Low Elevation Cherry "Peak" Ski Resort Proposed for Foothills
|
Thursday, February 2, 2012 the Cache Valley Planning Commission voted to approve the proposal. There are still several hurdles that remain such as water rights and permits to drill a well; an avalanche plan that avoids impacting the wilderness, and a utility right-of-way battle with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Exhibit A - Review of wildlife study (pdf) • Exhibit B - Night skiing (pdf) • Staff Evaluation for Cherry Peak (pdf) • Cherry Peak Ski Area Comment Summary (pdf) Greetings! BRWC is leading the charge to defeat an ill-advised ski resort at the mouth of Cherry Creek Canyon. Thanks to everyone for all of your efforts up to this point! With your help, we have most certainly sent a strong message to county decision makers that helped create many new conditions to the conditional use permit. This boondoggle of a proposal goes counter to the Envision Cache Valley public process. But the struggle to save our community and this remarkably beautiful area is far from over. We need you to stay diligent. This web page and BRWC’s Facebook page is our attempt to provide you with the most current and best information possible as we move forward towards victory. Introduction"We believe this project will die for various reasons sooner or later. So, why not sooner while the developer still has his money and we still have unblemished foothills?" —BRWC On March 4, 2010, developers presented their application for a conditional use permit with Cache Valley Planning Commission to build a low elevation ski resort at the mouth of Cherry Creek Canyon. (See HJNews.com, The Park Record, and Cache Valley Daily.com) The application was withdrawn but the developer, Cherry Peak Ski Resort LLC reapplied in September 2011 and submitted a new Master Plan (32.92 MB PDF). The lots are currently owned by members of the Daines family. We understand that the developer will purchase the properties once he has secured the permits to move forward. Wildlife Study from Master Plan
|
||||||||
 |
The proposal is a parcel of private property (shaded red) squeezed between the Forest Service Mount Naomi Wilderness (shaded orange) and the Division of Wildlife Resources Richmond Wildlife Management Area (shaded yellow). | |
The proposed resort is located in the foothills above Richmond City and is zoned FR40 (one cabin per 40 acres). The zone does allow for recreational use but only to the “extent compatible with the protection of the natural and scenic resources of the forests for the benefit of present and future generations.” |
||
December, 2011 update
^index
The Cache Valley Planning Commission met on Thursday, December 1, 2011 where the commission staff presented their report and a memo about the proposal’s current status. Here are the minutes. There is no video avaliable at this time.
The commission ran out of time and didn’t allow public comment and then voted for the staff to continue and study the proposal for up to another 90 days.
There was an impressive turnout with 25 people who stood in opposition.
Some of the issues that have been resolved are:
1) The resort will need to construct a two-mile sewer line and connect to Richmond City’s system.
2) The developer contracted to purchase enough water rights to provide culinary water. The water needed to make snow doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the county and is a business concern. The resort plans to drill a well.
3) The county attorney has written a memo that claims the county has a 66-foot right-of-way on the road through the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Richmond Wildlife Management Area. DWR said They feel that hasn't been established and that it still needs to be determined. Also, that an issue remains that to change the use of the road from intermittent to 700 cars a day is a substantial change of use. To change this use will most likely trigger NEPA.
Some of the more pressing issues noted by the staff that still need to be addressed are:
1) Mitigation of impacts on wildlife and vegetation.
2) Mitigation of impacts to Richmond City roadways.
3) Additional concerns [that] have also been noted in the official and public comment.
Here is an article after that meeting:
The Herald Journal - 12/11/2011
January 2012 update
^index
In preparation for the third commission meeting, the Cache Valley Planning Commission staff "determined that the request for a conditional use permit for a ski area that includes all phases of the Cherry Peak Ski Area Master Plan, located in the Forest Recreation (FR-40) Zone is in conformance with the Cache County Ordinance and should be approved." Read the staff report here.
The commission met for the third time on January 5, 2012 (see the video here and list of speakers here) and found the council chambers with standing room only. Our voice was heard. Comments were taken but confined to information pertinent to wildlife, although some stepped outside the subject. The "Wildlife Study" was lambasted by wildlife professionals as superficial and almost exclusively a “desktop analysis” document.
Martin Bushman, from the Attorney General's office said that if DWR were to grant any type of encumbrance to allow utilities through the RWMA would require federal approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivce and would need to undertake NEPA review because of the federal funds (Pittman-Robertson) used to help purchase the property. (Citizen's Guide to the NEPA)
The council voted to continue the discussion and postpone a decision and investigate how to have an independent wildlife study completed and who will pay for the study.
The commission discussed the possible need to schedule a one agenda item meeting to address all the issues and allow adequate public comment.
The Herald Journal - 01/06/2012
Standards and criteria
^index
The commission is the "land use authority" and their decision is final pending the outcome of an appeal (17.02.070) or further legal actions. The permit DOES NOT go in front of the county council.
There are six of Cache County’s Standards and Criteria (17.06.070) that need to be addressed before the commission can approve the permit. The following three, BRWC believes have not been met and are critical in the decision.
1. The use applied for at the location proposed is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well being of the area and the county;
2. Compatibility of the proposed use with the character of the site, adjacent properties and other existing and proposed development;
3. If the planning commission determines that the standards of this section cannot be met and that adequate mitigation measures cannot be imposed to bring the use into conformity with the standards and criteria, the planning commission may deny the request for a conditional use permit. [emphasis added]
Incompatible with adjacent properties
^index
Criteria: Compatibility of the proposed use with the character of the site, adjacent properties and other existing and proposed development;
The resort would stand on a parcel of private property squeezed between the U.S. Forest Service Mount Naomi Wilderness (on the east boundary) and the Division of Wildlife Resources Richmond Wildlife Management Area (RWMA). The government defines wilderness as “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character, influence and . . . has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”
A letter from the Logan Ranger District states that, “Direct impacts to the Wilderness character can come from improved access . . . adjacent to and potentially into the Wilderness. Skiers choosing to ski outside of the resort boundaries will not be seeking a primitive experience or seeking solitude, but will be part of a commercial enterprise using adjacent slopes. Given the layout of the ski lifts, the boundary between the resort and Wilderness will be indistinguishable.”
Also of concern is the adjacent Richmond Wildlife Management Area (RWMA), created with land donated by local landowners, money from Utah hunters and anglers, and managed for the benefit of wildlife, including game birds and especially mule deer and elk that winter over in these foothills. Some of this money comes from federal Pittman-Robertson funds, an imposed excise tax on hunting equipment, which is disbursed to state wildlife management agencies.
These past investments by taxpayers, local landowners, and hunters will be diminished by the disturbances associated with construction and the operation of the ski area.
In a letter to the commission, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has confirmed that a sharp-tailed grouse lek is located on the RWMA and within a half mile of the proposed ski resort. Sharp-tailed grouse are a Utah Species of Concern and in the future could be Federally listed as an endangered or threatened species.
The buffer area needed for sharp-tailed grouse critical winter habitat extends well into the proposed development and if the project is allowed to continue could negatively impact the local population. Read more here
and here. Originally the Master Plan ommitted the sharp-tailed grouse but the study has since been amended.
The presence of a sharp-tailed grouse lek on the RWMA is an essential piece of the property’s character and value.
Wildlife professionals have called the study superficial and almost exclusively a “desktop analysis” document.
Wildlife Comments--Michael Wolfe, Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Science (PDF)
Wildlife Comments--Allison Jones, Conservation Biologist (PDF)
Letter to the editor--Michael Wolfe, Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Science
Letter to the editor--Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation
Because of this unique situation and the character and value of these adjacent lands, the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding uses and will interfere with the public’s use and enjoyment of adjoining or area properties. Therefore, the proposal is NOT eligible for a conditional use permit under Cache County’s Standards and Criteria (17.06.070).
Other issues
^index
Criteria: The use applied for at the location proposed is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility that will contribute to the general well being of the area and the county.
There is no evidence that the staff has considered the citizen well-being issue. So a decision to approve a conditional use permit can only be arbitrary and capricious.
The proposed resort needs to demonstrate financial viability to satisfy the Cache County code and criteria. The master plan claims the ski area will serve 900 weekend-holiday and 500 weekday skier visits. What is the basis for these numbers?
If the proposed resort isn't viable and goes-out-of-business, who will address the problems that remain like maintenance for the new road? Would the failure contribute to the well-being of the area?
Examples abound like the resort in Pinedale, Wyoming where "owners put nearly 10 years and millions of dollars into building the lodge, lifts and summer outfitting business. By mid-2010, they faced bankruptcy."
Could climate change and valley inversions impact resort revenues leading to financial failure? Where would you go skiing when there is an inversion and a red or yellow health alert? Learn more about health issues from the American Lung Association and American Heart Association.
"Cache Valley often has the worst air quality in the nation." Salt Lake Tribune 12/19/2011
Consulting the Utah Air Quality monitoring data for Logan over the last decade shows, on average, 15 +/- 10 red air days per ski season (Nov 15 to April 1) and 10 +/- 10 yellow air days per ski season over the last 10 years.
These days mean fewer days and reasons for skiers to safely ski at Cherry Peak (and those who do will be more likely to get sick). It reduces their number of operating days.
Will the number of rain days per season impact skier days and lift ticket sales?
On average, there are 14 rain days per ski season in Richmond. It is probably slightly lower up at the proposed ski area site but still significant.
This data was downloaded precip, snowfall, and snowdepth for the USU and Richmond rain gages from the Utah Climate Center (http://climate.usurf.usu.edu/products/data.php). The graph shows the results only include days during the ski season and days where it rains more than 0.01 inch.
Other issues that need to be addressed are:
1) Need for a larger chairlift offset from the wilderness boundary;
2) Need an avalanche control plan that is compatible with adjacent wilderness areas where explosives are not allowed;
3) Future warmer temperatures that will reduce low elevation snowpack;
For more information read the Potential Impacts of Climate Change for U.S. Wasatch Range Ski Areas.
Read detailed comments concerning these issues here:
Unaddressed Issues--David E. Rosenberg, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering (PDF)
This Google Earth image shows a motorized route that runs vertically up the hillside on the property of the proposed Cherry Peak Ski Resort. While we don’t believe this type of activity is illegal, we would like to point out one route climbs directly up an extremely steep slope.
The lower end of this is at 6,305 ft elevation at the location shown on the image and the length distance between the two marked locations is 1207 feet. This is an average slope of 28% or about one foot up for every four feet forward. At the steepest stretch, the route is 38% slope.
We have checked with the U.S. Forest Service’s A Landowner’s Guide to Building Forest Access Roads and it recommends routes do not climb directly up hillslopes and that:
• Route grades should be kept to a minimum and under good conditions a road should be under 8% grade
This type of ill-conceived route placement is irresponsible and exacerbates impacts from erosion. It is a blatant disregard for the environment. We feel this could be indicative of things to come and evidence enough to require a slope stabilization study and mitigation plan as a condition to the conditional use permit.
Write letters to the editor
^index
Letters to the editor
Submit letter to:
The Herald Journal
Submit letter to:
Salt Lake Tribune
Submit letter to:
The Utah Statesman
CONTACT: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
^index
UDWR
Box 146301
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301
Phone: 801-538-4700
Fax: 801-538-4745
DWRcomment@utah.gov
USFWS, Region 6
Connie Young-Dubovsky
PO Box 25486, DFC
Denver, CO 80225-0486
Fax: 303-236-8192
CONTACT: Cache County Planning and Zoning
^index
E-mail comments to: Chris.Harrild@cachecounty.org
Cache County Planning and Zoning
Josh Runhaar, Director of Development Services
Planning and Zoning Commission
179 North Main Street
Suite 305, Logan, UT 84321
(435) 755-1631
Office Hours Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
LETTERS to P&Z from previous proposal (pdf files)
^index
USU Assoc Prof of Economics
Richmond City position
Richmond City residents
Save Our Canyons
Winter Wildlands Alliance
Cherry Creek Water Co.
Benson Culinary Wtr Dist
Governor's Office
Cache County citizens'
Bridgerland Audubon
Nordic United
BRWC
LETTERS to P&Z from current proposal (pdf files)
^index
Richmond City letter
Richmond City engineer's letter
Logan Ranger District's letter
County Attorney's letter/public road
P&Z staff 12/2011 Report
P&Z staff 12/2011 Memo
Michael Wolfe, Emeritus Professor of Wildlife Science
BRWC's comments
DWR's comments
Western Wildlife Conservancy
Bridgerland Audubon Society
Wild Utah Project
Nordic United
Allison Jones, Conservation Biologist
USU Assoc Prof of Economics
Richmond City concerns and issues
^index
Main St. and 300 East, Richmond, 8:30 a.m. Saturday morning where developers project 200-400 vehicles will pass by twice daily. (See 30 second video)During the 12/13/11 Richmond City council meeting, Mayor Hall stated that after much review he believes the project is “more of a liability than an asset for the city” and has serious concerns; especially for the city’s water supply.
Can the proponent satisfy the criteria that the resort will contribute to the general well being of Richmond City?
Richmond Residents want to know
WHO PAYS FOR THE IMPACTS?
• No tax revenue from the resort;
• 7,500 of gallons of sewage dumped daily
into the city's sewer system that could limit growth;
• Will there be chemicals used for snowmaking that
could impact water quality;
• What about the other impacts from snowmaking?
lowering water table; air pollution from generators;
• Possible damage to and relocation of Richmond City’s
water main under the access road;
• Impacts to the city's roads and infrastructure from the
predicted 200-400 vehicles twice a day;
• Increase in city road maintenance due to increased
use with a limited city budget;
• Decrease in the safety of city streets;
• Increased snow removal requirements;
• Emergency services will be provided by the city with
no tax revenue from the resort to offset;
• The "surplus" water and depleation of the groundwater
for everyday operations and snowmaking from
future Richmond City residents;
• Mule deer herds pushed into town decimating
residents' landscape
The developer has 8 water hookups from Richmond City. One is proposed for a cabin, which leaves the developer with 7 hookups to use for resort. The city does have the right to meter and charge the developer for that water.
In a letter to the developer, Richmond City states that the city, "is restricted by Utah Code Annotated Title 10, Chapter 8, Section
14 (1)( d) to sell and deliver only "surplus" water and or surplus service capacity of its culinary water system to non-residents."
The letter states that the city can provide, under normal conditions, a total of five thousand (5,000) gallons of water per month per connection for a total of thirty-five thousand (35,000) gallons per month at the normal residential base rate. This amount is calculated upon the original intent of the connections to provide water service to seven (7) cabins that would not be expected to be used year round. To insure clarity, the thirty-five thousand (35,000) gallons amount would be the total for the combined seven (7) connections per month, and is not cumulative.
This situation only delivers 420,000 gallons of water a year (far less than the 10 million the developer said is needed) and the available "surplus" water the city could provide is questionable due to variable weather patterns.
The developer has bought water rights to cover his culinary needs which is all that is required by the county.
The resort is located within Richmond City's Drinking Water Source Protection Plan and the resort has been told that it can't have a septic system and must connect to Richmond City's sewer system two miles away.
Engineers have addressed the problem. Richmond City engineer's time will be billed to the developer.
CONTACT: Richmond City Officials
