Vail Daily letter: Deny road proposal |

Vail Daily letter: Deny road proposal

I am writing regarding the proposed action that includes road improvements on NFSR 774 and NFSR 780 as it relates to the proposed Berlaimont Estates inholding and residential development.

I have been using this area as a biker, hiker and hunter for more than 35 years. I have seen firsthand the effect of our increased population density on the wildlife in this area. It would be not only irresponsible but appalling for the U.S. Forest Service to grant permission to pave a road through this area.

This proposed action would include over five miles (over four on public lands) of paved road, with a county-required platform width of 26 feet, plus drainage of 3 feet on both sides. I believe the impact of such a road would have devastating effects upon the characteristic of these public lands and irreversibly impact upon the wildlife population that still frequents this area.

From a recreational standpoint, this area is frequented by a large number of people for activities ranging from running to biking to hunting. Ready access already provides these people the ability to safely enjoy Forest Service public lands relatively unhindered by the traffic and crowds, and safety issues that would certainly be brought on by a paved road of this scope.

While ownership of an inholding does guarantee reasonable access, it does not necessarily promise paved access in order to improve the possibility of easier sales of one’s private, gated development.

Anecdotally, as a hunter, I have personally witnessed the degradation of the deer, elk and grouse populations as subdivisions in Singletree, Wildridge and Cordillera Valley Club have come into play and grown, bringing with them increased numbers of people and vehicles.

And, while deer “tolerate” this encroachment to a degree, the impact upon movement and migration is undeniable. Elk, on the other hand, are intolerant of human activity and have already begun to disappear from the lower reaches of Red and White Mountain. Along with this, increasing human population and their use of adjacent Forest Service lands (as well as the disappearance of trapping and the proliferation of predators) has most certainly affected the blue (dusky) grouse population.

It also has been my experience that wherever high-end private development goes, a sense of exclusivity and entitlement goes with it, eventually leading to the exclusion of the public and the compromise of their rights to access and gain “best use” of public lands.

As the Forest Service’s decision must be based upon scientific and empirical data, market forces and today’s economy must surely come into play in the decision, as another development gone wild, then gone bust, is a very real possibility; one that would leave the area forever scarred with blacktop in a place where it just does not belong!

If people want to live in the midst of beauty, let them pay the price of a dusty drive to get there in the summer and an invigorating snowmobile ride in the winter, just as most other private property owners with mountain inholdings must do.

When it comes to private use of our public lands, people should bend to meet the needs of the land, not the other way around … especially when it is solely profit driven.

It is for these reasons that I strongly urge the Forest Service to deny any paved improvements to NFSR 774 and NFSR 780.

Howard Leavitt


Support Local Journalism

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User