It is possible to chart a course through these obstacles, a course that mixes tried and true approaches with new and innovative solutions. But before we can do so, we must better understand the obstacles to be surmounted, and understanding these won’t come before we recognize the critical differences between the environmental issues and the growth issues. Although related, these issues spring from different objectives and frequently require different strategies.
Answers to environmental problems will not necessarily satisfy growth concerns; resolution of growth problems may not resolve environmental issues. Those ski areas that address both issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner, mobilizing for each, will have a better chance of getting their projects completed.
At the risk of oversimplifying, the issues of environmental quality are those of air and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetics. The specifics include an almost endless list of considerations such as temperature inversions and woodburning stoves, stream flow and spawning fish, spotted owls, elk habitat and deer yards. These and countless others are all interdisciplinary realities that exist on many levels and in many guises. We encounter them as emotional grist, as scientific disciplines and as the stuff of legislation and regulations.
They are set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act, and similar state statutes.
In contrast, the politics of growth have to do with the quality of life, human life. This issue transcends the environment. We judge the quality of our lives not just in terms of community, recreation and culture — not just wildlife and aesthetics, but also housing and schools.
While project opponents often focus on environmental issues, the source of their opposition is frequently nothing more than resistance to change and concern about growth. What, it is asked, happens to a community when a ski area expands or a new ski area is developed? Will the project have a positive effect on housing, public services, local taxes and transportation? Will it preserve and enhance those elements that make the community a special and attractive place for its residents? The “nimby” (not in my back yard) syndrome, alive and well in many parts of the United States, is no stranger to ski communities. In truth, it is an attitude that we probably all share when we as individuals perceive our lifestyles, or our investments, as threatened.
Unfortunately, the debate over growth issues frequently gets lost or muddled. Instead of focusing on the pros and cons of growth, the debate will often rage over environmental matters that are of secondary concern.
Background to all this is, as most realize, the dawning of an environmental decade, complete with a new, emerging environmental ethic. Countless polls list environmental quality as a national priority. Politicians plan election campaigns around it. Topics such as the greenhouse effect, wetlands protection, old-growth forests, biological diversity and threatened and endangered species are regularly in the news and are part of the national consciousness. Far-reaching regulatory changes are in progress at every level of government, resulting in a dizzying array of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies and guidelines requiring environmental protection.
Several recent developments illustrate the ever-increasing complexity of the environmental hurdles:
- A memorandum of agreement between the Corps of Engineers and EPA, which specifies that developers must affirmatively avoid and minimize, and cannot simply compensate for, wetland impacts;
- The Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Methow Valley case, which environmental groups argue requires the Forest Service to analyze alternative ski area sites in deciding whether to approve a proposed project, and the subsequent action of the Forest Service in analyzing alternative ski area sites in conection with the proposed expansions of the Loon Mountain and Heavenly Valley ski areas;
- The Supreme Court’s decision in the Granite Rock case, which permits state and local governments to regulate the environmental impact of activities on federal land; and
- The Interior Department’s recent decision to list the Northern Spotted Owl as a threatened and endangered species, thereby limiting the use of old growth forest throughout much of the Northwest.
The process of coping with all this can be frustrating, time-consuming and expensive, but in the end, most environmental impacts can be mitigated. The resources usually can be protected. The specific legal requirements usually can be met, but to what avail if the growth issues are still unsolved? Indeed, the completion of environmental studies and the development of comprehensive mitigation plans may actually increase local opposition, as opponents re-focus and redouble their efforts out of fear that, with the studies completed and the impacts mitigated, the project will be approved.
In the years to come, the resolution of growth issues, like the resolution of environmental issues, will become increasingly important for ski area developers. There are already indications that the Forest Service is paying greater attention to growth issues at the community level. For example, during the past two years:
- The Forest Service commissioned a poll to assess the support of local residents for the proposed Lake Catamount ski area in Colorado. Right or wrong, this appears to be the first time such a step has been taken by the Forest Service, as reported in SAM (July 1990).
- The Forest Service decided, with the consent of the Aspen Skiing Company, to defer further study of the proposed Burnt Mountain expansion of Snowmass onto Burnt Mountain until the local village had an opportunity to address some of the growth and quality-of-life issues.
Strategies are needed for resolving both the environmental and growth issues, and will be presented in a series of articles in these pages (see box). My colleagues and I at Arnold & Porter feel there are effective strategies available. We are also convinced that the ski industry has already offered some of the best and brightest examples of environmental protection even if these efforts are not always appreciated. We hope to identify some of the more salient, successful examples and environmental precedents, many of which are cost-effective and have become excellent marketing tools. “Win-win” approaches deserve study, recognition and replication.
And on a loftier plane, we should not forget that the ski industry provides opportunities for millions of people to experience the beauty and grandeur of our mountains. These opportunities have helped to advance the conservation ethic and our appreciation of the environment. The ski industry and our mountain communities will be well served by expanding this environmental consciousness.
Coming in Future Issues
In future issues, the author and his Arnold & Porter colleagues will present articles on a number of specific topics, not necessarily in the order presented here:
“Working with NEPA” — A look at the National Environmental Policy Act and what ski areas can expect with EIS’s and other analyses. We will look at the implications of the “alternative site” review; we will review the debate over skier demand and its relationship to growth; we will examine the expanding and often confusing requirements of the cumulative impact study.
“Sloshing Through Wetlands Regulation” — Enormous confusion exists, both in and out of government, about what kind of protection is mandated by the “no net loss” cornerstone of President Bush’s environmental agenda. Because strict civil and criminal penalties accompany wetlands violations, ski areas need to proceed with caution. A companion issue is concern over water quality, which is becoming the tail that wags the water rights dog. The changing face of federal and state water quality requirements will be explored.
“Of Squaw Fish, Spotted Owls and Red Squirrels” — With increasing regularity, ski areas are finding that endangered and threatened species questions accompany proposed expansion. Often the species itself is not found on site, but biologists have determined that a suitable habitat is present. To what extent must the habitat be further analyzed? How to handle this increasing problem will be explored.
“Quality-of-Life Issues — New Approaches” — An elusive subject, it will be addressed with some case histories that will thrown light. There have been some successes!
The full series will be available in reprint form.
