Spokane7
50°
June 17, 2011 in City
Suit filed protesting Mt. Spokane expansion
An environmental group is challenging the Washington State Park and Recreation Commission’s decision to reclassify part of Mount Spokane State Park’s undeveloped terrain as suitable for a ski area expansion.
The commission’s May 19 decision cleared the way for Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park to expand into 279 acres of an 850-acre area recognized as one of the largest unbroken tracts of subalpine habitat left in Spokane County. The nonprofit ski area proposes to develop a new lift and seven runs on the mountain’s northwest face.
The Lands Council filed the lawsuit Friday in Thurston County Superior Court. Since the ski expansion is likely to harm old-growth habitat, the commission members should have required an environmental impact statement before making their decision, the lawsuit said.
“An EIS would have fully and fairly compared the risk of the ski area expansion with the benefits of the previous management of the area as natural forest,” said Jeff Juel, the Lands Council’s forest policy director.
The Lands Council is also concerned that allowing Mt. Spokane to expand would displace other recreational activities on the mountain, such as snowshoeing, backcountry skiing, hiking, wildlife watching and huckleberry picking, said Mike Petersen, the council’s executive director.
“We value the ski area for the opportunity it provides for Spokane residents and want it to succeed, but we believe that the ski area can thrive within its present footprint,” Petersen said.
Alpine ski advocates say that Mt. Spokane’s operators need access to deeper snow on the north-facing slopes, allowing the resort to extend its season. Safety is also a concern, the ski area’s General Manager Brad McQuarrie has said in previous interviews.
Skiers are already using the area, even though it isn’t patrolled, McQuarrie said. As a result, Mt. Spokane ends up responding to calls for lost or injured skiers in the area, he said.
The ski area is operated by Mt. Spokane 2000. The nonprofit board is headed by Jim Meyer, husband of Betsy Cowles, the chairman of Cowles Co., which owns The Spokesman-Review.
Miners to return to Lucky Friday 
Ed Byrnes on June 18 at 7:47 a.m.
I have skied that backcountry many times using my climbing skins and telemark skis. If anyone from the Lands Council had ever actually ski toured in this backcountry they would realize that there is plenty of room for everyone in that area. I have been a lifelong supporter of many environmental causes, though the uniformed behavior of the Lands Council, and especially their effort at undermining a public and transparent process, has me rethinking if I will ever send a check to any large environmental group because the Lands Council is apparently doing this as a self promoting publicity stunt.
I think that the Mt Spokane Ski Patrol needs to immediately start billing for their services when they rescue anyone on the north side backcountry.
Ed
spokane_boy on June 18 at 10:23 a.m.
Pretty sweeping generalizations there, Byrnes. I’m a decades-long supporter of the Lands Council, and I’ve been skiing, hiking, and biking all of Mt. Spokane for longer than that. I typically spend at least 30-40 days a year on the mountain, most of it on skis, quite often off the chairs but mostly on skins. I’m more of a recreationist, less so an environmentalist.
The only real publicity campaign, very obviously, has been and is that waged by Mt. Spokane 2000 and the Cowles family—the publishers of this very media source. Their campaign has been based on an incredible amount of misinformation, including falsely claiming high rescue numbers in the PASEA, and that the west side snowpack is deeper than the north and east slopes. While the so-called decision-making process has been heavily publicized, it certainly was not transparent. Other agencies and organizations came out against the expansion for many very good reasons. Bottom line, the WA Parks & Rec Commission made a decision based primarily on politics.
This lawsuit is a very predictable part of what will hopefully be a more objective final decision. Meanwhile, Brynes, it’s clear to me you’re one of the many who’ve been duped so far by a slick, well-orchestrated but false publicity campaign.
We’ll see if the S-R “editors” delete this online comment, as they have done previously.
Ed Byrnes on June 18 at 2:58 p.m.
Spokane Boy,
My information comes from using my climbing skins on Mt Spokane, and the last time I checked the mountain remains pretty indifferent to us and is incapable of running any campaigns of any sort.
In three decades of bc skiing I have never had a mountain, which is my source of evidence, try to dupe me into anything. Perhaps you should be more respectful in what you say about your fellow bc skiers since we are a diverse group and do not uniformly hold all the same views.
Ed
spokane_boy on June 18 at 8:23 p.m.
Much I could say, Brynes, including about respect, but I’ll keep it on topic.
It’s interesting you call yourself a backcountry skier, but your viewpoint is an anomaly and definitely not representative of backcountry skiers. You do have one thing right: backcountry skiers are a diverse group with different opinions. However, the scores of backcountry skiers I know virtually all agree Mt. Spokane 2000’s proposed expansion should not be allowed, and the west side remain as is. Presently, the only true backcountry skiing in the Mt. Spokane alpine exists on the disputed west side; this backcountry skiing will be eliminated if the expansion is allowed. Where will you go backcountry skiing then?
More importantly than the potential loss of winter (and summer) backcountry experiences on the mountain would be the loss of a contiguous alpine ecosystem with rare habitat, the fouling of wetlands, small creeks, and Blanchard Creek, and the loss of the spectacular view of west Mt. Spokane from northern Spokane County communities such as Deer Park. Cheney Cowles himself, and others, fought in the 1930s to keep the Mt. Spokane west side area from being logged and to keep it as a nature reserve—the reason it exists today.
It’s my and many others’ opinion that Mt. Spokane is more valuable—that Mt. Spokane 2000, park users, and the overall community will more greatly benefit—if the west side area is protected. Mt. Spokane 2000 instead needs to spend its limited financial resources on the aging facilities that more urgently need improvement: the two aged lodges, the seven 1950s-style chair lifts, and the ancient water and sewage system. A sidecountry/backcountry management system not dissimilar to what exists at Schweitzer, reconfiguration of lifts, runs, and glades in the existing area, and the summertime promotion of downhill and cross-country mountain biking, and hiking, would more greatly benefit downhill area concession users and be profitable for Mt. Spokane 2000.
For the WA Parks & Rec Commission to have arrived at a decision based on a Mt. Spokane 2000 proposal with false information, and without an EIS and other objective, verifiable facts or studies, was irresponsible. This lawsuit to force at least an EIS is the next logical step, and I will be giving to the Lands Council for this purpose.
Whatever you’ve said up to now Mr. Byrnes (I’ve read your other S-R posts on this and other subjects) I’m amenable to ski with you sometime—frontcountry or backcountry.
selkirks on June 19 at 3:01 p.m.
I take a position between the radical conservationists and the radical expansionists. In my opinion, Mt. Spokane 2000 needs to focus first on the existing area, which in many cases has severe issues that need to be addressed. Among them:
-A high-speed quad should be placed on the front side as soon as possible and before any terrain expansion.
-A new lodge should be built to replace the aging, cramped lodges as soon as possible and before any terrain expansion.
-The beginner area should be improved with a Magic Carpet lift as soon as possible and before any terrain expansion.
-Off-season services, such as mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, and concerts, should be offered as soon as possible and before any terrain expansion.
Once these conditions have been met, I would be more than happy to consider the PASEA on the West Side. But the way in which Mt. Spokane 2000 is going about this is completely wrong. They are not acting as a community resource for all seasons. They are acting as simply a ski area operator. But that encompasses so much more than simply skiing today. It means summer activities, concerts, mountain biking, etc. in addition to all of the requisite winter activities.
No, but I think the PASEA has some excellent terrain. I don’t think there’s much of a problem with developing it as long as development takes a different approach to expansion than the current on-mountain terrain. So that means I wouldn’t want a chairlift. A cat track to the nearest chairlift would be sufficient. Runs? Who needs runs? Take a cue from other regional resorts and develop the expansion area as a sidecountry area without cut runs. Indeed, cut some trees for glading, but clear cuts are not necessary. Just make it a really awesome sidecountry area.
And then write an uphill access plan for backcountry users.
Johnnyej on June 20 at 3:16 p.m.
Let’s be honest, this is not old growth, or pristine environment. If we are looking to save biomes like that, let’s find some and save it. I respect those who love the mountain and the various views they put forth. I have been enjoying the park for about 44 years, but if I’d been a 1 year user of the park, my opinion would or should have the same weight, so let’s shelve the pulling rank card. Both views have merit. Hey I can see why folks don’t want the chairlift, I’ve got my private powder stashes back there too, and I may not want to share. If we reject the expansion, or reverse the decision, then less people will use that portion of the park, and isn’t that what we want, less people using, enjoying the park so just a few of us get the spoils?
Ed Byrnes on June 23 at 10:03 a.m.
Spokane Boy,
I regret not posting sooner, I just returned from four days on the Wasatch Crest in Utah :)
Based on what you have written I am convince that following the EIS protocol is important and therefore support the suit to that end.
I think Selkirks offers a compromise worth considering: Improving the trail out of the backside and keeping it as the glade skiing it is. I have seen this approach work in other places such as Alta.
Thank you for your thoughtful approach to my posting and I hope to see you out there somewhere this winter and make a few turns together,
Ed