Mt. Crested Butte, CO – The U.S. Forest Service has notified Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) that it is denying the Colorado ski resort the ability to enter into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process with its Snodgrass Mountain expansion proposal. The decision comes after the resort has been working with the Forest Service on the Snodgrass expansion proposal for the past five years.

“I am shocked at this decision and feel blindsided,” said Mayor of Mt. Crested Butte and current President of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST), William Buck. “All indications were that the process was moving forward.”

Tim Mueller, president of Triple Peaks Resorts and CBMR, believes there was enough public support for the proposed expansion to begin an environmental analysis process under NEPA.

“It is difficult to express the depth of our disappointment regarding this decision,” said Mueller. “We have worked methodically with the U.S. Forest Service over the past five years to address concerns and meet and exceed requirements with the goal of entering into the NEPA process as so many of our competitors have done. The feedback we received from the Forest Service up to this point has been both positive and encouraging. We’ve never received any indication that an objective, fair and public process would be denied after so much time and money had been invested.”

NEPA prescribes a process by which a formal proposal is reviewed, objective studies are prepared and public comment is sought. It allows those in favor of, opposed to, and wanting to know more about the proposal to review the facts and weigh in. The NEPA process is designed to protect the public as the Forest Service is required by law to be objective, respond to public comments and explain its decision.

CBMR officials assert that throughout the process they had received clear indications from the Forest Service that all requirements for entering the process have been met. Contrary to that, however, the letter signed by Charles Richmond, Supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, speaks of his continued concerns expressed over an extended period, and cites a lack of community support for the project, increased public demands upon the forest and regional infrastructure by an increased influx of skiers, as well as unstable soil and unpredictable hydrology of the site as the basis for his agency’s decision.

“Polarization in the community has increased and organized opposition to development of Snodgrass has intensified,” Richmond wrote. “Based on what I have heard and read, I am convinced that the community is deeply divided over the proposed development of Snodgrass Mountain.”

The Snodgrass Geology Report, made public by the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey in January, raised areas of concern and CBMR indicated at that time that they would modify their Master Plan to exclude development within these areas of concern. CBMR officials said at the time that they had been told by the Forest Service that as long as the modified plan addressed the geology concerns and stayed within specified guidelines that the agency would accept the Snodgrass proposal. A modified Master Plan was submitted in May.

Mueller claims that the Forest Service recently indicated that geological studies were sufficient. In his letter, however, Richmond takes a differing view.

“Additional areas that exhibit signs of instability remain,” Richmond wrote. “These areas would require further study, perhaps resulting in further restrictions. Mitigation measures to address these unstable slopes are uncertain and may alter the mountain’s hydrology in unpredictable ways.

“Implementation of proposed mitigation measures would involve substantial disturbance of already unstable slopes and would have significant environmental effects. The potential for impacts to the lower slopes near private lands from management of water on upper slopes is unknown,” Richmond concluded.

Richmond’s letter further indicates that his decision is not subject to an administrative appeals process.

The proposed Snodgrass expansion would have increased the amount of intermediate and advanced ski and snowboard terrain at CBMR with 276 acres of skiing served by three lifts, a beginner carpet and a connector gondola from Crested Butte Mountain. This decision follows an earlier decision from the Forest Service in which they said an expansion is necessary to allow CBMR to successfully compete as a destination resort. Mueller’s company has invested over $315 million in CBMR since acquiring the resort in 2004. It was hoped that the Snodgrass Mountain terrain would broaden the ski area’s appeal to destination visitors, boosting skier visits from the current 415,000 figure to 600,000 annually.

Snodgrass Mountain is located adjacent to Crested Butte Mountain and has been designated for ski area expansion in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison Forest Plan (GMUG) since 1978, and has been included in CBMR’s special use permit since 1982. The previous ownership of CBMR received approval to develop lift served skiing on Snodgrass after going through the NEPA process in 1982.

The area is frequented by locals for backcountry skiing, hiking and mountain biking. Mueller, however, asserts that’s what the NEPA process is for.

He says that the manner in which this proposal has been dismissed is contradictory to the procedure created and endorsed by Congress. The Forest Service did not request public comments or notify the public that it was prepared to reject the Snodgrass proposal without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This precludes the objective environmental and social/economic studies that would be completed in a NEPA process, Mueller says.

Mueller pointed out that in the past few years several Colorado destination resorts on public lands have proposed similar terrain expansions to the U.S. Forest Service, including Telluride, Breckenridge, Vail, Copper Mountain, Steamboat Springs and Snowmass. In each instance, the proposed expansions received both public support and opposition, but the Forest Service made the decision whether to approve the expansion after conducting a public NEPA process and asking the public to comment on objective studies and on a draft and final EIS.