Outcry ensues over Snodgrass decision
Citizens rally, call for proposal to move forward
Times Staff Writer
Originally published 2009-11-19



Residents of the Gunnison Valley are voicing outrage at a recent U.S. Forest Service decision that seemingly has shot down hopes of ever expanding lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass Mountain near Crested Butte.

An estimated 300 area residents turned out for a pro-Snodgrass rally this past Friday at Maxwell’s restaurant in Crested Butte. They were prompted by the recent decision denying Crested Butte Mountain Resort’s proposal from being accepted into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Supervisor Charlie Richmond sent a letter to CBMR two weeks ago, notifying the resort of the denial.

In response, e-mail chains began rattling, a Facebook page was formed and residents both in favor of Snodgrass expansion and those undecided began gathering amidst calls to action.

“I think what’s happening is pretty exciting, that people are finally coming out of the woodwork, which should have happened a long time ago,” said Eric Roemer, a Crested Butte businessman of 38 years.

“We’re all looking at it going, ‘You know what? They didn’t listen,’” said Crested Butte’s Kristi Hargrove. “They listened to a small, vocal group that utilized a lot of voices of tourists and people who visit the area — not those of us who make our living here.”

A petition is now being circulated, and Crested Butte-area realtor Darci Gillespie — who formed the “Friends of Ski Lifts on Snodgrass” Facebook page — reported that there’s interest initiating a “Citizens for NEPA” group, though nothing official has yet taken place.

The Crested Butte/Mt. Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce launched a survey late last week in hopes of gauging local sentiment over Snodgrass entering NEPA (see text inset).

Chamber Executive Director Richard Bond said that after less than 24 hours, the survey had to be taken down temporarily from the group’s Web site because “we were swamped with responses.”

Richmond’s letter cited a lack of sufficient public support as part of the reason for denial.

Many locals believe they weren’t offered an opportunity to see plans in enough depth to weigh in on the proposal — or even to take a position — and that the sort of detail they hoped to see would only have been offered through NEPA.

Snodgrass opponents, however, are holding fast to their stance and view the Forest Service decision as both fair and warranted.

Mt. Crested Butte Town Councilman Dave Clayton said a group of mostly area leaders met as early as last Wednesday to begin discussing possible courses of action.

The idea for Friday’s meeting came out of it, and some have undertaken writing legislative representatives and Forest Service officials, calling for a reversal of the decision.

“I felt that the due process of having the public involved in the decision was somehow short-circuited,” Clayton said. “We didn’t get to see the plans laid out and make comments about them.”

Some have a different take.

High Country Citizens’ Alliance (HCCA) Executive Director Dan Morse said that the group has looked at the Forest Service’s denial letter and the applicable sections of the code of federal regulations as well as policies that guide such decisions, and believes that the agency has followed the appropriate, required procedures in reaching its decision.

“NEPA, as it’s designed and currently used by the land management agencies, is intended to identify alternative ways of implementing a project, disclose likely impacts of those alternatives and identify mitigations for those impacts that would make the project acceptable,” Morse explained. “It is not designed, as many think it is, to make ‘yes or no’ decisions on a project.”

Because of that, there have been very few, if any, decisions where a project like a ski area expansion has entered NEPA and not ultimately been approved, he added.

In March of last year, HCCA issued a statement indicating that it did not support expanding lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass. HCCA indicated that there was a lack of evidence that the geologic risk of ski area expansion could be mitigated in an acceptable fashion. The group also cited concerns over water and snow availability; skepticism over purported economic benefits; a belief that public sentiment had not been adequately assessed; and questioned the wisdom of trying to keep a relatively low-elevation, south-facing slope covered with snow amidst concerns over climate change and less availability of water in the West.

“We’re pleased with the decision but we’re also sensitive to our neighbors who don’t agree with the decision,” said Chuck Shaw on behalf of the Friends of Snodgrass Mountain opposition group.

The Forest Service had begun soliciting comments from the public over Snodgrass years ago. And in early 2006, Richmond noted publicly the importance of addressing the “major issues” before entering the NEPA process.

But Clayton noted that the official Snodgrass application wasn’t submitted until early this year, which made it difficult for government bodies like the Town of Mt. Crested Butte to offer anything other than support for entering NEPA.

And Snodgrass proponents — or at least proponents for the project entering NEPA — believe that the Forest Service’s decision did not accurately reflect the wishes of most community members.

“I’m not saying I can sit here and tell you 100 percent that Snodgrass is perfect, but dog gone it, let’s go through the process,” said Hargrove.

Some locals who have criticized the Forest Service decision speculate that other, unnamed factors — including, possibly, higher ranking officials — may have played into the decision.

Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables did not respond to a request to address those claims as of press time.

Meanwhile, CBMR officials were trying to rally supportive troops to caravan to Lakewood, where Cables and the Forest Service’s regional offices are located, to stage a protest.  

 

(Will Shoemaker can be contacted at 970.641.1414 or will@gunnisontimes.com)