Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC Taking a “Leap...
-
Upload
destin-beauford -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of Taking a “Leap of Faith” with Public Lands Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC Taking a “Leap...
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)
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
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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:
•CBMR Has Unique Problems:- “Precipitous Drop” in Market Share & Skier Visits
- Fewer “Paid Skier Visits”
•The “Mountain Business is Strong” Elsewhere
CBMR says:
•CBMR Has Unique Problems:- “Precipitous Drop” in Market Share & Skier Visits
- Fewer “Paid Skier Visits”
•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. . .:
• Skiable Acreage grew > 53% (13,000 acres)
• Skier Visits grew < 1%/year (10% in 11 seasons)
1995/96 – 2006/07
Colorado Terrain Expansions vs Skier Visits. . .
• Skiable Acreage grew > 53% (13,000 acres)
• Skier Visits grew < 1%/year (10% in 11 seasons)
- Mainly Front Range - Beaver Creek and Breckenridge
1995/96 – 2006/07
Colorado Terrain Expansions vs Skier Visits. . .
• Skiable Acreage grew > 53% (13,000 acres)
• Skier Visits grew < 1%/year (10% in 11 seasons)
- 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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
• 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
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
Sales 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
• 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
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
Sales 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
• 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
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
Sales 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
• 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
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
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
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 . . .
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 . . .
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?
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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. . . “
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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.
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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.