Ruling prevents expanding ski area

Oregon Wild comes out on top in a court ruling on the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says the Forest Service didn't do enough to protect Ashland's drinking water supply, protect riparian reserves and save habitat for the Pacific Fisher.

The U.S. Forest Service violated federal environmental laws in approving the proposed expansion of the Mount Ashland ski area, an appeals court ruled Monday.

The decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for environmental groups and precludes, for now, the long-disputed project at the ski resort seven miles south of Ashland.

The Oregon Natural Resources Council, now called Oregon Wild, and others sued the Forest Service after it approved in 2004 plans that would allow the resort's operators to clear forests for new runs and lifts.

The judges' decision, which overturns a lower court's ruling, said the Forest Service failed to properly evaluate the proposed expansion's impact on the Pacific fisher, a sensitive species similar to a mink that lives in old growth forests.

"We conclude that ONRC has shown the potential for irreparable harm to the Pacific fisher should the project continue," the three-judge panel wrote in a 24-page ruling.

Judges also sided with environmentalists in finding that the agency did not establish buffer zones along waterways and wetlands within the project as required by federal law.

"We're very thrilled that this ruling will protect imperiled wildlife like the Pacific fisher, which is one of the rarest mammals in Oregon," said Doug Heiken, conservation and restoration coordinator for Oregon Wild.

For more than a decade the resort, known for its steep terrain, has been hoping to add more intermediate and beginner runs by expanding into the surrounding federally-managed forests.

Under the plan rejected Monday, the resort's manager would have cleared 68 acres of forest, roughly doubling the resort's developed terrain.

The ski area, managed by the nonprofit Mount Ashland Association, could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, or the Forest Service could revise its decision to meet the court's requirements.

Resort managers said they would meet with their attorneys to discuss their options.

"We have to kind of circle the wagons a little bit here," a spokesman, Rick Saul, said.

The ski area operates under a permit issued by the Forest Service to the city, which leases the area to the resort's operators.

In recent years, the battle over new development at the resort has strained the relationship between the resort and the city, whose watershed overlaps with a small part of the proposed expansion.

Eric Navickas, a longtime expansion critic who joined the suit against the Forest Service, last year won a seat on the City Council.

"I see it as a huge victory for our city and our municipal watershed," he said.

Matthew Preusch: 541-382-2006; preusch@bendbroadband.com