Dear Editor,

Nederland desires to annex the private lands that comprise Eldora Ski area. Nederland has stated their main reasons for annexing the ski area are to get the sales taxes from the business and to control land use—they would not be subject to County land use regulations, which are generally more restrictive than Nederland's.

Annexation usually occurs with private land that is adjacent to the town. In this case, it appears that Nederland will try and do what is called a "flagpole" annexation, where they use a county road to obtain contiguity. They will likely use the first section of County Road (CR) 130 (the road that goes past the high school) and all of CR 140 (a ski road) to get the connection—a "flagpole" of almost three miles.

Flagpole annexations go against the basic foundation of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, which is to contain urban types of development in and around existing towns and cities.

In this case, Nederland wants to annex a recreational facility. If the ski area was to stay much as it is today, annexation may not be a problem. But the town has the potential to create new development rights.

Can we assure at this point in time that there will be minimal residential and commercial development? Some housing for ski area employees has been discussed and could be OK. But at what point does the ski area become less about recreation and more about development?

If more winters like the current one become more the norm, at what point will the town see urban development as a way to make things work financially? Then there are the other private lands along the path of annexation, particularly the lands on the south side of Spencer Mountain above Peterson Lake. Would the town allow annexation and development of these lands?

I am not in favor of annexation of the ski area by Nederland—continued land use control by Boulder County is a better path to retain the area as rural. But if annexation does occur, is there a way to assure that the ski area and surrounding lands do not become "West Nederland"? If there is, this would be the right time to assure minimal residential and commercial development at the ski area.

It appears that there is interest to explore increased summer use at the ski area—biking and hiking use of the cross-country ski trails and maybe public land access to Jenny Creek and the Indian Peaks. But a current ecological benefit of the ski area having limited summer activities is that it functions as good spring-through-fall habitat for large to mid-sized animals. Few people are present throughout the property during these months.

The Nederland landscape has a fairly mature summer and fall recreation scene: Indian Peaks Wilderness, West Magnolia, Magnolia Trails, Caribou Ranch Open Space, Hessie and Fourth of July, Mud Lake, Caribou Townsite, vehicular traffic on the Peak to Peak (particularly during leaf-peeper season). Is opening the ski area for summer use going to shift and possibly reduce recreation levels in other parts of the landscape or will it just bring more people to the area for recreation?

Summer and fall are the times businesses in Nederland do well. Will summer recreation really make a difference, or just add to congestion?

The return of night skiing has been mentioned. The community of Eldora lived through a period of night skiing in the earlier days of the ski area. The night lights of the ski area would light up the valley.

Should the ski area go back to night skiing? Or should we have a "dark skies" ski area, which is what it is today? Night lighting makes it difficult for nocturnal animals, such a owls, to hunt at night.

In closing, I wonder if there is a way to have a truly sustainable ski area. Ski areas are actively working to achieve carbon footprint sustainability. But ski areas are not as good in minimizing the expansion of their physical footprint—each physical expansion results in unmitigated habitat loss. Maybe there is an opportunity here to create a fully sustainable ski resort.

Dave Hallock

Middle Boulder Creek Coalition