Taking a “Leap of Faith”
with Public Lands
Friends of Snodgrass Mountain, LLC
Friends of Snodgrass Mountain
1,400-and-counting
Business Owners, Second Homeowners, Workers, College Students,
Retirees, Elected Officials, Families, Visitors
67 % Gunnison County
14 % Colorado visitors
19 % Out-of-State visitors
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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 Demographics
Colorado Ski Country USA
- Mountain Stats -1994/95 - 2006/07
- Colorado Skier Visits - 1994/95 - 2006/07
CBMR
- 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 map
USFS
- 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 - 1996
Colorado Division of Local Government
- Colorado Population Growth
Colorado Department of Revenue
- Colorado Retail Sales and Sales Tax Summaries
Colorado Tourism Office
- Longwoods Colorado 2005 Visitors Profile Study
Gunnison County Comprehensive Plan
- County Focus Groups
Gunnison County Tourism Association
- Branding Study
Town of Crested Butte
- Annual Snowfall Records
Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory
- RMBL News
- RMBL Director Letter
- RMBL Avalanche Study, Hal Hartman & Art
Mears, 8/2005
Ski Area Management Magazine
- Where’s all the Growth - 7/2006
Crested Butte News
Denver Post
- Monarch Ski Area
Outside Magazine
- Choice Rides, March 1998
Crested Butte Land Trust
-www.cblandtrust.org
Snowsports Industries America (SIA)
Where’s Snodgrass?
Skiable Acres
Vertical
Snodgrass
CB Mtn.
260
1,209
1,450
3,062
The Snodgrass question is What is the “Highest and Best” use
of our valuable public resources?
CBMR’s proposal would:
• Eliminate or Diminish Valuable Public Benefits
• Consume Water
• Consume Energy
• Consume Government/Community time and money
EASILY-ACCESSED FREE RECREATION
WILDLIFE MIGRATION CORRIDOR
OPEN SPACE
VIEWSHED PROTECTION
RMBL BUFFER
“This expansion could have dramatic
negative effects on the Lab.”
Dr. Ian Billick, RMBL Director, 11/05
A HEALTHY MOUNTAIN ECOSYSTEM
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
CLEARCUTTING
SLOPE SHAPING & GRADING
IMPACTS FROM EXPANSION
WATER LOSS
ENERGY USE
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 Service
US EPA
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife
Colorado Dept of Wildlife
Gunnison County
City of Gunnison
Town of Crested Butte
Town of Mt Crested Butte
CB South POA
Mt CB Water & Sanitation
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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
THE REST OF THE STORY
CBMR’s “Market Share/Skier Visit Loss” due to:
Ski Free, Shorter Season, Reduced Quality
550,000
‘97/’98
Annual Skier Visits
600,000
500,000
496,000
’91/’92
400,000
300,000
400,000
‘90/’91
367,000
‘00/’01
416,000
‘07/’08
333,000
’03/’04
200,000
100,000
0
Ski Season
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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
150
100
50
0
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
150
100
50
0
• Over 11 seasons, CB was #4 and CB/Mt. CB combined was #9.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
150
100
50
0
• 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.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
300000
250000
150
100
50
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
• Most of Colorado’s 1% Skier Visit growth was at Beaver
Creek and Breckenridge.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
300000
250000
150
100
50
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
• 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.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
250
300000
200
250000
150
200000
100
150000
100000
50
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
• 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
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
250
200
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
300000
250000
150
100
50
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
• 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.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
250
300000
200
250000
150
200000
100
150000
100000
50
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
Skiable Acres Added '95 - '07
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
• CBMR used percentages for comparison.
• These Graphs compare actual Visits and
Acres.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
250
300000
200
250000
150
200000
100
150000
100000
50
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
Skiable Acres Added '95 - '07
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
• 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.
Sales Tax % Growth '95 - '07
Skier Visit Change '95 - '07
350000
250
300000
200
250000
150
200000
100
150000
100000
50
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
Skiable Acres Added '95 - '07
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
• 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.
Sales Tax % Growth '95-'07
Skier Visit Change '95-'07
350000
250
300000
200
250000
150
200000
100
150000
100000
50
50000
0
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
Skiable Acres Added '95-'07
Total Acres 2007
4000
6000
3500
5000
3000
2500
2000
1500
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
500
0
0
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?
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.
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com
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 that
would have substantial influence in the USFS Final Decision.
Thank You !
friendsofsnodgrassmountain@gmail.com
www.ColoradoAerialViews.com