Home > Forum > Categories > Random Tracks > Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision

Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • Topic Author
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago - 21 years 6 months ago #169665 by Lowell_Skoog
Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision was created by Lowell_Skoog
The Seattle Times reported yesterday that the USFS has released the Crystal Mountain Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.  I received a copy of the FEIS/ROD on CDROM today and the information is also available here:<br><br> www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/projects/crystal_eis/

In a nutshell, here's the decision from a skier's viewpoint.  Lifts approved:

* Summit tram (base area to summit)
* Park 'n Ride chair (Lot B to base area)
* Kelly's Gap chair (Lot B to east shoulder of Northway Pk)
* Northway chair (top of Lower Northway to Northway Peak)
* Bullion Basin chair (same location as former chair, I think)
* Two new surface tows (near base)

Lifts not approved:

* East Peak chair
* Silver King chair
* Snorting Elk chair

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with this decision.  Neither East Peak nor Silver King will be developed.  (The rebuilding of the Bullion Basin chairlift makes me nervous.  I don't think it makes much sense unless you're going to develop East Peak.)

Much of the North Backcountry will be come lift-served frontcountry, but at least you'll still have to hike a little to reach Morning Glory Bowl.  The South Backcountry will remained unchanged.  I don't like the Summit Tram idea, but that really only affects lift skiers.  My main concern about this development is that it will make Crystal Mountain bigger and more "resort-like" and will result in higher ticket prices, making it less attractive for families and new skiers.

This message has been cross-posted here:

www.turns-all-year.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB...splay;num=1092696727

www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=260482#260482

www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat...d/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Matt
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago #169666 by Matt
This is the part that bothers me. They are limiting my access to backcountry skiing because I am a pass holder. What, I have to hike from the base area to ski in this area WTF. <br><br>If anyone understands this please let me know....Why would they sell one way lift tickets (from rod 4 bottom) to backcountry skiers but not allow 'ticketed skiers' to access the same area? <br><br>They talk about an appeal process, anyone done this before with this type of ruling? What works? <br><br>These are the sections from the report I dont like. <br><br>The Selected Alternative has been designed to reduce visual impacts to those seeking a quality wilderness experience in Mt. Rainier National Park (MRNP), and in the Norse Peak Wilderness. The SUP boundary will be closed to ticketed skiers in order to protect wilderness areas and deter skiers from entering MRNP. <br>Under the Selected Alternative, the SUP boundary will be closed to ticketed skiers and enforced by Crystal Mountain, which will minimize the likelihood of ticketed skiers from entering into the MRNP or Norse Peak Wilderness. In addition, Crystal Mountain will fund a winter snow ranger position to work with Crystal Mountain in enforcing the closed boundary policy. <br>This decision is subject to appeal by individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments during the comment period pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.7. Appeal of this decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14 (Content of an Appeal). The notice of appeal must be filed hard copy with the Appeal Deciding Officer, faxed, hand delivered, or sent electronically. Appeals must be postmarked or delivered to the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the date the legal notice for this decision appears in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The publication date of the legal notice in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal; those wishing to appeal should not rely on dates or timeframes provided by any other source. <br><br>Rec 1 In order to maintain consistency with the wilderness designation of MRNP, Crystal Mountain will implement a boundary closure along MRNP, as directed by MRNP and the US Forest Service. Crystal Mountain will not permit out-of-bounds skiing into MRNP for the express purpose of skiing into the park. Traversing to Silver King via MRNP will be allowed for skiing within the SUP area. A boundary management plan will be developed to include signage indicating that the MRNP boundary is closed to ticketed skiers, that MRNP is not controlled for avalanche safety, and that search and rescue by Crystal Mountain Ski Patrol may not be available to out-of-bounds skiers. <br><br>REC2 <br>In order to maintain consistency with the wilderness designation of NPW and to minimize impacts to backcountry skiers in the NPW, Crystal Mountain will implement a boundary closure along NPW, as directed by the US Forest Service. Crystal Mountain will not permit out-of bounds skiing into NPW. A boundary management plan will be developed to include signage indicating that the wilderness boundary is closed to ticketed skiers, that the wilderness is not controlled for avalanche safety, and that search and rescue by Crystal Mountain Ski Patrol may not be available to out-of-bounds skiers. <br><br><br>-From ROD 4 <br><br>REC15 Crystal Mountain will offer a one-ride lift ticket on the Quicksilver Express chairlift to facilitate access to Silver Basin for backcountry skiers. <br><br>REC16 Crystal Mountain will offer a one-ride lift ticket on the Bullion Basin chairlift to facilitate access to East Peak for backcountry skiers.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • wolfs
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago #169667 by wolfs
As someone who's been skiing long enough to remember the old Bullion Basin chair, I cannot see why they would bother to rebuild it. The trails were uninteresting and the snow was typically pretty lousy (snowmaking wouldn't help it either, it's got southern exposure). And without going higher on East Peak I would take a bet that even though it's permitted they wouldn't bother building a Bullion Base, especially with the majority of parking going in on the opposite side of the valley.<br><br>One item of concern for 'area backcountry' skiers, like (potentially) TAYFest:<br><br>W15 During the elk calving season (May 15-June 30), the base area at Crystal Mountain will be fenced off to prevent guests from disturbing and impacting elk calving.<br><br>Presumably this means that they'll have to put up a big temporary cyclone fence in an arc starting from the chapel all the way to the Snorting Elk Cellar bridge or something like that. I can understand that the elk season is something that should be factored into the usage plan, but this seems like overkill given that hardly anyone ('cept us) is likely to be there, then. However, if it keeps the snowmobiles out, fine, go ahead and put up a fence that people on skis can get around anyways.<br><br>Also, am I misreading this, or does this plan effectively end lift-serviced mountain biking? Not that I care personally, but I wonder if anyone in that user group has a beef with that.<br><br>My final note is that I've seen weekends at the existing Crystal where just about every aspect of their non skiing infrastructure was completely exceeded, especially parking and the ability of CM Blvd or Hwy 410 to get people in, parked, and out in anything resembling a reasonable time. Currently these are peak events, that might happen just a couple times a year after a good dump and then sun, holidays etc. Only a few of these factors look like they're going to get properly addressed per this plan, meaning that the ones that are left unfixed (like 410) are what's really going to make or break Crystal as far as it being a successful business venture, not how many new lifts they have.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • DonnellyM
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago #169668 by DonnellyM
Replied by DonnellyM on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
I say they invent a chair that goes at 50-70% faster than a current high speed quad and replace all slow chairs with it. Forget about adding new lifts. I dislike the idea of having more lifts. If we want to ski something cool we hike for it just like we've always done, and build up our onw high speed quads (legs) ;)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • J.P.
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago - 21 years 6 months ago #169669 by J.P.
Silas -<br><br>Thanks for posting those key sections from the decision.  The interesting thing is that I do not recall any discussion of this boundary closure in the original proposal. Of course it has been a while since I studied it, so if anyone can point me toward the section where it was discussed I would appreciate it.<br><br>In my limited experience with Federal decisions and the appeals process (and not as an attorney), things tend to be very formal and by the book.  You have to find a solid  point to go after and cannot rest your case on emotion alone.  I believe that cases are first heard by an Administrative Law Judge, probably someone out of California who would hold a hearing in the area (in my experience @ the Federal Courthouse in Seattle).<br><br>A successful appeal would likely require the use of a good land use attorney and a pooling of financial resources.  And as noted, you have to have someone who has legal standing through the provision of substantive comment during the DEIS/ permit review process.<br><br>I made a quick check over at the www.crystalcoalition.org site, and was disappointed to see that they had not even updated their page to acknowledge the decision.  During the initial DEIS process, this group was quite active and I believe they had assistance from a land use attorney.  Perhaps someone on this board was involved or has a good contact for that organization to know if they plan an appeal of any sort.

Hopefully others who are better versed in this sort of a permit action will weigh in.  I suspect someone out there even has access to a USFS employee who might understand how to best attack the boundary closure issue, or know if there is any case law to support it.

I struggle with the fact that it is our land, managed by our government, leased to a private interest for pennies on the dollar so that a privately held company can expand and generate additional profit and then do the "dirty work" of keeping us out of a place that we have every right in the world to visit.  

I think that privately funded employee is gonna be one busy boundary cop... :)

J.P.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Vera_Similitude
  • User
  • User
More
21 years 6 months ago #169675 by Vera_Similitude
Replied by Vera_Similitude on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
I do remember reading the closure proposal in the application. I protested to Larry via email several times, but my concerns were not addressed.<br><br>I just can't believe the boundary closure. While other area of the country like Jackson Hole and Arapahoe Basin have opened their boundaries, why is Crystal closing theirs?<br><br>Is there a private organization or collection of individuals that is instigating this or is it a function of NP or FS land management?<br><br>There's a precedence for going out to Pickhandle, Morris Creek, Crystal Lakes, 410 and Sand Flats, not to mention Kempers which was closed for the first time last year. Does the precedence of use give any legal footing?<br><br>Moreover, there's no public evidence that the existing use was damaging to the environment or experience of these areas, nor is there any proof that the new lifts will change that.<br><br>It sounds like the expansion was an opportunity for some entities to assert their will against accessing these areas. <br><br>Lawsuit, anyone?<br><br>An appeal can be filed via:<br>appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us

or by US post at:
Appeals Deciding Officer
Attention: 1570 Appeals
333 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, OR
97208-3623
FAX:503-808-2255

I honestly don't understand what formatting requirements there are for the appeal.

All in all, I am OK with the result: no lifts on the King and no lift on East Peak. But I greatly object to the closure

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.