Power cable proposal for Mt. Ashland challenged

By Sean Wolfe

Ashland Daily Tidings

Citing shaky science, and suspicious of expansion efforts on the part of Ski Ashland, local environmentalists are mounting a challenge to a PacifiCorp project that aims to replace an aging power cable running to the top of Mount Ashland.

The project, which aspires to ensure reliable power to a radar station, a weather station, and a television station is taking a drubbing from the Sierra Club, and local activist Eric Navickas, who also launched a local effort to boycott Ski Ashland this season.

At issue is an environmental assessment produced by Rogue River National Forest's Ashland Ranger District, and in particular the impact of erosion on Ashland's water supply, namely Reeder Reservior.

According to Navickas, the assessment is based on bad science that radically underestimates the amount of silt that could ultimately end up in Ashland's water reserves.

"During the 1997 flood, the City of Ashland had to spend half a million dollars to remove the sediment, and (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates suggested that 10 percent of that came from Ski Ashland," Navickas said. Navickas contends that anti-erosion measures on Mount Ashland are inadequate to cope with the current erosion, particularly during very wet years. He maintains that erosion caused by replacing the power cable will only exacerbate the situation.

Tom Rose, chairman of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, and a former electrical engineer, has similar issues with the cable proposal.

In a letter submitted to the Forest Service, Rose writes that an historical study (1978-1983) of the sediment loss "was seriously flawed by regular over-topping or failure of the two area sediment traps," and recommends that a new five-year survey of sediment flows from the ski area should be begun this summer with improved traps placed below some of the ski runs so that effects of any heavy summer precipitation can be observed.

"We are dubious of the validity of the soil erosion analysis in the (environmental assessment), both short-term and cumulative, and believe that improved base data is essential," Rose wrote.

But sediment and its impact on Ashland's water quality composes only the top of the laundry list of issues that environmentalists have with the PacifiCorp project. Also at issue are impacts on local plant and animal species, as well as suspicions about whether the cable project is simply the first step in the still-controversial expansion of Mount Ashland's ski facilities.

Navickas said he is skeptical about PacifiCorp's cable proposal because it's launch closely coincided with the announcement of the ski facility expansion.

"It's difficult to prove, but I find it very suspicious. The expansion's been put forward, and suddenly they want to replace the cable, and it appears very questionable. It would be a violation of the National Environmental Protection Act to separate out the impact of the cable replacement from the entire impact of the project," Navickas said.

Navickas' suspicions are partially confirmed by a letter written in April of last year by Ski Ashland's mountain manager Bruce Meek, who cites "our potential future power requirements," as one of his reasons for supporting the project, and includes concerns about the age of the power line, and the "disruption of recreation" consequences, should the line fail in mid-winter.

For its part, PacifiCorp contends that the cable is near the end of its service life, and needs replacement. Further, according to PacifiCorp project manager Russ Loeffler, the power company wouldn't have to replace the cable to provide adequate power to the expansion of Ski Ashland.

"The cable we have, except for its age, is plenty to supply the ski resort. Even with the ski expansion, it would only use 40 percent of the load," Loeffler said.

According to Loeffler, PacifiCorp would have to pay out between $200,000 and $300,000 for one version of the upgrade, which would run up the Dream ski run in a buried conduit. Another version, favored by the local Sierra Club because it could, if done properly, have less impact on the watershed might run as high as $1 million.

As a rule of thumb, Loeffler estimates that an additional 10 percent of the price tag would have to be spent on "mitigation," another word for site clean-up, erosion suppression, and other ecological measures to reduce the impact of the project. That money, Loeffler said, would come from PacifiCorp coffers.

"It's not a project we're thrilled about doing. It's much like replacing an aging cable in a subdivision," Loeffler said.

Ultimately, Loeffler contends the cable that has served the mountain with 12 kilovolts for the past 35 years is not aging well. Outages have occurred over the past decade, and the power company has had to respond with costly repairs.

According to Loeffler, if the cable proposal is not blocked, the project could break ground by mid-summer.

In the meantime, the Sierra Club is pushing for the Forest Service to require an environmental impact statement, the highest level of environmental scrutiny.

Navickas continues to question the science behind the environmental assessment, in preparation to execute his citizen's right to invoke a NEPA provision, and bring suit to stop the project.