Keystone Ski Area Wants
Additional Snowcat-Served Area - More
Backcountry Terrain to be Degraded
Your
Letters Needed By June 12
As if its influence did not cover enough of Summit County already,
Keystone Ski resort is trying to expand its snowcat-served terrain onto
Independence and Bear Mountains in the White River National Forest.
This expansion of an already huge resort is not needed and would reduce
the quality of backcountry skiing.
Keystone is a sizable resort in eastern Summit County. Over the last
20 years, it has greatly expanded its lift-served territory. In early
2004, the Forest Service approved snowcat access to Erickson Bowl and
Little (or Bergman) Bowl, which are just above timberline and are
adjacent to the area now proposed for snowcat access.
More information...
Breckenridge
Fuels the Ski Area Expansion Arms Race
Following the White River National
Forest's April 29 re-approval of
Breckenridge Ski Resort's
proposed Peak 8 Summit Lift expand lift served skiing nearly to the top
of the Ten Mile Range at nearly
13,000 feet in altitude, Colorado Wild,
Wilderness Workshop,
Backcountry Skiers
Alliance, and a host of skiers appealed the decision. The
Forest had already approved the Peak 8 lift back in January, only to
rescind that approval in late March following our appeal filed that
month.
While the
Forest Service claimed it rescinded the decision given question about
approval authority, it seems they actually did so in order to pad the
record to better withstand our challenges, as the formal Decision
Notice, Response to Comments, and supplemental information were
significantly revised from that published in January.
Download a copy of the appeal.
In rationalizing the Peak 8 Summit Lift expansion proposal,
the Forest Service cited unspecified and highly questionable crowding
problems. Tthey claimed that 300 -500 skiers hike the area (to
the top of the Tenmile Range where the lift would be constructed) on an
average day for instance. Even though skiers that frequent the
area refute these claims, both the ski area and Forest Service refused
to validate their claims - until new information suddenly arose in the
re-approved Decision and Response to Comments (
page 8 of the appeal for instance, last
paragraph). As the Peak 8 lift would also be the
highest lift served terrain in North America, it's no secret
Breckenridge Ski Resort seeks the Peak 8 Summit lift not for any needed
recreational demand, but to out-market other ski areas by advertising
newer, bigger, and better. Competing ski areas must either face a
cut in revenue, or retaliate with an environmentally harmful expansion
of their own: in short - the ski area expansion arms race.
What
is the Ski Area Expansions Arms Race? With skier numbers
essentially flat nationwide for the past twenty
years, any ski area expansion and concomitant marketing for the limited
pool of skiers must steal skiers from other ski areas. This in
turn pressures other ski areas to also expand or otherwise “improve”
their ski area, in short, the “ski area expansion arms race”. In
approving one ski area expansion proposal after another, the Forest
Service continues to promote more and more expansions – and their
concomitant environmental damage – just so other resorts can regain the
“Newer, Bigger, Better” marketing edge. Any look at SKI or other
popular skiing magazines illustrates the
marketing of expansion terrain.
Ninety percent of ski terrain in the western U.S. is on public
lands. On the White
River National Forest (home Breckenridge and ski area icons Vail,
Aspen, and more) between 1985 and 1999, skier visitation increased 28%,
yet skier acreage
has more than doubled (a 107% increase). The trend has only grown
since then with Vail’s Blue
Sky Basin, Breckenridge’s Peak 7, and other expansions planned at
Copper
Mountain, Keystone, and Arapahoe Basin. The Forest Service
refuses to assess the nationwide impact of their policy promoting ski
area expansions despite virtually no growth in skier visitation
nationwide in two decades.
In an interview with Newsweek reporter Daniel Glick (author of the book
Powderburn), former Vail Resorts principal Leon Black described how
publicly traded ski resorts must attain a 15% return on investment to
satisfy investors. With skier numbers nationwide stagnant for two
decades, ski areas must either steal skiers from other ski areas to
increase revenue, profit from real estate sales, or horizontally
integrate by purchasing successful local businesses. The Peak 8
lift is the epitome of the former fueling the ski area arms race, where
one ski area gains a marketing edge advertising newer, bigger, and
better, only to be followed by the next resort seeking to gain it back.
Impacts of the Peak 8 Lift Swept
Under the Rug
The Peak 8 lift would likely harm an already degraded watershed in
violation of Forest Service stewardship requirements, yet the Forest
Service swept water quality concerns under the rug. The
re-approval changed all mitigation measures designed to protect
wildlife or water quality to "project design criteria", seemingly in a
bid to avoid identifying their effectiveness and feasibility as
required by law. They also
failed to assess the impacts to wildlife, only disclosing that that
lynx were using the area with the April 29 approval. Rather, the
EA and Original Response to Comments (from the original January
approval) suggested quite the opposite – that lynx would actually not
prefer to use the east side of the Ten Mile range, but the west
side. The Forest Service meanwhile failed to consider the
effects of expansion on to Peak 6 already being implied as off-piste
‘replacement’ terrain for Peak 8. Other nearby resorts have
trouble keeping similar high alpine terrain open due to wind, weather
and staffing problems. Wind, visibility, and lack of snow
problems will likely keep the Peak 8 Summit lift closed often as
well. Breckenridge Ski Area
can improve the quality of the
skiing experience by better focusing on parking, transportation, and
infrastructure issues, yet the Peak 8 Summit Lift will exacerbate these
problems by attracting more skiers through this obvious marketing
scheme.
In 2002, the White River National Forest adopted a revised Management
Plan (
Fall 2002 Newsletter,
pg. 6)
that included standards to protect alpine tundra from ski area
expansions and associated impacts. Alpine tundra vegetation
doesn’t regrow when damaged for centuries, if at all. Yet in a
major reversal in fall 2004, the Chief of the Forest Service in
Washington
DC eliminated those standards. It is likely that only with this
reversal could the Peak 8 Summit Chairlift be approved. But that
wasn't enough. Department of Agriculture (which oversees the
Forest Service) official David Tenny further eliminated standards
designed to protect lynx when the ski industry apparently objected that
the Forest Service didn't adhere meet
all of their
demands. Since the
Peak 8 Chairlift proposal has been in preparation behind closed doors
since 2003, it appears that the ski industry got their way in lobbying
the Forest Service Chief to eliminate these standards.
Colorado Wild Emptying Its
Toolbox
to Kill Proposed "Village" at Wolf Creek Ski Area
Visit
the
Friends of Wolf Creek
website
for more information and ways you can help!
Texas billionaire “Red” McCombs – co-founder of Clear Channel
Communications and owner of the Minnesota Vikings – seeks to construct
a city of 8,000 people at Wolf Creek Ski Area, one of the snowiest
spots in Colorado. The “Village” at Wolf Creek would destroy lush
meadows, alpine creeks, unspoiled backcountry recreation, and one of
the most critical wildlife corridors in the Southern Rocky
Mountains. Colorado Wild is using every tool in its toolbox to
kill this ill-conceived, widely unpopular development proposal.
Suing Mineral County
To build the development and sell expensive second homes, McCombs needs
Mineral County approval. Unable or unwilling to stand up to their
overtly pro-development attorney, Mineral County granted approval in
late October. They ignored or refused to hear the clear legal
arguments made by both Colorado Wild and
Wolf Creek Ski Area, in
addition to numerous expert consultants on water rights, snow removal,
and medical service. They likely violated state laws ensuring
access to the state highway system and requiring adequate water
supplies, as well as their own county regulations. To shut out
public input, they also did not publish notice of meetings at which
important documents such as maps of the development were made available
for the first time. With tremendous public support, Colorado Wild
and the
San Luis Valley Ecosystem
Council (SLVEC) on November 26 were forced to sue Mineral
County. On November 23, Wolf Creek Ski Area also sued over the
flawed approval.
Building Opposition and Preparing
Legal Challenge to Forest Service Access Approval
McCombs’ political connections has the Forest Service under the gun to
grant year-round access. With little regard for public concerns,
the
Rio Grande National
Forest Service published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) in October that recommends not only one, but two access
roads. Federal law requires that the Forest Service grant access
to inholdings – private property surrounded by public lands – for
“reasonable use and enjoyment.” The original 1986 land exchange –
first deemed not in the public interest, then overruled by Washington
DC insiders – envisioned just 208 units. Local governments, Wolf
Creek Ski Area, and hundreds of concerned citizens have demanded that
the Forest Service gauge what constitutes reasonable use and enjoyment
of the property. Yet the Draft EIS simply defines the developer’s
current proposal – all 2,172 units on 162 lots, 5,176 bedrooms, 4,267
parking spaces, 222,100 square feet of commercial space (over two
average Wal-Marts worth!) – as reasonable use and enjoyment (see map at
right).
Federal law also requires the Forest Service to assume responsibility
for the social and environmental impacts that its access approval makes
possible. The intense political pressure has the Forest Service
ridiculously claiming that the development would be constructed whether
or not they grant access. In other words, McCombs would use
helicopters or snowmobiles to bring in construction materials,
prospective buyers, buses, trains, electrical generating stations,
wastewater treatment plants, food, and everything else needed to
construct and operate an entire town just below the Continental
Divide. Only in so doing can the Forest Service avoid
responsibility for the clean air, water, wildlife, and other
requirements the development would violate. Should the Forest
Service concede that the development as currently envisioned would not
occur without their approval, they would have to deny access.
With a tremendous outpouring of support both locally and nationally,
Colorado Wild is generating a groundswell of opposition. An
internet technology company donated software that allows any visitor to
our website to send a fax to the Forest Service with just two clicks of
a mouse button; 1,800 as of this writing. We printed thousands of
brochures and postcards distributed by dozens of volunteers
statewide. Locally elected officials, the Town of Pagosa Springs,
Archuleta and Alamosa County, and more have joined the growing chorus
echoing concerns or outright opposition. With pressure growing,
Forest Supervisor Peter Clark granted a 30 day extension, to January 5,
for official comments. We are now shooting for over 3,000
comments in opposition to Forest Service access approval.
Meanwhile, Colorado Wild submitted a 58 page logical and legal critique
by the original Dec. 6 deadline, planning for an appeal this winter and
possibly a lawsuit by spring.
Colorado Wild Makes Gains Through
Forest Service Breach of Contract Lawsuit
To construct the development, provide utilities to the site, and
legally gain final approval from Mineral County, McCombs must also get
approval for access over National Forest lands. Back in 1999, the
Forest Service agreed to require an environmental analysis and take
public input prior to granting access in exchange for Colorado Wild
dropping its appeal over approval of ski area additional facilities
that threatened to spark development. Yet in a March 11, 2004
letter,
the Forest Service granted limited access that, in June, the developers
submitted to Mineral County to gain final approval. In September,
Colorado Wild sued for breach of contract demanding that the Forest
Service stand by its agreement. On October 21, the Forest Service
conceded that their previous letter did not “grant any right of access
on FSR 391 to any party.” Having bolstered our case against
Mineral
County, Colorado Wild voluntarily withdrew its Forest Service lawsuit
in December 2004.
Jones Gulch Wildlife Habitat
Near Keystone Ski Resort Preserved
After Summit County twice denied approval for development in a key
wildlife migration corridor adjacent to Keystone Ski Resort (
Spring 2002 Newsletter, pg. 4),
the ski area – owned by Vail Resorts – preserved the land in
perpetuity. Summit County purchased the 16.5 acre parcel within
Jones Gulch – identified by biologists as the last, best preserved
north-south wildlife migration corridor in the area – for a mere
$35,000..
