- Posts: 1012
- Thank you received: 0
Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
- Joedabaker
-
- User
-
Less
More
21 years 5 months ago #169709
by Joedabaker
Replied by Joedabaker on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
In reply to J.P.'s question of wilderness experience skiing to 410. There are several routes down to 410 from Crystal. Some are easy to negotiate down and others are not so easy. All which are fine wilderness experiences-sometimes I run into others enjoying the same experience-much like hiking on a trail in the Summer and meeting other hikers. Sometimes I run into the Park Ranger driving an expensive SUV on the closed road on 410 that harrases us for skiing there. <br><br>Which one of the following spoils the Wilderness experience? <br>A) The skier quitely polling down 410 on the portion of the unplowed road . <br>
NPS driving up the road in a gas guzzling SUV harrasing skiers. <br>C) Snowmobiler legally blowing by on 410.<br>D) Snow plow blowing by you and not even slowing down on closed portion of 410.<br>I guess I just don't get their definition of "Wilderness Experience" ???. I think it is used as a distraction, such as when someone points up at the sky and says check that out and when you turn to look they run away with your wallet. It distracts you from the real meat and potatoes-I could care less about a chair lift in Northway-what's wrong with the current system?? <br>To many small acronyms controlling my lifestyle on the hill has to change. The EIS, ROD, USFS, NPS. <br>I guess it forces me to protect my God given rights and read the boloney to decipher the litigation process and send an appeal- Errrr.....All to save my rights to ski the runs I have been skiing for years.<br>We need to get the appeals in the hands of the true votes-the senior citizens.<br>If all else fails I will apply for the job of Boundry Patrol. That way I can ski the goods and let everyone ski at will.<br>...hey-see that up in the sky...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Vera_Similitude
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 28
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 5 months ago - 21 years 5 months ago #169717
by Vera_Similitude
Replied by Vera_Similitude on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
Here's a template. Please improve on it, make scathing criticisms and harass as appropriate:<br><br><br>>>>><br>This document is an appeal to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the<br> Crystal Mountain Master Development Plan dated August 2004 pursuant to 36 CFR Part 216. The ROD<br> was made available to te public Tue, 17 Aug 2004. Note that MNRP<br> refers to Mount Rainier National Park and NPW refers to Norse Peak<br> Wilderness. Also, SUP refers to Special Use Permit.<br><br> My name is<br> <your name, contact info, titular hoohaw><br><br><br> I can be reached at<br> <contact info, including phone #><br><br> The name and title of the deciding officer is<br> John Phipps<br> Forest Supervisor<br> Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest<br> 21905 64th Avenue West<br> Mountlake Terrace, WA<br> 98043<br><br><br> The specific changes that I seek are relavant to any boundary closure<br> to skiers possessing lift tickets. In particular, these are:<br><br> Section 3.4:<br> The SUP boundary will be closed to ticketed skiers in order to<br> protect wilderness areas and deter skiers from entering MNRP.<br><br> Under the selected alternative, the SUP boundary will be closed<br> to ticketed skiers and enforced by Crystal Mountain, which will<br> minimize the likelihood of ticketed skiers from entering into<br> the MNRP or Norse Peak Wilderness.<br><br> Table ROD-4, section W14: In order to minimize impacts to the<br> North and East of the SUP boundary, Crystal Mountain will not<br> permit out of bounds skiing (ticketed skiers) into mountain goat<br> areas outside the SUP boundary.<br><br> REC1: In order to maintain consistency with the wilderness<br> designation of MNRP, Crystal Mountain will implement a boundary<br> closure along MNRP as directed by MNRP and the US Forest Service.<br> Crystal Mountain will not permit out-of-bounds skiing into MNRP<br> for the express purpose of skiing into the park.<br><br> REC1: In order to maintain consistency with the wilderness<br> designation of NPW, Crystal Mountain will implement a boundary<br> closure along NPW as directed by the US Forest Service.<br><br><br> The decision to close the SUP boundaries to ticketed skiers violates the<br> policy of the National Parks and the U.S. Forest Service to serve the<br> people.<br><br> According to the statement of purpose for the USFS:<br> "These lands are yours - to visit, to care for, but most of all,<br> to enjoy."<br><br> Clearly, the boundary closure is in violation of this policy, particularly<br> with regards to regions bordering the SUP that are not specified as<br> wilderness. Moreover, even with regard to the wilderness areas, no<br> evidence has been presented in the process of the EIS that demonstrates<br> how lift service skiers have affected any areas bordering the SUP.<br><br> With regard to the closure of the MNRP boundaries, the mission of the<br> National Parks Service is to<br> "Provide for the Public Enjoyment and Visitor Experience of the Parks"<br> (excerpted from NPS FY 1999 Annual Performance Plan).<br><br> In this regard, again, there is no concrete evidence that ticketed<br> skiers have negatively impacted the public enjoyment or visitor experience.<br> In fact, there has been demonstrable benefit.<br><br> While cars, motorhomes, snowmobiles and maintenance vehicles are allowed<br> to access areas along highway 410 in MNRP, the relative impact of<br> ticketed skiers has not been established. In this regard the ROD is<br> remiss in closing the MNRP boundaries to ticketed skiers and violates<br> the intent of the EIS.<br><br> Nationally, there has been a loosening of boundary policies at such area<br> as Arapahoe Basin in Colorado and Jackson Hole in Wyoming. Each of these<br> areas border wilderness areas and National Parks and their boundaries<br> recently opened. The behavior of the NPS and the USFS is inconsistent<br> in this regard.<br>In addition, there are many difficult enforcement issues. For example,<br>if a ticketed skier, possessing either a day pass or a seasons pass, is t<br>access one of these areas without using the lifts, how is the enforcement<br>to determine the mechanism by which access was made for each instance.<br>The following are also inconsistent with the closure of the boundaries to<br>ticketed skiers:<br><br> REC15 Crystal Mountain will offer a one-ride lift ticket on the<br> Quicksilver Express chairlift to facilitate access to Silver Basin<br> for backcountry skiers.<br><br> REC16 Crystal Mountain will offer a one-ride lift ticket on the<br> Bullion Basin chairlift to facilitate access to East Peak for<br> backcountry skiers.<br> In sum there are 3 issues that have not been properly addressed.<br><br> 1) Ticketed skiers entering into areas outside the SUP formally<br> designated wilderness.<br> There is no data to support that current use of the wilderness areas<br> by ticketed skiers has had any impact at all.<br> Moreover there has been no data or study to support any claim that the<br> installation of new lifts in the North Backcountry will have any<br> impact relative to current use.<br><br> 2) Ticketed skiers entering into areas outside the SUP not formally<br> designated wilderness.<br> There is no data to support that current use of the nonwilderness areas<br> by ticketed skiers has had any impact at all.<br> Moreover there has been no data or study to support any claim that the<br> installation of new lifts in the North Backcountry will have any<br> impact relative to current use.<br><br> 3) Enforcement of any boundary closure.<br> There is no well defined mechanism by which enforcement will<br> distinguish between access to wilderness areas using lifts or not<br> using lifts, independent of whether or not the individual accessing<br> the areas is "ticketed".<br><br> I look forward to a resolution which insures reasonable access for all<br> either by a permit system monitored by MRNP or the USFS as appropriate<br> for designated wilderness areas. I also look forward to continuing to<br> access such non wilderness areas such as Sand Flats and Morris Creek<br> without undue restrictions.<br><br><br> Sincerely,<br> <your name, contact info, titular hoohaw><br><br><br><<<<<br>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- skinnyskier
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 5
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 5 months ago #169741
by skinnyskier
Replied by skinnyskier on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
I'll preface my comments by saying I've never skied at Crystal, but definitely support open boundaries. I downloaded MRNP's wild zones map, and found that the park has defined "prescriptive management zones" within designated Wilderness. Their map has a quarter-mile strip along the ridgeline border with Crystal where a visitor should encounter no more than two other parties, since the area is designated "pristine." The Crystal Lakes Basin, on the other hand, is considered "semi-primitive trail" without limits on day use.<br><br>It looks like enough people ski in these areas to make the NPS's management strategy unfair and punitive. They should manage it as "Primitive," and not "Pristine." Looking at the management plan, I think lots of other people made this comment as well. In any case, there shouldn't be limits on travel in Crystal Basin as far as I can tell.<br><br>The Park Service manages stretches of glacier as "high-use," and "moderate-use climbing areas." Maybe they should manage the ridge with Crystal as a "high-use skiing area." (Sadly, there's no such thing in their plan.)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Vera_Similitude
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 28
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 5 months ago #169743
by Vera_Similitude
Replied by Vera_Similitude on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
Thanks for the input. I'm adding it to the template.<br><br>Anyone else got some solid input?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Karma
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 3
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 5 months ago - 21 years 5 months ago #169744
by Karma
Replied by Karma on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
Rec 15 and 16 provide partailly lift served access into areas "within" the SUP, and it is my understanding that they are not in conflict with the boundry closure. <br><br>The purpose of the single ride ticket is to allow access to Silver basin and East Peak not MRNP or Norse Peak Wilderness. <br><br>I suppose you could argue that you are no longer a ticketed skier once you have used your single ride and then could hypothetically ski into NPW or Crystal lakes basin though...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Vera_Similitude
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 28
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 5 months ago #169747
by Vera_Similitude
Replied by Vera_Similitude on topic Re: Crystal Mountain FEIS and Record of Decision
The silly thing about REC15 and REC16 is that now they're playing the game of "it's OK to use this chairlift, but not that one to access the wilderness or OB areas". <br><br>It smacks of an arbitrary administration.<br><br>At issue is whether bc skiers will be placed into the same category as mountain bikers: barred from wilderness. This could be a precedent setting issue.<br><br>Having spent a fair amount of time OB @ Crystal with a lift ticket, the only damage I've seen is some branches broken on the boundary traverses going back around the Throne and the King. If this is the level of disturbance that's an issue, somebody is overly sensitive.<br><br>If the SUP is granted at all, why can't the parks and FS accept a bit more land use? What can't these areas be placed in the same category as the high use glaciers or even Crystal Lakes Basin? It's not like it's going to end up looking like the White River Campground or Sunrise Parking lot.<br><br>
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.