Snodgrass at odds with 'public interest'
CBMR plans to fight Forest Service's denial
Times Staff Writer
Originally published 2009-11-12



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 will@gunnisontimes.com)