Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain,

Taking a “Leap of Faith”with Public Lands

Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC

www.ColoradoAerialViews.com

Friends of Snodgrass Mountain1,400-and-counting

Business Owners, Second Homeowners, Workers, College Students, Retirees, Elected Officials, Families, Visitors

67 % Gunnison County14 % Colorado visitors19 % Out-of-State visitors

National Ski Areas Association - Model for Growth - 2000 - Ski Industry Skier Visits 1978/79 - 2006/07 - 2006/07 Ski Resort Ind. Research Compendium - 2005/06 Economic Analysis of US Ski Areas - NSAA Journal – Future DemographicsColorado Ski Country USA - Mountain Stats -1994/95 - 2006/07 - Colorado Skier Visits - 1994/95 - 2006/07CBMR - Crested Butte Mtn. MIP 2007 - Snodgrass Mtn Master Plan Status & Preliminary Concept Plan - 9/2004 - Snodgrass Mtn Conceptual Program Summary Master Development Plan - Draft 2000 - Snodgrass Mtn Conceptual Program Summary -1980 - EA of Proposed Improvements - CB Mtn -

12/1997 - Plan Amendment - 1990 - www.cbliving.com - CBMR trail mapUSFS - Downhill Skiing Needs assessment - 9/2005 - Snodgrass Mtn Geologic Hazard Assessment & Geotechnical Risk Report - 10/2005 - Snodgrass Mtn Geologic Hazards Technical Report - 10/2006

USGS - Geologic Hazard Report - 1996Colorado Division of Local Government - Colorado Population GrowthColorado Department of Revenue - Colorado Retail Sales and Sales Tax SummariesColorado Tourism Office - Longwoods Colorado 2005 Visitors Profile StudyGunnison County Comprehensive Plan - County Focus GroupsGunnison County Tourism Association - Branding StudyTown of Crested Butte - Annual Snowfall RecordsRocky Mountain Biological Laboratory - RMBL News - RMBL Director Letter - RMBL Avalanche Study, Hal Hartman & Art Mears, 8/2005Ski Area Management Magazine - Where’s all the Growth - 7/2006Crested Butte NewsDenver Post - Monarch Ski Area Outside Magazine - Choice Rides, March 1998Crested Butte Land Trust -www.cblandtrust.orgSnowsports Industries America (SIA)

Vicki Shaw

Where’s Snodgrass?

Snodgrass CB Mtn.Skiable Acres 260 1,209Vertical 1,450 3,062

The Snodgrass question is -

What is the “Highest and Best” useof our valuable public resources?

CBMR’s proposal would:

• Eliminate or Diminish Valuable Public Benefits

• Consume Water

• Consume Energy

• Consume Government/Community time and money

RMBL BUFFER

EASILY-ACCESSED FREE RECREATION

A HEALTHY MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM

“This expansion could have dramatic negative effects on the Lab.” Dr. Ian Billick, RMBL Director, 11/05

WILDLIFE MIGRATION CORRIDOR

OPEN SPACEVIEWSHED PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM EXPANSION

“No other prescription directly results in more stream-water depletion, wetland impacts, air pollution, permanent vegetation change, or permanent habitat loss (than ski area expansion).”

Cynthia Cody, U.S. EPA Director, Denver Ecosystems Protection Program

IMPACTS FROM EXPANSION

WATER LOSS ENERGY USE

CLEARCUTTING SLOPE SHAPING & GRADING

INCREASED AVALANCHE DANGER

Threats to Public Safety & Private

Property


NEPA MEANS:Consumption of Limited Public Resources -

• Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Gunnison County 1041 Review • Joint Review Process ? • Time away from important community priorities

US Forest ServiceUS EPAUS Army Corps of EngineersUS Fish and WildlifeColorado Dept of WildlifeGunnison CountyCity of GunnisonTown of Crested ButteTown of Mt Crested ButteCB South POAMt CB Water & Sanitation

Given the

BENEFITS LOST,

the DAMAGE DONE

and the

RESOURCES CONSUMED

Why expand onto Snodgrass?

CBMR says:

•CBMR Has Unique Problems:- “Precipitous Drop” in Market Share & Skier Visits

- Fewer “Paid Skier Visits”

CBMR says:



•The “Mountain Business is Strong” Elsewhere

CBMR says:



•The “Mountain Business is Strong” Elsewhere

•A Snodgrass Expansion would:- Increase Skier Visits

- Improve Our Economy

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

400,000‘90/’91

496,000’91/’92

550,000‘97/’98

367,000‘00/’01 333,000

’03/’04

416,000‘07/’08

Ski Season

Annu

al S

kier

Vis

itsTHE REST OF THE STORY

CBMR’s “Market Share/Skier Visit Loss” due to:Ski Free, Shorter Season, Reduced Quality

Management Actions, Not Market Forces

THE REST OF THE REST OF THE STORY

CBMR Says . . .

• Their ‘Paid Visits’ have declined to +/- 55%, However . . .

• NSAA – “Visits attributable to paid tickets declined to 58.7% nationally this season. . . .”

Ski Industry Trend, Not CBMR phenomenon

CBMR Says:

“The number one reason for expanding to Snodgrass is to. . . bring more skiers.”

“Expansion onto Snodgrass Mountain . . . Is a substantial tool for an improved economy.”

Dozens of previous Colorado Expansions

Provide Ample Evidence . .

Colorado Terrain Expansions vs Skier Visits. . .

• Skiable Acreage grew > 53% (13,000 acres)

1995/96 – 2006/07

Colorado Terrain Expansions vs Skier Visits. . .:


• Skier Visits grew < 1%/year (10% in 11 seasons)

1995/96 – 2006/07




- Mainly Front Range - Beaver Creek and Breckenridge

1995/96 – 2006/07




- Mainly Front Range - Beaver Creek and Breckenridge

- Season Pass Use, Not “Paid Visits”

USFS: “Discounted season passes are attracting existing skiers to ski more often, rather than attracting new (participants) to the sport.”

1995/96 – 2006/07

Experts Express Concerns about the ski industry’s growth potential:

Colorado Tourism Office: ”The main barrier to repeat visitation continues to be the cost factors. . . that. . . inhibit travel, including significantly higher fuel prices, rising room rates, an uncertain economic outlook, and the national trend towards shorter duration trips.”



Ski Area Management (SAM) magazine: “The NSAA’s Growth Initiative is not working . . . We’re not pulling in new participants.”




NSAA: “The Rocky Mountains will experience a very modest 5.8% (<.4%/year) gain in visitation between 2004/2005 and 2019/2020.”




NSAA: “The Rocky Mountains will experience a very modest 5.8% (<.4%/year) gain in visitation between 2004/2005 and 2019/2020.”

USFS: ”It is unlikely that the Rocky Mountain region will experience any significant increase in destination visits in the foreseeable future.”

•Large terrain expansions yet little growth in visits.

•Industry experts question future growth potential.

• Have terrain expansions improved local economies?

CBMR Says:

“Snodgrass . . . is critical to rebuilding . . . a sustainable economic model

for the entire community.”

June 2008

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250

Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Over 11 seasons, CB was #4 and CB/Mt. CB combined was #9.

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Over 11 seasons, CB was #4 and CB/Mt. CB combined was #9.

• More recently (’02-’07), Crested Butte was #2 and CB/Mt CB #4.

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Most of Colorado’s 1% Skier Visit growth was at Beaver Creek and Breckenridge.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Skier Visit Change '95 - '07

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Most of Colorado’s 1% Skier Visit growth was at Beaver Creek and Breckenridge.

• Vail and Winter Park each had net losses in skier visits.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Most of Colorado’s 1% growth was at Beaver Creek and Breckenridge.• Vail and Winter Park each had net losses in skier visits.

• CBMR’s loss was due to:- Ending Ski Free- Shorter Ski Season- Poor Quality

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


• Statewide Skier Visit Growth was less than 1%/year.• Most of Colorado’s 1% growth was at Beaver Creek and Breckenridge.• Vail and Winter Park had net loss in skier visits.• CBMR’s loss was due to:

- Ending Ski Free- Shorter Ski Season- Poor Quality

• There is no apparent relationship between Sales Taxes and Skier Visits.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver C

reek

Steam

boat

Creste

d Butte

Brecke

nridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellu

ride

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Skiable Acres Added '95 - '07

• CBMR used percentages for comparison.• These Graphs compare actual Visits and Acres.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver C

reek

Steam

boat

Creste

d Butte

Brecke

nridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellu

ride

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000


• CBMR used percentages for comparison.• These Graphs compare actual Visits and Acres.• Recent and permitted additions on CB Mtn = 242 acres.• Snodgrass would = 262 acres.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver C

reek

Steam

boat

Creste

d Butte

Brecke

nridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellu

ride

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000


• These Graphs compare actual Visits and Acres.• CBMR used percents for comparison.• Recent and permitted additions on CB Mtn = 242 acres.• Snodgrass would add 262 acres.• No apparent Correlation between Terrain Expansion, Skier Visits & Sales Taxes.

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

CB/MtC

B

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

50

100

150

200

250Sales Tax % Growth '95-'07

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver C

reek

Steam

boat

Creste

d Butte

Brecke

nridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellu

ride

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Skiable Acres Added '95-'07

Keystone/D

illon

Beaver Cre

ek/Avon

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte

Breck

enridge

Copper

Winte

r Park Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Total Acres 2007

Keystone

Beaver Crk

Steamboat

Creste

d Butte Bre

ck

Copper

Winte

r Park

Vail

Aspen/S

nowmass

Tellurid

e

-150000

-100000

-50000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000Skier Visit Change '95-'07

The "Leap of Faith”

• Colorado’s Previous Terrain Expansions Have Failed to . . .-Increase Skier Visits-Improve Ski Town Economies



• Nevertheless, CBMR said on 6/9/08: - “We are assuming (expansion) will be successful.” - They ask the public to take a “Leap of faith” with our National Forests - a “Leap of Faith” that Expansion would have different results here . . .



• Nevertheless, CBMR said on 6/9/08: - “We are assuming (expansion) will be successful.” - They ask the public to take a “leap of faith” with our National Forests - A “Leap of Faith” that Expansion would have different results here . . .

Would you commit your valuable private assets to “assumptions” and “Leaps of Faith” with:

- No Business Plan? - No Realistic Performance Projections?- No Risk Disclosures? - No Means of Measurement? - No Recourse?- A History of Non-Performance?


What is "Pre-NEPA”?

GMUG Forest Supervisor Charles Richmond said:

"The Forest Service has learned that with ski area expansion, it's really important to address the main issues before you get into the NEPA phase. Too many times a ski area comes up with a proposal and the Forest Service takes it into the NEPA phase, where it gets stalled. We could get caught into the NEPA process for several years. Then it's sort of a losing proposition for all the parties involved. . . “


What is "Pre-NEPA”?

GMUG Forest Supervisor Charles Richmond identified:

Three Snodgrass pre-NEPA “Main Issues”-• Geology: under review and unresolved.• RMBL concerns: unresolved

(Increased avalanche dangers, transportation)

• Community Support: unresolved.


Federal NEPA process - the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

• Effective at evaluating alternatives, disclosing on-site impacts and defining mitigation requirements for the Physical Environment.

• Ineffective at evaluating Off-site, Socio-Economic factors.

• NEPA answers “How,” not “Why.”

Community input and direction is important.

Friends of Snodgrass Mountain request:

• Follow-up Letter to Forest Supervisor Richmond:

- In support of all pre-NEPA conditions.• Geology • RMBL concerns: increased avalanche dangers, transportation• Community Support

- In support of in-depth, third-party economic cost/benefit analyses thatwould have substantial influence in the USFS Final Decision.


Thank You !

[email protected]

Documents

Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain,