TELLURIDE – The U.S Forest Service has rejected plans by the Crested Butte Mountain Resort to expand its area onto 276 undeveloped acres on nearby Snodgrass Mountain on the grounds that the expansion does not serve the public interest.
“It is my finding that it is not in the public interest to continue to consider development on Snodgrass Mountain any further,” wrote Charles S. Richmond, supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, in a letter to resort executives dated Nov. 5.
Richmond took several factors into consideration in making the decision, including community support and economic and social costs such as transportation impacts and increased demand for public services.
“Based on what I have heard and read, I am convinced that the community is deeply divided over the proposed development of Snodgrass Mountain,” he stated.
Additionally, Richmond cited concern that the expansion would pressure adjacent and nearby private lands to shift away from ranching toward commercial ski base and housing development, as well as environmental issues including geologic hazards, boundary management issues, and the potential loss of suitable Canada lynx habitat on the upper portions of Snodgrass Mountain.
He noted that easy access to the expanded area by the general public would be difficult to establish, and denied the resort’s ability to undergo the National Environmental Policy Act review process.
“Acceptance of your proposal would require a large commitment of both our resources and yours. In addition, local governments, stakeholders, and interested parties would need to expend time and energy engaging in the NEPA process,” wrote Richmond.
“To proceed, I must be convinced that such an effort could lead to a decision which serves the public interest and for which there is a high likelihood of success. I am not convinced of this but rather am convinced otherwise,” he continued.
“I believe that perpetuation of the debate in the NEPA process would further deepen the division that exists in the community and would likely uncover additional environmental concerns. Relationships among all interests and all parties would be taxed, if not damaged.”
“It is difficult to express the depth of our disappointment regarding this decision," CBMR president Tim Mueller said in a statement reported by the Denver Post.
Conservationists, however, couldn’t be more pleased.
“This denial is very significant,” said Rocky Smith, Forest Watch Program Director for Colorado Wild, which focuses on the protection, preservation and restoration of native plants and animals in the Southern Rocky Mountains.
Smith said that only once during his 25-year career reviewing Forest Service projects (including the Telluride Ski and Golf Company’s expansion into Prospect Basin that he opposed) has he ever seen the agency turn down a request to expand a ski area or open a new one.
“We think it’s a very good decision,” he said, adding he hopes it will start a new trend.
Sheep Mountain Alliance Director Hilary White is optimistic that the decision could influence whether Telski ultimately pursues an expansion into Upper Bear Creek, where in January the Norwood Ranger District granted the company a special use permit to begin a snow study.
While the immediate aim of the study is to arm ski patrol and search and rescue teams with better data about the terrain and snowpack in Upper Bear Creek, it will also inevitably provide Telski with information it would need were it to formally propose expanding its boundary into the area.
“We are very encouraged that in this case the good of the public was recognized with higher value than the good of a private corporation,” said White.
“We think this is a very good sign and sends a message to Telski that they should think twice before they propose an expansion plan into an area that is highly valued as pristine by the local community.”
Telski Chief Executive Officer Dave Riley remained unconcerned about the potential for the Snodgrass decision to impact a potential Bear Creek expansion.
“I think that each of these different ski areas are looked at on a case-by-case basis,” he said.
Besides, “We’re just still studying whether we’re going to propose some sort of expansion.”
http://friendsofsnodgrass.org/site_docs/gct_011305.pdf
One should read this article before one believes that CBMR was blindsided by this decision by Forest Service.
CBMR can state all they want that this isn't about the real estate, but when you publish a list like this, it shows that it obviously is, and that is probably one of the main reasons the proposed expansion ultimately got denied.
It's almost as if a pro Iraq war booster walked up to your restaurant and demanded you change your menu items to state that you have "freedom fries" or "freedom toast" ... otherwise, you'll be on a list of subversives.
I thought this quote from the Crested Butte News was very interesting:
-------------------------------------------
CBMR chief operating officer Ken Stone said both the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and the Colorado Ski Country organizations have lined up in support of CBMR getting the Snodgrass plan into the NEPA process.
“They are worried with the precedent set by the decision,” said Stone.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.crestedbuttenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1994&Itemid=40
He should be worried, maybe the NFS will now require more compelling reasons to grant expansion considerations.
Nonetheless, I'd still be willing to trade you Riley to get Ken Stone back.
Many folks complain that our ski area doesn't even have a cafeteria at the base area for folks to warm up in and eat a sack lunch. Quite possibly the only resort in the world that can make such a claim and yet the Mullers (owners), for 3 years have failed to build one and then complain that their skier visits are not rising.
There is an uproar in CB now from the pro-development side. They are organizing a boycott of all businesses who do not go on the record as pro-development. While at the same time arguing that they are the pro-economy faction.
As a business owner, I'm a bit worried because the economy is definitely hammering me right now. But I feel in the longer term, CB will be better off with more close-by areas left untouched. In the future, these area's will play an increasing role in why people visit CB and ultimately end up eating at my restaurant.
I believe most die-hard skiers & riders here would agree there's currently a great balance of quality to quantity with respect to terrain profiles. A Bear Creek expansion will unquestionably ruin the quality aspect of the equation by effectively removing the BC powder stash. This simply can't be argued. Please spare us the "I can do more laps with a lift" routine ... since what used to be a stash that lasts for days will be reduced to the all too well known "powder hour" ... along with may closures for control work. Moreover, future capital expenses will only increase lift access fees to public lands and effectively exclude more and more U.S. citizens from gaining access to what is currently freely availably.
This is all aside from the issue of placing thousands of tons of steel, electricity, and deisel into a very unique high alpine environment ... which year round visitors to THEIR National Forest will encounter.
I too am overjoyed with Forest Service Sup. Charlie Richmond's decision and agree, common sense has prevailed.
Maybe there might be a collaborative effort to mobilize effective opposition to possible future ill conceived expansion efforts.
As for the ski area, CBMR, they are not accepting the decision and vowing to fight. Their first public move was to hold a rally on Nov. 13th at a local restaurant/bar. They had a petition signing table manned by three young ladies. If you signed the petition, you received free drink ticket. Old habits die hard.
But, if lifts did happen back there, I'd be into just a lift corridor and nothing else fanning from it that would go straight over to the silverton ski area. That way you could take the "highway" following the lift lines and just hike off from wherever you wanted to. Avalanches would be a bitch though. You could figure out all paths that affect the lift line and control those and leave everything else alone. A few people would probably die but doesn't that happen in europe already? Why not here? It would be good natural selection. What do I know, I'm just a dumb bavarian.
It's interesting to hear Riley claim to be unconcerned and apparently "playing it off" as if this is just some sort of experiment at the moment. I suppose he's playing right, since given the CB decision, the most prudent pathway now would to be keep the expansion as officially quiet as possible until it launches into the NEPA process ... so as it doesn't get taken out first.
Well, the CB decision demonstrated how constructive opposition -- from the get go -- can be effective in derailing what might otherwise be a streamlined track for approvals. In other words, even though Telski might officially still be conducting "experiments", there's nothing stopping citizens, businesses, government agencies, etc. from writing letters to the NFS now before it's too late.