additional three (3) years. (See attached Exhibit A) July 18, 1994 ARRA conversation with ES re: basis for land donation to USFS. July 25, 1994 ARRA Workshop with Eagle County Board of County Commissioners re: three (3) year extension for Sketch Plan. July, 26,1994 ARRA site visit with Eagle County Board of County Commissioners re: three (3) year extension for site plan. Mid - 1994 Visual Assessment process for sdEIS begun. April 28,1994 CSU completes Draft "Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer Seasonal Habitats and Movement Corridors in the East Brush Creek Drainage of the White River National Forest ". 20 a August 3, 1994 ES letter to Corps requesting authorization to study viewpoints A -G for preparation of sdEIS. 21 APPENDIX "A" SKETCH PLAN EXTENSION REQUEST 22 Adam's Rib Recreational Area A Subsidiary of HBE Corporation 215 Broadway • P.O- Box 659, Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phono:303- 3264326 Fax: 303. 328-2328 June 1, I994 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners_ P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Adam's Rib Sketch Plan Extension Dear Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners approved an extension of the Adam's Rib Sketch Plan to August 25, 1994 at their Board meeting on June 25, 1991. Pursuant to County Land Use Regulations, Adam's Rib must submit in writing an extension of the sketch plan, for good cause shown, to the County's Planning Department at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration. The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of the Sketch Plan for the Adam's Rib Recreational Area for an additional three (3) years based on the fact we have demonstrated material progress toward our goal of a four season destination resort project. Since the Adam's Rib Sketch Plan expires with the County on August 25, 1994, we wanted the entirety of the original ARRA sketch.plan extended at the time ARRA's Revised Golf Course and Subdivision Sketch Plan was approved. However, it is questionable whether the review of our Revised Golf Course Sketch Plan will be completed by this time. Therefore, we are asking the Commissioners to extend ARRA's existing sketch plan for three years. The County indicated in its sketch plan approval that it may not approve the preliminary plan until the wetlands 404 permit issue is resolved. Adam's Rib, as the County is aware, has been involved with the 404 permit process with the Army Corps of Engineers since January, 1987. Much of the work which has been accomplished on the project since our last sketch plan extension has been related to meeting the requirements of the 404 permit. In addition, a substantial• amount of work focused on land planning, water resource planning and management and engineering issues which will be used in preparing ARRA's preliminary plan and related submittals to Eagle County. Eagle County Board of County Commissioners June 1, 1994 Page Two In regards to ARRA's 404 permit, the Army Corps of Engineers has commissioned the completion of ARRA's environmental impact statements and requested ARRA to submit its mitigation plans for inclusion into the environmental documents. Engineering- Science, Inc., is working with the Corps to finish the Environmental Impact Statements. Since the Commissioners approval of the Adam's Rib sketch plan extension in June, 1991, Adam's Rib has made material progress and demonstrated meaningful effort in many areas including: I. 404 PERMIT RELATED . A. The decision by the Corps in early 1993 that ARRA had not yet achieved wetland minimization standards yielded a base village configuration which left intact the integrated transit served base village concept approved by the County in sketch plan but which achieves the wetland minimization standards set forth by the Corps of Engineers. B. The current EIS being prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers and Engineering- Science Inc., is being coordinated with the involvement of many governmental agencies. The issues addressed in the EIS will be comprehensive in nature. The coordinating agencies involved are listed below. Forest Service issues are specifically identified below. Forest Service issues arc currently being analyzed causing some delay in the publication and release of the EIS document. 1. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE (White River National Forest) a. Full disclosure of the Ski Mountain Master Plan and its component parts. b. Full USFS resource disclosure through the Corps EIS which were not previously disclosed in the USFS EIS work. These are: Biological evaluation of sensitive species (plant and animal) Note: These evaluations have been completed and are under final review. - Biodiversity analysis. Demand for additional skiing capacity. No new studies required. The EIS will update current capacity information and Wlrite River National Forest projections, which have proven to be accurate. - Roadless area issue and evaluation:: Eagle County Board of Coumy'Commissioners June 1, 1994 Page Three Status and disclosure of USFS -ARRA land exchange proposal. (USFS lands in East Brush Creek for ARRA lands in West Brush Creek.) - Summer recreational use of the ski mountains. - Suitability of the proposed mitigation measures and plans on USFS lands. - Visual resource analysis and assessment. - Recreation resource analysis and effects on Fulford Cave, Holy Cross Wilderness Area, Sylvan Lakc and Yeoman Park. 2. STATE OF COLORADO: Department of Natural Resources Water Conservation Board Water Quality Control Division Department of Transportation Air Quality Control Division State Historical Preservation Office. Department of Wildlife 3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4. US FISIi & WILDLIFE SERVICE 5. EAGLE COUNTY 6. TOWN OF EAGLE The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be released in early summer 1994 by the Corps of Engineers. A public hearing will be held followed by the preparation and publication of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. This process should proceed as expeditiously as possible under applicable regulations. The sdEIS is being written in such detail that minimal additional information would be expected in the Final EIS. C. The development and submittals of the Revised Adam's Rib Wetland Mitigation, Monitoring and Maintenance Plans in February, 1994.