Anatomy of a Ski Area Permit

Kira Tully
Sep 17
6 min read

Updated: Oct 16

Throughout the US, majority of ski areas sit on public land under the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service. All of our major ski areas in Western Washington are no different. Even though these ski areas are private companies, they still operate on public land, and thus have operating requirements and restrictions known as Special Use Permits (SUPs) dictated by the Forest Service detailing specifically what they are authorized to do.

In recent years, as skiers have taken greater interest in the arrangement of ski areas with the Forest Service, much speculation has taken place around the contents of these permits to determine if they could be used to hold the ski areas accountable for undesired policies. Unfortunately, SUPs are not publicly available. As a result, skiers have been left with many questions about what they contain.

In order to better understand the permits that govern our local ski areas, CBA obtained the permits for all major ski areas in Washington through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This post will break down how these permits are structured, how they allow ski areas to operate, and how they impact backcountry access.

For illustration purposes of this article, we use text from the SUP for Stevens Pass specifically. Note, however, that the language used in all Western Washington SUPs are nearly identical.

Duration & Boundaries

One of the first items to note in a SUP is their duration. The SUPs are valid for decades at a time meaning there are limited abilities for the Forest Service to modify the terms. For example, Stevens' permit is valid until 2058:

This permit shall expire at midnight on 08/31/2058, from the date of issuance. Expiration of this permit shall not require notice, a decision document, or any environmental analysis or other documentation.

Another commonly misheld belief is that the ski areas consist of the boundaries marked on their trail maps. For the purposes of day-to-day skiing in-bounds, this is true, but the SUPs typically include a larger boundary area for ski areas to operate in; sometimes considerably larger than the terrain on their trail maps.

Consider Stevens’ SUP boundary below. It includes additional land to the east of the existing ski area and even a good portion of land on the other side of the highway.

That's not to say ski areas are free to fire up the chainsaws and put in new runs/chairlifts at will. Permission from the Forest Service is still required for each specific project. For example, consider when Crystal Mountain had its proposed East Peak and Silver King chairlifts rejected by the Forest Supervisor of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in 2004:

My decision addresses the concerns related to this issue, to a great degree. The Selected Alternative eliminates any development in the East Peak area, which is located close to Norse Peak Wilderness. The Silver King chairlift is also eliminated from my decision, which will result in no change from the existing condition in this area, adjacent to MRNP.

- Crystal Mountain Master Development Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision August 2004

Ski Area Permit Fees

Ski areas are commercial entities that operate on public land. Therefore, it would be expected that there be compensation to the government for their use of public land. This is where the ski area permit fee calculations (SAPF) come into play.

The exact fees that ski areas are charged for their operation on public land is dependent on their revenue and follow a defined formula in the ski area's SUP as such:

SAPF = (.015  x AGR in bracket 1) +
       (.025  x AGR in bracket 2) +
       (.0275 x AGR in bracket 3) +
       (.04   x AGR in bracket 4)

AGR = adjusted gross revenue

Adjusted gross revenue table:

Year	Bracket 1 (1.5%)	Bracket 2 (2.5%)	Bracket 3 (2.75%)	Bracket 4 (4%)
2025	<$6.3M	$6.3M - $31.6M	$31.6M - $105.3M	>$105.3M

This works effectively the same as a progressive income tax: ski areas pay increasing fees as their revenue increases through the prescribed brackets.

There is some additional nuance where the fees are prorated depending on certain conditions such as percentage of the ski area residing on private land, but those are omitted here for simplicity.

Where, then, does this money go? 16 U.S. Code § 497c governs the collection mechanism for these fees. Notably it does not state any specific use for their collection. As such, the permit fees will default to being put into the general fund of the US Treasury. Should these fees be directed back to the forests they arise from? Probably, but the law is not currently written as such unfortunately.

Government Oversight

Permit Revocation

While SUPs give ski areas broad authority to operate as they please, they are not entirely without government oversight while operating on public land. Obvious reasons include noncompliance with federal, state, or local laws or the terms of the permit.

However, there is also an additional reason "for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest" listed. What's more, the language defining a "compelling reason" is fairly broad:

The authorized officer may revoke this permit during its term if the Forest Service determines through the process of amending or revising the applicable land management plan that the use and occupancy authorized by this permit should be changed for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest.

Community groups have advocated for revocation of permits in light of cases such as the operating challenges at Stevens in recent years. We are unaware of any cases where this clause has been exercised to revoke a SUP. Although it does, in theory, provide an avenue for ski area accountability in extreme cases.

Rate Regulation

The Forest Service also retains the power to regulate prices of services at ski areas:

The authorized officer shall have the authority to regulate the adequacy and type of services provided the public under this permit and to require that these services conform to satisfactory standards. [...] These prices may be regulated by the authorized officer, provided that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different from those charged by comparable or competing enterprises.

This presumably provides consumer protection from price gauging. However, since the Ski Area Permit Fees are directly derived from gross revenue, there is little incentive for the Forest Service to exercise this right outside of extreme cases. Likewise, we know of no cases where this has taken place.

Parking

In recent years many ski areas in Western Washington have begun charging parking fees in their lots. In turn skiers have repeatedly questioned if this was permitted by the SUPs.

In short, yes, ski areas can indeed charge for parking. In the definition for ski area permit fees, parking fees are explicitly listed as a service that can be charged for with no stipulations or restrictions.

Gross year-round revenue from temporary and permanent ancillary facilities, including all the holder's or subholder's lodging, food service, rental shops, parking, and other ancillary operations, located on NFS lands in the permit area, prorated, as applicable, according to the percentage of use between NFS lands and private land in the ski area per clause VI.B.3.c.

Backcountry Access

Just because a ski area has a permit for a given area does not mean it has exclusive use of that area. The permits explicitly state as such with the following language:

Except for any restrictions that the holder and the authorized officer agree are necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized improvements, the permit area shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes.

It would be incorrect to believe that we are free to do entirely as we please within ski area boundaries, however. The language specifically states that restrictions may be placed as deemed necessary by the ski area and the Forest Service.

Similarly, state and local laws apply too. For example, in Washington RCW 79A.45.070 criminalizes knowingly skiing in a posted closed area of a ski area:

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person knowingly skis in an area or on a ski trail, owned or controlled by a ski area operator, that is closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure.

But aside from these restrictions that you're likely already aware of, ski areas may not restrict access to their terrain for the purposes of backcountry access, for instance.

Full SUPs

Further details on the day-to-day operations of ski areas can be found in the full special use permits below.

In the interest of transparency, CBA has decided to publish the SUPs for the following Western Washington ski areas: