Eldora Mountain Resort’s attorney says ski area officials were “shocked and disappointed” at Boulder County’s suggestion that the resort consider improving its existing facilities, rather than focus on a full-on expansion.
“The county didn’t take the time to discuss and understand the issues,” said Rick Johnson, longtime attorney for Eldora. “We are very concerned with not being treated well or fairly here.”
In a 13-page letter to the U.S. Forest Service on Monday, the county commissioners wrote that the agency’s review of Eldora’s proposal to branch out either to the north or south “represents an improperly truncated review of alternatives” and lacked any “meaningful analysis” on the secondary impacts of expansion.
The commissioners, preoccupied by flood recovery work, penned that letter without having first sought community input. The Forest Service, however, granted them the option to supplement their remarks in a few weeks, so the board held an open hearing Thursday to take public comment on the matter.
“It’s obvious from reading that letter that many of these issues were prejudged,” Johnson said.
Johnson, who called Eldora the “premier” outdoor recreational facility in the county, said that, prior to Monday’s letter, the commissioners failed to engage the resort in any real dialogue about its operational concerns.
“If we don’t keep it vibrant, it will wither on the vine,” he said, adding after the hearing that the commissioners’ letter was made “in an absolute vacuum.”
Cindy Domenico, chairwoman of the Board of Commissioners, said the letter was merely a response to the environmental impact study drafted in February by the Forest Service, and it intentionally avoided discussion of recreational impact.
“Should there be an application coming forward from Eldora, that would be a whole different process,” she said after the hearing.
The Forest Service’s study, a nearly 600-page behemoth, outlines the three options now on the table for the resort.
The first option would have Eldora taking no action at all.
Alternative 2 involves an expansion to the north toward Middle Boulder Creek, and would create 15 new trails across 58 acres of additional snow-making terrain. It also requires a bridge over the creek, connecting County Road 130 to the terminal for a new six-person chairlift.
Alternative 3 would have the resort expanding south into Gilpin County, and creating 10 new trails across 52 acres.
According to the Forest Service’s projection, Alternative 2 would bring in an additional 77,432 visitors by the 10th year, and Alternative 3 would bring in 47,838. Both are expected to create an extra 560 parking spaces on private land, as well as a new 850-seat guest facility near the top of the Indian Peaks chairlift.
The majority of the roughly 20 people who gave input at Thursday’s hearing expressed support for the stance articulated in the commissioners’ letter.
“They can make things much more functional within the present boundaries,” said Payson Sheets, a University of Colorado anthropology professor, in a comment that was echoed by several other speakers, some of whom even said they love skiing Eldora but would prefer it improve existing facilities before expanding.
“I ski there, too,” Domenico said. “It’s part of our larger county community, but so is the Indian Peaks Wilderness, and so is the town of Eldora.”
The board is expected to submit a revised letter of recommendation to the Forest Service in the next three to six weeks, but Domenico said she thinks “it’ll be basically along the same lines” as Monday’s version.
Johnson is already expecting the worst.
“The decision has already been reached,” he lamented in his comment Thursday. “The damage has been done, and the dead dog is at our door.”
The Forest Service is expected to issue its ruling on Eldora’s plans early next year.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Alex Burness at 303-473-1389 or burnessa@dailycamera.com.
