Missoula News

Money & Mountains

Missoula to Maclay: Show us the Money

By Courtney Lowery, 2-23-05

The intricate development plans, high-powered consultants and slick PR campaign all say one thing: Money. But the folks behind the controversial Bitterroot Resort proposal aren’t answering many financial questions – and in the end they may be the only ones that really matter.

The proposed destination ski resort and real estate development, and its CEO Tom Maclay, have launched an elaborate campaign to win over the public with community meetings and outreach. The team knows that without public support, any chance of getting crucial approval to use Forest Service land would be in serious peril.

“This project depends on public enthusiasm,� says the resort’s communications director David Blair. “We are talking to anyone that will come into a room about how we can make this the best project.�

The master plan includes the development of Maclay’s 3,000-acre Lolo ranch into a “village� of restaurants, shops, a golf course and at least 2,000 homes. The resort also proposes using, at the very least, 10,000 acres of Lolo and Bitterroot National Forest land for Nordic and downhill skiing (some plans have shown that in the end, the resort hopes to have more than 50,000 acres). Some of the federal land Maclay wants borders the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, much of it is in inventoried roadless areas, and it includes the spectacular summit of Lolo Peak – one of the region’s favorite bits of scenery. In all, the resort aims to create the largest vertical drop in North America at 5,342 feet, from the top of Lolo Peak to the base on Maclay’s property -- a resort that would only be rivaled by British Columbia’s Whistler Blackcomb.

Maclay has already cut runs on the upper part of his property, visible from the nearby towns of Lolo and Florence and sometimes even Missoula. On a sunny January day, Maclay and I took a climb in his 4Runner up to the runs. Once we got up as far as the old logging road would take us, he pointed out the spectacular view of the valley and it became apparent that he truly believes his intentions in creating a ski resort are noble.

“I was 6-years-old when I heard my parents talking about (the prospect of a ski resort.)� Maclay says. “There are few areas that have this kind of recreation opportunity.�

Maclay says he’s part of the old ranching economy, now in search of a new way to live off the land. And he says can do this while maintaining the integrity of his piece - and of the Bitterroot valley.

“I’m just farming snow instead of farming crops,� he says. “I don’t see this ski area as diluting the fabric of Missoula or the Bitterroot Valley.�

Others, however, beg to differ.

At a meeting in nearby Florence in January, about 50 people came to hear the resort’s presentation. Last week in Missoula, more than 150 people filed into a stuffy meeting room for a “Friends of Lolo Peak� presentation on how to combat the proposal. At times, in both places, it felt like a political caucus, with warriors readying for the long legal battle ahead.

The resort’s opponents have compiled a long list of concerns. Some are concrete: wildlife habitat; watershed degradation in a drought region; inventoried roadless areas; increase in property values and taxes; and clogged traffic on an already over-burdened Highway 93. Others are a bit harder to quantify, but possibly more significant because they cannot be negotiated or worked around: degradation of quality of life due to increased cost of housing and influx of out-of-state second homeowners; stripping public access to one of the area’s most popular backcountry spreads; and the absence of a pristine view shed that has become an icon for the Bitterroot Valley and Missoula – Lolo Peak.

Granted, some of the opposition is knee-jerk environmentalism, but many of the people are putting their “No Way Maclay� bumper stickers on their Ford F-150s and driving back to the ranch. It just goes to show that when you start talking about messing with Western public lands, you better be ready to fight off everybody from environmentalists to ranchers, blue-collar workers and even little old ladies who like to back country ski on the weekends.

“It’s going to be a very personal decision for a lot of people,� said Sharon Sweeney, the spokeswoman for the Lolo National Forest.

Former Lolo National Forest supervisor Orville Daniels has made a life out of land management, and he’s emerging as a key opponent of the resort. He says it’s not the use for which the Lolo National Forest was intended – and he should know, since he’s the one who signed off on the management plan that dictates how that land should be used. But the management plan is in the midst of revision, and with the most business-friendly, anti-environmental White House in a generation pushing for more commercial exploitation of the forests, the Bitterroot Resort has more than a fighting chance.

“I’m not an anti-development person. I’m not a preservationist,� says Daniels. “But my life has been looking at land and what its best use is ecologically … and socially.�

Blair says the resort is eager to incorporate the public’s concerns into the planning process. If citizens want to preserve elk winter range on the property, for example, then a conservation easement could be negotiated.

“On balance, this is a sensitive use of the land in many ways,� Maclay says. “There will be tradeoffs, but through careful analysis and design, we can make the tradeoffs positive.�

Not all ski areas are bad, environmentally, socially or ecologically.

But it all depends on whether the people trust the developers. And at this stage of the game there are plenty of reasons to be wary.

From the beginning, Bitterroot Resort has been painting Tom Maclay as a down-home rancher risking his lifesavings for a boyhood dream. And maybe he is the man who has always ranched with conservation in mind and will do the same with his ski resort.

But the reality is that whoever puts up the money is going to be the making the decisions that could drastically alter Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley.

“I don’t know who they are, but there’s got to be large dollars behind this because you can’t do it any other way,� Daniels said. “That would indicate to me that they are people with enormous political and financial power.�

Blair says Maclay is funding the initial consulting and the design of the master plan through the equity in his property. He maintains there are no outside investors lined up, but said in early January that “we do have some interest.�

He says money is not an issue and that “Tom is going to run this project for his life and his kids’ life. I can’t imagine a scenario where he would relinquish control.�

In looking at similar resorts, however, it’s hard to imagine Maclay has the roughly $125 million it took to build the new Tamarack Resort, near McCall, Idaho, which is a bit smaller scale, but still comparable. And Tamarack is on State of Idaho land, not Forest Service land. Gaining approval from the Forest Service involves a much more lengthy and expensive process of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (or NEPA, the law requiring environmental impact statements for private projects on federal land.) In fact, in the late 80s and early 90s, a proposal similar to Tamarack, called Valbois, failed in almost the same spot, partially because it involved Forest Service land and the process was too expensive.

Jeff Fereday, an environmental and natural resource lawyer who worked with both the failed Valbois project and the successful Tamarack project that emerged nearly a decade later, said it cost “in the 7 figures, it’s in the millions,� to get through just the initial master planning and environmental review with the Forest Service.

The Valbois project eventually secured the initial approval to enter the master planning process, but that was no guarantee for the lengthy final approval stage ahead and investor patience ran our before it could go further.

“It’s not just the money,� Fereday said. “It’s the money plus time. It does come down to money, yes, but a company may be able to finish a $3 million or a $5 million NEPA process, but if there still is no end in sight, you find then that investors are saying, ‘maybe its time to cut my losses.’ It’s a very tough proposition.�

One of the reasons the Tamarack project went forward and the Valbois project failed was because with Tamarack, a few folks (including CEO Jean-Pierre Boespflug) stepped into ownership positions, reevaluated the project environmentally and commercially, scaled it down and had the “personal wherewithal� to see it through, Fereday said.

So where is Tom Maclay ultimately going to get his money?

People like Orville Daniels say if big money comes in, it may ultimately have little regard for what Joe Lolo wants in done with his public lands.

“If you look at the power of the large ski areas … the power politically and economically is pretty awesome,� Daniels says. “(Forest Service) careers have been threatened, even ruined. And when it comes to a local forest official trying to make a decision like this, there is an inordinate amount of pressure on them.�

Is it realistic to think that Tom Maclay will ultimately be making decisions like whether or not to put a conservation easement on his property for the elk that winter there?

In order to even begin discussing this project with any kind of depth, the public has to know who will be sitting across the table from them when it comes to making decisions about their public land. Then we’ll talk about what name should be on that “No Way� bumper sticker.

UPDATE: The Bitterroot Resort has a drafted an updated response to many of the concerns voiced by the opponents of the project, but no answers yet on the money question. Click here to see what the Bitteroot team has to say.

-Interested in the regional scene in the ski industry? Check out our Front Page article.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.