SUMMER 1997

PROPOSED MOUNT SHASTA SKI AREA STILL THREATENING by Michelle Berditschevsky, Project Coordinator

The wheels of government have ground to a crawl, with the US Forest Service taking halting steps to keep the Ski Area review process alive. Last winter the Forest Service sent its Adverse Effects Analysis of the Ski Area to the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review and comment (see legal issues below, and the Winter-Spring 1996-97 Newsletter). The SHPO sat on it for a few months, then declined to comment. The Forest Service has not taken further steps in the process.

Why this inaction? - continuing strong opposition to the development, widespread public support for protection of Mount Shasta, evidence of the undeniable spiritual and cultural significance of Mount Shasta to Native Americans and to many people as one of the great natural sanctuaries of the world, and the President's Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites (see below).… As a result, the Forest Service may be questioning whether it is productive or appropriate to continue expending resources to push for this ski development. At this time, we can't let up our vigilance!

STATUS OF THE DEVELOPER'S PERMIT UNCERTAIN

The status of the permit (awarded in 1988) remains uncertain as no new decision regarding ski development has been made to replace the decision to award the permit. Given the additional information about the Mountain's cultural significance revealed by the Section 106 Process, we will insist on a new decision.

We continue to uphold the position that the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process requires cultural values to be considered early in the planning process and considered in decisions. The Mount Shasta Ski Area permit was awarded before the Section 106 Process was even begun (even though evidence of cultural significance was on the record since the planning stages in 1979).

STATUS OF THE MOUNT SHASTA HISTORIC DISTRICT

In coalition with Native Americans, Save Mount Shasta was instrumental in obtaining the Mount Shasta Historic District eligibility determination which created recognition and a foundation for legislated protection through a National Monument Bill. The historic designation was granted by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places (Department of the Interior) in March 1994, on the basis of the Mountain's cultural significance to Native Americans, encompassing the entire mountain down to 4000 feet, and engaging the Historic Preservation Process for all federal projects proposed within the Historic District boundaries.

Subsequently, strong opposition by developers and property rights groups influenced local governments to ask for removal of the designation. The result was the November 1994 revision, which reduced the Mount Shasta Historic District to the 8,000 foot timberline level, from its previous 150,000 acres to 19,000 acres, protecting only rock and ice. This was done without the benefit of consultations with Native Americans and other interested parties that are affected by the decision.

Since that time, our efforts have been directed at obtaining higher level review of the revision by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture.

HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS

In November 1996, representatives from the Native Coalition for Cultural Restoration of Mount Shasta, Save Mount Shasta, and our attorneys, met with Assistant Secretary of the Interior George Frampton. This meeting resulted in a plan for opening negotiations on the Historic District boundary with Undersecretary of Agriculture Jim Lyons and then Chief of the Forest Service Jack Ward Thomas, in order to discuss a modified Historic District proposal on which we have been working this year.

However, the status of negotiations with Interior and Agriculture has become uncertain with the resignations of George Frampton and Jack Ward Thomas. We are currently working on resuming negotiations through other administrative avenues, in hopes of reinstating the original Mount Shasta Historic District boundary at the 4,000 foot elevation, or of negotiating an acceptable compromise boundary in consultation with Native Americans and other interested parties.

EXECUTIVE ORDER ON INDIAN SACRED SITES NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

President Clinton's Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites could be causing the Forest Service's hesitation to take further steps.

As a result of the South Lawn Address of April 1994, the President issued Executive Order 13007 on Indian Sacred Sites in May 1996, which includes instructing government agencies to "avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of…sacred sites." Even though it contains the cautious language "to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions," the Executive Order nonetheless gives agencies a strong presidential directive, and creates another forum for sacred site issues.

This Spring, extensive consultations with Native Americans were held to obtain input on implementation of the Executive Order. Two representatives from the Native Coalition for Cultural Restoration of Mount Shasta attended the consultations - Floyd Buckskin, Cultural Spokesperson of the Pit River Tribe and Chairman of the Coalition, and Mildred Rhoades, Elder of the Wintu Tribe. A result of the consultations was to bring more attention to sacred sites that are threatened by agency actions, including Mount Shasta.

INCREASED EFFORTS FOR SUPPORT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL

We are also increasing our efforts to gain more support for the Historic District and long-term protection of the Mountain at the local level. Since economics is given as the main reason for additional ski development, we want to present local community leaders with economic alternatives to corporate development.

BACKGROUND

Since 1988, SAVE MOUNT SHASTA has been playing a lead role in protecting Mount Shasta's largely pristine ecosystem from large-scale ski/condominium development, misdirected timber sales, and other inappropriate activities.

We have insisted on US Forest Service compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and have built widespread citizen support for these issues. We have gained recognition and a measure of protection for the Mountain through its eligibility as a National Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. While the designation has been cut back and does not prohibit development, it requires higher levels of review for any federal undertaking. Mount Shasta as a whole is still under a National Register Multiple Property designation, which requires the Forest Service to undergo Section 106 review on a project-by-project basis.

Our legal team is comprised of Charles M. Miller of the Palo Alto firm of Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich; and Christina Meldrum and Robert Nelson of the San Francisco firm of Shearman & Sterling. While attorneys are donating their services pro bono, we are responsible for some of the legal costs.

One of our goals is to form local ecosystem stewardship restoration projects, to help reconnect people and the land and being involved in the care of the land. Working closely with the Native Coalition for Cultural Restoration of Mount Shasta on these issues, we have also provided support and participation in the formation of a Cultural Management Plan for Mount Shasta (we are currently working on getting it across to the Forest Service). A pilot project in the Cultural Management Plan, the Ethnobotanical Restoration Project, is currently being implemented in its first phase, which includes: archival research on ethnobotanical species traditionally used by Native Americans (almost all plants were used); interviewing elders and traditional people to augment information on plant uses and locations of gathering areas; and designing a restoration plan for subsequent years.

In addition, under our umbrella organization, the Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, we have initiated a grassroots H.O.M.E. Stewardship Project (please see below).

Our activities toward seeking protection for Mount Shasta include advocacy and litigation, involvement in forest issues, furthering public education and participation, coalition building, researching and generating dependable information on legal issues as well as on cultural and natural values, seeking designation of Mount Shasta as a Historic District and National Monument, and helping to develop a Cultural Management Plan in close cooperation with Native Americans. We have produced a professional-quality video, Mount Shasta-Cathedral of Wildness, periodic newsletters, updates and action alerts, as well as community informational meetings and educational events.

LEGAL ISSUES

Through two appeals, a lawsuit, and protracted involvement in the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process, we have achieved constant delays of the proposed ski development. The Forest Service also relentlessly proposes timber sales on the Mountain and surrounding region, which we have been able to halt or significantly reduce by effecting substantial modifications in the amount of timber harvested, the methods used, and restoration of impacted areas.

Enforcing Forest Service accountability through the administrative process, and litigation if necessary, are ongoing activities in a time where vested interests exert strong political influence and citizen groups are needed to monitor government actions. To enforce the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), we work on an ongoing basis with our pro bono attorneys, local Native Americans, surrounding communities, environmental groups and government agencies, to stay on top of every step in the mandated process.

Because historic preservation issues are currently in the forefront, the NEPA appeal is pending the results of the Section 106 process of the NHPA. This process is designed to assure compliance with historic and cultural preservation for federal proposals on public lands and is tied into NEPA.

In December 1996 the Forest Service submitted a very restricted Mount Shasta Ski Area Effects Analysis to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as its latest step in the NHPA Section 106 process. The Analysis totally ignores the earlier directives of the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) to expand the analysis of effects to a larger area of potential effect, and to evaluate the cultural significance of other areas of the Mountain. The analysis does not adequately evaluate the effects of the ski resort, nor does it mention that other alternatives exist that have far fewer impacts on Mount Shasta's culturally and environmentally significant sites.