WSP12136 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

20-RockyMountoin New$ Tues" Dec. 17, 1974, Denver, Colo. State planning unit wants ski area moratorium IContlnUl'd from page 8) 11.000 <hI,.elJing units - enough to house ';0,000 persons. BaSt'<.! on thf' l'stimated ';0,000 population, state 3gE'lK'il'S bl;>g:m reiLMing negatively to the devell,Jpnll"ul. The chief complaints, expressed in Septem- ber ;Iud ;'.tonda\' came from; , -The DiVIsion of Wildlife. which said the large.scall:' tkvelOpflll"nl would seriously harm deer and elk migration routes bt-twM'n summer .and \\,'inler range, destroy critical wintf'r range and infrinJ;::f' on nitieal cal....ing an'as, The divi- sion said it (,ppost's jssuanl~ of the Forest Serv. ice pcmlil. -The Division of ,\ir Pollution said pollution Im'crsion problems would limit Ilw ullimate population to a fnll'tion of the theoretical.w,OOO figure. -The Division or \'later Quality said growth In the area would probably \.iolate the "non. degradation" dause or state water quality law. TIlat provision says that slate waters which are cleaner than the state standards can't be de.. grildt>d in any way, -TIle Division of Water Resources said the developers ha'ien't provided adequatc informa- tion of propost.'d waler suppl)' - chiefly &>aver Cn~k, SiflCt" many of the water rights in thal rrgion are for irrigation, they must be adjudi- catl'd in w<ih'r courts to be converted ror municipal u:.f'. A di,'ision spokesman said the developers haven't made publiC any plans on dlvc~ion projeds they may be contemplating. -TIlt.. Watf'r Conservalion Boord said.the Forest St.'n.j('t"s firml environmental impact stalement on the eomplex was inadequate be- cause water de\'elopment projiK:'ts weren't dis- cussed. \Inrcll\'er, the board said it will soon be appropriating water from Bca\.cr Cret'k to as. sure minimum stn'am flows to sustain the fish ru.lbitat. Presumably that action will conflict with plan.'i to diwrt water from the creek for the development. Tht. Colorado Geological Sur\"('y withdrew its objl>ction.<;, 5.1ying IhNC were no serious grolog. ieal problems in the BC3\'er Creek.Avon area. The sun.ey said developt:'rs should be certain sit~by--sile geological studies are made before anv structurt'S are built, however. Thl:> Highway Departmenl s.aid the major im- pact it fore&'i.'& is the need to expand U.S. 6'1 possibly to four lanes, to accommodate increas- edtrarfle. 'fht> IK'p<lrtment of I.abor said increased emploYlllt'nt Sf'rvices probably will be llt'eded, and the State IIistorical Society said a thorough inwntory of historical ,and archeological siles should be mam- in the area. Offidals of Vail Associates took issue with relianel' on lrn- ~o,ooo population figures, They I S.1Y the rf'alily of mountain development indi-, ...ales tl1l' ultimilte "peilk day" ski population at Beaver Creek.Avon will be around 15,000 persons. I Allhough the C'ounty subdivision appro\'als would pennit developments large enough to h.1ndle 40.000 persons, Vail Associates spokes. man Robt.'rt Parker said actual development 1('\"(+. will be much lower. lie said tJl.1l Vail Associates - which controls only one of the six de\.elopments - plans to use public Iran.~port..:ltion from the Avon area to the I :>ki arPa. allevialing some automobile pollution I problerm. Also, the ctlmpany plans to impose restrictions on fll'eplace use. another key factor in mt)wltain valle)" air pollution. Officials from Eagle County told the commis- sion they've bef>n working ','..ith Vail Associates for several years on the de\.elopnwnt proposal After many public hearings. the county ap- proved the plans in al'(:ordance with Colorado law'S.theofficials said. Fon>st Service official Thomas EVans, who runs the White River :>Jational Forest. praised thl' "thorough and sens-ith.e" planning the Vail. A~sociat('S has done on the project. He pledged' Ctmtmucd federal support in soh'ing the prob- lems. 0444