Document text
FRIDAY December 5, 2003 - Subscribe - Contact Us Valley&State Backpage O&E Sports Archives Classifieds Faith&Beliefs Obituaries Revels Editorial: Ski expansion must be done to completion Activism over the Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion proposal has run high since the U.S. Forest Service released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement in July. In the past two months, groups on both sides of the issue have become galvanized. What is certain is that consensus will never appear. A myth being floated points to "compromise" plans that save the area around the Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek from development. We have met with a number of groups on both sides, looking for such a compromise. But we cannot see one that would actually work. The biggest reason is fiscal policy. As a business, it makes no sense for the Mt. Ashland Association to spend millions of dollars on an expansion that adds fractionally more skiable terrain and almost no new intermediate terrain. Such improvements would draw very few new visitors indeed. Nonprofit or not, Mt. Ashland must be able to recoup the costs involved in improvements. While the potential environmental impacts of full expansion are exponentially more, only the cutting of trees has an agreed-upon effect. Not enough is known about changes in water quality and quantity, despite claims to the contrary on both sides. More study would be needed. However, Mt. Ashland first got permission to expand decades ago, and while the Draft EIS just came out, the fact is that any group wanting to prove impending damage - or the lack thereof - has had ample time to go study it. Moreover, the largest environmental detriment occurred when the ski area was initially built. Now is the time for a decision. Given that Ashland is a service-based town, the need for a winter economy - through a ski area that can survive - is clear. A full expansion is critical to that survival. Dissenting View Growth should not be allowed on Mt. Ashland It is unfortunate that our ski resort and our watershed are reluctant neighbors in a pristine wilderness area. We were quite interested in finding a way to protect the watershed - particularly the Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek - but we finally concluded the only way to do that was with no expansion at all. The board agreed that only two positions could be defended: Do the expansion, the whole expansion, for the good of the community, at the cost of some old-growth trees and possibly damaging the unique hydrology of the Middle Branch - or don't expand at all. In the end, a couple of us pushed for the no-expansion view. All of the ideas boiled down to two values: We don't want to endorse the cutting of old-growth trees. Not a single one. And, in a day and age when cities across the country are fighting for more and more water access, why would the city of Ashland risk its own pristine waters? To protect these values, only a no-expansion alternative is tenable. DailyTidings.com Home Page Valley&State | Backpage | O&E | Sports | Archives | Weather | Classifieds Columnists | Faith&Beliefs | Obituaries | Revels | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2003 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Site Search: .:Advertisements:. RESOURCES - Road Cams