Skiers appeal Crystal Mountain boundary closure
It was a cold and wet afternoon in the Seattle suburb of Renton, Washington-the kind of day that makes skiers dream about freezing levels and the coming freedom of snow-covered hills. But for the roughly 35 adults gathered inside the timber-frame Renton Community Center on Oct. 18, it was all business. Backcountry stashes were at stake. Pristine wilderness was being defended. And stuck in the middle was a rapidly growing ski area suddenly placed in the awkward position of policing forbidden slopes.
Representatives of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest organized the meeting to address four public appeals to its recent Record of Decision (ROD) for future expansion at Crystal Mountain Resort. The four appellants, who claimed to speak for hundreds of friends and fellow skiers, objected in varying degrees to the ROD's new requirement that the boundary surrounding Crystal Mountain's Special Use Permit (SUP) area be completely closed. In other words, day-ticket and season pass purchasers would now be barred from leaving the ski area to make turns on adjacent public lands.
The Forest Service, on whose land Crystal Mountain operates, released its ROD in August 2004 after six years of proposed alternatives, meticulous environmental impact studies, and sometimes heated public debate. The Forest Service settled on a scaled-down version of Crystal's original Master Development Plan, one that it felt best addressed the environmental and heritage concerns of all interested parties. Only it didn't count on a small but vocal group of skiers objecting to just a few paragraphs in the voluminous document.
Crystal Mountain's SUP is almost completely bordered by Forest Service land, Wilderness areas, and Mt. Rainier National Park (MRNP). Historically the 11 mile-long SUP boundary has remained open to backcountry travel from the resort into these areas. But as Crystal Mountain sought to widen its lift-served terrain (though some proposed chairlifts, like East Peak and Silver King, didn't make the final cut) within the existing SUP, concern over the adjacent pristine areas rose sharply. Even to the point of the ROD requiring that Crystal Mountain hire a snow ranger to patrol the boundary.
Monday's two-hour public meeting in Renton was professional and at times confrontational, loaded with legal and philosophical arguments for and against the boundary closure. Crystal Mountain general manager John Kircher sat quietly at one end of the room, flanked by members of his staff. MRNP superintendent Dave Uberuaga and other park officials joined via speakerphone. Forest Service planners Chris Hansen-Murray and Larry Donovan opened the meeting as appellants and members of the general public sat or stood around conference tables, intently scribbling on notepads, awaiting their turns to speak.
"Why should skiers who use lifts be banned from public lands?" posed Bruce McQuistan, one of three of the appellants who soon took the floor. McQuistan cited cooperation between other ski areas and public agencies, such as the open boundary between Jackson Hole Mountain Resort and Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. "Nationwide, backcountry skiers have set a precedent for reasonable and responsible use of wilderness areas."
"We believe that the Forest Service's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) actually supports our appeal," stated Jason Paulsen, another appellant who objected specifically to the boundary closure to Mount Rainier National Park. He referenced a section of the FEIS that states that "backcountry use levels within the Crystal Mountain SUP have not been systematically monitored." Another FEIS section that Paulsen cited (4-3-2, footnote 14) in his appeal seemed to justify a base-level number of skiers entering the park from Crystal Mountain daily. The closure, he said, simply isn't based on "hard science."
An hour later, when it was Hansen-Murray's turn to speak again, he surprised most in the room by revealing that the Forest Service would remove its boundary restrictions to Forest Service and non-park lands. The reconsideration, he said, was mostly due to an arrangement with Crystal Mountain. The ski area agreed to develop a comprehensive boundary management plan to meet its growing business.
It was clear, however, that for most attendees the fight was far from over. Crystal Mountain and MRNP share a dramatic, 4 mile-long, north-south ridgeline that runs along the crest of the ski area. On the resort side, steep, challenging bowls eventually flatten and funnel back to the base area. On the park side, long, empty pitches descend consistently through evergreens or avalanche chutes for more than 3,000 vertical feet to State Route 410 (closed during winter in MRNP). Other tours across the boundary are shorter but no less scenic. It's no mystery why this terrain is so alluring to backcountry skiers.
Using a phrase he would repeat several times, MRNP Superintendent Uberuaga held firm, stating that he lacked the "authority to allow commercial activity to extend into park lands." A follow-up phone call to Uberuaga revealed he was referring to Section 5.3 of Chapter 1 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which states that "Engaging in or soliciting any business in park areas, except in accordance with the provisions of a permit, contract, or other written agreement with the United States, except as such may be specifically authorized under special regulations applicable to a park area, is prohibited."
MRNP asserts that ticketed skiers who enter MRNP from Crystal Mountain do so not as individuals, but as Crystal Mountain customers and therefore as an extension of Crystal's business in the park.
Uberuaga also pointed to the expected increase in skier visits at Crystal Mountain as its master plan is executed. He concluded that regardless of any perceived lack of present data, statistically the numbers of skiers entering MRNP from the ski area will only increase, thus further extending Crystal's business into the park. Combined with charges of observed "vegetation manipulation" and "the cutting of branches" on or near major chutes in the park, Uberuaga insisted that closing the boundary today was paramount to protecting the future of MRNP's pristine wilderness.
Throughout the meeting, the Crystal Mountain cadre remained silent. Having just been granted approval for a summit tram, several new chairlifts, a hotel, a new summit restaurant, and upgraded parking lots, they were in a delicate political position to say the least. Don't bite the hand that feeds. But after the meeting and during a later phone call, even Kircher admitted to being irked by the park's hard-line stance during the meeting.
"The 'commercial use' card was new to us," said Kircher, 46, who bought the resort in 1997. "There's no economic advantage to us if people drop into the park. We're in favor of access. For the spirit of the sport, the closure isn't good. It's backwards."
In light of the successful Jackson Hole/Grand Teton National Park boundary opening in 1999, MRNP's stance certainly seems anachronistic. (Uberuaga admitted during our phone conversation that his team didn't research other national park case studies before arriving at a decision.) Some long-time Crystal skiers even whisper about conspiracy theories. Some feel that MRNP has long sought to ban skiers and has now found its loophole.
In a follow-up phone conversation with Paulsen, he applauded the Forest Service for its extensive research and progressive approach to the boundary issue, but chided its relationship with MRNP. The Forest Service, which has ultimate jurisdiction over the ROD, calls MRNP a "cooperating partner," but to the appellants they're anything but. Paulsen sees it this way: "In an attempt to be good folks, they've involved the park service in the process and inadvertently gotten suckered by the park service into doing its dirty work."
For its part, Crystal Mountain is looking at ways to appease backcountry users without drawing the ire of the park. "We'll look into applying for a commercial use permit," said Kircher, "like how Rainier Mountaineering Inc. operates within the park." (Rainier Mountaineering Inc. is a popular guide service that operates under a contract with the National Park Service.) "There's no real commercial value for Crystal, but in the spirit of backcountry skiing, we like it. There's a hardcore group here and it would be nice to make everybody happy."
Presented with such a hypothetical situation, Uberuaga seemed intrigued. "That's one scenario that may work," he said, "if it is deemed a necessary and appropriate activity. It would have to be regulated in the same way as other park activities."
Paulsen and others hope that the MRNP boundary closure will be reversed at least until a proper monitoring process is in place, one which gathers a body of data to scientifically measure impact. "As a backcountry user, I care about wilderness values," said Paulsen. "If I believed there was evidence to show that skiing in that area was damaging, I would think twice about it. But until then, I'll still ski the best line I can find to 410."
And so the season of 2004-05 becomes the great test of wills. Will Crystal Mountain aggressively police its boundary, as the ROD requires? Will MRNP relent, or turn up the heat? Will the Forest Service take a hard stand against the MRNP closure? And will hundreds of agitated skiers like Paulsen and McQuistan risk their lift privileges to poach the freshies they so crave beyond the SUP boundary? One thing's for certain: as the snow and the chips begin to fall, we will keep you posted.