|
Gunnison Country Times (Nov. 12, 2009): CBMR plans to fight Forest Service's denial
http://www.gunnisontimes.com/index.php?content=C_news&newsid=6244
U.S. Forest Service officials concluded
that expansion of lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass Mountain would not
be in the best interest of the public, stalling the highly studied,
long-planned and perpetually controversial proposal in its tracks.
Last week, a letter signed by Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Supervisor Charlie
Richmond was sent to Tim Mueller and officials with CNL — the owner of
most of Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s (CBMR) real estate. It notified
them of the decision denying entering the environmental review process
necessary to bring Snodgrass to fruition.
The decision has sent a shockwave
throughout the Gunnison Valley — from political leaders to opponents of
the project themselves.
Resort leaders are especially perplexed
over the Forest Service’s decision. And, they say, it’s a determination
they plan to fight.
A time-line created by CBMR leaders
details what they consider evidence that the project was on track to be
accepted into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
process, and that all requirements had been met.
Chuck Shaw, representing the opposition
group Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, however, said the group is pleased
with the Forest Service’s decision and believes it will help protect
the area’s recreational and environmental benefits.
CBMR has spent five years working with
the Forest Service on the proposal — which originally dates back more
than 30 years and includes at one time federal approval to place lifts
on Snodgrass. That approval was never acted upon by the resort and has
long since expired.
Most recently, the resort submitted its
revised Snodgrass proposal, following the submittal of a resort-wide
plan for development over the next 10 years.
“The indicators were all positive,” said CBMR Chief Operating Officer Ken Stone.
“That’s what I think is on the verge of
appalling,” added CBMR President Tim Mueller. “That a federal agency
would have you spend all this money, time and effort and in the end go
back on what they’d led you to believe.”
Richmond’s letter cites a lack of ample
community support, potential socioeconomic impacts, resulting
development pressure on existing land uses, geologic and other
environmental concerns, and a lack of county involvement as among the
reasons for denial.
Richmond and Forest Service staff have
sought to determine whether CBMR, in fact, had met guidelines set out
as part of a “pre-NEPA” process identified for the project.
“Out of that process, talking to my
staff and actually looking at that proposal, we just came to the
conclusion that the project just had so many negatives that we weren’t
willing to take that on as a Forest Service proposal — to defend it, to
believe in it, to own it,” Richmond said Monday.
According to the letter, he believes that the community is “deeply divided” over the Snodgrass expansion.
He cites “opposition from the Town of
Crested Butte,” and that since early this year “polarization in the
community has increased and organized opposition to development of
Snodgrass has intensified.”
Yet, Snodgrass proponents argue that
they believe the necessary support exists to at least warrant
acceptance into NEPA. CBMR leaders have cited four separate opinion
polls or surveys taken in the valley that show support for expansion
ranging from 60 to 88 percent.
The resort and Forest Service leaders
had agreed previously that in order for an official Snodgrass proposal
to be accepted into the review process, CBMR had to show that there was
general public support for the project and that geologic concerns could
be mitigated.
Richmond indicated early this year in a
letter to CBMR that geologic concerns could be mitigated, as long as
certain areas of the mountain were avoided.
“While I would prefer broader support
for what you have presented to the community, I do not find cause at
this point to deny a proposal, presuming little changes by the time you
submit it,” the letter further stated.
There’s no possibility for
administrative appeal of the decision because it’s an “unsolicited”
proposal, according to the denial letter.
CBMR leaders, however, argue that the Snodgrass proposal was, in fact, solicited.
If administrative appeal isn’t an option, Mueller suggested that litigation may be a subsequent course of action.
“We fully expect that we’ll end up in NEPA and we’ll eventually have Snodgrass,” he added.
In October, Gunnison County leaders
sent a letter to Richmond stating that because they could be conducting
a permitting process of their own as part of their newly adopted
Special Projects Development Resolution, they “cannot submit a letter
of support or opposition regarding the project.”
Richmond also cited that fact as among the reasons for denial.
The Forest Service likes “to know where
local governments are” on large projects, said Richmond. While the
county’s inability to comment was by no means the determining factor,
“it is a factor, not a huge one, but it is a factor,” said Richmond.
Additionally, there are numerous issues
— including socioeconomics and geologic hazards — raised by Richmond in
the letter that CBMR leaders believe deserve vetting as part of the
NEPA process, and should not have determined whether the project is
accepted into the process.
“That’s what NEPA’s really about,” said CBMR Vice President of Planning and Development Michael Kraatz.
(Will Shoemaker can be contacted at 970.641.1414 or
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
)
|
