Mt. Ashland expansion opponents to appeal

Opponents of a plan to expand the Mount Ashland ski area into roadless area, including Oregon Wild, will take their case to the federal appellate court, their attorney said Monday.

Opponents of a plan to expand the Mount Ashland ski area will take their case to the federal appellate court, their attorney said Monday.

"We certainly intend to appeal," said Marianne Dugan, who represented the Rogue Group chapter of the Sierra Club and two other environmental organizations in U.S. District Court last fall when they asked Judge Owen Panner to stop the ski area's plan to build 16 new trails and two new chairlifts on the 7,500-foot mountain.

Panner rejected their argument last September. The environmental groups have been waiting for his written opinion, which was released late last week, to develop their appeal arguments.

Dugan said she had not thoroughly digested the 36-page opinion, but her reading of it gave her encouragement that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will look at the case in a different light.

"Basically it's a new ball game in the Ninth Circuit," Dugan said. "They have to give it a fresh look.

"There's nothing unusual about appealing," she said.

"If we'd won, the other side would be appealing."

Dugan represented the Sierra Club chapter, Ashland-based National Center for Conservation Science and Policy and Oregon Wild (formerly the Oregon Natural Resources Council). They argued that the Forest Service had failed to follow the National Environmental Policy Act when it reviewed the ski area's proposal to expand.

Ashland resident Eric Navickas filed his own suit, which was consolidated with the environmental groups' case. Navickas, who since has been elected to the Ashland City Council, said Monday that he also plans to file an appeal.

"I'm really glad we've gotten an opinion," Navickas said, "so we can move forward with the litigation process."

Navickas said he thinks there's a good chance the appeals court will rule in the opponents' favor. He said his reading of Panner's opinion gave him reason to believe an appeal could be based on the Forest Service's failure to adequately evaluate the potential for the new ski trails to significantly increase erosion in Ashland's municipal watershed.

Panner noted in his opinion that the Forest Service fulfilled its obligation to study the erosion potential of new ski trails.

"Whether the expansion project will generate 7 cubic yards of sediment a year, or 77 cubic yards is of little consequence if even 700 cubic yards of sediment would not cause serious environmental harm or if any resulting harm is manageable and more than offset by the benefits to be derived from the project," he wrote.

"In such an analysis, the law does not require perfection."

Dugan said the plaintiffs most likely will seek an injunction to prevent the ski area from cutting trees on the mountain while the appeal proceeds.

"To avoid the whole thing being moot, we'll have to seek an injunction," she said.

People familiar with the court's calendar have said it could take as long as two years for the court to issue an opinion.

Lawyers familiar with the federal appeal process said the court would not necessarily have to grant an injunction. To stop work from proceeding, the court likely would have to determine that there was some likelihood the plaintiffs would prevail.

Panner's opinion includes numerous citations from 30,000 pages of documents submitted as part of the case. He methodically refuted the plaintiffs' contention that the Forest Service had failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the expansion plan before making a decision.