Glades at Snowmass (file photo: ASC)

Lawsuit Halts Clearing of New Glades at Snowmass

Snowmass, CO – A lawsuit filed by an environmental organization has stopped the efforts of Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) to open new gladed ski and snowboard runs at Snowmass for this winter.

(file photo: ASC)
(file photo: ASC)

In litigation filed earlier this month in the District of Columbia, the Pinedale, Wyo.-based Ark Initiative alleges that the U.S. Forest Service improperly granted ASC officials permission to remove trees in an area on Burnt Mountain they contend the Forest Service  erroneously failed to include as an inventoried roadless area of the White River National Forest. As the plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the tree thinning that began in August, ASC has reportedly agreed to halt tree cutting and removal activities until at least Sept. 28 to allow the court time to consider the plaintiff’s request.

The litigation names the head of the Forest Service as a defendant. Although ASC was not named as a defendant, the skiing company filed a motion last week asking to intervene in the case to protect its interests. Snowmass had hoped to add 230 acres of new gladed terrain on Burnt Mountain in time for the start of the 2012-13 ski season by linking several meadows east of the Longshot run on Burnt Mountain that are popular with backcountry skiers.

RELATED STORY:  2023-24 Ski Season Summary

Because the terrain would be gated, and because the Gene Taylor’s Traverse return trail to the Two Creeks chairlift couldn’t be widened pending further Forest Service review, the new terrain would carry a black-diamond designation even though it’s of an intermediate pitch, similar to that of Longshot. The Golden Cliffs area between Longshot and the new terrain, the site of a fatal avalanche last winter, would remain permanently closed.

In an earlier case the Ark Initiative sued the Forest Service when approval was first granted ASC permission to cut trees on the disputed acreage in 2006. The court sided with the Forest Service in that case.

Leave a Reply