Menu
Back to News

Proposed development in Colorado could harm bighorn sheep herds

Colorado bighorn sheep

Photo credit: Dreamstime

Should a real estate developer be allowed to build housing in prime bighorn sheep habitat? In Vail, Colorado, elected officials are considering a recent proposal that would allow the construction of 73 housing units in a meadow along Interstate 70. The problem? That’s also where a particularly visible herd of bighorn sheep already “hurt by human disturbances, weak vegetation and seasonal die-off” forages during the winter, The Denver Post reports.

While developers have suggested adding a berm and trees to “shield bighorns from people,” that’s more of a loose Band-Aid than a real fix. Like many bighorn sheep herds across the West, Colorado’s native herds are on the decline and those against this development believe it will definitely cause damage to the struggling herd. 

"There unequivocally are going to be impacts. It remains to be seen whether any meaningful mitigation effort is going to have tangible benefits," said Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologist Devin Duval.

However, the issue is complicated. Vail needs close and affordable housing for resort workers. According to The Denver Post, only 20% of Vail’s 8,500 workers live in town because of how expensive it is to live there. For instance, a one-bedroom apartment costs about $1,200 and houses average $1.3 million. Yet, bighorn sheep that roam the Vail Valley have declined by 5% “of their historic numbers” and those that live east of Vail where the proposed development will be built have also declined by about 40% over the past 12 years, leaving only about 50 bighorn sheep in the decimated herd.

Triumph is the development company slated to buy the 23-acre site east of Vail, which is currently owned by Vail Resorts following a transfer of the property from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Developers have proposed to keep the 73 housing units on 5 acres, buffering “bighorns with the berm and tree-plantings” and have also proposed “to cut or burn trees adjacent to the housing” with the intention of improving the “foraging area for sheep,” The Denver Post reports.

Shop article bar

But is that enough? Those who have to make the tough decision, which could be later this month, aren’t sure. In fact, three professional wildlife biologists have been hired by the elected officials to offer insight before making their decision.

“This is one of the most viewed bighorn herds in the state. The proposed mitigation based on offsite habitat treatments may not be adequate to compensate for both forage loss and impacts of disturbance,” wrote Rick Kahn, one of these consultants. He has worked for 32 years as a Colorado wildlife manager, has organized efforts to monitor bighorn sheep and wrote the state’s bighorn sheep management plan.

“I can find absolutely no beneficial effects of this project on bighorn sheep,” Kahn wrote in a July 3 memo to Vail’s sustainability manager, according to The Denver Post. “There will be a net loss of habitat, significant human-related disturbance and the potential impacts of habitat improvement may never be fully realized. …”

Colorado Wildlife Federation director Suzanne O’Neill also weighed in on the proposal, stating that it was “quite inadequate.” She suggested that developers work with wildlife biologists to come up with a proposal that would “offset harm.”

“We have to presume that, with our state population expected to double by 2050, we’re going to have more and more of these situations,” said O’Neill. “We’re going to have conflicts between human community needs and important wildlife habitat. We need to look at them case by case early on in the process.”

6 Comments

Log in or register to post comments.

Chet K. - posted 2 months ago on 08-14-2019 12:31:43 pm
goHUNT INSIDER

@Joseph N: I don’t know the detailed history of the tract in question but I would be shocked if the land at issue was open to public access when it was owned Colorado DOT. Generally DOT property is not open to public use or recreation of any kind unless it’s a public right of way and even then it’s only for travel, so this isn’t really emblematic of the transfer of public land to private owners (a notion I also oppose).

The objectionable nature of this proposal is really more rooted in the impacts to wildlife (net of meaningful mitigation, if any) and the community’s need for affordable housing.

@ Marshall L: Not a bad thought but based on the Denver Post article linked above it seems an equally suitable tract for this development in town would be cost prohibitive ($10 million +). Theoretically the city could subsidize the development with a below market sales price but that opens up a can worms because of the lost opportunity to generate higher tax revenue on that land with a higher and more productive use (opportunity cost); if this practice was adopted by the City it could possibly result in an increase in city and property taxes to cover the shortfall which would in turn increase housing costs.

I am not a local and don’t have strong opinions on the matter but based on what I have read I would probably oppose this specific development. But that does not mean the need for affordable housing is not a real issue or that it’s the fault of Vail Resorts or developers or the rich.

joe_navari
JOSEPH N. - posted 2 months ago on 08-14-2019 08:39:55 am
Sacramento, CA
goHUNT INSIDER

"Triumph is the development company slated to buy the 23-acre site east of Vail, which is currently owned by Vail Resorts following a transfer of the property from the Colorado Department of Transportation." Another example of how states will continue to transfer public lands into private hands. Apparently, the property in questions was "transferred" to Vail Resorts and was once owned by the people of Colorado.

Tyson C. - posted 2 months ago on 08-12-2019 04:03:06 pm
Lincoln, NH
goHUNT INSIDER

It's ok, don't have to worry about the development. The wolves that are being pushed into Colorado will kill off all the sheep, deer and elk so the tree hugging unaware greeners don't have to deal with the idea of humans hunting.

Erik S. - posted 2 months ago on 08-12-2019 03:16:07 pm
goHUNT INSIDER

LOL at keep sheep away by building a berm. Here is a thought, pay your workers higher wages so they can afford to live there. Tourism and the rich always think they are higher priority than habitat and native wildlife. If/when there is a petition against the development please post up here.

Marshall L. - posted 2 months ago on 08-12-2019 10:48:09 am
Grand Junction, CO
goHUNT INSIDER

There are 363 acres owned by the town of Vail South of I-70 with nothing on it but green grass, some sand pits, and little flags stuck in holes. Could they not spare 23 acres?

travis s. - posted 2 months ago on 08-12-2019 09:57:51 am
goHUNT INSIDER

Vail Valley will get what it wants, it always does...