SAVE HOLLAND LAKE

https://www.facebook.com/savehollandlake

Save Holland Lake Group Says Nearly 99 Percent of 6,500 Public Comments Oppose

Massive Development at Holland Lake by Utah Ski Developer

Grassroots Group Says Giant Development at Pristine Lake Not in Public Interest, Should be Denied

October 12, 2022

(Contact: Bill Lombardi / 406-459-8860 / bebomontana@gmail.com)

(Seeley Lake, MT) – An ad-hoc coalition of citizens called Save Holland Lake says nearly 99 percent of public comments to the U.S. Forest Service opposes a massive development proposed by a Utah ski developer on public land at pristine Holland Lake.

The Flathead National Forest received just more than 6,500 public comments on the Forest Service and ski developer POWDR’s proposal to triple the size of the Holland Lake Lodge in western Montana’s rural Seeley-Swan Valley, and about 99 percent of the comments were opposed to the project.

“The results of the prolific comments from people across Montana and the country show that Americans are opposed to destroying the rural setting of Holland Lake and the Seeley-Swan Valley,” said Save Holland Lake member Lucy Dayton. “It was both heartening and heart-breaking to read the comments of people who truly love Holland Lake and our public land. They simply don’t want this project and know it will hurt the lake’s natural setting and endangered wildlife. The Forest Service and public officials should listen to their employers – Montanans and the American people.”

Members of Save Holland Lake systematically read and catalogued the 6,500 public comments, which were due by end of day October 7. The Forest Service and POWDR announced the project on September 1 this year, and admitted the project proposed for a special use permit on public land took several years to negotiate and develop – all without informing the public until six weeks ago.

The public, however, immediately reacted to the massive proposal, with all the public commenters at recent public scoping meetings in Condon and Seeley Lake saying no, and the massive outpouring of opposition to the project on the Flathead Forest’s formal comment page.

Here is a summary of Save Holland Lake’s analysis of the 6,500 comments:

Clearly nearly 99 percent oppose the Forest Service/POWDR’s massive proposal
Maybe more than 100 commenters explicitly said they would support upgrades to the historic lodge and within the lodge’s existing footprint
A significant portion of commenters - about 10 percent – said they were opposed because of concerns with Forest Service’s mishandling of the rollout of the project and attempt to use the least-rigorous environmental analysis (a categorical exclusion) for the project rather than a more-rigorous environmental analysis or environmental impact statement
Other commenters were concerned that the development would destroy the historic nature of the lodge and area
Many others asked the Forest Service specific questions and wanted answers
Others expressed major concerns with the development’s impact on the sensitive environment and threatened and endangered wildlife, such as bull trout, grizzly bears and Canada lynx
“The bottom line, though, is that only 1 percent actually wrote letters supporting this proposal.”

“So many, so, so many were just outright appalled, saddened, disheartened to think this could happen to their beloved Holland Lake,” Save Holland Lake analysts noted. “So many memories for people of hiking, camping, weddings, funerals (ashes spread in the lake), family times, reunions… It was overwhelming and so touching.”

“We hope this shows that Montanans and Americans – the people who own this public land – don’t think this giant proposal is in the public interest and should be denied,” said Save Holland Lake member Cheri Thornton. “This project is not only wrong for this sensitive area, it would help to set the stage for major development on the west side of the Crown of the Continent ecosystem south of Glacier Park and between the Mission Mountain and Bob Marshall wilderness areas.”

Save Holland Lake says the overwhelming amount of comments against the proposal should show public officials and the Forest Service that this project is just plain wrong for this sensitive public land.

Excerpt

One excerpt from opponent, William Barker, who with his wife managed the lodge in 1993-1994 and got married there:

“The National Forest Service, along with our public lands was given the responsibility to manage our public areas for the people. This Public Trust has been eroded to the point we're at now. I am not anti-development, but the entire ecosystem of Holland Lake and the gateway to the Bob Marshall Wilderness are at stake. Once given away, it will be forever gone. There is a multitude of "playgrounds" for people willing to spend their money. Please do not believe the ‘buzzwords’ of this developer. There are plenty of examples that prove otherwise. The future degradation of Holland Lake should not be one of them. Just because we CAN build it, does not mean we SHOULD build it. Please stop this insanity and use some common sense, for the good of the people.”

Background

Save Holland Lake also has noted:

The Forest Service has misinformed Americans about the amount of public acreage a developer would use to triple the size of Holland Lake Lodge. The Forest Service admitted its mistake and now is trying to determine the project’s size and scope and how to proceed from here. Save Holland Lake has asked the Forest Service to fix their mistake and inform the public about the true size of the development.

Here’s the key excerpt from the Missoulian report on the Forest Service October 4 meetings and the mistake:

“But Steele also admitted mistakes in handling the project. The current proposal covers about 15 acres under a Special Use Permit. Steele said he originally thought that was the same size as the lodge’s existing permit and wouldn’t be an expansion. He later realized that the lodge’s current permit is for 10.53 acres, not 15. And with the inclusion of wastewater facility POWDR [the Utah-based developer] would take over, the proposal balloons to about 19 acres – nearly twice the current permit acreage.”

Steele told the more than 100 people opposed to the project in Condon that he had made a mistake and that, as the Missoulian quotes him as saying, “Come to find out it’s only 10.53 acres.”

It was only after being asked multiple times by the public did the Forest Service admit that Utah ski giant POWDR is asking for more public land than allowed under the lodge’s current special use permit.

The group says the public has been locked out of the process and that the massive development, on public land, will harm the pristine nature of Holland Lake, the fragile ecosystem, endangered and threatened species, and the unique rural and historic nature of the wildlife-rich Seeley-Swan Valley.

The group is asking the Flathead National Forest Service supervisor to:

Extend the public comment period beyond October 7, 2022
Complete a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS)
Ultimately deny the extensive project’s special use permit for development on public land because it is not in the public interest

The Save Holland Lake group started just last month after the Flathead National Forest announced that it was considering a special use permit for one of North America’s largest ski developers, POWDR in Utah, to triple the size of the rustic Holland Lake Lodge and substantially increase human visitation to the quiet Holland Lake area 20 miles north of Seeley Lake.

The massive project would be built on public land. POWDR hatched the plan behind closed doors with the Forest Service, who received development plans in April 2022 (discussions were begun well before then) but didn’t announce the proposal until September 1 this year. Then the Forest Service said the public had to comment on the proposal by September 21. But thousands of cries of public protest forced the forest supervisor to extend the comment period until October 7.

Flathead Forest Supervisor Kurt Steele said officials would consider the project under a categorical exclusion, the least stringent analysis, rather than using a more rigorous environmental analysis or environmental impact statement.