In the 1980s, when sawmills were closing in Missoula and the economic future of the Five Valleys was uncertain, Covault believed he had a solution.
A destination ski resort in the Lolo National Forest would provide jobs and economic stability, have little impact on the environment, and - best of all - the skiing just might be great.
"Lolo Peak is an icon for the city," he said. "You sit at Malfunction Junction, wait for a couple of rotations and you raise your eyes, see Lolo and say, 'OK, this is not so bad.' "
The idea of a ski resort on Lolo Peak has been around since 1964, when the Forest Service began to inventory all recreational opportunities in the national forests. Since then, there have been three serious evaluations of the 9,096-foot peak's development potential.
Today, the Lolo and Bitterroot national forests are beginning the process of rewriting their forest management plans. Part of the process will include evaluating Lolo Peak's potential as a ski area - as one of half a dozen possible uses.
Tom Maclay initiated the latest review with his proposal to build a four-season destination ski resort extending from his 2,900-acre ranch below Carlton Ridge to the south summit of Lolo Peak.
It is the most advanced proposal for a ski area Missoula has ever seen and will test what the public wants done with its national forest lands.
Until now, the Ski-Lolo-Peak proposals have been stopped by studies citing a lack of snow, water to make snow and base land for the development of condominiums, hotels and a golf course needed to support a resort.
Maclay's proposal offers solutions to those shortfalls. Under his name are more than 50 different water rights - assuming the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation allows those rights to be transferred from agricultural uses in the summer to commercial snowmaking in winter.
His ranch south of Lolo is also large enough to accommodate the golf course, shopping plaza, conference center, hotels and condos of a destination resort.
Maclay's proposal moves the discussion to the social and environmental issues facing ski-resort development in the West these days - into an ever-increasing realm of contention.
"People are more polarized now," said Sharon Sweeney, a public affairs officer for the Lolo National Forest. "It's the social issues that have changed dramatically. The public's interest and concern over the management of public resources is very much involved these days."
When Covault was evaluating potential ski areas in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, the difficulty was balancing the demand for economic growth with the Forest Service's mission as a steward of public lands.
Today, he said, the balancing act is infinitely more complex. Now, public land managers have to consider the psychology of those who will be affected by the development and on the environmental impacts brought about by the change.
Covault once worked on an environmental impact statement that was only one page long, but still stopped the development of a ski area in Colorado - despite the support of local business leaders and members of Congress. Most of the agency's research was compiled in one winter.
Today, an EIS can easily take years to complete, will often be compiled by a staff of a dozen or more, and once completed will resemble a phone book more than a memo.
The EIS to evaluate Maclay's proposal will be no different.
Socially, there are concerns about how Lolo Peak's northeast-facing slopes - if they are carved with ski runs - will look to people in Missoula and those traveling on Highway 93. And what about the impact a destination ski resort would have on roads, schools, sewers, and fire and medical services?
Then come the environmental questions.
The land potentially affected by Maclay's ski area includes areas currently designated for management as an undisturbed ecosystem, some of which is an inventoried roadless area where motorized access is not allowed.
The area also supports cutthroat trout and threatened bull trout, adjoins the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, is possible lynx habitat, is in a grizzly bear recovery area and supports wolves.
Each issue argues against development of a resort; none, though, automatically stop development. They just have to be dealt with before approval can be given.
"I don't have a problem with people making money," Covault said. "There is nothing wrong with people enjoying skiing - hell, I do. And there is nothing wrong with people being employed. But ski areas do have a large environmental impact. As a forester, you think about that."
Since he last worked on a proposal to build a ski area on Lolo Peak, the science of forest management and appreciation for roadless areas has greatly increased, Covault said. A development once seen as having little impact is now seen as having great impact - and as something to be avoided.
Now a lecturer at the University of Montana on issues facing recreational development, Covault said his own opinion has changed over the years. As has public sentiment.
For Missoula attorney Howard Toole, who worked with Covault on a Lolo Peak study back in the 1980s, the reasons for development are just as strong today as they were 20 years ago.
Missoula's economy is not as weak as it was in 1988, when the last push for a ski area was under way, but the area is still very much in need of more family wage jobs, which would be provided by the hotel, restaurant, shop and resort manager positions, Toole said. And don't forget the initial bump to the local economy provided by construction of the resort, he said.
While not denying the environmental issues, Toole does not consider them insurmountable.
"I would like to think the environmental concerns could be addressed," he said. "Maclay has impeccable environmental credentials. While there would indubitably be issues raised, we could work effectively through them."
Toole cited the stewardship awards Maclay has won for management of his ranch, how his proposal presents an opportunity to plan for development rather than reacting to it and the overall economic benefits of the growth.
Orville Daniels knows the arguments - pro and con - well. He was supervisor of the Lolo National Forest when Toole and Covault were evaluating the last Lolo Peak proposal, and has since served on the board of the Missoula Area Economic Development Corp.
In the late 1980s, Daniels believed a ski area was not only technically impossible, but that the economic benefits would not offset the social and environmental costs.
"What I found out was this: A ski area is not about skiing, it's about making great wealth out of real estate," said Daniels. "It all has to do with the value of the base property, and the real winners are not the skiers but the landowners."
Because of the financial potential of a ski resort on Lolo Peak, Daniels knew there would be other proposals. So when he had the chance to write a forest management plan for the Lolo National Forest, he specifically excluded the mountain's use as a ski area.
"I never felt there was a need for more skiing," Daniels said. "Why would I take a piece of precious public land and give it away for a few people to make money?"
There are currently six ski areas within a 100-mile drive of Missoula.
And the precedent set by the Lolo Forest plan signed by Daniels remains intact. Lolo Peak, it says, should be managed for its potential as wilderness and wildlife habitat.
"The forest plan that he signed was a pretty forward-reaching document," Sweeney said. "We are encouraging the entire Forest Service and the groups we work with to look out 20 years."
By law, the Forest Service has to process all proposals for use of national forest land as if they might happen. Even though the land Maclay would like to develop as a ski area is being managed as a roadless area to support lynx and elk habitat, that could change.
Forest management, Sweeney said, is designed to be flexible.
"There are a number of ways it could happen," Daniels said. "They could get to a congressman and have him write a law, or they could go to the president and have him write an executive order. If people are wanting to keep their wilderness area, they are going to have to get involved."
The same goes for those who would like to see Lolo Peak developed, Sweeney said, as the development will not happen unless there is widespread public support.
Currently, both the Bitterroot and Lolo national forests are revising their forest management plans and are welcoming public comment. The draft plans are expected to be completed this spring, with final publication sometime in the spring of 2006.
To comment or request a copy of the draft forest plan, contact Forest Plan Revision, Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Fort Missoula, Missoula, MT 59804; or call (406) 329-3802; or Forest Plan Revision, attention Chuck Sperry, Bitterroot National Forest, 1801 N. First St., Hamilton, MT 59840; (406) 363-7100.
Reporter Colin McDonald can be reached at 523-5259 or cmcdonald@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)