You are here: home   Blogs   The GOAT Blog   Snodgrass slowdown
The GOAT Blog

Snodgrass slowdown

Document Actions
Tip Jar Donation

Your donation supports independent non-profit journalism from High Country News.

Enter amount:

$
Sarah Gilman | Nov 12, 2009 01:35 PM

As recently as this summer, it looked like Crested Butte Mountain Resort -- a ski area in western Colorado renowned for its extreme terrain -- might finally expand onto the forested slopes of uncharismatically-dubbed Snodgrass Mountain (Gusundheit!). 

The company has been pushing the expansion for decades, and a strong local opposition movement has been active for just about as long. Opponents have long been concerned that the proposal -- the most recent version of which calls for a handful of lifts and about 276 skiable acres carved out of national forest -- would cut off public access to popular backcountry skiing and snowshoe routes on Snodgrass, increase avalanche danger on other parts of the mountain and harm wildlife habitat, among other things.

Then the economy tanked. With locals scrabbling to make ends meet, it seemed resort officials might finally have their opportunity to really sell the project -- with its promise of new jobs and revenue -- to the community, as Rachel Odell Walker reported in her April, 2009, High Country News feature, "Go sell it on the mountain."

Not so much, it turns out.

On Nov. 5, Grand Mesa Uncompahgre Gunnison National Forest Supervisor Charles Richmond rejected the resort's expansion proposal and request for federal environmental review. Several factors contributed to the decision, Richmond wrote in a letter to ski area officials, including intense public opposition to the project, its potential to max out local public services and infrastructure, the development pressure it could bring to bear on neighboring private lands, potential avalanche problems, potential impacts to Canada lynx habitat, and not least of all, "geologic hazards presented by unstable soils and unpredictable hydrology."

To proceed with consideration and approval of development which would have the social and community effects I summarize, in the face of the inherent limitations and challenges of the mountain, considering potential environmental effects we already know of, without the clear support of the affected community, would not be in the public interest.

Pretty much everyone in the community, including the opposition, was shocked, with reactions ranging "from 'Wow' to 'Whoa,'" reports the Crested Butte News. CBMR officials pointed out in a press release that the Forest Service had approved public-lands expansion plans for other ski areas, including Vail, despite fiercely divided communities. “But the Forest Service made the decision whether to approve (those expansions) after conducting a public (National Environmental Policy Act) process and asking the public comment on objective studies on a draft and final EIS,” the press release states. “The decision to reject the Snodgrass proposal comes after five years and before public vetting of the project.”

But, as the News reports:

Despite the fact that the Forest Service has “allocated” Snodgrass as an appropriate place for downhill skiing, and (the fact that) it is part of the CBMR Special Use Permit boundary, “There was never any guarantee to approve a project on that mountain,” Richmond emphasized. He said the agency is more and more using the type of “pre-NEPA” process CBMR has gone through. “With these big projects in particular, we are saying it is up to the proponent to get the public support and work through the list of potential problems before going into NEPA,” he explained. “Once it’s in NEPA, it becomes a Forest Service project that we have to defend. This was a project I wasn’t willing to take on and defend.”

Most in CB elated with decision
CB area local
CB area local
Nov 28, 2009 01:37 PM
This ski proposal was doomed from the start. Bad location (45 min. from base area), bad snow, limited snowmaking capabilities, and terrain that was not worth the 4-lift rides to get there (flat on top, steep middle, flat bottom).

It really was just a real estate boondoggle from the get go. Everybody knew that and only CBMR maintains otherwise. It's hard to get support for something when it's obvious you're not telling the truth.

Now all the "pro-lifters" are crying foul to the forest service and organizing an, albeit late, effort to overturn the decision. It's not surprising that 70% of 280 businesses that they've gotten to declare that they are "pro-lift" are either real estate agents or in the construction business. Very telling statistic.

Thank goodness the Forest Service recognizes that these two segments do not represent the public as a whole and that the time to change the "rubber-stamping" of ski area expansions has come.

The ski industry is not growing. It hasn't grown for 2 decades. There is enough terrain now in Colorado to support all the skiers we have now even if the industry experienced a lot of growth in the future (which most agree it won't).

My hat is off to the Forest Service. Thank you for helping keep our town's reputation as "The Last Great Ski Town" intact.

More of the same
Friend of Mt. Sunapee
Friend of Mt. Sunapee
Nov 28, 2009 10:22 PM
The Muellers own resorts where we live too and are playing the same game here. They wanted to expand Mt. Sunapee in an effort to link up some developments that they own. We formed a group opposing the taking of our state land for private real estate speculation and so far have been successful.

The Gov in our state has stated repeatedly that it's not in the public interest to give the Muellers this land. The Mueller's sued the sated of NH. The judge ruled against them. They're acting like they're going to appeal that decision.

It's refreshing to know that they haven't succeeded in Crest Butte either. At some point you'd think they'd see the writing on the wall. The death of McSkiing is happening. It's time to embrace the basics again and remember what skiing is all about, skiing, not starter-castles.
Blindsided???
Switch Sticks
Switch Sticks
Dec 02, 2009 12:03 PM
Anyone who thinks CBMR got blindsided by this decision by the Forest Service should read what their Ex-CEO and then consultant John Norton said about the "new" FS process way back in 2005.

http://friendsofsnodgrass.org/site_docs/gct_011305.pdf

That should at least clear up for you the issue of what CBMR knew and didn't know. Their cries of being a victim just don't pan out.

I applaud our forest service for denying this obviously bad expansion plan. And I applaud the friendsofsnodgrass.org webpage for educating me on a lot of interesting facts I hadn't known about the issue.
Many reasons for rejection
Jim Sosinski
Jim Sosinski
Dec 22, 2009 09:02 AM
I am happy with the Forest Service decision to help Crested Butte protect its most important resource. The town of CB is divided on this issue, no doubt. The FS has given 8 reasons why this project is not in the public interest in their letter to CBMR. Public support is but one of those reason. Nobody seems to have a problem with the other 7 reasons, so I assume that those seven are valid. That is why I believe this decision will stand the test of time.

The public was not left out of this process. Rather the public have been commenting and attending meetings and forums since 2004 (actually since 1979, since this has been going on in one form or another for 30 years). Mr. Richmond himself stated that he had received 500+ letters.
Not now on Snodgrass!!!
Hank Deutsch
Hank Deutsch
Dec 23, 2009 09:47 PM
I was there when the former and now late Forest Supervisor signed the first stage agreement re. Snodgrass expansion in the early '80's. At the time, I was public affairs staff officer for the agency. Wilkins sign the historic document at the site of the proposal with key members of the public in attendance. He did so with a unpublished profanity and hostile commentary about the opposition then. The Forest Service at the time was also deep in the quagmire of the Mt. Emmons/Ammax mine project among several other major public controversies. The process then and now depended upon a full and open debate and explorations of all alternatives by citizens and the public agencies involved. It may be reflective but it very well could be that some of the previously approved Forest Service ski area proposals were bad decisions for the "greatest good for the greatest number in the long run." They were done often with deep belief that the Nation's leading conservation management organization will do the best it can with what it is provided by the people and their elected representatives with an understanding of the limitations of the National economy and the fragile lands of the public domain.
Real Estate Gamblers
S. Merry
S. Merry
Feb 03, 2010 08:52 PM
I'm happy the forest service has protected our lands from the profitters of real estate speculation. The land that the area owners, The Mullers, want is right at the foot of the proposed real estate developement that they own. They obviously think the public is so stupid as to not put this fact together. "Give us your land and we'll provide you with 50-60 acres of intermidiate terrain that will save the entire economy of the Gunnison Valley". Give me a break.

Here's the short skinny. The Mullers bought CBMR in 2004, the real estate markets collapsed, they lost their shirts. Ask yourself, who didn't, who bought in 2004?
Appeal pending
Sarah Gilman
Sarah Gilman
Mar 16, 2010 10:24 AM
For the latest update on the CB expansion, check out Jason Blevins' new rundown in the Denver Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14682206

Email Newsletter

The West in your Inbox

Follow Us

Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Follow our RSS feeds!
  1. In the field with a Montana couple hunting wolves | Amid bitter controversy over allowing hunters and ...
  2. How right-wing emigrants conquered North Idaho | Conservative transplants largely from California h...
  3. Seeking balance in Oregon's timber country | Can logging towns and old-growth forests both thri...
  4. Save our gauges | Important USGS stream gauges imperiled by austerit...
  5. Rants from the hill: Trapping the bees | What to do when 50,000 honeybees hive up inside th...
  1. Don't mess with the Forest Service | How a determined and feisty Forest Service held of...
  2. How right-wing emigrants conquered North Idaho | Conservative transplants largely from California h...
  3. How technology detected a huge mine landslide before it happened | Employees at a Kennecott copper mine outside Salt ...
  4. Seeking balance in Oregon's timber country | Can logging towns and old-growth forests both thri...
  5. The Forest Service battles placer mining with an obscure law | A little-known 1955 law gives the Forest Service a...
More from Growth & Planning
Historic Northwest Forest Plan needs a careful overhaul The Northwest Forest Plan, no 20 years old, faces pressures new and old, with no easy fix in sight.
Help the economy: Start a fire. Expensive mega-fires have some economic upsides for local communities.
Mammoth Hot Springs and the question of density Yellowstone National Park's hot springs have become an industrial recreation site.
All Growth & Planning

Most recent from the blogs

 
© 2013 High Country News, all rights reserved. | privacy policy | terms of use | powered by Plone | site by Groundwire | design by Ryan Foster

HCN Logo High Country News in your inbox!


Sign up now to receive our weekly email newsletter!

• The best weekly collection of Western environmental news

• An at-a-glance look at our latest news and analysis


This box was designed to only appear once. It uses a "cookie" (a small file stored on your computer) to remember that it has shown the box to you.

If you are seeing this box appear multiple times, then something is not allowing the cookie to be stored properly. Browsers can be set to not allow cookies, and some people choose to disallow cookies for security reasons. If your browser is setup this way, please consider adding "www.hcn.org" as an exception to your no-cookies rule. For information about how to do this, just search the Web for "browser cookie exceptions."

If you're sure this isn't the problem, then it could be related to how your browser has stored information from our site in previous visits. Browsers often "cache" images, text and other website content in order to make them appear faster if you ever go back. Sometimes the browser's cache can be corrupted or become outdated. The simplest fix for this is to try reloading the page. If that doesn't fix the problem, it may be necessary to clear your temporary items from your browser. Again, a web search will provide you with lots of options and instructions.

Either way, we're sorry to hear that this box is getting in the way of your enjoyment of the HCN website. If you continue to have trouble, please contact our Subscriber Services team.