Oral arguments conclude in Mount Ashland case

Judge Owen Panner heard more than two hours of testimony in a packed court room in Medford's James A. Redden Courthouse Monday afternoon in oral arguments for the Mount Ashland lawsuit.

Now he just has to make a decision.

Citizens, Forest Service employees and Mount Ashland Association board members cluttered into the small court room to hear what attorneys on both sides had to say in the case, which has lasted since fall 2004, when the U.S. Forest Service approved a 71-acre ski area expansion for the local resort. The Oregon Natural Resources Council, Headwaters and the Rogue Group Sierra Club filed suit against the Forest Service shortly after their final environmental impact statement for the expansion was released in 2004. Local environmental activist Eric Navickas also filed a separate lawsuit. Their case claims the EIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not sufficiently assessing the expansion's impact on erosion in the Ashland Watershed or impacts on wildlife habitat. The expansion area comes near the Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek, which feeds into Reeder Reservoir — the City of Ashland's main water supply.

Plaintiffs and defendants have already filed two briefs in the case. Judge Panner struck the defendant's second brief from the record because it was turned in late after multiple extensions. Marianne Dugan, a Eugene attorney, represents the plaintiffs. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Odell represents the Forest Service. Robert Maynard represents the Mount Ashland Association in its role as a defendant intervenor.

"Let's keep in mind that this is a municipal watershed with existing problems," Dugan said during her arguments. Plaintiffs attacked the Forest Service's method of using computerized analysis and the ski area's environmental track record, claiming the environmental impact studies have not been sufficient, and catastrophic erosion could potentially occur in the city's watershed.

Odell initially said the Forest Service's work should speak for itself in its validity and extensiveness. On top of the existing administrative record, which Odell said was strong enough on its own, he focused on the economic viability of the ski area — which has been part of the Mount Ashland Association's plea since they released a master plan for the expansion in 1991.

"People feel expansion is critical to the viability of the ski area," Odell said. "There's limited terrain for most skiers there. Without these new runs, you really don't have any novice skiing."

Plaintiffs in the case also said the Forest Service refused to consider a broad range of alternatives for the expansion. Odell said the ultimate alternative accepted was a reasonable hybrid between others presented.

"There are no less than 15 reasons why the community-based alternative won't work," he said.

With oral arguments behind them, the attorney for the plaintiffs are expecting to go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case. The appellate court has traditionally ruled more often in favor of environmental groups, according to plaintiffs. Dugan said she is unaware of Judge Panner ever ruling in favor of an environmental group. While the judge took the matter under advisement and did not say when he would make a ruling, Dugan is hoping for a speedy verdict.

"The big deal is hoping we get something before Sept. 15 before they start cutting," Dugan said.

In the ski area's summer work plan, which it presents to the Forest Service for approval, the association said it would begin clearing timber for the expansion's new chair lift "no sooner than mid-September 2006." Steve Johnson, recreation specialist for the Ashland District of the Rogue River National Forest, has said the Forest Service will not allow any ground disturbance in the expansion area until the lawsuit is settled.

Dugan said she could potentially file for a preliminary injunction to stop the logging if she can prove an imminent danger.

Meanwhile, the non-profit Mount Ashland Association's attorney, Robert Maynard said the ski area has done everything necessary to be good environmental stewards and it simply wants to better serve the public.

"We want to move forward with the project, and we want to do that to better serve the recreating public of Southern Oregon," Maynard said.

The ski area has hired a soil scientist to monitor the expansion process. Michael Hogan, who is working to create an environmental plan for Lake Tahoe's Heavenly Mountain Resort. With the legal matter still pending, Navickas — who also testified Monday — said the ski area's hiring its own environmental consultant is questionable.

The other question for the plaintiffs is how the ski area will fund the expansion without greatly increasing the cost of lift tickets.

"They didn't analyze how they're going to pay for it," said Tom Dimitre, chair of the Rogue Group Sierra Club. "They show a couple million dollars, but they don't show the 5.2 million they need to pay for it."

The Mount Ashland Association should release its expansion business plan this week, ski area General Manager Kim Clark said.

Staff writer Alan Panebaker can be reached at 482-3456 x 227 or apanebaker@dailytidings.com.