Snodgrass Protected!

Last week, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell has upheld two lower level decisions protecting Snodgrass Mountain from an ill-planned ski area expansion. Crested Butte Mountain Resort may yet litigate the Forest Service Chief's decision, but it will have a high hurdle to overcome if it does. Read the full story at the Summit Voice or the Denver Post.
 
As Matt Reed from Crested Butte-based High Country Citizen's Alliance wrote, "This is a great day for Snodgrass Mountain and the people who care so much about it." 

Reed points out several highlights of the decision:

1. “The analysis in this appeal record, which appropriately addressed only the proposal under consideration, does not adequately support a suitability determination for any downhill skiing on Snodgrass Mountain. Such a determination should only be made through the land management planning process.”

2. “A management emphasis on downhill skiing for Snodgrass Mountain in the GMUG Forest Plan does not obligate the Forest Service to provide that opportunity. If changes in physical, social or economic conditions lead to a reassessment of suitability for a particular resource or opportunity, it is the responsibility of the Forest Supervisor to prepare an amendment to the Forest Plan.”

3. “The agency’s current schedule for land management plan revisions calls for the GMUG to update a notice of intent to prepare a forest plan revision in fiscal year 2012 and to complete the revision by fiscal year 2014. The change to the boundary of Management Area 1B that was the subject of [Pena’s] instruction could be included as part of the scheduled GMUG forest plan revision, but does not itself warrant initiation of a revision because it does not affect overall goals or uses for the entire National Forest.”

4. “I am amending the instruction to the GMUG Forest Supervisor to state: I am instructing the Forest Supervisor to fulfill the requirements of 36 CFR 251.54(e)(3) by providing guidance to the Appellant on how they should submit a proposal to provide downhill skiing on Snodgrass Mountain that the authorized officer would find acceptable and consistent with the Forest Plan. If no such alternative exists for downhill skiing on Snodgrass Mountain that is consistent with the Forest Plan, the GMUG Forest Supervisor is instructed to apply the direction in FSM 1926.5 and 1926.6 to consider whether a change to the Forest Plan is needed to reflect current suitability determinations for Snodgrass Mountain and, if so, to determine the most appropriate time and means for changing Forest Plan guidance.”

5. “The Forest Supervisor appropriately applied the screening criteria to CBMR’s proposal. The purpose of screening is to eliminate proposed uses that are unsuitable and to save the proponent and the Agency the time and expense of conducting environmental analysis of proposals that will be rejected on other grounds.”

6. “The record shows that the Forest Service repeatedly advised CBMR that evidence of general community support for the Snodgrass proposal was necessary before the proposal would be accepted as an application and subjected to environmental analysis. The comments received by the Forest Service provide no evidence of general community support or a trend toward general support for expansion. To the contrary, the more than 500 e-mails and letters sent to the Forest Service between 2007 and 2009 demonstrate that the local community is divided on the proposed Snodgrass expansion.”

Thank you and congratulations to all of you who have submitted comments during this process of decion-making and appeals.