County grapples with how to regulate large projects

When is a mine a mine?

Members of the Gunnison County Planning Commission and the public had another meeting on Tuesday, January 13, to hear and present points of concern or clarification from the third, and latest, draft of the county’s Special Development Project Resolution, meant to govern the development of large projects in the county.

The two-hour meeting was an overview of 26 points of discussion that will be brought up during a joint meeting between the county commissioners and the Planning Commission on February 2.
“The first thing we are trying to do is identify the big policy issues that we ultimately want to make a decision on,” said county commissioner Hap Channell.
Several of those issues dealt with major projects that have been proposed in the valley, like the molybdenum mine on Mt. Emmons or the expansion of Crested Butte Mountain Resort onto Snodgrass Mountain, both of which could be regulated by the resolution.
Planning commissioner Ramon Reed said there was a need to address an issue that Perry Anderson, community liaison for the Mt. Emmons Project, had brought up concerning the phasing of mineral exploration on the mountain and the actual mining process.
“Is the exploration of a mine a phase of the mining process or is it something different?” asked Reed. “What is phasing and how it is dealt with are two important questions to address.”
Regarding the proposed expansion of lift-served skiing onto Snodgrass Mountain, CBMR director of planning John Sale asked that the resolution explicitly say that the county will accept environmental studies and other work done in the process of federal approval.
“Should there be some sort of language in the resolution accepting the EIS (Environmental Impact Study) work that is being done for the Forest Service?” asked Sale. “Our biggest fear is that we’re going to produce all of this work for the federal government and then have to duplicate the process for the county.”
A section in the resolution says there is an “Intent not to duplicate other permit processes or requirements,” without saying the studies and other work done for the federal or state government would be accepted by the county.
But Channell agreed that there was some disparity in the two processes, saying, “There is the whole issue of concurrency with other permitting processes … Can we develop a process that works in coordination with the federal and state permitting processes, in particular?”
County attorney David Baumgarten pointed out that the EIS is “not a decision document. What the county is trying to do in the resolution is to be informed by the findings of the EIS, but remain independent to make its own choice.”
Another concern that was addressed was the lack of language in the resolution concerning climate change and environmental protections for local species such as the Gunnison’s prairie dog.
“There are species of concern other than the Gunnison sage grouse, which we all know about, that the resolution doesn’t address. So we should start broadening the scope of our discussion regarding the impact large projects could have on all species of concern,” said planning commissioner Richard Karas.
Addressing the affects of major development on area wildlife is one way the resolution tries to incorporate the values of the community in the regulations it sets. According to Baumgarten, “There is a higher community good that is the purpose of this resolution. It isn’t our intention to have them as just another layer of regulation.”
Another section in the resolution provides “additional standards for projects in historical, natural and archeological areas.”
Crested Butte town planner John Hess asked that the wording in the section be changed to apply to any project “affecting” those areas, instead of only those projects that are inside a historical, natural or archeological area.
The commission agreed to revisit each of the concerns on February 2, after everyone has had a chance to consider the merits of each.