 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
In 2008, Outside Magazine voted
Crested Butte, Colorado one of the
"Best Towns in America".
Crested Butte, Colorado one of the
"Best Towns in America".
To Sunset Magazine,
Crested Butte was one of
the "Top 10 Dream Towns"
in the nation.
Crested Butte was one of
the "Top 10 Dream Towns"
in the nation.
picture courtesy of Outside Magazine
pictures courtesy of Sunset
Magazine
Magazine
The Wall Street Journal
JULY 29, 2009
Slump Mutes Call of the Wild
As Joblessness Dims Conservationist Ardor, Ski Trails Loom for Colorado Mountain
By JIM CARLTON
CRESTED BUTTE, Colo. -- The promise of new jobs amid a recession is weakening the resolve of some rural residents to keep
wildlands from development.
That dynamic is evident around this historic mining town of about 1,650, which had long opposed a ski-resort expansion from nearby
Mt. Crested Butte to the neighboring national-forest lands of Snodgrass Mountain. The proposal, which has come up several times in
the past 30 years, had been repeatedly shot down by locals concerned skiing would ruin the popular hiking and biking area.
A proposal to expand skiing from Colorado's Mt. Crested Butte resort, shown, to nearby Snodgrass Mountain is drawing wide support.
But with the downturn, the Snodgrass expansion has been resurrected -- and this time it's drawing wide support. That's because the
development would likely fuel a job surge in an area reeling from a slide in real estate and tourism. Housing prices are off as much as
20% from their 2006 peak, local officials say, while sales-tax receipts have slipped as much as 15% from 2008. Meanwhile,
unemployment in surrounding Gunnison County rose to 5.9% in June from 3.8% a year ago.
"The down economy definitely helps get people to support the expansion, because they understand the need to stimulate our ski
product to get more people to come here," says Joseph Fitzpatrick Jr., town manager of Mt. Crested Butte, at the base of the resort.
In some other Colorado towns, conservationists can't find the money they need to keep land pristine. In the Mosquito Range near
Denver, efforts keep privately-owned acreage attached to old mining claims free from development have so far failed because the
working-class area couldn't raise $5 million to put the land into a trust, says Jason Corzine of the Trust for Public Land, a San
Francisco-based environmental group.
But in southwestern Colorado, homeowners in upscale Telluride -- including actors Tom Cruise and Darryl Hannah -- raised $24.5
million in 2006 and 2007 for a local war chest of $50 million. Telluride used those funds to pay for the seizure of 570 acres of valley
floor from San Miguel Valley Corp., which had planned to develop part of it. The Colorado Supreme Court in June upheld the seizure.
Elsewhere in the country, the recession is opening up some conservation opportunities, as landowners seek to sell properties where
development is no longer economically feasible.
In Crested Butte, resort officials proposed at least three times between the late 1970s and 1994 to add the gentler terrain of
Snodgrass to their steep ski area. But local residents complained so loudly that the Forest Service, which owns the land, retreated
from allowing the application process to go through, keeping the bulldozers off Snodgrass, a pine-and aspen-covered peak of 11,145
feet.
In 2004, Vermont resort developers Tim and Diane Mueller bought the ski property and dusted off the Snodgrass plans. To reduce
controversy, they downsized the proposed expansion to 275 acres from 417 acres and spent two years holding public meetings to
muster support. CNL Lifestyle Properties Inc. has since bought Mt. Crested Butte Resort, but the Muellers continue to operate it.
Then the economy tanked. As business dried up, those who previously didn't back the Snodgrass expansion changed their minds.
"Standing still for us isn't an option in a competitive world," says Mickey Cooper, Crested Butte's former mayor and a real-estate
broker who previously was skeptical of an expansion.
Another supporter is Jon LaDuke, a local insulation and painting contractor. The 42-year-old, who previously thought the expansion
proposal was too large, says he now desperately needs more business from the development; his bookings are so slow he has
sidelined seven of 12 employees this year. "For those of us who have to generate an income here, it's not easy," he says.
In April 2008, a poll by the Crested Butte/ Mt. Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce found 60% of 134 businesses supported the
expansion. By June 2008, a poll by a local online publication in nearby Gunnison tallied 88% of 250 respondents favoring the plan.
Not everyone is sold. Crested Butte's town council in April 2008 passed a motion opposing the expansion. Alan Bernholtz, mayor of
Crested Butte, said one of his concerns is the ski area hasn't presented any evidence the Snodgrass expansion would boost tourism to
the area. "Meanwhile, there are a lot of people in my community who feel that by not expanding we will attract more people by
keeping it pristine," Mr. Bernholtz says.
Opponents also assert the resort is pushing Snodgrass to promote real-estate development. "This isn't about skiing, it's about real
estate," says Vicki Shaw, president of a group called Friends of Snodgrass.
Resort officials deny that developing Snodgrass is about real estate.
In June, Forest Service officials determined there was enough local support to accept the resort's application to begin an
environmental-review process, a key step toward regulatory approval. "Snodgrass wasn't needed as much a few years ago. But that
changed when the economy went down the drain," says Corey Wong, a spokesman for the local Forest Service office in Delta, Colo.
JULY 29, 2009
Slump Mutes Call of the Wild
As Joblessness Dims Conservationist Ardor, Ski Trails Loom for Colorado Mountain
By JIM CARLTON
CRESTED BUTTE, Colo. -- The promise of new jobs amid a recession is weakening the resolve of some rural residents to keep
wildlands from development.
That dynamic is evident around this historic mining town of about 1,650, which had long opposed a ski-resort expansion from nearby
Mt. Crested Butte to the neighboring national-forest lands of Snodgrass Mountain. The proposal, which has come up several times in
the past 30 years, had been repeatedly shot down by locals concerned skiing would ruin the popular hiking and biking area.
A proposal to expand skiing from Colorado's Mt. Crested Butte resort, shown, to nearby Snodgrass Mountain is drawing wide support.
But with the downturn, the Snodgrass expansion has been resurrected -- and this time it's drawing wide support. That's because the
development would likely fuel a job surge in an area reeling from a slide in real estate and tourism. Housing prices are off as much as
20% from their 2006 peak, local officials say, while sales-tax receipts have slipped as much as 15% from 2008. Meanwhile,
unemployment in surrounding Gunnison County rose to 5.9% in June from 3.8% a year ago.
"The down economy definitely helps get people to support the expansion, because they understand the need to stimulate our ski
product to get more people to come here," says Joseph Fitzpatrick Jr., town manager of Mt. Crested Butte, at the base of the resort.
In some other Colorado towns, conservationists can't find the money they need to keep land pristine. In the Mosquito Range near
Denver, efforts keep privately-owned acreage attached to old mining claims free from development have so far failed because the
working-class area couldn't raise $5 million to put the land into a trust, says Jason Corzine of the Trust for Public Land, a San
Francisco-based environmental group.
But in southwestern Colorado, homeowners in upscale Telluride -- including actors Tom Cruise and Darryl Hannah -- raised $24.5
million in 2006 and 2007 for a local war chest of $50 million. Telluride used those funds to pay for the seizure of 570 acres of valley
floor from San Miguel Valley Corp., which had planned to develop part of it. The Colorado Supreme Court in June upheld the seizure.
Elsewhere in the country, the recession is opening up some conservation opportunities, as landowners seek to sell properties where
development is no longer economically feasible.
In Crested Butte, resort officials proposed at least three times between the late 1970s and 1994 to add the gentler terrain of
Snodgrass to their steep ski area. But local residents complained so loudly that the Forest Service, which owns the land, retreated
from allowing the application process to go through, keeping the bulldozers off Snodgrass, a pine-and aspen-covered peak of 11,145
feet.
In 2004, Vermont resort developers Tim and Diane Mueller bought the ski property and dusted off the Snodgrass plans. To reduce
controversy, they downsized the proposed expansion to 275 acres from 417 acres and spent two years holding public meetings to
muster support. CNL Lifestyle Properties Inc. has since bought Mt. Crested Butte Resort, but the Muellers continue to operate it.
Then the economy tanked. As business dried up, those who previously didn't back the Snodgrass expansion changed their minds.
"Standing still for us isn't an option in a competitive world," says Mickey Cooper, Crested Butte's former mayor and a real-estate
broker who previously was skeptical of an expansion.
Another supporter is Jon LaDuke, a local insulation and painting contractor. The 42-year-old, who previously thought the expansion
proposal was too large, says he now desperately needs more business from the development; his bookings are so slow he has
sidelined seven of 12 employees this year. "For those of us who have to generate an income here, it's not easy," he says.
In April 2008, a poll by the Crested Butte/ Mt. Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce found 60% of 134 businesses supported the
expansion. By June 2008, a poll by a local online publication in nearby Gunnison tallied 88% of 250 respondents favoring the plan.
Not everyone is sold. Crested Butte's town council in April 2008 passed a motion opposing the expansion. Alan Bernholtz, mayor of
Crested Butte, said one of his concerns is the ski area hasn't presented any evidence the Snodgrass expansion would boost tourism to
the area. "Meanwhile, there are a lot of people in my community who feel that by not expanding we will attract more people by
keeping it pristine," Mr. Bernholtz says.
Opponents also assert the resort is pushing Snodgrass to promote real-estate development. "This isn't about skiing, it's about real
estate," says Vicki Shaw, president of a group called Friends of Snodgrass.
Resort officials deny that developing Snodgrass is about real estate.
In June, Forest Service officials determined there was enough local support to accept the resort's application to begin an
environmental-review process, a key step toward regulatory approval. "Snodgrass wasn't needed as much a few years ago. But that
changed when the economy went down the drain," says Corey Wong, a spokesman for the local Forest Service office in Delta, Colo.
Bark Beetles Spark Fear of Devastating Fire in Vail, CO
Vail feared this was the big one. A slurry bomber kept the blaze to an acre.
By David O. Williams 8/11/09 12:49 AM
VAIL — A small but scary wildfire that broke out in the national forest above West Vail Friday afternoon
perfectly underscored the ongoing debate between the state’s Department of Natural Resources and
environmentalists over Colorado’s controversial roadless rule.
Trees killed off by back beetles, like these in Summit County, scar the landscape across Colorado and
ready to go up in flames. (Creative Commons photo by vsmoothe via Flickr)
Trees killed off by back beetles, like these in Summit County, scar the landscape across Colorado,
ready to go up in flames. (Creative Commons photo by vsmoothe via Flickr)
The blaze was in a roadless area on a steep, densely wooded hillside above two Vail neighborhoods
packed with ski lodges, condos and homes in what’s known as the Wildland Urban Interface. And the
trees were mostly red and dead lodgepole pines ready to explode into an inferno in the hot summer
wind.
Nervous Vail residents feared this was the “Big One” they’ve been dreading — a massive wildfire fueled
by the state’s ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic that is estimated to have killed nearly 2 million
acres of trees statewide.
More than 50 firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and local fire
districts responded on foot, first passing through a 200-yard “defensible space” zone they’ve cleared
around town the last several years, then heading up into the parched and mostly dead forest above.
Vail ski area, usually jamming atop the gondola for Friday Afternoon Club, was forced to evacuate the
mountain while a helicopter out of Rifle started making bucket drops. Ultimately, though, it was a
slurry bomber from Grand Junction that snuffed the fire and kept it to one acre.
Defensible space zones where firefighters at least have elbow room to battle a blaze are critical, said
Department of Natural Resources deputy director Mike King, but it’s not enough. And that’s one of the
main reasons the state is pushing ahead with its own roadless rule despite mounting pressure on the
Obama administration to adopt an overarching national rule for nearly 60 million acres of roadless
national forest across the country, including 4.2 million acres in Colorado.
“[Defensible space] by itself in the face of having adjacent to a community standing dead pine trees is
not enough to protect the soils and water supplies and community infrastructure in areas like Vail and
Eagle County,” King said.
In a revised version of its draft rule first released last year, Colorado is now proposing unfettered
temporary road building up to a half mile from communities surrounded by dead and dying trees. From
a half mile to a mile and a half, roads must be part of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (as allowed
by state Senate Bill 1, which was approved last session) and determined to be high risk as defined in
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
That’s simply unacceptable to some in the environmental community. Ryan Bidwell of Colorado Wild,
for instance, supports defensible space, but not much more. In previous interviews with The Colorado
Independent, he’s said high-value places such as ski areas, parks and mountain communities should be
protected, but in more recent interviews he’s said that should not include pushing more than a half
mile into the forest.
But Vail and other ski areas want to get more aggressive in thinning and reshaping the existing forest
to reduce the fire danger and allow re-vegetation, and now a Connecticut firm is seeking a $30 million
Department of Energy grant to establish a biomass power plant in Vail that would convert chipped up
dead trees into hot water heat and electricity through a carbon-neutral process called gasification.
Temporary logging roads would in all likelihood need to be built into the Wildland Urban Interface to
mitigate fire danger and provide a sustainable fuel source for such a green-energy investment, but the
more restrictive 2001 Clinton-era roadless rule wouldn’t allow it.
However, that rule was tossed out by the Bush administration and replaced with the state-specific
petition process Colorado embarked on in 2005. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California
tossed out the Bush petition process in favor of the 2001 Clinton rule last week, but there are
conflicting decisions from 2003 and 2008 in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers
Colorado, setting aside the Clinton rule, all of which has led to ongoing legal limbo.
“There is no rule in effect in Colorado right now and our forests are subject to all kinds of
development potential because they don’t have a higher level of protection in place, and we’re much
closer to getting protection in Colorado than they are on the federal rule,” King said.
Rob Vandermark of the Pew Environment Group disagrees. He said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack’s May directive that all development decisions on roadless national forest lands must be
approved by his office provides adequate protection while the Obama administration hammers out a
national rule.
“Secretary Vilsack’s interim directive elevated all decisions on any activity in inventoried roadless
areas to his desk,” Vandermark said. “We’d expect that he would make those decisions in keeping
with Barack Obama’s stated support of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule as a U.S. Senator and
as a presidential candidate.”
While campaigning for the White House, then-Sen. Obama had this to say on the roadless issue:
“Road construction in national forests can harm fish and wildlife habitats while polluting local lakes,
rivers, and streams. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule — which was made on the basis of extensive
citizen input — protects 58.5 million acres of national forest from such harmful building. I will be proud
to support and defend it.”
Gov. Bill Ritter’s position is that he supports a national roadless rule but wants the Colorado rule
incorporated into it. King said there are other considerations such as the economic health of industries
dependant on national forest lands, including the state’s ski industry, oil and gas and mining sectors.
“We have 4.2 million acres of roadless, and the [state] task force originally recommended and Gov.
Ritter has reaffirmed that 8,200 acres spread among 13 resorts within existing ski area boundaries that
were roadless will be taken out and these ski areas will be given the ability to expand within their
permits without some of the constraints of roadless area considerations,” King said, although he
pointed out that any such expansion would still undergo rigorous National Environmental Policy Act
review.
Small chunks of national forest land would be removed from the roadless inventory at Arapahoe Basin
(1,050), Aspen Mountain (50), Beaver Creek (510), Breckenridge (150), Buttermilk (50), Copper
Mountain (720), Crested Butte (900), Durango Mountain Resort (90), Loveland, (2,990) Snowmass (80),
Ski Cooper (560), Steamboat (180) and Vail (900). But conservationists say the state’s resorts don’t
need to get bigger with demand for the sport relatively flat, charging such expansions are merely
marketing and real estate plays.
Pew Environment Group spokeswoman Elyssa Rosen said such economic imperatives are all the more
reason for a uniform national rule such as the 2001 Clinton rule: “Any state, based on pressures from
special interests, could argue that they have special circumstances — exactly the reason national policy
was developed for these national forests.”
Vail feared this was the big one. A slurry bomber kept the blaze to an acre.
By David O. Williams 8/11/09 12:49 AM
VAIL — A small but scary wildfire that broke out in the national forest above West Vail Friday afternoon
perfectly underscored the ongoing debate between the state’s Department of Natural Resources and
environmentalists over Colorado’s controversial roadless rule.
Trees killed off by back beetles, like these in Summit County, scar the landscape across Colorado and
ready to go up in flames. (Creative Commons photo by vsmoothe via Flickr)
Trees killed off by back beetles, like these in Summit County, scar the landscape across Colorado,
ready to go up in flames. (Creative Commons photo by vsmoothe via Flickr)
The blaze was in a roadless area on a steep, densely wooded hillside above two Vail neighborhoods
packed with ski lodges, condos and homes in what’s known as the Wildland Urban Interface. And the
trees were mostly red and dead lodgepole pines ready to explode into an inferno in the hot summer
wind.
Nervous Vail residents feared this was the “Big One” they’ve been dreading — a massive wildfire fueled
by the state’s ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic that is estimated to have killed nearly 2 million
acres of trees statewide.
More than 50 firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and local fire
districts responded on foot, first passing through a 200-yard “defensible space” zone they’ve cleared
around town the last several years, then heading up into the parched and mostly dead forest above.
Vail ski area, usually jamming atop the gondola for Friday Afternoon Club, was forced to evacuate the
mountain while a helicopter out of Rifle started making bucket drops. Ultimately, though, it was a
slurry bomber from Grand Junction that snuffed the fire and kept it to one acre.
Defensible space zones where firefighters at least have elbow room to battle a blaze are critical, said
Department of Natural Resources deputy director Mike King, but it’s not enough. And that’s one of the
main reasons the state is pushing ahead with its own roadless rule despite mounting pressure on the
Obama administration to adopt an overarching national rule for nearly 60 million acres of roadless
national forest across the country, including 4.2 million acres in Colorado.
“[Defensible space] by itself in the face of having adjacent to a community standing dead pine trees is
not enough to protect the soils and water supplies and community infrastructure in areas like Vail and
Eagle County,” King said.
In a revised version of its draft rule first released last year, Colorado is now proposing unfettered
temporary road building up to a half mile from communities surrounded by dead and dying trees. From
a half mile to a mile and a half, roads must be part of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (as allowed
by state Senate Bill 1, which was approved last session) and determined to be high risk as defined in
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
That’s simply unacceptable to some in the environmental community. Ryan Bidwell of Colorado Wild,
for instance, supports defensible space, but not much more. In previous interviews with The Colorado
Independent, he’s said high-value places such as ski areas, parks and mountain communities should be
protected, but in more recent interviews he’s said that should not include pushing more than a half
mile into the forest.
But Vail and other ski areas want to get more aggressive in thinning and reshaping the existing forest
to reduce the fire danger and allow re-vegetation, and now a Connecticut firm is seeking a $30 million
Department of Energy grant to establish a biomass power plant in Vail that would convert chipped up
dead trees into hot water heat and electricity through a carbon-neutral process called gasification.
Temporary logging roads would in all likelihood need to be built into the Wildland Urban Interface to
mitigate fire danger and provide a sustainable fuel source for such a green-energy investment, but the
more restrictive 2001 Clinton-era roadless rule wouldn’t allow it.
However, that rule was tossed out by the Bush administration and replaced with the state-specific
petition process Colorado embarked on in 2005. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California
tossed out the Bush petition process in favor of the 2001 Clinton rule last week, but there are
conflicting decisions from 2003 and 2008 in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers
Colorado, setting aside the Clinton rule, all of which has led to ongoing legal limbo.
“There is no rule in effect in Colorado right now and our forests are subject to all kinds of
development potential because they don’t have a higher level of protection in place, and we’re much
closer to getting protection in Colorado than they are on the federal rule,” King said.
Rob Vandermark of the Pew Environment Group disagrees. He said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack’s May directive that all development decisions on roadless national forest lands must be
approved by his office provides adequate protection while the Obama administration hammers out a
national rule.
“Secretary Vilsack’s interim directive elevated all decisions on any activity in inventoried roadless
areas to his desk,” Vandermark said. “We’d expect that he would make those decisions in keeping
with Barack Obama’s stated support of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule as a U.S. Senator and
as a presidential candidate.”
While campaigning for the White House, then-Sen. Obama had this to say on the roadless issue:
“Road construction in national forests can harm fish and wildlife habitats while polluting local lakes,
rivers, and streams. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule — which was made on the basis of extensive
citizen input — protects 58.5 million acres of national forest from such harmful building. I will be proud
to support and defend it.”
Gov. Bill Ritter’s position is that he supports a national roadless rule but wants the Colorado rule
incorporated into it. King said there are other considerations such as the economic health of industries
dependant on national forest lands, including the state’s ski industry, oil and gas and mining sectors.
“We have 4.2 million acres of roadless, and the [state] task force originally recommended and Gov.
Ritter has reaffirmed that 8,200 acres spread among 13 resorts within existing ski area boundaries that
were roadless will be taken out and these ski areas will be given the ability to expand within their
permits without some of the constraints of roadless area considerations,” King said, although he
pointed out that any such expansion would still undergo rigorous National Environmental Policy Act
review.
Small chunks of national forest land would be removed from the roadless inventory at Arapahoe Basin
(1,050), Aspen Mountain (50), Beaver Creek (510), Breckenridge (150), Buttermilk (50), Copper
Mountain (720), Crested Butte (900), Durango Mountain Resort (90), Loveland, (2,990) Snowmass (80),
Ski Cooper (560), Steamboat (180) and Vail (900). But conservationists say the state’s resorts don’t
need to get bigger with demand for the sport relatively flat, charging such expansions are merely
marketing and real estate plays.
Pew Environment Group spokeswoman Elyssa Rosen said such economic imperatives are all the more
reason for a uniform national rule such as the 2001 Clinton rule: “Any state, based on pressures from
special interests, could argue that they have special circumstances — exactly the reason national policy
was developed for these national forests.”
Investment opportunities abound! Call me now for ideas.
Crested Butte, CO:
America's Last Ski
Town?
Click here for the
Nov 2009 Ski
Magazine article!
America's Last Ski
Town?
Click here for the
Nov 2009 Ski
Magazine article!
| 970-209-0405 |
| Crested Butte Realty |
fax (970) 349-5463
