Ashland, OR – Those for and against a proposed expansion of Mt. Ashland ski area in eastern Oregon are making preparations for a fight over the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of the project last month.
![A topographic map depicting Mt. Ashland's proposed expansion. (image: USFS) A topographic map depicting Mt. Ashland's proposed expansion. (image: USFS)](http://www.firsttracksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mtashland_expansion_map_2011-300x190.jpg)
The approval, announced May 24 by Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor Scott D. Conroy, cleared the way for the ski area to add two chairlifts, 71 acres of new largely novice and intermediate runs in Middle Fork in the western portion of the resort’s Special Use Permit area, three new buildings, and expanded parking lot and a snow tubing area. Once built the ski area’s overall vertical drop would increase from 1,150 feet to approximately 1,700 feet.
After the original record of decision issued in 2004, environmental groups led by the Rogue Group Sierra Club fought the expansion all the way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled in September 2007 that the Forest Service needed further analysis of the environmental impacts of the expansion. After further analysis determined that there was no adverse impact upon the Ashland watershed and that the Pacific fisher, a relative of the mink not listed as rare or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would not be harmed if the ski area expanded, the project was approved.
Opponents are now considering going back to court to fight the expansion. A rally is planned for Tuesday from 4 to 7 p.m. on the Ashland Plaza to rally support for the battle and to encourage the filing of administrative appeals with the Forest Service ahead of a mid-July deadline. Those against the expansion are also asking for inclusion in the town’s 4th of July parade.
The Forest Service has 45 days to conduct internal reviews of the appeals. If the approval is upheld, the Rogue Group Sierra Club will file another lawsuit in an attempt to block the project, says club chairman Tom Dimitre.
Supporters of the city-owned, non-profit ski area’s expansion, meanwhile, are raising money to fund the project’s $3.5 million first phase and waging a publicity battle of their own via letters to the editor in local newspapers and calls to area radio talk shows. At present 78 percent of Mt. Ashland’s terrain is rated advanced intermediate or expert and the ski area markets itself under the tagline, “It’s Steeper Here.” With the National Ski Areas Association classifying 80 percent of all riders as intermediate or below, ski area officials argue that the addition of novice and low intermediate terrain is necessary to ensure Mt. Ashland’s financial viability as those are the skiers and snowboarders who spend more on ancillary services like rentals and lessons. They believe that the improvements will add at least 20,000 skier visits annually to the resort’s tally and help turn the mountain’s recent yearly deficits into an operating profit.
Ski area general manager Kim Clark says that they’ll begin logging the new runs in mid-September if there’s no court injunction against doing so as a result of any new lawsuit. Clark asserts that restoration projects that form part of the overall plan will actually result in a net improvement in the quality of the Ashland watershed, within which the ski area operates.
“By First Tracks!! Online Media” eh? You plagiarized much of this item from the Ashland Daily Tidings and failed to credit its author, Vickie Aldous. http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110627/NEWS02/106270303 That’s pretty lame.
Lame? So too is using an invalid email address that would have enabled us to address your concerns to you directly.
Journalism requires extensive research. Ms. Aldous’ well-written article was indeed part of our research that included numerous other sources as well, including the entirety of Supervisor Conroy’s decision. Research does not equate to plagiarism as you have inaccurately charged but we thank you for reading nonetheless.