Objection resolution meeting for proposed Eldora expansion leaves many feeling unresolved
Despite more than three hours of discussion, folks opposed to the proposed expansion of Eldora Mountain Resort walked away from a July 17 objection resolution meeting with little sense of resolve.
The meeting was intended to give objectors and Forest Service employees a chance to identify opportunities for compromise. However, attendees expressed disappointment with the process.
“It was a rather poorly run meeting,” says Dave Hallock, an Eldora resident and coordinator for the Middle Boulder Creek Coalition. “First of all, it was held up in Fort Collins, whereas most of the people involved in [the objection process] live in Boulder, Nederland, Eldora.”
While the Forest Service did provide a number to call into the meeting, an incorrect number was provided in a letter informing people of the meeting, leading many to miss some, if not all of all, of the discussion. To complicate matters, Forest Service protocol for the objection process allows only “lead objectors” — someone identified by their group or, if no one is identified, simply the first qualified name listed in a multiple person objection — to make comments for their respective groups. As a phone-in participant, the lead objector for the Middle Boulder Creek Coalition was not present at the start of the meeting. Hallock says the invitation letter made no mention of the rule about lead objectors.
“Those of us who were there objected to that [protocol], so the Forest Service group had to leave the room, convene their own little meeting, and then they came back and allowed everyone else to speak,” Hallock says.
Chris Strebig, media office spokesperson for the Forest Service Rocky Mountain region, says that the lead objector rule is intended to create efficiency in a process that has limited time.
“However, once we heard very clearly that people wanted to be able to talk about the issues, not just from the lead objector point of view, the Forest Service stated that they would change that and said, ‘We want to hear from you.’ We did adapt to hear from people,” Strebig says.
Middle Boulder Creek Coalition and Sierra Club Indian Peaks Group filed a 69-page objection to the expansion of the local ski resort in May, claiming the Forest Service didn’t fully evaluate alternative actions that would limit negative impacts on the environment and local quality of life. The proposal calls for two new lifts ( Jolly Jug and Placer), as well as replacements for three existing lifts, and the resort’s boundary would expand about 70 acres north and 18 acres south.
Opponents’ concerns center on environmental impacts, including the resort’s expansion toward Hessie trailhead, where a critical wildlife migration corridor exists, as well as southward expansion that would affect recreational access to the Jenny Creek Trail (causing snowshoers and cross country skiers to pass through four ski runs and the Jolly Jug Glades to access the trailhead).
Opponents say the ski resort could meet most of its expansion goals within its current boundaries.
The objection meeting primarily focused on three areas where the Forest Service saw opportunities for potential resolution: making the proposed Middle Boulder Creek bridge temporary (and removing it after construction); reducing the proposed ski area boundary; and addressing recreational access to Jenny Creek Trail.
Hallock says objector opinions were mixed: Most objectors felt an “infill” alternative — using the space Eldora already has — is the only resolution. Others felt a slight expansion of Jolly Jug is acceptable as long as it doesn’t extend to Jenny Creek. Others adamantly opposed to any compromise that would allow expansion towards Jenny Creek in exchange for protecting Middle Boulder Creek.
There was no final answer on what will happen with the expansion, but Forest Service staff will take points made from the meeting back to Eldora ski area as well as the National Ski Area Association for further discussion — these meetings will not be open to the public. Hallock says objectors present at the July 17 meeting asked to have another meeting, but Forest Supervisor Glenn Casamassa gave no definitive answer on whether that would take place.
A response letter from Forest Service reviewing official Dan McCusker will be sent to all 36 objectors this month. Strebig says that letter looks at whether the Forest Service conducted appropriate analysis and followed policy and laws in the expansion planning process. Glen Casamassa, the forest supervisor, will ultimately sign a record of decision that will determine the expansion, but Strebig says he can’t give a timeframe for when that will happen.
Hallock says he still feels that concerns over the expansion are being ignored.
“It’s the same thing over and over again: We don’t feel like the Forest Service is listening to Boulder County, they are not listening to Nederlands Parks and Recreation Open Space Advisory Board … you have a pretty unifed group saying the same thing: the expansion, particularly down the backside toward Boulder Creek, is not a good idea and they are simply ignoring that.”
—Caitlin Rockett
Rep. Polis works to strengthen civil rights protection for LGBT Americans
On July 23, Rep. Jared Polis (D – Boulder) is set to announce a bill that aims to provide legal protection for gay, lesbian and transgender Americans under the Civil Rights Act.
“It adds sexual orientation and gender identity to race and gender as protected classes [under the Civil Rights Act],” Polis says. “Some people think it already is [a protected class] — they are wrong. It’s not, federally. Some states, like Colorado, have employment nondiscrimination laws for LGBT Americans, but it’s not a protected class nationally at all, and so we’ll change that.”
The new bill adds to Rep. Polis’ recent work to protect LGBT Americans. Last week Polis joined more than 60 other representatives in signing a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan asking that the Department of Education make lasting efforts to protect LGBT students from discrimination and bullying.
The letter cited data from the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network’s most recent school climate survey, which found about three-quarters of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 49 percent reported being bullied over the Internet. More than one-third reported being physically harassed or assaulted.
The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights announced last year that Title IX — which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities — also prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Obama administration openly embraced the announcement. However, Polis says it’s not enough.
“Now, while it’s wonderful progress that the president and the administration has embraced that approval, which gives a powerful anti-bully tool to students and schools and to states, it’s only as good as the current president. So it’s not permanent. It’s always subject to reinterpretation by future civil rights divisions, by future presidents,” Polis says. “Evoking Title IX is a very positive step, but to make it permanent in statute, we have to amend the civil rights law to include LGBT Americans.”
—Caitlin Rockett
