The resort is still waiting for initial approval to bring mountain biking to the Lolo National Forest as part of the same development proposal. That decision is expected by early December.
After previous plans were rejected, resort officials submitted an amended version in August that they said addresses the Forest Service's concerns over lynx habitat, elk winter range, visual impacts and soil stability.
Jim Gill, the resort's chief operating officer, said he was pleased to receive the forest's initial approval.
In its amended application, the resort agreed to cut down fewer trees and to construct fewer new trails than in earlier proposals.
Gill said the new plan will “maintain the visual integrity of the forest” according to Forest Service standards, and will rely more on existing trails and logging roads.
He said the trees to be thinned for gladed skiing would be determined by national forest specialists.
Bitterroot National Forest officials were unavailable to comment Tuesday.
The Bitterroot Resort wants to develop Nordic skiing, gladed alpine skiing, guided ski touring via snowcoach and mountain bike riding on national forest lands above the ski runs already carved into the privately owned hillside on Maclay's ranch.
Gill said the resort expected to submit additional materials by next week for the second step in the Bitterroot National Forest's evaluation process.
“We're appreciative of the time and effort the agency has put into it,” Gill said. “Now our energies are focused on the second level of screening. We'll explain how we intend to pay for it and how Tom (Maclay) has been very careful to line up a group of consultants and experts in this type of skiing operation.”
The Forest Service uses a two-tiered screening process to evaluate proposals for a special use permit.
The first screening considers whether the proposal is consistent with laws, regulations and resource management plans.
The second considers whether the applicant has the financial and technical wherewithal to complete the project.
In a letter Monday to resort officials, Bitterroot Forest Supervisor Dave Bull requested financial information and a business plan that show Bitterroot Trails LLC has adequate funding to create and maintain its skiing and mountain biking trail system.
Bull also asked resort officials to demonstrate their technical expertise to evaluate, construct, maintain and operate the trail system, and their ability to provide engineering designs and meet Forest Service standards.
If the resort proposal meets the screening requirements, the agency would conduct an environmental review analysis, which includes public comment.
Agency officials have said the resort's proposal would probably require an environmental impact statement, which could take years to complete.
The resort's original proposal called for developing about 11,000 acres above the Maclay's ranch on Carlton Ridge and Lolo Peak.
The scaled-down version calls for developing about 3,000 acres, including 212 acres of gladed skiing, 766 acres of Nordic skiing and 585 acres of guided ski touring on the Bitterroot National Forest and 1,461 acres of mountain biking on the Lolo National Forests.
“This is a great opportunity for the residents of western Montana to enjoy a wonderful outdoor recreational experience on both private and public land,” Gill said.
Bitterroot Resort information
|
 |
 |
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)
Robert Ball wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:15 AM:
" What is sad about this is that Maclay was told no 4 times and just kept on asking and asking. What changed? Who was bought off? Montana's need to protect the land they have. We already have plenty of ski areas around Missoula. Why do we need another? "
Tim wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:25 AM:
" This is great news, I look forward to the day that allows me and others, young and old the opportunity for easier access to these awesome public lands! Recreation is a huge part of my life which I'm sure rings true to most of us who live in this region. Smart, careful, and thorough planning will benefit this generation and many more to come. "
TK wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:11 AM:
" I can't wait for construction to begin! With the Sierra Club and other organization's team of lawyers, It seems like we can't ever get a new ski area built in the USA unless it's for the very wealthy on a Private mountain, with exhorbitant lift ticket prices or membership.
This is 2008, with today's technology I'm sure we can construct the ski runs with very little impact on the mountain and keep it astetically pleasing. It sure can't be as bad looking as the mining, clear cut logging or another used car lot in the Bitterroot. "
This is 2008, with today's technology I'm sure we can construct the ski runs with very little impact on the mountain and keep it astetically pleasing. It sure can't be as bad looking as the mining, clear cut logging or another used car lot in the Bitterroot. "
Diane from Iowa wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:36 AM:
" I agree with Nathan and Robert. Montana need to protect their public lands from the rich and famous. I vacation in Montana to see the mountains and wildlife, not ski runs ripping down a mountain side. I feel there are plenty of areas for skiers now, leave some of it for those of us who just enjoy the scenery. "
Joe wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:36 PM:
" A ski resort just in time for a recession. Enjoy bankruptcy Mr. Maclay! "
Ken wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:43 PM:
" I very much hope that our local media can provide us some useful maps that overlay the revised resort proposal with the boundaries of the research natural area on Carleton Ridge "
Wesley wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:47 PM:
" Goodbye my home. Missoula is going to turn into a whitefish or vail. Lift tickets will be 50-100 dollars. These are OUR lands that are being exploited so a few people can get rich. And other wealthy people will come, and buy out all of the real estate and taxes will be raised. Your kids wont be able to buy a house here and live. Montana is the "last best place" for a reason. "
Graham wrote on Nov 12, 2008 12:59 PM:
" What is "gladed skiing?" Is it just downhill skiing? Sounds like bureaucratic jargon to me.
The stuggle for this resort is an interesting story. I'd like a little more background and perspective instead of lawyer-speak and government process. "
The stuggle for this resort is an interesting story. I'd like a little more background and perspective instead of lawyer-speak and government process. "
JK wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:01 PM:
" Sweet, so now you will be able ride a lift to almost snow line and then pay some undisclosed sum to ride a cat a little higher to ski some extremely mediocre terrain. Sounds like a bargain in the making. Somehow, I doubt this will help Maclay sell any more real estate in the current market. "
Lindsay wrote on Nov 12, 2008 1:34 PM:
" Looking at scenery won't provide me with a job. A lot of Missoulians and Bitterrooter's are out of work right now, looking for jobs not at scenery. "
Jt wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:02 PM:
" It just proves that if you stick it out long enough people will give up and the government will give in, and in the end you'll get what you want. Question is ... what's in it for the population of Hamilton, missoula and surrounding communtites? "
Anna wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:23 PM:
" Climate change won't make it any esier for the Bitterroot rain shadow, and the nice prehistoric land slides near- by will make for great mass failures, bad idea to develop a ski resport in this area...public comment will be strong I expect to keep the development OUT! "
Michael Wilson wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:03 PM:
" Hmmm, Tom MacClay wants to develop (cut trees and build access) the same area he sued the Forest Service for developing (cutting Trees and buiding access).
Yes, he did win the lawsuit and was awarded just under half a million dollars for damages to his ranch.
The original development was on unstable soils and caused a landslide (you can see from Missoula)
For some reason this doesn't seem quite right to me. "
Yes, he did win the lawsuit and was awarded just under half a million dollars for damages to his ranch.
The original development was on unstable soils and caused a landslide (you can see from Missoula)
For some reason this doesn't seem quite right to me. "
ben wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:53 PM:
" Yay! Finally some good news for a great potential asset to our community. Stop making this another chance for your petty attacks on Tom Maclay. Bitterroot Resort will mean a lot of fun and resources for a lot of people. Enough negativity! Most of us hard working locals love this resort and what it will mean for us! "
Fred Garvin wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:12 PM:
" Well, it will not be long before a one-bedroom condo will cost a cool million. Maclay and his group won a recent victory in Ravalli County and their next step is to take on Missoula County and to continue to "ankle bite" the USFS. With 9,000 acres that are basically worthless, what is tard supposed to do?? "
Bob Gilkey wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:15 PM:
" This is such great news. Ive been looking up at lolo peek, dreaming about riding the face, as long as i can remember. Now this might actually happen. YYYYEEEEESSSSSS. Missoula is changing and i say you can fight the change or you can welcome it. Think about the local workers. Hello. This is big. Missoula is truly going on the map. "
AL wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:59 AM:
" "with today's technology I'm sure we can construct the ski runs with very little impact on the mountain and keep it ascetically pleasing" -TK
Yes, I am sure there is technology to construct ski runs with little impact, but what about when the trees are cleared, soil erosion, compaction? What about the land owners below the resort and farmers in the valley? Water rights? I heard some figure about how much man made snow the resort would need, that effects the farmers in the valley who get water from the creek.
As far as aesthetically pleasing goes, when there is no snow the hillside will look terrible. And what of the the hybridization of subalpine larch and western larch only found in this area of the Bitterroots?
There is a lot more to consider then just technology and whether the mountain will still be beautiful. Will Missourians even be able to afford a lift ticket or pass to this resort? "
Yes, I am sure there is technology to construct ski runs with little impact, but what about when the trees are cleared, soil erosion, compaction? What about the land owners below the resort and farmers in the valley? Water rights? I heard some figure about how much man made snow the resort would need, that effects the farmers in the valley who get water from the creek.
As far as aesthetically pleasing goes, when there is no snow the hillside will look terrible. And what of the the hybridization of subalpine larch and western larch only found in this area of the Bitterroots?
There is a lot more to consider then just technology and whether the mountain will still be beautiful. Will Missourians even be able to afford a lift ticket or pass to this resort? "
Michael Clinton wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:48 AM:
" Please keep me informed on any news and progress of this project.
This is what Western Montana needs for it's economical survival and recreation. "
This is what Western Montana needs for it's economical survival and recreation. "
Ashley wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:52 PM:
" I grew up in Lolo and now live in Utah. I have always kept an eye on the current issues in my hometown and as I have watched this news through the previous 4 requests by Maclay and this breaks my heart. Go south a few miles and use their ski resort, it's just as nice. As long as people allow more and more of these big city plans to go through, it will turn into the big city. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Tired of the quiet valley? Then move. Want a bigger, better resort? Travel a little more. Leave the rest alone. "
ruinitall wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:34 PM:
" Alright - raping the land to make a buck, what could be more American ?
Chop up the wild, cut down the trees, build condos and fill the serendity with traffic, pollution and noise....so I can get my kicks sliding down a hill, and if I'm lucky bust my face on a tree so I can brag about cool I am in the bar.
The sooner we ruin everything about Montana that people come here for, then the sooner they'll stop coming.
I like the reasoning of these developers...."this is so beautiful here, so let's ripe it all up and build some condos and a ski slope so everyone can enjoy it" Then blame all those big bad back east companies for screwing up the state. Who needs them - we can ruin it all by ourselves. "
Chop up the wild, cut down the trees, build condos and fill the serendity with traffic, pollution and noise....so I can get my kicks sliding down a hill, and if I'm lucky bust my face on a tree so I can brag about cool I am in the bar.
The sooner we ruin everything about Montana that people come here for, then the sooner they'll stop coming.
I like the reasoning of these developers...."this is so beautiful here, so let's ripe it all up and build some condos and a ski slope so everyone can enjoy it" Then blame all those big bad back east companies for screwing up the state. Who needs them - we can ruin it all by ourselves. "
Were not Colorado and do not want to be wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:32 AM:
" Here's a situation for which we can be grateful for the plummeting global economy. Considering the many other factors already working against him, it seems unlikely that this development could even happen at this point. "
Objectivity wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:06 AM:
" As has been briefly mentioned before, there is no snow to speak of on that mountain. Everyone who believes that the Missoula area will be getting a local, affordable ski hill will be sadly disappointed. Do people understand the potential damage of this development? Maclay's original proposal would have made the Bitterroot resort one of the largest resorts in the nation, larger even than Vale. I'll say that again, larger than Vale. Maclay has no real higher elevation skiing terrain on his own land so he's trying to get the public to flip the bill while he absconds away with the profits. Are the rising home and property costs, severe ecological degradation, and loss of Missoula Valley's open space character really worth a few mediocre runs, a handful of seasonal jobs, and the increased wealth of an already rich man? I think not, and I hope others agree. "
takeAhint wrote on Nov 15, 2008 2:27 PM:
" In many cases the purpose of these endeavors is not what is apparent to the public. In the case of this proposed ski slope, the real purpose behind it is more than likely to inflate the land values, build and sell realestate.
Afterall, the real money to be made here is NOT going to be what ski slope actually make - ski slopes don't make money. "ski slope" is just the idea sold to suck-joe-public.
If economically building a ski slope here seems not fesible, that's because its not, the person/people pushing this have a different adjenda. And you'll hear them say and promise anything to get their way, jobs, great sking, blah blah blah. If they want to develope a million acres they'll say they want 100 million, then pretend to whine and cry and comprimse back to their orginal million acres and then some - these developers know how to play suck-joe-public like the the suckers they are, in the end they get what they want and then some and the public gets dupped everytime. "
Afterall, the real money to be made here is NOT going to be what ski slope actually make - ski slopes don't make money. "ski slope" is just the idea sold to suck-joe-public.
If economically building a ski slope here seems not fesible, that's because its not, the person/people pushing this have a different adjenda. And you'll hear them say and promise anything to get their way, jobs, great sking, blah blah blah. If they want to develope a million acres they'll say they want 100 million, then pretend to whine and cry and comprimse back to their orginal million acres and then some - these developers know how to play suck-joe-public like the the suckers they are, in the end they get what they want and then some and the public gets dupped everytime. "
Kim wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:08 AM:
" The optimist - and skier - in me wants to believe that this 5th proposal is a big improvement over the earlier versions, and addresses the natural resource and aesthetic issues that plagued the earlier requests.
The pessimist in me fears that the new proposal is like the whining child that finally wears down the parent to give in to his request, and is not substanially improved over the earlier versions.
The realist in me expects that the new proposal will be approved, and the resort will go forward, but just far enough to ruin the mountain before collapsing under the economic realities of the day. After the damage is done.
While Lolo Peak has been considered for a ski area for decades, and was even held out of early wilderness proposals specifically because of that potential, the realities of the low-snow situation will only get worse with global warming, and this project seems doomed to failure. Even if they get their approval.
It's a no-win situation. "
The pessimist in me fears that the new proposal is like the whining child that finally wears down the parent to give in to his request, and is not substanially improved over the earlier versions.
The realist in me expects that the new proposal will be approved, and the resort will go forward, but just far enough to ruin the mountain before collapsing under the economic realities of the day. After the damage is done.
While Lolo Peak has been considered for a ski area for decades, and was even held out of early wilderness proposals specifically because of that potential, the realities of the low-snow situation will only get worse with global warming, and this project seems doomed to failure. Even if they get their approval.
It's a no-win situation. "
Nathan wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:17 AM: