Advocates urge keeping Lolo Peak undeveloped as Bitterroot Resort proposal advances

Speakers on a Missoula-area MCAT program on local conservation issues urged listeners to oppose the Bitterroot Resort proposal to develop ski facilities on Lolo Peak, saying public comments and recent land negotiations suggest the issue is not settled.

Advocates said the public-comment record on the U.S. Forest Service draft plan favors keeping Lolo Peak undeveloped and warned that private land purchases and agency-level decisions could still alter public access and land status.

Bob Clark, a presenter on the program, said the Forest Service received 2,000 letters during its draft forest-plan comment period and his analysis of the Lolo Peak portion of those comments found that “80% of the people that wrote in about Lolo Peak wanted to keep Lolo Peak just the way that it is.” Clark said the Bitterroot Resort spent “tens of thousands of dollars” during that period to encourage pro-resort submissions, and that developers’ outreach produced roughly one in five of the comments Clark’s group counted.

Laura Lundquist, identified on the program as a participant in the film Oh No Lolo, said the Missoula area already has multiple ski areas within about 100 miles and that some are operating well below capacity. “In a survey that was done of these 6 ski areas right now, they’re only operating at 25% capacity,” Lundquist said, and she warned that longer-term climate trends would further reduce the viability of a new ski resort. Citing a regional climate model, she said that within 40 years “all areas of the Northwest are going to lose at least 37% of their snowpack.”

Clark described recent talks between the Forest Service, Plum Creek and a person he named as Tom McClay about purchasing Plum Creek parcels along Highway 12 near Lolo Creek and whether those parcels or other sections around Lolo Peak and Carlton Ridge could be traded or otherwise conveyed. Clark said an alternative discussed at the meeting would see the Bitterroot Resort purchase Plum Creek parcels and use conservation easements as mitigation. “These are things that are happening that you’re not getting a postcard in your mail about,” Clark said.

Clark and Lundquist explained that the Forest Service’s draft forest plan was produced under recent planning rules and that challenges to those rules led to litigation; Clark said the Sierra Club and other organizations prevailed in court, prompting the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the planning-rule change before issuing a final plan. Clark said the EIS process could delay a final forest plan until the fall or winter.

Both speakers urged public engagement. Lundquist and Clark recommended sending written comments to Lolo National Forest, writing letters to editors and contacting elected officials, whom Clark named: Senator Jon Tester, Senator Max Baucus and Representative Denny Rehberg.

The program closed with a plea to protect what the speakers described as about “12,000 acres” of public land around Lolo Peak. The segment did not record any formal agency decisions, votes or commitments by the Forest Service; it summarized advocacy positions, public-comment tallies and reported negotiations involving private land and the Forest Service.