[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      THE BENEFITS OF SKIING ON THE GREEN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to bring attention to one of 
the many benefits the Green Mountain National Forest provides to the 
American people, and especially to the people of Vermont.
  Because of the many benefits of public lands, building the Green 
Mountain National Forest has been a top priority during my 20 years in 
the Senate. The forest has grown to about 350,000 acres, and we still 
have a backlog of 25,000 acres of standing offers from Vermont 
landowners who want to contribute to the effort. I thank all the 
Vermonters who have helped us build the forest, and I hope to find 
enough money to finish the task.
  The guiding principle in forest management is to guarantee for our 
children the natural beauty and resources of a healthy forest 
ecosystem. The Green Mountain National Forest is a commitment we make--
in fact, an obligation we fulfill--to our children. We promise to share 
what we enjoy today with those who come tomorrow.
  The skiing industry helps us fulfill the promise. Skiing is one of 
many uses that allows Vermonters to enjoy economic benefits today while 
protecting the long-term integrity of the land for tomorrow. In 
developing ski areas, many innovative and enduring partnerships have 
evolved. Communities, businesses, and the Forest Service have worked 
together to build economies based on sustainable natural resource use. 
In fact, Rutland, VT, was named one of America's ``10 most livable ski 
towns'' by Ski Magazine, a publication with 440,000 subscribers.
  In the 1992-93 season in Vermont, there were 4.16 million visitor 
days. Over 3 million of them were out-of-State visitors who spent an 
average of $76.80 per day for a total of $235 million. During the 
President's Day Weekend of this year, several all-time records were set 
at Vermont resorts.
  A healthy skiing industry contributes much to Vermont. The ski areas 
themselves pay approximately $16.5 million in State and local taxes in 
Vermont. While the development of the industry has not been free of 
conflict, it is important to recognize the benefits that the skiing 
industry provides to Vermonters and others as we work together to find 
the middle ground between resource use and conservation.
  The 1994 January-February issue of Snow Country magazine--Volume 7, 
No. 1, page 79--ran an informative advertisement which described some 
of the environmental advances that ski areas have made as partners with 
the Forest Service. In addition, the Burlington Free Press published an 
article just a few weeks ago summarizing the benefits of the skiing 
industry. I ask that these articles be included in the Record at this 
point.
  The articles follow:

            [From the Burlington Free Press, Feb. 24, 1994]

They Come; They Ski; They Spend--Resorts Court Vermont's Annual Winter 
                        Invasion by Land and Air

                             (By Akl Soga)

       They're here.
       Like an airborne force dropping behind the lines, a small 
     contingent of fly-in skiers are landing in Vermont and making 
     an economic impact far beyond their numbers.
       But their invasion has not gone unnoticed. Some resort 
     operators are betting the skiers will yield an even bigger 
     crop of skies stepping off planes ready to pay top dollar for 
     Vermont's brand of skiing.
       ``Burlington is the best airport in New England ski 
     country,'' said Bob Gillan, vice president of sales and 
     marketing for Sugarbush Resort in Warren. ``I think there's a 
     real future.''
       The future might include more people like Dave Roberts and 
     Tom Caouette of Annapolis, Md., who arrived Wednesday at 
     Burlington International Airport in South Burlington toting 
     skis.
       Caouette said that with business bringing them to Sugarbush 
     resort, he expected to find some good skiing. ``There could 
     be many more trips,'' he said.
       Still, even for resorts within an hour of Burlington, 
     people who fly are among a small minority in the state's ski 
     trade and not everyone is enthusiastic about the market. More 
     than 90 percent of the state's ski business comes from within 
     driving distance in New England, New York, New Jersey and 
     Quebec.
       Gary Kiedaisch, president of Mt. Mansfield Co., which owns 
     Stowe Mountain Resort in Stowe, is one operator who sees 
     little future in trying to draw visitors from distant 
     markets.
       ``The cost of flying into the airport in Burlington is 
     prohibitively expensive,'' he said. ``You can fly into Denver 
     or Zurich for less money than you can fly into Burlington 
     from New York.''
       Burlington-bound flights aren't quite that expensive, but 
     at least one travel agent concedes East Coast fares to 
     Vermont are high, making trips to slopes in the Rockies more 
     competitive.
       ``A 14-day advance (ticket) from LaGuardia is $215 round 
     trip,'' said Mary Ann Woods, owner of Travel Unlimited in 
     Stowe. ``Sometimes, you can go for low $300s from New York to 
     Utah or Colorado.''
       Vermont's real edge is its proximity to East Coast 
     population centers, but if a skier has to plan two weeks in 
     advance to get a plane seat at a reasonable price, he or she 
     is more likely to look West, she said.
       ``It's not something someone can do on the spur of the 
     moment,'' she said of the advance-purchase discount fares. 
     ``If they could all of a sudden * * * say, `I'm going to fly 
     up to Stowe this weekend,' it would be very beneficial, but 
     they can't.''
       Despite disadvantages, some resorts find it tough to ignore 
     the fly-in market, which offers a bigger bang for the 
     marketing buck.
       ``The destination skier spends more than $150 a day while 
     he's here,'' Gillan said. ``The day skier spends $30 to $40 a 
     day.''
       Gillan's numbers are above the state's average for out-of-
     state skiers. A Vermont Ski Areas Association survey taken in 
     the 1991-92 season indicated that the average visitor spent 
     $76.80 a day.
       Still, with an average group of four people staying 4\1/2\ 
     days, fly-in skiers are an attractive target.
       ``That's why he's an important person,'' Gillan said. 
     ``He's looking for a quality experience and he's willing to 
     pay for it * * * as opposed to the guy who drives from Boston 
     and looks for the best bargain at the lift ticket window.''
       Smuggler's Notch Ski Area in Jeffersonville is another 
     resort putting a lot of effort into attracting fly-in 
     vacationers.
       ``We definitely market to people flying into Burlington,'' 
     said Steven Clokey, Smuggler's marketing director for group 
     vacations and meetings. ``We cater to people who are coming 
     from great distances.''
       Scott Tobin, the resort's manager of vacation travel, said 
     Smuggler's seeks an edge by targeting a niche and promoting 
     its highly rated programs for children and younger skiers.
       Those seeking the fly-in trade might be encouraged to find 
     that Roberts and Caouette saw no problems with the air 
     service to Burlington, despite being forced to drive to 
     Philadelphia when weather closed their local airport.
       ``It's real easy,'' Roberts said.
                                  ____


                  [From Snow Country, Jan.-Feb. 1994]

                     Skiing in the National Forest

       It took two summers for Vail, Colorado, to build the Two 
     Elk restaurant that now serves skiers atop the famous Back 
     Bowls. That's because Vail put a hold on chain saws and 
     bulldozers during the prime building months of May and June 
     when pregnant elk migrate to the valley below to bear their 
     calves. With such a beneficent midwife protecting their 
     maternity ward and open pasture created by ski runs, it's no 
     wonder the elk around Vail Valley are flourishing.
       The burgeoning elk population is one example of the rewards 
     of the partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and the 
     owners and operators of U.S. ski areas.
       The thousands of skiers lifted to the top of a snow-covered 
     mountain, whose spirits soar at the sight of forested peaks 
     spilling into the distance, can thank that same historic 
     partnership. How it benefits Americans is a story told on the 
     following pages.
       The first lift in the National Forest popped up in 1937 in 
     Loveland, Colorado. Since then, the Forest Service has joined 
     hands with hundreds of ski area operators to provide access 
     to mountains in California's Tahoe National Forest (for 
     example, Alpine Meadows, Squaw Valley, Sugar Bowl); 
     Colorado's White River National Forest (Aspen, Breckenridge, 
     Copper, Keystone, Vail); Montana's Gallatin National Forest 
     (Bridger Bowl); New Mexico's Carson National Forest (Red 
     River, Taos); New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest 
     (Loon, Waterville); and Vermont's Green Mountain National 
     Forest (Mt. Snow, Sugarbush).
       Of 529 ski areas in the United States, 137 operate on 
     Forest Service land, including most of the major destination 
     resorts.
       A skier poised to plunge down Jackson Hole, Wyoming's 
     Corbet's Couloir or Sun Valley, Idaho's Exhibition can sing 
     out literally and figuratively, ``This land is my land.''
       That's because nearly 100 years ago far-sighted public 
     servants--including President Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford 
     Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service--safeguard 
     most of the major peaks in the Rockies, the Wasatch and 
     elsewhere by declaring them public lands and holding them in 
     trust for the American people.
       Millions of acres are categorized as Wilderness, secured 
     against further development and limited to backpacking 
     visitors. Other tracts, like Yellowstone National Park 
     (administered by the Department of the Interior), encourage 
     vacationers to camp, hike and explore (but don't feed the 
     bears).
       The National Forest System, administered by the Department 
     of Agriculture's Forest Service, goes further still. As 
     stewards of 191 million acres of National Forest land, the 
     Forest Service oversees special uses like logging, mining, 
     grazing, management of water resources, and the more than 
     half billion visitors who visit National Forests in search of 
     recreation.
       Recreational activities include hiking, camping, 
     picnicking, fishing, hunting, hang gliding, rock climbing, 
     white-water rafting, mountain biking and downhill and cross-
     country skiing.
       The downhill ski area operators and the Forest Service have 
     established a partnership that is a prototype for the 
     private/public relationship called for by economists and 
     commentators who view with alarm the deteriorating quality of 
     American life.
       With their lift systems and summit restaurants, ski areas 
     provide summer and winter access to mountain peaks that would 
     otherwise be out of reach to millions who cannot or do not 
     choose to climb thousands of vertical feet. In 1992, the 
     National Forests welcomed nearly 31 million visits from 
     downhill skiers.
       The numbers are all the more remarkable because ski area 
     operators lease less than \1/20\th of 1 percent (.05%) of 
     National Forest land.
       The 137 ski areas compete head to head with the 4,500 
     Forest Service campgrounds in the amount of money they return 
     to the agency in fees alone. Last fiscal year, it was $16 
     million, about 10 times as much as it cost the Forest Service 
     to administer the ski areas. That doesn't count the more than 
     $4 billion in private funds it would cost to replace lifts, 
     buildings and infrastructure.
       The fiscal return from ski areas doesn't benefit only 
     Washington, D.C. By permitting the National Forests to be 
     developed for downhill skiers, the Forest Service has punched 
     up the economies of faltering mountain towns, where mining 
     and farming have petered out. Studies by Snow County 
     magazine, the National Ski Areas Association and the Vermont 
     Ski Areas Association confirm the economic lift that comes to 
     communities at or near thriving ski areas.
       For instance, during the 1991/92 ski season, more than 
     17,600,000 lift tickets were sold in the Rocky Mountain 
     region. Combined with the money spent on lodging, meals, 
     entertainment and merchandise by the visitors, as well as 
     dollars laid out by the ski area operators for salaries, 
     supplies and other services, the Rocky Mountain ski areas 
     produced nearly $4 billion in gross revenues and accounted 
     for nearly 110,000 jobs related to ski area operations.
       In Vermont, the numbers were similarly positive. One study 
     shows that rural towns in Vermont at or near ski resorts make 
     a positive contribution to the state treasury, while 
     comparable towns without ski areas cost the state. The town 
     of Warren with the Sugarbush ski resort netted Vermont's 
     General Fund $1,563 per person in 1992, Roxbury, a town in 
     the same county but without a ski resort, cost Vermont $608 
     per person.
       Snow Country's survey, a national study conducted by 
     Professor John Rooney of Oklahoma State University, found 
     dramatic growth in counties with major ski areas. For 
     instance, in the decade from 1980 to 1990, 40 skiing counties 
     experienced an average 163 percent growth in retail sales 
     compared to an average 84.6 percent for the U.S. as a whole.
       Jobs, revenues and taxes demonstrate that the ski area/
     Forest Service partnership is an economic multi-vitamin for 
     rural economies.
       Says Joe Prendergast, president of the Washington, D.C.-
     based American Ski Federation, ``We're the little engine that 
     drives a big economy.''
       Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons also applauds 
     the effectiveness of the partnership between ski areas and 
     the Forest Service.
       ``We're going to be making a major effort to expand 
     recreational partnerships in the National Forests,'' says 
     Lyons. ``We can use the relationship with ski areas as a 
     framework to explain to the public how it can work.''
       In addition to helping drive the little engine that could, 
     the Forest Service returns 25 percent of the revenues it 
     collects from user fees to states with National Forests.
       Because the rebate is considered as payment in lieu of 
     property taxes, the states earmark the money for roads and 
     education, not for recreation. Still, those rebates 
     indirectly benefit skiing communities if the improved 
     highways lead to the mountains and the education helps 
     provide a skilled labor force.


               Building a Ski Area in The National Forest

       The 1891 Forest Reserve Act first threw a cordon around 
     forest land. Subsequent legislation opened the forest 
     preserves for multiple use. That included timbering, but the 
     emphasis of the early laws was, and continues to be, on 
     conserving America's extraordinary mountain landscapes for 
     its citizens.
       With the celebrated rope tow installed at Woodstock, 
     Vermont, in 1934 and the first chairlift at Sun Valley, 
     Idaho, in 1936, skiing began to blossom. The 1960 Winter 
     Olympics at Squaw Valley, California, fanned interest in this 
     exciting--and with medals won by U.S. skiers Penny Pitou and 
     Betsy Snite, newly glamorous--sport.
       In the next 15 years, ski area developers worked closely 
     with forest rangers, who had considerable discretion in 
     approving or disapproving development in the National 
     Forests. Together, they oversaw the birth of more than a 
     dozen major ski areas. Here came Vail, Colorado, with its 
     planned pedestrian village; Taos, New Mexico, with its 
     European-style lodges; Jackson Hole, Wyoming, playground for 
     experts; Loon Mountain and Waterville Valley in New 
     Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest.
       The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 put a brake 
     on ski area development--as it did on any development on 
     federal land or funded by the federal government.
       And probably a good thing, too.
       While ski area developers have always been rated sensitive 
     to the environment, the new laws gave both ski area operators 
     and the Forest Service opportunity to reflect.
       Compared to the early years, when cut-and-slash was state 
     of the art, ``environmental practices and awareness have 
     evolved,'' says Vern Greco, president and CEO of Colorado's 
     Purgatory-Durango ski area and chairman of the National Ski 
     Areas Association Environment Committee.
       ``We were all more naive then,'' adds a Forest Service 
     veteran. ``Now ski areas are far more sophisticated'' in 
     managing the environment.
       They have to be to cope with more stringent criteria and 
     steps to development that are geometrically more complex. One 
     New England ski area has struggled with an expansion plan for 
     eight years, reducing its original proposal from eight lifts 
     to one, and 33 trails to six in an effort to overcome 
     objections.
       While many ski area operators grumble about the expensive, 
     time-consuming and sometimes confrontational process, they 
     comply with and even enhance the specifications for erosion 
     control, wildlife protection, clean air and water, and 
     vegetative management.
       Says Jerry Groswold, president of Winter Park, Colorado, 
     which has a four-person planning staff, ``We're a better 
     resort because of it.''
       From afar, the approval process resembles a lively square 
     dance. The Forest Service, with a master plan for each 
     National Forest including potential ski development or 
     expansion, is the caller. The hopeful ski area developer, 
     with a financial partner, is the lead couple.
       The first call is for an Environmental Impact Statement. 
     The EIS must account for the development's effects on 
     wildlife (swimming, crawling, walking or flying), on 
     vegetation ranging from indigenous wildflowers to old-growth 
     forest on soil composition and stability, on water quality 
     and quantity, on air quality and more. It must also show the 
     effects of alternative plans, including no development at 
     all.
       The EIS is a public document; community groups and other 
     branches of government--state, county, local and federal--are 
     invited to do-si-do in with comments and criticism.
       The Forest Service may halt or delay the proceedings at any 
     point on its own or at the behest of agencies like the Army 
     Corps of Engineers (if the issue is one of wetlands), the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (clean air), or Fish and 
     Wildlife (endangered species). Some state laws, like 
     Vermont's Act 250, present their own stiff environmental 
     standards. Citizen groups may raise reasonable--or sometimes 
     unreasonable--concerns.
       The local Forest Service representatives corral the 
     pertinent issues and promenade forward a custom-tailored 
     interdisciplinary advisory team. Depending on the site, the 
     team may include not only representatives of local zoning and 
     transportation agencies, but such experts as a biologist, an 
     economist, a landscaper, a sociologist or historian, and even 
     an archaeologist (if, for instance, a dig site is in the 
     potential permit area).
       Research in hand, the Forest Service reviews the proposal, 
     along with plans for mitigation of any unresolved problems. 
     If the plan is accepted, a special use permit is issued. All 
     parties must follow through with their responsibilities: 
     local governments with zoning and planning; federal agencies 
     with oversight of pertinent regulations; and ski areas with 
     mitigation of environmental issues.


                      mitigation is the magic word

       Mitigation is 1990's bureaucratise for ``let's talk.'' How 
     can this problem be solved? A ski area and its Forest Service 
     partners often find creative and far-reaching solutions to 
     stubborn dilemmas.
       For example, building lifts. In the past, erecting a new 
     chairlift called for cutting zig-zag roads up the mountain to 
     bring in construction vehicles and materials--bulldozers, 
     lift towers, concrete for footings--and carry out debris, 
     including felled trees. The consequences: soil erosion, 
     uncontrolled water runoff, disturbed wildlife habitat, and 
     ugly slashes up and across the mountain. The solution: 
     helicopters.
       Keystone, Colorado, in the early 1970s, pioneered 
     airlifting raw material onto the mountain. Now helicopters 
     are routine for major lift installations.
       Cutting trails: Mitigation may require trails to deviate 
     from the original layout to avoid nesting areas or feeding 
     grounds preferred by local wildlife. Esthetics also count. 
     Ruler-straight cuts have been replaced by ``feathered'' edges 
     on the trails. Islands of trees relieving expanses of wide 
     intermediate terrain are common practice.
       Soil erosion: Routinely mitigated by planting grasses and 
     grains on ski trails, erosion control has been elevated a 
     notch by introducing particularly tasty varieties to tempt 
     skier-shy animals and birds to the slopes in spring and 
     summer.
       Water run-off: Whether it's natural or man-made, melting 
     snow is channeled to avoid the willy-nilly cascades that 
     pulled silt and debris from ski trails into streams and 
     ponds. Bear Mountain, California, dug a series of ponds below 
     heavily traveled areas on the mountain to capture sediment 
     from crucial run-offs. The ponds do triple duty, filtering 
     water that eventually makes its way to Big Bear Lake and 
     attracting mountain wildlife to abundant vegetation along 
     their banks. Plus, in summer, the rich sediment is recycled 
     as top soil for revegetation projects elsewhere on the 
     mountain.
       Avoiding wetlands: Fragile wetlands and riparian zones, 
     which have their own ecology, are most often found at the 
     base of a ski area, bordering streams or ponds or in the 
     vicinity of underground water. To circumvent wetlands, ski 
     area planners may reposition base lodges and parking lots, or 
     as at Keystone, build walking bridges across the delicate 
     zones.
       Land exchanges are another tool used effectively in the 
     mitigation process.
       According to Jerry Blann, general manager of the Lake 
     Catamount, Colorado, development and chairman of NSAA's 
     Public Lands Committee, the Forest Service can drive a hard 
     bargain. Unable to avoid damage to some of the extensive 
     wetlands in its permit area, Catamount bought hundreds of 
     acres of nearby ranchland and arranged a 10-to-1 exchange 
     with the Forest Service--10 acres for the Forest Service, 1 
     for Catamount.
       Snowmaking: The source of water for snowmaking often rouses 
     stormy debate between environmental groups and ski areas. 
     What's usually at stake is not whether downstream communities 
     will suffer drought, but the quality and quantity of water 
     flow that will ensure a healthy fish population. Computerized 
     snowmaking and arduous analysis of alternative water sources 
     plus efforts to restock streams and ponds have defused some 
     of the concerns.
       The Federal Bureau of Reclamation, which oversees dams, has 
     even approached Colorado ski areas for advice on using 
     snowmaking technology as a tool for improving water quality.
       Some problems don't require high-tech solutions. For 
     instance, a rancher attended a community meeting to complain 
     that the neighboring ski area's night lights, miles away, 
     kept him awake at night. It turned out that the light, 
     pointed skyward, were deflected off the low cloud cover into 
     his bedroom window. Solution: point the lights down.


                ski areas move ahead on the environment

       Even without the nudge of the Forest Service, ski areas are 
     becoming more innovative and involved in protecting the 
     health and beauty of the mountains.
       The windswept ridge at the top of Mammoth Mountain 
     resembles Arctic tundra, not hospitable to vegetation at 
     best. The loose dry pumice soil was a target for erosion, as 
     the winds blew away any seed that might take root in the 
     unfriendly conditions. Mammoth invested heavily in expert 
     advice.
       Cocoa matting was the answer. Seeds of indigenous plans 
     like manzanita are secured by the tangled fibers, giving time 
     for seedling roots to find their way to the soil beneath. 
     Ingenious.
       Last year, Beaver Creek, Colorado, signed on with the 
     Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council (WHEC), a not-for-profit 
     organization that works with corporations to seek creative 
     solutions to dwindling wildlife habitat. Beaver Creek's plan 
     is simple. Drill holes in dead trees (``snags'') in the 
     forest, providing cosy nests for small animals. Instead of 
     dragging out or burning trees cut in maintaining or 
     developing trails, stack the logs in the nearby woods. 
     They become a condo (no hot tubs) for small animals like 
     squirrels, gophers and ermine.
       Larger animals also find ski areas wildlife friendly.
       ``The elk are smart,'' reports Copper Mountains's CEO Harry 
     Mosgrove. ``They know we don't allow hunting on the mountain, 
     so they start showing up here in October (the beginning of 
     the hunting season).
       Recycling is commonplace at ski areas. Many ban styrofoam 
     and paper products altogether, replacing them with ceramic or 
     glass dishes and metal flatware in meal service areas.
       Others, like the Aspen Skiing Company, sponsor shuttle 
     services to reduce car emissions.
       ``Skiers come to the mountains because they are beautiful. 
     It's not good business to damage that setting,'' comments ASF 
     president Prendergast.


                          growing communities

       Although the Forest Service encourages pedestrian villages 
     like Copper Mountain, Colorado, and low-cost employee housing 
     at the base of its permit areas, neither the Forest Service 
     nor the ski areas can control the development of communities 
     on private land. Some were there long before the ski area.
       Mountain communities near ski areas, according to John 
     Rooney's Snow Country survey, are among the most rapidly 
     growing in the country. Growth means jobs, a blossoming 
     economy, and welcome amenities. It also means noise, traffic, 
     pollution and at least during high tourist season, 
     overcrowding and overburdened resources. Many mountain 
     communities are moving to restrict development and 
     contemplating their own master plans.


                          what's in the future

       Four seasons on the mountain: biking, music and film 
     festivals and education are all summer and fall activities 
     that ski areas have explored successfully with the 
     encouragement of the Forest Service.
       Snowbird, Utah, hosts a prototype ski naturalist education 
     program, with volunteers trained to offer interpretive tours 
     of high-altitude ecology. Some ski areas are adding 
     environmental messages to their in-house TV networks. Others 
     are inviting school groups to explore the mountain 
     environment.
       As for new ski areas: a few are in the planning stages, but 
     most ski area development on National Forest land is likely 
     to be in the nature of expansion.
       With that expansion will come new sophistication about 
     environmentally sound construction techniques. Computerized 
     systems will streamline presentation of alternative plans and 
     forecast more accurately their impact on soil, water, animal 
     and plant life as well as on the ski experience.
       No computer can graph the pleasure skiers find in the 
     beauty of winter in the mountains. That beauty is accessible 
     to millions--beginners and experts, grandparents and 
     grandchildren, disabled and enabled alike--thanks to the 
     farsighted conservators who preserved the National Forests 
     and the partnership between U.S. skiing and the U.S. 
     government.

                          ____________________