Spokane, WA – An environmental group, the Lands Council, has filed a lawsuit challenging the Washington State Park and Recreation Commission’s approval of an expansion of Washington’s Mt. Spokane ski area.
On May 19, the Commission voted unanimously to reclassify an area on Mt. Spokane as suitable for ski area operations, leading the way to approval of the expansion proposal. A new ski lift and seven new runs are planned for the 279-acre area on the mountain’s northwestern face.
The lawsuit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court on Friday, contends that the Commission should have required an Environmental Impact Statement prior to rendering its decision. The Lands Council has also expressed concerns about the expansion’s impact upon other recreational activities on the mountain. Ski area backers assert that the the northwest side of the mountain, already a popular sidecountry area for the mountain’s guests, offers deeper snowpack than is found within the current ski area. Ski area officials also cite on-mountain safety, stating that they are frequently called upon to locate and rescue lost or injured skiers in the area.
“Under state law, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is empowered to make certain land use classifications regarding state forest land,” commented lawyer David B. Cronheim, Chief Legal Correspondent for First Tracks Online. “In this case, the Commission considered four alternatives with varying intensities of use for the tract adjoining the existing ski resort. It considered an array of factors including potential environmental impacts, mitigation of those potential environmental impacts, financial considerations, and the historical use of the property. After balancing these considerations, the Commission decided to permit the ski area to expand into the adjoining proposed area, albeit at a reduced scope and scale from the resort’s initial proposal.
“The Lands Council’s lawsuit challenges how the Commission reached its conclusion, not the underlying merits of that decision,” Cronheim continues. “Like all administrative agencies, the Commission is granted a wide degree of latitude in exercising its statutorily prescribed powers. It may select from an array of reasonable options. Generally, a plaintiff wishing to challenge the decision of any administrative agency bears the heavy burden of demonstrating the agency’s decision is either ‘arbitrary or capricious’ or that the agency did not follow its procedures as outlined in the relevant Administrative Procedure Act. Courts afford agencies a high degree of deference because the judiciary recognizes that agencies possess unique expertise in their specific fields. Additionally, judicial deference to agency determinations is, in part, intended to limit second-guessing by interested parties displeased with an agency’s decision.
“The Lands Council faces an uphill struggle in overturning the Commission’s decision because it must challenge the process, not whether the Commission selected the best option,” Cronheim concluded. “The Commission issued a thoughtful 35-page opinion which, on its face, appears to have considered all the relevant issues, including environmental impacts. Consequently, the Land Council’s likelihood of success is reduced by the deference courts will accord to the Commission’s decision.”