SPRING/SUMMER 1998

FOREST SUPERVISOR RECOMMENDS
TERMINATION OF SKI AREA
by Michelle Berditschevsky, Project Coordinator

DECISION NOW UP TO REGIONAL FORESTER

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor Sharon Heywood's recommendation to terminate the Ski Area is a major turning point in the Mount Shasta issue. The recommendation was finalized on June 10, 1998, and now goes to Regional Forester Lynn Sprague in San Francisco for a decision, expected sometime this summer. In the recommendation to revoke the Mount Shasta Ski Area (MSSA) permits issued to developer Carl Martin in 1988, the Forest Supervisor stated the reasons for her action. The main points are among those that supporters of protected status for the Mountain have been making, and which have stalled the ski/condominium project for over a decade: The eligibibility of two sites-the area above the 8,000 foot elevation and Panther Meadows-to the National Register of Historic Places is due to their significance to Native American culture. These sites and the Mountain as a whole play a central role in Native creation teachings, and some of the area proposed for development contains sites that are vital to tribal ceremonies. A deciding factor is the position of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which stated that the Forest Service would have to consider effects of the proposed ski area on surrounding sites that are potentially eligible to the National Register. This led the Forest Supervisor to state: "In my opinion, the effort and resources required for this project far outweigh any benefits to the public which might ultimately accrue, and thus the public interest is best served by revoking these permits." Another point is that the development and recent expansion of the Mount Shasta Ski Park on private land is meeting current skier demand.

COMMENTS GREATLY FAVOR RECOMMENDATION

A 30-day comment period was opened in February on the draft recommendation. Nearly 90% of the comments supported the action. None of the comments contained significant new information that would change the original draft recommendation. Extensive comments in support were submitted by attorney Charles Miller for Save Mount Shasta and the Native Coalition for Cultural Restoration of Mount Shasta; and by attorney James Shurz for the Sierra Club, California Wilderness Coalition and The Wilderness Society. Letters opposing the recommendation were mainly based on arguments that local interests would lose economic revenues if the ski area is not built. Many letters from individuals expressed strong wishes to see Mount Shasta remain in its beautiful natural condition.

WHAT ALL THIS MEANS FOR MOUNT SHASTA

This is a major step for Mount Shasta, but still not the final one. We truly applaud the Forest Supervisor's sensitivity to the values that so many people cherish on Mount Shasta. After the Regional Forester decides, we hope, to uphold the recommendation, the developer has the option to appeal the decision to the Forest Service Chief in Washington DC, and as a final resort, may go to court over the decision. We intend to continue our involvement with the process until the decision is final, and through any appeals or litigation. While the recommendation is in keeping with Mount Shasta's natural and cultural significance, it is not fully a commitment by the Forest Service to protect the Mountain. The Forest Supervisor has stated publicly that her office would entertain other development proposals if they met the requirements. Given the Mountain's age-old significance to Native Americans, and its more recent importance to people from all over the world who come to spend time here, we strongly believe it to be in the deepest public interest to obtain acknowledgment and protection for the Mountain's profound natural and cultural heritage and its continuance into the future as a place of renewal and inspiration.

EFFORTS FOR PROTECTION MUST CONTINUE

The Forest Supervisor gave the existence of two cultural properties - the area above 8,000 feet and Panther Meadows - as the areas that would be affected by the ski development. However these do not represent the full significance of Mount Shasta. Last year the Forest Service was instructed by the State Historic Preservation Officer to evaluate two other sites, Grey Butte and Panther Creek for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, but this has never been done. While other individual sites should be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register, Mount Shasta cannot be reduced to isolated sites. Specific sites are interconnected and what is in between is important to the living sacred geography that is the value to be recognized. For the long term, we want to see the Mountain protected with a strong designation and a Cultural Management Plan. This will take a renewed commitment from local communities and supporters worldwide.

RESTORING HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

For over three years through various forums, Save Mount Shasta and the Native Coalition for Cultural Restoration of Mount Shasta have sought to negotiate with the National Register of Historic Places and the Department of the Interior (DOI) in our efforts to obtain a hearing about the drastic cutback of the Mount Shasta Historic District. The Keeper of the National Register reduced the District in November 1994 as a result of pressure from political and commercial interests who opposed the Historic District. The reduction was from the original boundary at the 4,000 foot elevation to the 8,000 foot elevation at treeline (a reduction of almost 90%, from 150,000 acres to 19,000). (Please see earlier newsletters on previous attempts to resolve this issue.) The November 1994 revision was made through a determination that most of Mount Shasta lacked the integrity to qualify for the National Register. This issue was never raised with the Tribes, who were not included in the process which led to a decision which greatly affects cultural values and has disproportionate impacts on them.

UNITED NATIONS HEARING

In February 1998, the issue was brought by Floyd Buckskin, Chairperson of the Native Coalition and Cultural Spokesperson of the Pit River Tribe, as well as by Wintu Tribal spokespeople, before the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance who will report to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Pressures on the US government may result from findings that there have been violations of human rights in the Mount Shasta and Medicine Lake cases (see Medicine Lake article in this issue).

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE HEARING BRINGS EPA'S HELP

Last December and again in early June of this year, Floyd Buckskin and Michelle Berditschevsky testified before the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and the Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee about the reduction of the Historic District and the ski area issue. The NEJAC was formed in response to the President's Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice which addresses the issues of disproportionate impacts of government actions and exclusion of affected minorities from the decision making process. The NEJAC issued a resolution earlier this year to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommending that EPA give assistance to the Tribes and the Coalition in resolving the Mount Shasta issues. As a result of the resolution, Environmental Justice staff both in Washington DC and at EPA Region 9 in San Francisco has become involved in helping to resolve the ski area issue and set up the required consultations with the Tribes. The involvement of these allies and advocates within the government through EPA and the Office of Environmental Justice gives us hope that the hearing on the Historic District issue will take place in the next few months, and that a new Historic District boundary can be negotiated.