Ski Touring Association of Victoria

The Stirling Files

MT STIRLING - THE CASE FOR CROSS COUNTRY SKIING

Introduction

After two years preparation, the Environmental Effects Statement(EES) on Mt Stirling has been released for public comment. While there are some deficiencies in the way the EES examines the `low impact' options, it offers little to support any notion of developing downhill skiing on the mountain. Options A, B and C, or some combination of the features embodied in them, provide the opportunity of saving the mountain as we know it. The Ski Touring Association of Victoria (STAV) represents recreational cross country skiers and recommends that, of the options developed in the EES, Option C offers the best long term future for preserving the very features of the mountain that have attracted people to it. This leaflet does not cover all the arguments against downhill skiing on Stirling. Instead, it focuses on skier related issues covered by ( and sometimes not covered properly in) the EES. For a fuller coverage of the case against lifts on Stirling, refer to the brochure "The Battle to Save Mt Stirling", a joint effort by a wide range of groups including STAV. The two documents together can be used as a resource kit of information you can include in your submissions.

The critical features

The 6 options basically boil down to three different approaches in terms of skiing. Option C therefore presents a means of marketing and developing Stirling as a cross country centre without having to detract from its current positive features. In particular, STAV supports . limiting car access to the new higher centre . no infrastructure development in the summit area . Upgrading of the road and car park area at Telephone Box Junction (TBJ) . retaining the ability to ski to and from TBJ when there is sufficient cover While options D, E and F are presented as combing downhill and cross country, the downhill developments severely limit the cross country experience, and in Option E, fail to provide a practical means of addressing the need for higher access. Option B offers a slightly higher base of skiing operations at King Saddle. However, this would only offer marginal improvement to access in times of limited snow cover.

Joint Downhill and Cross Country usage

A major fallacy in representation of the downhill options (D, E and F) both within the EES and by downhill proponents is that cross country and downhill skiing can happily co-exist on Mt Stirling. The following issues should be considered The summit area is a large part of what makes Stirling unique. Many current users visit Stirling simply to head straight for the summit. Yet even the `softest' of the downhill options has the following features: Option E ( the preferred option of Buller Ski Lifts and the Snow Sports Victoria Executive) takes the concept further by putting a lift straight up Stanley Bowl. Option F puts a lift up the side of the Bowl, but both these options destroy the only unlifted cross country downhill area of this type within an Australian ski resort. The Skifields Concepts outlined in the technical appendices to the EES indicate that these lifts have been sited to minimise the visual impact in the summit area, but a knowledge of the mountain and careful examination of the skifield concept maps make it quite clear that they will be clearly visible (and audible!) from virtually anywhere on the summit ridge or southern slopes.

Option E raises another major problem for cross country skiers. The only provision for getting to the more reliable snow above the 1500 metre level in low snow conditions is via a chairlift from TBJ. Therefore beginner skiers would often be deposited at the edge of the downhill ski area, with a 3 kilometre ski along a trail traversing steep country to get to the cricket pitch area where most of the beginner/intermediate trails would be centred. To get to the summit from this staging point, skiers would either have to traverse and climb through the downhill ski runs (Bluff Spur trail would now be a downhill run!), or sidle around the mountain via West summit trail and head up from GGS on the other side of the mountain. This cannot be viewed as a satisfactory situation for cross country skiers.

There should also be no doubt as to the importance of the summit as a proportion of the terrain suitable for cross country skiing on Stirling. The EES identified 65 hectares of terrain as particularly suitable, and over 30% of this is in the summit area! Thus there can be no argument that losing the summit as a cross country area will not have a significant impact. One consequence of years of planning for the potential of a downhill skifield has been the lack of development of trails in the River Spur area. People who know the mountain well often rate this as having the best skiing potential. With it's southerly aspect and range of terrain it offers an excellent cross country area, particularly as a staging point for skiers travelling across from Buller ( by means other than a gondola!). However, as this has always been seen as the centre of downhill skifield and village developments, this has never been allowed to proceed. Development of trails in the River Spur region has not been included in Option C, but should be investigated and, if practical, developed as a high priority. The EES assumes that offering a mountain with both downhill and cross country will provide all the positive aspects of a cross country mountain, with the added `bonus' of downhill skiing - ie that downhill would not detract from the cross country experience.(p 2-17) This is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the EES consultants and is not supported by STAV, Mansfield Nordic Ski Club, Stirling Experience or any of the current user groups! Members of the consultative committee continually expressed their conviction to the consultants that downhill development would significantly and fundamentally change the way current skiers would view the mountain and whether, indeed, they would continue to ski there. These concerns are not adequately reflected in the EES or the summary document.

Downhill Skiing on Stirling - who wants it?

The biggest problem of all with options D, E and F is that virtually no-one wants them! When the (then) VSA conducted a campaign of handing out pro-forma letters at ARC entrance gates urging skiers to write to the Minister for Planning supporting downhill skifield development, only 60 letters were sent to the Minister. Of these 30 % actually modified the letter to say they opposed such development! Only 40 individuals registered their support for lifts on Stirling. Compare this with the 15000+ who have signed the Mt Stirling Development Task Force's petition to date. Although the position of the executive of Snow Sports Victoria (formerly VSA) is support of option E, not all their member bodies agree. The Victorian Disabled Skiers Association oppose such development, and the 1995 meeting of the VSA Cross Country Committee and member ski clubs did likewise. Many downhill skiers have indicated their opposition. The vast majority of feedback received during the period of the EES and display of the initial options demonstrated opposition to downhill skifield development. The EES shows that the VSA (Executive), Mt Buller ratepayers and Buller Ski Lifts are the only groups identified as supporting downhill development.

Skier demand

The original LCC recommendations for Stirling were conducted in a climate of an estimated annual growth in skiing of some 15%. How things have changed! The EES found that "..no growth is evident in visitor days at the resorts during the nineties."(p 2-7). The EES also uses figures produced by the EES consultants to claim that there is a latent skier demand of "..an extra 89,000 visitor days in a year with very good snow conditions." (p 5-53 - our italics). This latent demand, occurring in a `good' year (1 year in 5 according to the EES) has been factored in as part of the expected total for a `normal' year(3 years in 5) - but such latent demand would not even exist in a `good' year. Further to this, this latent demand is not some agreed verifiable piece of data - it is simply conjecture, like a lot of other information in the EES. One major outcome of this whole EES process has been to indicate just how little hard data there is about many of these issues. With demand calculated on such shaky grounds, in a climate of no growth of skier numbers, how can a case possibly be made for the need for a new downhill skifield.

Marketing

During the last two years there has been much talk of the marketing potential of a combined Buller/Stirling resort with lifts on both, and this is reflected in the justifications behind options D, E and F in the EES. Such a combined resort is envisaged as being competitive with the amalgamated Perisher Blue resort in NSW, and as having international marketing potential. Neither of these notions really stand up. Perisher Blue presented a natural case for amalgamation of resorts as the 4 existing resorts literally backed on to each other. The installation of a single lift was sufficient to link Blue Cow/Guthega with Perisher/Smiggins, creating a situation where you could ski from resort to resort. A cable car/gondola linking Buller and Stirling across a major valley, and a solitary connecting ski trail that will not be skiable for much of the season is not in the same league. There is also a bias toward the downhill options in the comparative assessment of options in the EES (and the summary document). Options D, E and F are seen as offering the opportunity to market the region(Nationally and internationally) as a `major' or `premier' skiing destination. No such opportunity is noted for option C (though STAV bought this opportunity to the attention of the EES consultants!) There is at least as strong a case for marketing the region as a major skiing destination with Stirling as a cross country only mountain, complementing the downhill facilities on Buller. Such a combination would provide a unique combination of skiing opportunities within an Australian resort framework, and would have real international appeal. With the limited vertical of runs and short snow season, Australia has little to offer international skiers, but our cross country is truly unique and highly marketable. While on the subject of marketing, the ARC has put very little effort into marketing Stirling up to now. Cross country generally gets a far lower profile than downhill skiing, and Stirling gets far less promotion than Lake Mountain.

Economics

One of the standard arguments raised against Stirling operating as a stand alone cross country resort is the `subsidisation' provided by other resorts (in particular Buller). The ARC has declared that Stirling would need 100,000 visitor days a winter to be economic (no evidence has been provided for this assertion that we are aware of). The economic comparison of the options show Option C having a negative NPV of $4 million+. What does all this mean? The usage of the Net Present Value (NPV) figures in the summary document only tells part of the picture. The full EES document breaks this into public sector and private sector amounts, and this gives a clearer picture. Option C (along with A and B) are economically viable for a commercial operator on the assumptions used. Options D, E and F don't even come close! The negative amount in option C is actually seeding money needed to bring the resort up to a viable operating level ( $3 million is for roads, power, water & sewerage improvements). Given that all other existing resorts have had such infrastructure provided in the past by government or its various agencies (SEC, Forests Commission etc) and NOT from resort income, it is reasonable that Stirling should have the same provision, particularly given that such improvements will benefit visitors all year round, and the resulting increased patronage will have positive flow on economic effects Governments have often shown their willingness to put money into projects that they will not recoup directly, when they perceive that benefits, be they economic or social, will flow from such investment. By comparison, the downhill options require far greater public infrastructure costs. As the EES states, "..Options D, E and F all require substantial public sector input, while none of them provide a return to the private sector on the current assumptions." (Page 6-65). Looked at in this light, it is actually the downhill options that are uneconomic!

Overcrowding

Overcrowding on Buller is often cited as the main reason for developing downhill skiing on Stirling. This is a weak argument. For a start, overcrowding only occurs on a limited number of weekends, not all the time. Part of the reason for skiers feeling the mountain is overcrowded at busy times it that some popular areas have been overlifted, while other areas have inappropriately sited lifts leading to them being underutilised, particularly in times of lean snow cover. There has also been little attempt to encourage midweek skiing as an alternative to weekends - if overcrowding exists on weekends, Buller's marketing should be geared toward spreading the load into midweek, not simply promoting more of the same. Overseas, resorts will adopt a variety of means to cope with times of peak usage, including closing ticket sales once they reach a particular level. Such options need to be considered here. In talking about overcrowding, it is just as necessary to look at Lake Mountain as it is to look at Buller. On a fine Sunday with good snow cover, it is now virtually accepted that Lake Mountain will get sufficiently busy for the mountain to be closed. Yet this barely rates a mention in the EES, and there is no attempt to ascertain how Lake Mountain skiers feel about their perceived overcrowding in the same way as for Buller skiers. A Stirling developed in terms of Option C could relieve the pressure on Lake Mountain, the closest snow field to Melbourne, and offer a significantly different type of skiing experience rather than just more of the same. A higher rate of skier collisions are also often cited as evidence of overcrowding, but this is pure conjecture. Such higher accident rates could just as easily be attributable to the higher proportion of novice skiers and skiers of limited ability skiing at Mt Buller (p 2-9).

Why develop at all?

Many respondents to the draft EES options, and a number of groups behind the joint document have argued that Stirling should be simply left as it is, albeit with better environmental management. Many STAV members have also expressed this view. Whilst we agree that either of the other low impact options are preferable to the downhill ones, we believe that there are a number of reasons that make option C preferable to either A or B. We need to try to make this the final battle to keep lifts off Stirling. If no development takes place on the mountain and it is left as is, the pressures that have driven the push for lifts on Stirling over the last 20 years will remain, and will probably resurface within a few years. Option C has the greatest appeal to the Mansfield community, and by offering the opportunities to see Stirling develop its winter visitation to a level approaching self sufficiency, it has the best chance of seeing a broad acceptance of the mountain and its activities into the future. STAV sees greater development of cross country facilities on Stirling as part of its zoning policy. Stirling is NOT a wilderness area, and it is reasonable that it be managed for moderately intensive use. Managing such areas for moderate use helps keep the pressure off more sensitive areas (eg Feathertop). STAV's aims are to encourage the development of cross country skiing and campaign for suitable snow country. Developing Stirling to its cross country potential furthers those aims better than leaving it as it is at present. Whilst Lake Mountain offers excellent trail skiing (in good snow years), the range of skiing offered is limited, and it too suffers the problem of what to do in poor snow years. Unfortunately, it can't shift its operations further up the mountain! Developing Stirling's cross country potential will create a far broader mix of skiing close to Melbourne.

What can you do about all this?

Plenty! First and foremost, put a written submission to the EES Review panel (address details at the end of this article). It can be as simple as a few paragraphs, but put it in! If you support a particular option say so, but don't be afraid to do a bit of mix and match, particularly between options A, B and C. In your submission you can ask to meet the panel to put your views personally as well, but this is not necessary if you don't feel comfortable with it. Write to your local State member of parliament. This will ultimately be a political decision, and every letter counts. If you, like many skiers, ski both downhill and cross country, your letters and submissions are particularly important. Show that the fact that you enjoy downhill skiing doesn't automatically mean you want to see downhill skiing on Mt Stirling. If you are a member of Snow Sports Victoria and don't want to see downhill development, let them know that you do not support their position, and make this lack of support clear in your submissions and letters. If you are a member of a ski-related club (even if you have no activities or connections with Stirling) help them write a submission as a club.

Take the time to read the literature and write a submission - you may not get another chance. Written submissions should be forwarded to:

The Chief Assessment Officer Policy Review Unit Office of Planning & Heritage 477 Collins St MELBOURNE 3000

STAV Home Page

Last Updated 19 July 1996