Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0601 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, June 1, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5: 30 p.m. Study Session 1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum) 2. Look Ahead review 3. Discussion of support for expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 4. Conservation Commission carbon pricing legislation support resolution In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014, CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WW W.ASHLAND.OR.US 0 N W N M r l W ~ Z N N 7i Cl w w n. O O` M ro N W (if ~ ~ d O ''Mnn N N w m V t` n W a) Z Q C LU W Q2 c'zz 0 U °o O J ~ ~ F- c U N N d W M m O O N D co co ° ti) w x a w w w w C z a 0 Of 0~ cr w a) m ~ Z a 0 U) co U ~o LL C c6 ~ Q c Q Q c Q N Q c c c c c c _ c c Cl) E m m m m m m m m E E E _ a. .c c c c c c ° c c ° D ° ° a U H 0-Q ` U lL LL Q IL li. Q i U U 3 Q Q o m a) C° O m ~ ° m L Q N ~ - j E m Q a) LL > u! Q i - - m co co m L m ~ m a > a) Y m O N ~ ~ T V 0 ~ Q C 74 - aa)) 0) n in R o 0- co N 0 co E Q' x c U N L ° N m a o - E E c -5 IX 0 c a) w N o c E~ 4O ~ c ~ c E tY ~ C o f c m C o c w o p c E_-- o- J a O m y m o m a) ° c c O Q 0 3° m U ° v m ° U o° N U p in tt-- d o U m° m a~ o U o r y° a m aui a m o 6G N c m C N - cn a) .U - c N - ii. N - N U :3 a a) .v m m w ° o a m o v m o U is .v ° 3 c m a~ C m ~ c J p w c C c Z c c - Q a Q w a) > C C c o c a m 7 Q) a) J O m 7 a 3 a 7 7 c O N _ O c' m p c_ p 'o a) ° co -6 O m o O c_ U m o E c U c° c p c0 V o c LL U c° U c c U U p° o c o _ ° o} O° O o ° O a O° O o L ° o LL - N LL > c U _ U R o (D Q c U N N m a) o N c N v m m ..N m m Y m ffl~~ a) > T O N in n- p N 7 7 to a) O m a) y ~l N r 7 0 3 Uj O LO U o a) d N (n y -O t TO In a~ w U (1) a) i a) c~ N c m d a~ u, a> Q; U) O d l~ U d c a) n rn> c c+' x ca > [Y > Q 0X _0 (n m c Q 'c .c d m 'a - N w « m c w •o o _ c - ° C -O .Q a) ; m .w m U a) N : O N T L: r-+. N Y m m o f 'E (D > N O c - a) a) o; m o m 0 0 o N°3Nm = mom. KUCO ~E w E c ° 0 o cn c m° m c J v o o E m W m o u° a c occno m Ym E° c c o ca o' o y c a) i 3 a) m c ° m U.. O L U m U: O CD (D .N o (A c~ u) ,t c c c c n° > 0 0 o c) c c m (f) m m m m m o m 3 m 7 7 ° N 0 to a) a) i3 O c 7 7 Q C •N C O N Q Q) N m > N -o 0 C C O C -O V) o iD > U (D (D 00 Qd Q mQ 7Q O' QQ LL QO 2to O of Q N Lo M (D f~ m O C N N N. N V M t0 'a' n^ O O M U 3 (D w w ~r -6 W ~ Z as x ~ U 00 J F- ~ H = U W N C~ ~MM G W 0 ~ co 0 ~ d ~ Z U a H LL so as Cl) U C T Cl) a+ c U a li i a~ O o m J c U7 O Y m I C N 0 O O 2G O E U a' c O o o ~ 7 '4+ .N U N U ti p N Ul a) N ~ . ? c ° O E ~ r v ~ N N - p N c c E m a c (n C V y N uo o c c $ a ° (D E C 3 'C O N N_ c 'N c o c o a.,_ L w u 0 E N .0 -0 C U O V 'a E E o Ln Fn U) NB' LQ Do E E N Q w C U c O U E o E E s E c r :j W 0) 0 C: C) E O ° N N o o ° U (c6 U It,:~. m E E o s° -0a C E N r r c U N o c E o a° ° Q c o ° w z xs m o N ° U 2 m m m ° m N CD N CL N N m c 0 p a m ~ a E a) O d N O U c c U U ! p N- c ° m m~ O m co to O N` _ Co LL co N 9 E O ° a E N m L N N K N E E O -0 a) a) 2 c a 12:iE m Q Q2i 4 cnOZO o 7)¢ CY N N CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication June 1, 2015, Study Session Discussion of support for expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument FROM: Dave Kanner, City Administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Councilor Marsh has requested a Council discussion of supporting a proposed expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which is east of Ashland. Dave Willis of the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council will be on hand to answer questions about this request. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The 54,000 acre Cascade- Siskiyo u National Monument was created in 2000. The Monument covers an area east of Ashland where the Cascade, Klamath and Siskiyou Mountain ranges converge. The Soda Mountain Wilderness Council is seeking an expansion of the Monument area and is looking for Council support of that effort. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Environment 9. Enhance and expand natural and recreational resources. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution Interim Report Resolution 2001-19 Minutes of June 4, 1985 xxxDRAFTxxx RESOLUTION NO. 2015- ***DRAFT*** A RESOLUTION ENDORSING CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANSION (May 27, 2015 version) RECITALS A. The Ashland City Council has exhibited consistent support for the protection of land in the Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument area since 1985, first by voting unanimously to write letters endorsing protection of the lands in the Soda Mountain Wilderness Area proposal, not all of which has yet been designated Wilderness or included in the Monument (June and December 1985), and has also unanimously voted to write letters supporting a land swap in the Wilderness proposal area between BLM and Boise Cascade to prevent a clearcut and requesting that a power line not be installed across the area (September 1993 and January 1994). B. In June 2001 the Ashland City Council unanimously resolved to affirm the June 9, 2000 Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument proclamation as written and request the immediate release of the Medford BLM Draft Management Plan for the Monument and that funding be made available for the final plan. The 2001 resolution noted that the Monument contributes substantially to Ashland's economy, enjoys broad support from Ashland citizens, businesses, and area residents and provides richness of recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for the citizens of Ashland (June 2001). C. In April 2011 a diverse group of scientists with considerable experience in the Monument and surrounding regions recommended expansion of Monument boundaries to safeguard long-term protection of the area's unique biological values. The scientists expressed concern about the current Monument boundaries with regard to: truncated habitats (including incomplete watersheds and other boundaries that are not ecological); the need for more complete ecological gradients to increase resilience in the face of significant, climatic change now underway (a factor not considered when the Monument was established in 2000); and intensive land-use pressures and increasing development that, if unabated, could undermine long-term persistence of the Monument's biological resources. In 2015 many other scientists (locally and nationally) have endorsed the ecological need for expanded Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument boundaries. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The boundaries of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument should be expanded. SECTION 2. We encourage national elected officials to take seriously the shortcomings of current Monument boundaries and the ecological needs of the Monument into the future - as well as protection of Ashland's viewshed and enhanced recreational opportunities - as they consider appropriate expanded boundaries for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015, and takes effect upon signing by the mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder DRAFT - Page 1 of 2 - DRAFT ***DRAFT*** SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2015. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney DRAFT - Page 2 of 2 - DRAFT Interim Report Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study Identification of Priority Areas for Monument Expansion April 28, 2011 1. q, i I f, F Rogue Valley foothills, upper Sampson Creek watershed. This diverse ecotonal region is one of three priority areas identified for addition to the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Photo by Pepper Trail. Steering Committee:* Evan Frost, M.S., Wildwood Consulting / Dennis Odion, Ph.D., Southern Oregon University / Pepper Trail, Ph.D., US Fish & Wildlife Service / Jack Williams, Ph.D., Trout Unlimited Contributors:* John Alexander, M.S., Klamath Bird Observatory / Brian Barr, M.S., Geos Institute / Richard Brock, Siskiyou BioSurvey / Dominick DellaSala, Ph.D., Geos Institute / Paul Hosten, Ph.D., Terrestrial Ecologist / Steve Jessup, Ph.D., Southern Oregon University / Frank Lang, Ph.D., Southern Oregon University / Michael Parker, Ph.D., Southern Oregon University / Jeannine Rossa, M.S., Ecolink Consulting/ Daniel Sarr, Ph.D., National Park Service / Darlene Southworth, Ph.D., Southern Oregon University Reviewers:* Robert Anthony, Ph.D., Oregon State University / Carlos Carroll, Ph.D., Klamath Center for Conservation Research / Scott Hoffman Black, Xerces Society Agency and university affiliations are listed for identification purposes only. This study has no formal affiliation with any government agency or public university. Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 Executive Summary The Cascade- Sisk iyou National Monument (CSNM) in southwestern Oregon was established by presidential proclamation in 2000 to protect an area of outstanding biological diversity located at the convergence of four distinct ecoregions. The monument proclamation identified a number of biological "Objects of Interest" as the focal points for protection, including unique vegetation communities and rare plant and animal species. At the time of establishment, the monument's boundaries were stated to be "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management" of these biological resources. In late 2010, a diverse group of scientists with considerable experience in the CSNM and surrounding regions concluded that a scientific re-evaluation of the monument's boundaries was needed to safeguard long-term protection of the area's unique biological values. This conclusion was based on the following concerns: • Some of the Objects of Interest described in the monument proclamation have significant portions of their habitat located outside of the existing boundaries; • Most existing boundaries are clearly not ecological (e.g. the OR-CA state line), compromising the ecological integrity of the monument; • The need for increased resilience in the face of significant, long-term climatic changes that are now underway; and • Areas adjacent to the CSNM are facing increased development or intensive land-use pressures (e.g. logging, residential expansion, water diversions) that, if unabated, could undermine long-term persistence of the monument's biological resources. To conduct an initial review of the adequacy of the existing monument boundaries, a multi- disciplinary scientific working group met on January 29, 2011 in Ashland, Oregon. Participants were divided into four subgroups focused on Vegetation, Terrestrial Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Ecosystem Processes. Working independently, all subgroups concluded that monument expansion is required to safeguard persistence of the Objects of Interest that the monument was established to protect. In particular, participating scientists were concerned by: • inadequate protection of complete ecological gradients, essential for climate change resilience; • the lack of conformity of current boundaries with watersheds, threatening aquatic diversity and hydrological functions; and • incomplete linkages with the four ecoregions that create the CSNM's spectacular biodiversity. Three broad priority areas for monument expansion were identified. These are designated as "Rogue Valley Foothills to Plateau," "Johnson Prairie-Fall Creek," and "Klamath River Ridges." Expansion of the monument in these areas would greatly enhance resilience of the biological Objects of Interest to climate change. There was also broad agreement that additional steps should be taken to maintain and, where necessary, restore functional connectivity of the monument with public lands in adjacent landscapes. Maintaining these landscape-scale connections is critical to the monument's long-term ecological integrity and will assist movements of the native biota in response to climate change. 2 Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 Introduction The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (CSNM) in southwestern Oregon was established by presidential proclamation in 2000 and is part of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS 2010). Unique among the nation's existing national monuments, the CSNM was created, in the words of its proclamation, to preserve an area of "remarkable biological diversity" (see Appendix A, CSNM Proclamation). The monument is located at the convergence of four distinct ecoregions: Great Basin, Southern Cascades, Oregon and California Interior Valleys, and Siskiyou Mountains. Along with varied topography, climate, and geology, this confluence creates one of North America's biologically richest landscapes, "an ecological wonder" that is "home to a spectacular variety of rare and beautiful species of plants and animals, whose survival in this region depends upon its continued ecological integrity" (Appendix A). The monument proclamation specifically identified a number of biological "Objects of Interest" as the focal points for protection (Frost and Odion 2002; Appendix A). These include outstanding landscape features such as the connection from the Cascades to Siskiyous, as well as "a rich mosaic" of vegetation communities and "an exceptional range" of wildlife populations of regional significance (Appendix A). Also identified as Objects of Interest were butterfly diversity and abundance, and rare taxa such as the Jenny Creek redband trout and Greene's mariposa lily. In keeping with Section 2 of the Antiquities Act, the proclamation stated that the CSNM's 52,947 acres was "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management" of the numerous Objects of Interest. However, by late 2010, a diverse group of biological scientists with considerable experience in the region suggested that the "smallest area compatible" decision warranted a more rigorous scientific evaluation. This need for scientific re-evaluation of monument boundaries was based on the following concerns: • Some of the Objects of Interest described in the monument proclamation have significant portions of their habitat located outside of the existing boundaries; • At least some existing boundaries are not ecological (e.g. the OR-CA state line), compromising the biological integrity of the monument; • The need for increased resilience in adapting to long-term climatic changes that are now underway; and • Areas adjacent to the monument are facing increased development or intensive land use pressures (e.g. logging, residential expansion, water diversions) that, if unabated, could undermine long-term persistence of the monument's biological resources. Methods To conduct an initial evaluation of the existing boundaries of the CSNM, a multidisciplinary scientific working group met on January 29, 2011 in Ashland, Oregon. The members of this group, listed on page 1, have broad knowledge of the greater Cascade- Siskiyou landscape, as well as extensive research experience in the monument itself. The basic questions addressed by the group were twofold: 3 Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 • Are the current boundaries and specific lands included within the monument sufficient to allow for long-term protection of all Objects of Interest for which the monument was created? • If not, what modifications might be required in order to reduce risk of diminishment or loss of Objects of Interest? A structured workshop process was used to conduct discussions, collect information, and elicit knowledge as well as professional judgments from participants. Based on primary areas of expertise, attendees were assigned to one of four technical subgroups: Vegetation, Terrestrial Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Ecosystem Processes. The subgroups were provided with a variety of maps, scientific reports, BLM documents and other supporting materials pertaining to the monument and surrounding landscape, as well as copies of the monument proclamation. Five specific questions were addressed by each of the subgroups: 1) Are the monument's Objects of Interest adequately protected by the existing boundaries? That is, are the existing boundaries likely to sustain ecological integrity and the various Objects of Interest over time? 2) Are there key habitats, species occurrences, or important Objects of Interest in proximity to but outside the existing CSNM boundary? 3) In your professional judgment, what boundary adjustments would make Objects of Interest more resilient to climate change? 4) Are there other significant threats to Objects of Interest that were not considered at the time of monument designation? 5) If areas currently outside the monument are needed to increase resilience and/or protection of Objects of Interest, what would be the highest priorities for inclusion? Results As recognized in the proclamation language for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (Appendix A), much of the area's outstanding biodiversity and ecological importance is attributable to the convergence of four distinct ecoregions. Working group participants agreed that the existing monument boundary captures the core of this biological crossroads. However, all four subgroups independently concluded that existing CSNM boundaries are unlikely to safeguard the monument's suite of Objects of Interest from future decline or loss. A number of different reasons were given as to why current monument boundaries are insufficient: • Climate change will likely alter plant and animal species ranges, in some cases pushing Objects of Interest into habitats outside of the area currently protected by monument designation (Carroll et al. 2010, DellaSala et al. 2010, Stralberg et al. 2009); 4 Interim Report, Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 • Many important special status plant and animal populations, as well as high quality examples of the area's unique plant community mosaic, remain outside of existing monument boundaries; • The current monument boundary does not align with watersheds, precluding protection of water quality and the natural hydrological, biological and disturbance processes of the area's streams; • Key areas that functionally link the monument to adjacent landscapes, including the Siskiyou Crest and High Cascades, are currently not being managed for conservation. This places at risk the ecological flows necessary to sustain biological connectivity; and • Existing monument boundaries do not protect the full range of physical diversity (e.g. elevation, topography, aspect) and environmental gradients (e.g. climate) present in the greater Cascade-Siskiyou landscape. Such gradients are essential for creating and maintaining the area's biodiversity, and for providing resilience in the face of climate change. While uncertainties inevitably remain about the magnitude and impact of climatic change in our region, there is clear evidence that significant changes in environmental conditions are already underway (Barr et al. 2010, Doppelt et al. 2008, Luce and Holden 2009). These changes threaten the effectiveness of isolated protected areas for conserving biodiversity, including the CSNM (Halpin 1997). One of the most effective ways to mitigate the effects of climate change is to focus on maintaining and, if possible, increasing resilience of ecosystems (Carroll et al. 2010, DellaSala et al. 2010, NABCI 2010). In accordance with this overarching goal, the working groups identified the following means to enhance resilience of the biological resources in the monument: • Reduce anthropogenic management stressors in and around the monument, including livestock grazing, commercial logging, road construction, off-highway vehicles and other ground-disturbing activities. These create habitat fragmentation, disturb wildlife populations, threaten water quality, adversely affect native vegetation, and encourage the spread of non-native weeds; • Undertake aggressive science-based management of non-native weeds, particularly those invasive species that are not yet firmly established in the Cascade-Siskiyou landscape; • Maintain and enhance functional ecological connectivity across environmental gradients in the Cascade-Siskiyou landscape. These gradients include elevation, aspect, longitude (east to west), soil moisture and riparian corridors. Particular focus should be on increasing protections for the gradient from open grasslands at lower elevations to montane conifer forest, because field observations indicate this ecotone makes a disproportionate contribution to the area's biodiversity; 5 Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 • Provide increased protection and conservation-based management of areas that strategically connect the monument core to adjacent landscapes (e.g. Siskiyou Mountains to the west, Cascadian forests to the north, Klamath River canyon to the south and east); • Maintain and, where possible, restore the natural hydrologic regime in streams and creeks that are essential for sustaining the aquatic biota and providing a "sufficient quantity of water" as called for by the monument proclamation (Appendix A); and • Identify those elements of the monument's biodiversity that are most at risk due to climate change, and prioritize protection of additional areas to reduce their vulnerability. For example, survey and protect areas that may act as important microrefugia for native species dependent on cool and moist conditions (DellaSala et al. 2010, Dobrowski 2010). • Design and implement a biological monitoring program for the CSNM that effectively tracks the status of a wide array of monument Objects of Interest and the ecosystem processes upon which they depend. This monitoring effort should be integrated with ongoing regional monitoring efforts (e.g. Alexander et al. 2004, Sarr et al. 2007) and make use of compatible monitoring protocols. Recommended Monument Additions Strong consensus emerged at the workshop about specific focal areas in the greater Cascade- Siskiyou landscape that warrant priority consideration as monument additions. These areas, selected independently by each of the four subgroups for their Objects of Interest (Table I are shown in Figure I and briefly described here: Rowe Valley Foothills to Plateau. This topographically diverse area extends from lower elevation foothills bordering the Bear Creek Valley upslope to mountain promontories along the Western Cascades Plateau, including Grizzly Peak (5,920 ft.) and Table Mountain (6,125 ft). Also included are several important streams that descend off the plateau, such as Sampson, Cattle, Cove, Frog and upper Keene Creeks (the latter is the primary tributary of Jenny Creek). Vegetation in this area is diverse, including the full range of plant communities celebrated by the monument proclamation: "a rich mosaic of grass and shrublands, Oregon white and California black oak woodlands, juniper scablands, mixed conifer and white fir forests, and wet meadows." Particularly under-represented within the current monument boundaries are grassland and oak savannah habitats that are home to Western Meadowlark and Western Bluebird, both singled out for mention in the proclamation. Johnson Prairie - Fall Creek. This area is most representative of the Southern Cascades ecoregion and is characterized by moderately sloping mountains and broad valleys with extensive wet meadows. With an elevational range of 3,500 to 6,000 feet, vegetation is predominantly mixed conifer forests of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense-cedar, white fir and Douglas-fir. These mixed conifer forests provide habitat for such Objects of Interest as the Flammulated Owl and Pygmy Nuthatch. Patches of late-successional and old-growth forest remain on public lands and provide important habitat connectivity with the High Cascades for a diversity of wildlife, including Northern Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk and American marten. Numerous low to moderate gradient streams are associated with an extensive complex of 6 Interim Report, Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 montane meadows, wetlands and springs. These provide vital and insufficiently-protected habitat for many Objects of Interest singled out in the monument proclamation, including butterflies, amphibians, freshwater snails, and native fish species. The Jenny Creek sucker utilizes the spring flows in Johnson Creek for spawning. Redband trout also occur in Johnson Creek. Klamath River Rides. This area is characterized by moderately steep, dissected terrain and a dry, continental climate. Elevation varies from 2,400 feet near the Klamath River in Siskiyou County, CA to 3,700 feet on higher ridges along the Oregon-California state line. The lower reaches of Hutton, Slide, Scotch, Camp, Jenny and Fall Creeks flow south toward the Klamath River (mostly into non-flowing reservoir portions) from their headwaters in or near the CSNM. Vegetation is diverse and varies dramatically with slope, aspect, and elevation. Higher altitudes and north-facing slopes generally support ponderosa pine and white oak juniper forests, while lower elevations and south-facing slopes are covered in a mosaic of oak juniper woodland, chaparral and grassland communities. These communities, some of which are included in California's Horseshoe Ranch Wildlife Management Area, are vital winter range for deer populations that gather here from a wide swath of the southern Cascades and Klamath Basin. Several unique vegetation types identified as monument Objects of Interest (e.g. rosaceous chaparral, juniper scablands) occur here. Landscape Connectivity. Maintaining and, where necessary, restoring connectivity at the watershed scale was identified as an important goal by workshop participants. Although isolated fragments of high-quality habitat may have conservation value, protecting whole watersheds is widely recognized as the most effective strategy to ensure the long-term persistence of native species and aquatic ecosystem integrity (Doppelt et al. 1993, Henjum et al. 1994, Moyle and Sato 1991). Existing boundaries of the CSNM do not align with watershed breaks (e.g. OR-CA state line), which dramatically increases threats to aquatic Objects of Interest arising from adjacent land uses. Several working groups also highlighted the importance of maintaining functional connectivity of upland habitats in the existing monument with public lands in adjacent landscapes. Specifically, natural areas located immediately to the west of the monument connect with the Siskiyou Mountains, those to the north with the High Cascades, and those to the east and south with the Klamath River Canyon (see Figure 1). Maintaining these landscape-scale connections is critical to the monument's long-term ecological integrity and will better allow for movements of the native biota in response to climate change. A stronger focus on conservation-based management of adjoining federal lands would greatly help to sustain landscape connectivity into the future. Next Steps This interim report highlights the importance of expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in order to preserve the unique biodiversity and connectivity functions that the monument was established to protect. Going forward, the science working group will consider further analyses and work products, which may include more detailed review and documentation 7 Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 of published, unpublished, and "gray" literature; proposals for more extensive spatial analysis and field surveys in priority expansion areas identified to date; and a peer-reviewed publication. Literature Cited Alexander, J.D., C.J. Ralph, K. Hollinger, and B. Hogoboom. 2004. Using a wide-scale landbird monitoring network to determine landbird distribution and productivity in the Klamath Bioregion. Pp. 33-41 in: K.L. Mergenthaler, J.E. Williams, and E.J. Jules, eds. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Klamath-Siskiyou Ecology. Siskiyou Field Institute, Cave Junction, OR. Barr, B.R., M.E. Koopman, C.D. Williams, S.J. Vynne, G.R. Hamilton, R.E. Doppelt. 2010. Preparing for climate change in the Klamath Basin. National Center for Conservation Science & Policy, Ashland, OR, and Climate Leadership Initiative, Institute for Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon. Carroll, C., J.R. Dunk, A. Moilanen. 2010. Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest. Global Change Biology 16:891-904. DellaSala, D.A., D. Olson, J.R. Strittholt, R.F. Noss, J. Kass, M.E. Koopman and T. Allnutt. 2010. Conservation action for climate change in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Geos Institute, Ashland, OR. Dobrowski, S.Z. 2010. A climatic basis for microrefugia: The influence of terrain on climate. Global Change Biology (doi: 10.111 I/j. 1365-- - 2486.2010.02263.x) 14 p. Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell and J.R. Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A new approach to saving America's river ecosystems. The Pacific Rivers Council and Island Press, Washington, D.C. Doppelt, B., R. Hamilton, C. Deacon Williams and M. Koopman. 2008. Preparing for climate change in the Rogue River Basin of southwest Oregon: Stressors, risks, and recommendations for increasing resilience and resistance in human, built, economic and natural systems. Climate Leadership Initiative, Institute for Sustainable Environment University of Oregon, and National Center for Conservation Science & Policy, Ashland, OR. Frost, E.J. and D.C. Odion, eds. 2002. Protecting Objects of Scientific Interest in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument: Status, Threats and Management Recommendations. 118 pp. Unpublished report to World Wildlife Fund, Klamath- Siskiyou Regional Program, Ashland, OR. Halpin, PN. 1997. Global climate change and natural-area protection: Management responses and research directions. Ecological Applications 7:828-843. Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries and watersheds: National Forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 94-2. Luce, C. H., and Z. A. Holden. 2009. Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest, 1948-2006. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L16401, doi:10, l 029/2009GL039407. Moyle, P.B. and G.M. Sato. 1991. On the design of preserves to protect native fishes. Pp. 155- 169 in: W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, eds. Battle Against Extinction: Native Fish 8 Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 Management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee). 2010. The state of the birds 2010 report on climate change, United States of America. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. http://www.stateofthebirds.org/. National Landscape Conservation System. 2010. Background description and further information at: http•//www blm gov/wo/st/en/pro /g blm special areas/NLCS.html. Sarr, D.A., D.C. Odion, S.R. Mohren, E.E. Perry, R.L. Hoffman, L.K. Bridy and A.A. Merton. 2007. Klamath Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan. Natural Resource Report, NPS/KLMN/ NRR - 2007/016. USDOI National Park Service, Klamath Network Inventory and Monitoring Program, Ashland, OR. Stralberg, D., D. Jongsomjit, C.A. Howell, M.A. Snyder, J.D. Alexander, J.A. Wiens and T.L. Root. 2009. Re-shuffling of species with climate disruption: A no-analog future for California birds? PLoS One 4 (9). _ tt t i ~ r' . Upper falls, lower Jenny Creek, located in the Klamath River Ridges priority expansion area for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Photo by Dennis Odion. 9 i O ~ m Q ti '7a~~,~~ I y 6~ L-' ~ j ...y I Al ` c 1 ••t~ c 40 7 L N ~ sL ~I01' ~ i " O c6 ` w r( j I b c i C C ~c - ^ C7 0 NO, CO (D p E ~1 cy ca M -6 U ^ ~ .yy 4) C as,+c KM ~ 1C1~ l~ c r O f M N k` ~ ?n t L r rts ~ t f U ~ CU C/) 0 co (n j o " _ , E o O U X a Q t t Li d ca im Z) U) c t ti a, to ~o UZ ~ ii o ~G 3 ~Q 3 ~ N N N Z N N ~ y U 7 G N ~ O W N -77G G p p, C4 N N G -00 N u ° ~G N G N N N T N G O- Q d~ °G v C6 V N p) c6 0 GO 7p CP 7 N' co c N N G N N c~ O N O O 23 N «i N G O G6 G ° td 0 ~G ~G J o G N N Qom- C) U Q t6 o N v NO@ O Avis O am G o N m o Sao o N `cam°' o'm a.° " N 0 N U O'er y N G G ~~O G N c6 G icis v 0 i N ~7 O 0 N o G (6 U 4 O Q U 7 N O 7p>O UG N 0>0 Q Op G~ No O,TO O N G G N U O @ N O 0 o N G cv N v u~ _ tb ~ ~ ~ N (6 O ~ -Np C O N m ~ td L' d6 0-0 U d T~ N G N0_ G CN6 p0 Q.~ N ~o9NN ycGb° cosh °6~v N • ,c Nma m~ ~a C) L) o~ GiaB No cs~iaN ~3 0 ~O Y,a.~ p Q co w . G{5 C. N Lp N N O O G oU o W C) G `m 6 m rsso E ~o E a 6 `o co a os cxa~~y~ N Via, o ,s o ~gmo O~ ~O o o C°0 o o~ 0 0m Nia o 1:5,Lm O G Q N N ° s-0 m o o o c a N Vim ''cp°G'~ O9 y N~ ° 4N Q r 0 9 C6 ~ U N p QcD 'o 0 0 ~ o~~Z Qcv 0 m N o c9 cb~o u~ G 3ca-s SOOT oaf is p N G cb O O S O N N O o co N N -O t6 4 Z • G m-X~ ~ a" m 3 c cLN O 71 o °a O O O 9 N :ON N.9 p Q'6 U O N ry ~ N "6 O Q- 27 N ~ ~ O G ~ ~ U Y .Qp Q. N ~6 C6 ~ N O t1~ ~ ° 7 ~ ~-p ~ ~ O ~ T O ~ O G ~ O .O.y UQ~ @ ~ 3~ c6 ~~y~9 N 'N ~ ~O 'Ky ~ O N G~ ~ ~ p c4 ~ N ~ ~ O N N cd ~ ~ N ' G Z td S3 ~~a° Q G U ~~C~ °9~ NS is aoZ~ ° ~v0-0 o~ a~ o N J G G'b, N so -O ui N d 'o ~ ay m o O N i6 N m Gm o c~ oG oca u is a~ 7 N o d G N N 9 O-'c6 9 p, ° 7 N O' G cD 0.0 ..O O Q U- d N Nom, O Q- N d N N 00 U L Q No 9 ~O O N N L O O S~ N 9i6 c4 d G N ° '6 3 U U ~ O O c6 v ~co co Q.~ 5.~ G 'O 7' O td O- T G t0 U > G o -0 G) 0) C 0o t5)~ mho& m ~~a) ~ ? 0NO~Zv W in G p ° a) Nco 30 0 N OL) O N N O N N 7 O-~ V U N G m z N~ N `p~ v ~o p N ~ N '0,0 co ~ a ~ cU .'cod o ~ O A C( V lv Interim Report, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 Appendix A: U.S. Dept of Interior 2000. Presidential proclamation 7318 establishing the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon. June 9, 2000. Washington, D.C. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION With towering fir forests, sunlit oak groves, wildflower-strewn meadows, and steep canyons, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is an ecological wonder, with biological diversity unmatched in the Cascade Range. This rich enclave of natural resources is a biological crossroads - the interface of the Cascade, Klamath, and Siskiyou ecoregions, in an area of unique geology, biology, climate, and topography. The monument is home to a spectacular variety of rare and beautiful species of plants and animals, whose survival in this region depends upon its continued ecological integrity. Plant communities present a rich mosaic of grass and shrublands, Garry and California black oak woodlands, juniper scablands, mixed conifer and white fir forests, and wet meadows. Stream bottoms support broad-leaf deciduous riparian trees and shrubs. Special plant communities include rosaceous chaparral and oak juniper woodlands. The monument also contains many rare and endemic plants, such as Greene's Mariposa lily, Gentner's fritillary, and Bellinger's meadowfoam. The monument supports an exceptional range of fauna, including one of the highest diversities of butterfly species in the United States. The Jenny Creek portion of the monument is a significant center of freshwater snail diversity, and is home to three endemic fish species, including a long-isolated stock of redband trout. The monument contains important populations of small mammals, reptile and amphibian species, and ungulates, including important winter habitat for deer. It also contains old growth habitat crucial to the threatened Northern spotted owl and numerous other bird species such as the western bluebird, the western meadowlark, the pileated woodpecker, the flammulated owl and the pygmy nuthatch. The monument's geology contributes substantially to its spectacular biological diversity. The majority of the monument is within the Cascade Mountain Range. The western edge of the monument lies within the older Klamath Mountain geologic province. The dynamic plate tectonics of the area, and the mixing of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary geological formations, have resulted in diverse lithologies and soils. Along with periods of geological isolation and a range of environmental conditions, the complex geologic history of the area has been instrumental in producing the diverse vegetative and biological richness seen today. One of the most striking features of the Western Cascades in this area is Pilot Rock, located near the southern boundary of the monument. The rock is a volcanic plug, a remnant of a feeder vent left after a volcano eroded away, leaving an out-standing example of the inside of a volcano. Pilot Rock has sheer, vertical basalt faces Lip to 400 feet above the talus slope at its base, with classic columnar jointing created by the cooling of its andesite composition. The Siskiyou Pass in the southwest corner of the monument contains portions of the Oregon/California Trail, the region's main north/south travel route first established by Native 12 Interim Report, Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 Americans in prehistoric times, and used by Peter Skene Ogden in his 1827 exploration for the Hudson's Bay Company. Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (3 )4 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431) authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the public interest to reserve such lands as a national monument to be known as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument: NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431), do proclaim that there are hereby set apart and reserved as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area described on the map entitled "Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument" attached to and forming a part of this proclamation. The Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 52,000 acres, which is the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected. All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this monument are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other disposition under the public land laws, including but not limited to withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing, other than by exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the monument. There is hereby reserved, as of the date of this proclamation and subject to valid existing rights, a quantity of water sufficient to fulfill the purposes for which this monument is established. Nothing in this reservation shall be construed as a relinquishment or reduction of any water use or rights reserved or appropriated by the United States on or before the date of this proclamation. The commercial harvest of timber or other vegetative material is prohibited, except when part of an authorized science-based ecological restoration project aimed at meeting protection and old growth enhancement objectives. Any such project must be consistent with the purposes of this proclamation. No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber production, and no part of the monument shall be used in a calculation or provision of a sustained yield of timber. Removal of trees from within the monument area may take place only if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety. For the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, the Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off road and shall close the Schoheim Road, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. Lands and interests in lands within the monument not owned by the United States shall be reserved as a part of the monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States. 13 Interim Report, Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument Boundary Study, April 28, 2011 The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the monument through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to applicable legal authorities (including. where applicable, the Act of August 28, 1937, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1181a-1181 j)), to implement the purposes of this proclamation. The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare, within 3 years of this date, a management plan for this monument, and shall promulgate such regulations for its management as he deems appropriate. The management plan shall include appropriate transportation planning that addresses the actions, including road closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects identified in this proclamation. The Secretary of the Interior shall study the impacts of livestock grazing on the objects of biological interest in the monument with specific attention to sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics. Existing authorized permits or leases may continue with appropriate terms and conditions under existing laws and regulations. Should grazing be found incompatible with protecting the objects of biological interest, the Secretary shall retire the grazing allotments pursuant to the processes of applicable law. Should grazing permits or leases be relinquished by existing holders, the Secretary shall not reallocate the forage available under such permits or for livestock grazing purposes unless the Secretary specifically finds, pending the outcome of the study, that such reallocation will advance the purposes of the proclamation. The establishment of this monument is subject to valid existing rights. Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon with respect to fish and wildlife management. Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, the national monument shall be the dominant reservation. Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth. WILLIAM J. CLINTON 14 RESOLUTION NO.2401- 1 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING CASCADE-SISKIYOU NATIONAL MONUMENT RECITALS A. The Ashland City Council has exhibited consistent support for the protection of land in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument by voting unanimously to write letters endorsing protection of the lands in the Soda Mountain Wilderness Area proposal, to support a land swap in the proposal area between BLM and Boise Cascade to prevent a clearcut, and to request that a power line not be installed across the area (June and December 1985, September 1993 and January 1994); B. Conservative calculations suggest that the impact of the Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument will enrich Ashland's economy by up to $5,200,000 a year; C. 121 Ashland area businesses and thousands of citizens signed on to a Medford Mail Tribune April 8, 2001 full-page advertisement showing appreciation for the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument; D. A poll conducted by the Ashland Daily Tidings from May 18-25, 2001 showed 89% of the responding readers favored either expanding or maintaining the current Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument as it currently is configured; E. The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument will ensure an ongoing richness of recreational opportunities and scenic vistas for the citizens of Ashland, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. We endorse the June 9, 2000 proclamation as written for the Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument. SECTION 2. We request the immediate release of the Medford BLM Draft Management Plan and that funding be made available to implement the final plan. This resolution was read by We only in accordance with the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this I9-i-i, day of 2001. t}sten, City Recorder MICA-a r- c D Lrc R'Ss S_r."-r " `rte ER- SIGNED and APPROVED this aLo-a day of u , 2001 Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor RXiewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 4, 1985 ROLL CALL Mayor Medaris led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the meeting to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M. Elerath, Bennett, Reid, Acklin, Smith and Laws were present, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reid asked that page 3 of the minutes of May 21 be corrected to add that a concession stand was approved in the State Ballet request for closure of Winburn Way. Elerath asked that the minutes reflect his comment relative to discussion of Performance Standards Ordin- ance after Smith's comment saying "Elerath asked that number of degree days be included in ordinance to make it useable". Acklin moved for approval as corrected; Reid seconded the motion which passed unani- mously on voice vote. BARD'S INN City Attorney Salter requested that matter of Bard's Inn be postponed until adjournment to executive session because of litigation. SODA MT. WILDERNESS A letter from the Soda Mountain Wilderness Council was read request- ing endorsement of a Wilderness designation for Soda Mountain. Bruce Boccard, Chairman of the Council posted a map of the study area and adjoining 33,000 acre forest which extends from the Pacific Crest Trai south of Greensprings Summit to the California border and showed slide: of the area. Boccard noted that the area is the habitat of mountain lions, black bear, bobcat, golden eagles etc. and in addition showed slides of exotic flowers and plants being threatened. Boccard said that the area only twenty-five minutes from Ashland should be pre- served as wilderness to preclude logging, mining, oil and gas devel- opment which BLM as cited as being more vital than wilderness preserve Sue Joerger of Southern Oregon Timber Industry Association said the 340 acres in question is a minor amount of timber but that the associa- tion feels concerned about management of the area and that BLM's type of management would be broader. Joerger passed out a map depicting the resources found within a hundred mile radius from Medford and said that BLM could protect the wildlife, control burning and manage the area and asked that Council contact BLM and tour the area before commiting support for the wilderness proposal. Smith expressed con- cern about filing of mineral rights which BLM would allow and thus open up such uses and added that she feels BLM does not reforest its land. Joerger said that BLM reforests within five years and believes in multiple use and those options should be reserved. Boccard asked for decision to report back to a June 18th hearing. Reid moved to support all of the public lands shown on the map furnished by SMC and not just the Wilderness Study Area and asked staff to draft letter to that affect; Smith seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote. FINDINGS OF FACT Sign Ordinance Findings of Fact on Sign Code relative to nonconforming signs were passed out and the City Administrator said the subject would be on the next agenda for adoption to give Council adequate time for study. 6/4/85 P. 1 Regular Meeting Ashland City Council 6/4/85 P. 2 SR. PROGRAM DIRECTOR The City Administrator read his memo and that of the Mayor recommend- ing Barbara Dunlap as Senior Program Director and Mayor Medaris asked Council to confirm his appointment of Dunlap. Laws moved to approve; Bennett seconded the motion. Smith thanked Laws and all of the people who have worked with the Senior Program. On voice vote the motion passed unanimously. FORDYCE ST. SEWERS City Administrator Almquist reviewed the history of the need for sewers in the Fordyce Street area because of failing septic tanks and said that Commissioner Barnes, Public Works Director Alsings and himself met with the property owners on Fordyce Street and due to the fact that the parcels are large was able to work out a plan to charge assess- ments based on homesite consisting of 10,000 or less and the remaining costs of annexation be held off until division of property. On Ack- lin's question as to whether the people are interested in annexing soon Almquist said they are and that our water rates are half as much as the County's and also they would be paying a double sewer rate. Laws asked about the legality of forming assessment district now and annexing later and Almquist said it would be clarified in the ordin- ance, Salter added that it would be a contract commitment and not a decision for a future Council. Almquist said one-half acre zoning will be reserved until public need is established and then it could be upzoned. Commissioner Barnes commended Almquist and Alsing on their efforts on behalf of the property owners and reviewed the pro- blems the County experienced relative to assessed evaluations of the property and petitions to the Board of Equalization appealing taxes levied. Barnes noted that if there is a public health hazard that the City would be responsible to take the property in so that this solved many problems. Almquist reviewed the proposal chosen by the property owners and read the resolution. Laws moved for adoption and Smith seconded the motion. Larry Medinger noted he owns property with someone else and they will be coming in with annexation proposal. for the rectangular section bordering Wightman Street. On roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. BUDGET COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Application letters from Phil Arnold and Jeff Golden were considered by the Council and Smith nominated Phil Arnold. Laws recommended that Golden apply for another board on the City because of his ex- pertise and interest and added that although he would like to see him on the Budget Committee that that position had been promised to former Councilor Arnold. Reid agreed and asked Golden4to reapply and explained she had committed herself to Arnold. Acklin moved to close nominations; Laws seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote. Acklin moved to appoint Arnold-,_- PARKS & REC. COMMISS- IONER ELECTION A letter from Parks & Recreation Chairman Crawford recommending that Patricia Adams be appointed to fill the term of resigning Commissioner Harnly was read. Council unanimously agreed on the recommendation and Reid noted Adams` accomplishing the feat of bringing the swimming pool to reality. 6/4/85 P. 2 Regular Meeting Ashland City Council 6/4/85 P.,13- PARKING SPACE REQUEST/REHAB A letter from the Traffic Safety Commission recommending that a five- minute parking space be designated in front of 59 Winburn Way as requested by the Rehab office was read and Smith moved to direct Staff to bring back resolution; Acklin seconded the motion which passed without opposition on voice vote. EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAM The City Administrator reviewed his memo outlining a proposed employee suggestion program as suggested by Budget Commissioner Schultz. Almquist noted that the limit would be 10% of the cost savings for a suggestion and that he would report to Council periodically on pro- gress of the program. Smith noted Almquist might want to choose a panel to review suggestions. Almquist said that was the plan and that management employees would not be included. Almquist also said that in lieu of cash that payment for training classes could substit- ute for cash awards. On question as to whether Parks & the Hospital would be included, Almquist said they would have to implement their own program with their options. Smith moved to approve for one year and then have Council evaluate; Acklin seconded the motion which passed unanimously on voice vote. PUBLIC FORUM Al Wilistatter asked what ORS an executive session was being called on and the City Attorney said he would give him the number if he called in the morning because he didn't have it with him. Salter said it was 192. but wasn't clear on the whole number. Hazarian said it was 192.440. Public Forum closed since there was no further comment WATER MORATORIUM Second reading by title only was given an ordinance lifting the Water Moratorium in the Southeastern portion of the City and Laws moved to adopt; Smith seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. NONCONFORMING SIGNS The City Administrator noted that Planning Director Fregonese felt it important to clarify nonconforming signs criteria by adding Section 18096.160 and read the ordinance amending Title 18. Laws moved to second reading; Acklin seconded the motion. On roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS First reading by title only was given the Performance Standards OPTIONS Options and the following changes were read into the text as follows: Under 18.88.010 in the last two sentences two words were added to say , "pAovide, for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. To 18.88.020(E) regarding Pedestrian Path the following word was added "A graded cleared way, adjacent to the curb, at curb level, for individuals who travel on foot." On page 4 under B (4) under Contents, the following words were added in the first sentence: "The final plan shall contain a scale map or maps and a wA.ctten )~tate- merit showing the following for the development: On page 7 under B. Bonus Points item 1, second paragraph, the following language was added relative to degree average: "Average of less than 7500 ......continued 6/4/85 P. 3 ` Rep_ular Meeting Ashland City Council 6/4/85 P. 4 T PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS ORDINANCE cont.BTU/FT2/YR for non--renewable space heating based upon a 65 degree average daily interior temperature UAing Ash a.nd weatheA data oh the c ozat avai,tabte WeatheA Station." In 18.88.070(A) relative to setbacks the following words were added in the first sentence: "Front yard setbacks adjacent to collectors or subcollectors shall be 20 6ee.t. Laws moved to second reading as corrected. Elerath asked Planning Director Fregonese why he hadn't added degree days for computation purposes and Fregonese said he would prefer to use various methods instead of tying into simple degree days. Fregonese said he would be using Ashland weather data or the closest comparable weather stations. After a long discussion between Elerath and Fregon- ese relative to methods/formulas used in computations, Acklin suggest- ed adding as published in the most current Uniform Building Code" and moved to second reading with additions; Reid seconded the motion which passed with Reid, Bennett, Acklin, Laws and Smith voting in favor; Elerath opposed. ORDINANCE/ST. TREES First reading by title only was given an ordinance amending Chapter 13.16 adopting a list of recommended and prohibited street trees and Smith moved to second reading; Acklin seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. STATE REVENUE SHARING RE: SERVICES A resolution certifying certain services offered by the City relative to State Revenue Sharing was read and Laws moved to adopt; Elerath seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GUIDELINES RESOLUTION Councilor Smith moved to adopt with the addition of "Uniform Build- ing Code" language amended into the ordinance on Performance Standards _ and Bennett seconded the motion. On roll call the motion--.carried unanimously, SITE DESIGN/USE GUIDE- LINES RESOLUTION A resolution establishing Site Design/Use Guidelines was read and Almquist noted that such guidelines were made a Council goal and such information will be helpful and put in book form. Smith moved for adoption of the resolution; Elerath seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT W/50SC The City Administrator reviewed the letter from SOSC relative to the agreement proposed to implement the North Campus Completion Plan worked on for years and recommended authorization of signatures of Mayor and Recorder. Laws so moved; Reid seconded the motion. Elerati asked to be excused from voting since he was unfamiliar with the back- ground of the process and after research by City Attorney was told he must vote under the circumstances. Acklin expressed concern about the trees and Almquist said as many as possible will be saved. On roll call vote motion passed unanimously. (Later in meeting Salter learned that one can be excused from voting if other members agree). 6/4/85 P. 4 Regular Meeting Ashland City Council 6/4/85 P., 5 SR, PROGRAM CONTRACT Almquist reviewed the Senior Program contract with the Area Agency on Aging for services provided by ACCESS and Smith moved to authorize Mayor and Record to sign; Bennett seconded the motion which passed unanimously on roll call vote. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Bennett noted that she had left information relative to Council input on effectiveness of Rogue Valley of Governments to City and invited suggestions for services of RVCOG at the next meeting after review of information. ST, IMPROVEMENT EST. Almquist noted that certain street improvement estimates had come in more than 10% over the engineer's estimates and thus the City would have to go back to those signing in favor and ask whether they will accept the costs reflected in the bids. Street projects involved were Glenwood Drive which was estimated at $15,665 and came in at $17,458.50 and Hillcrest which is to be improved with curbs only which low bid came in at $5,678.50 and estimated at $4,894.40. Almquist asked permission to contact property owners by telephone in interest of time and Council agreed, REVENUE SHARING (FED.) Almquist reviewed background of City's method of imposing franchise tax and noted because of a constituent's challenge over the years which culminated in direct communication with the U.S. Treasury, the federal government cut off Revenue Sharing funds until such time as alleged inappropriate taxing methods can Sbe researched and ruled upon. Almquist recommended that all SociaV eii es being funded through the City with Revenue Sharing Funds be notified that such funds will not be available until a ruling is received. Council agreed and asked the Administrator to so notify. Almquist noted also that the final payment on the Hydro project rests with the availabil- ity of revenue sharing which will create a cash-flow problem.should it not be available. ADJOURNMENT AND ACTION At 9:47 P.M. Council adjourned to Executive Session to discuss liti- AFTER RECONVENING gation relative to Bard's Inn application. At 10:17 Council recon- vened and Acklin moved to repeal Resolution 85-14 calling for Bard's Inn Zone Change and instructed staff to bring back findings of fact denying the zone change application, On roll call Bennett, Acklin, Laws and Smith voted YES. Elerath voted NO and Reid could not vote because she had missed the meeting involved and had not reviewed tapes of the public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Nan E. Franklin L. Gordon Medaris City Recorder Mayor 6/4/85 P. 5 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication June 1, 2015, Study Session Conservation Commission Carbon Pricing Legislation Support Resolution FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst, Administration - adam@ashland.onus SUMMARY At its May 27, 2015 meeting, the Conservation Commission discussed and approved a motion to request direction from Council for a potential resolution supporting a carbon pricing policy for the State of Oregon. Should Council concur, the Commission would work to develop an Ashland specific resolution requesting the Oregon State Legislature develop legislation to impose a carbon pricing policy that also addresses economic impacts on lower income families, as well as urging the Environmental Protection Agency to allow states to use such alternative policies to comply with the federal Clean Power Plan. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Conservation Commission has discussed the general issues of greenhouse gas emission reductions through a carbon tax, carbon cap and trade, cap and dividend or other forms of carbon mitigation policies in several previous Commission meetings over the past 6-12 months. With the passage of Senate Bill 306 during the 2013 Regular Session of the Oregon Legislature and the report generated from that bill, coupled with the current legislative concept 4188 and House Bill 3470, currently in the Oregon Senate and House respectively, the Conservation Commission felt that the timing was right for a review of the issue with Council to determine whether the Council was interested in having the Commission further pursue the development of a resolution in support of carbon pricing policies for the State of Oregon. A carbon cap is designed to limit carbon emissions by either setting a fee per ton of emissions generated/expelled or by creating a permit system that carbon emitters would need to obtain to legally emit carbon. Both methods create revenue for the State. The dividend component of the policy allocates the revenues back to affected parties (residents). The Commission has included a resolution from the City of Milwaukie and a possible template resolution in the packet of related materials to assist in exploring the potential for a future resolution for the City of Ashland. Should Council be interested, such a resolution would align Ashland with several other Oregon municipalities (Milwaukie, Eugene, Corvallis and Hood River) and counties (Benton County) that have already passed a resolution supporting legislation for a carbon pricing policy for the State of Oregon. Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF -AS H LAN D COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Energy and Infrastructure 22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community 22.1 - Develop and implement a community climate change and energy plan FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct, local financial implications are associated with the approval of a resolution supporting a State of Oregon carbon cap and dividend policy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A - Discussion only SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A - Discussion only ATTACHMENTS: Conservation Commission Carbon Cap and Dividend Meeting Packet Documents - May 27, 2015 Page 2 of 2 ilTAW, 18 May 2015 Dear Follow Commissioners and Other Interested Parties- There is an increasing sense of urgency about climate change. We need to take immediate measures that are most likely to accomplish a timely and drastic reduction in the level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. In light of this, I have been asked by Oregon Climate to provide to you materials about efforts to pass a carbon price and dividend bill at the state level. Many cities in Oregon have come out in favor of carbon pricing, including Milwaukie, Hood River, Eugene, and Corvallis, and we are being asked to voice our support to Ashland's City Council. This information is included for discussion at the May 27, 2015 Conservation Commission meeting. If the Conservation Commission supports a carbon price and dividend for the state of Oregon, we can vote to recommend that Ashland's City Council pass a resolution stating their support. A copy of this resolution would be forwarded to Governor Brown, Senators Wyden and Merkley, Congressman DeFazio, and the City's local state legislative delegation. Due to the urgency of the issue, I am asking that Conservation Commissioners come to the May 27 meeting ready to vote (after a short discussion) on making a recommendation to Council on a carbon price and dividend for Oregon. Oregon Climate would be available to meet with Councilors and answer their questions about the bill. They met individually with councilors from the other cities that have passed resolutions. Please see the following attachments for additional information. 1. Oregon Climate's 1-pager on Oregon state senate bill SB 965 (cap and dividend) 2. An article from Sightline outlining the benefits of and common questions about a carbon price and dividend approach 3. The executive summary and link to the full 2014 report from Portland University's NW Economic Research Center on the "Economic and Emissions Impacts of a Clean Air Tax or Fee in Oregon," as commissioned by Oregon's Legislative Revenue Office. 4. Citizen's Climate Lobby's Regional REMI Summary for the Pacific (PAC) Region (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington) and link to their full report. 5. The Executive Summary and link to the full 2013 report from Portland University's NW Economic Research Center on "Carbon Tax and Shift: How to Make it Work for Oregon's Economy." 6. Milwaukie's resolution supporting a carbon pricing policy for the state of Oregon (essentially the same as the other cities' resolutions) 7. A draft resolution for the City of Ashland Thank you! Marni Koopman Vice-Chair, Ashland Conservation Commission OREGON CLIMATE d Carbon Cap and Dividend Our country thirsts for a model of fair and effective climate policy, and carbon cap and dividend is our opportunity to build it. LC 4188, a priority bill in the Senate, proposes scientifically meaningful limits on greenhouse gas pollution in Oregon. Emissions allowances would be auctioned to regulated entities, and importantly, 100% of the proceeds would be evenly returned to every Oregonian taxpayer. There are six reasons cap and dividend deserves support. 1. It would bring Oregon's greenhouse gas emissions 85% below 1990 levels by 2050, matching the reduction rate we need to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperature averages. 2. It would not place the burden of climate stability on low-income familiesin fact, the 2/3rd, lowest income Oregonians would get more money back from their carbon dividend than they would pay in higher energy prices. 3. It would make every Oregonian a stakeholder in polluter accountability. It won't be possible to stabilize our climate without a price on carbon, but an effectively aggressive price schedule-like the one proposed in LC 4188 would force some voters to make sacrifices (if it didn't hurt at all, nobody would modify their behavior). We want a climate policy as popular as the Alaska Permanent Fund. And we believe that the champions of polluter accountability deserve some measure of protection at the ballot box. 4. It would discredit the myth that climate change is some elaborate hoax cooked up to grow the size of government being a revenue neutral policy, cap and dividend would decouple the problem of climate change from the age-old politics of government size. Oregon's share of carbon dioxide emissions is insignificant--our great opportunity is to build the model of strong federal policy. 5. It would prevent the creation of new stakeholders of carbon pollution. Many economists believe a "price-and-shift policy," like British Columbia's carbon tax, presents an irresistible opportunity to alleviate personal and corporate income taxes. But if Oregon were to finance public programs with carbon auction proceeds, whether they be existing programs or new ones, we would build systemic dependencies on revenue that is designed to vanish. Unlike a simple carbon tax or fee, a cap does not require 3/5 majority vote, nor a constitutional amendment. Oregonians want their elected officials to fight for solutions that match the scale of climate change. But it's not enough to hold polluters accountable now. We need a solution with the power to last long after our current leaders have left office, and the appeal to catalyze timely federal policy. Carbon cap and dividend is that solution. littp:Hdailysightline.org/2015/04/02/what-if-pollutgrsd-and-you-lot-the-money/ What If Polluters Paid and You Got the Money? Two climate bills would give every Oregonian a $500-$1,500 dividend check every year. Kristin Eberhard (@KristinEberhard) on April 2, 2015 at 6:30 am What if we could click our ruby slippers and transport ourselves to a magical place where polluters pay and we all get checks in the mail? The Oregon legislature is considering two bills that would take us there. When designing a program to make climate polluters pay, one of the most important decisions is what to do with the money. Northeast states and California invest in energy efficiency and transportation. British Columbia gives tax cuts to people and businesses. Two Oregon bills contemplate mailing out dividend checks. If Oregon passed a polluters-pay-plus-dividend bill, the air would no longer be a free dumping ground for pollution, clean energy would be on an even playing field with fossil fuels, and each Oregonian would get a check for $500-$1,500 every year. Sound too good to be true? It's not. Here are the details, Q Ft A style. 1. What are these Oregon dividend bills and what do they do? HB 3176 would charge fossil fuel sellers a fee for each ton of pollution, starting at $30 per ton and increasing by inflation plus $10 per ton every year. All the money would go into a Trust Fund. Each September, the Department of Revenue would mail every Oregon taxpayer and taxpayer dependent a check for an equal share of the money. HB 3250 would do roughly the same thing, but instead of creating a set fee schedule it would create a set number of pollution permits that fossil fuel sellers could buy in an auction. Each year, less pollution would be allowed and fewer permits would be available. By 2050, Oregon's climate pollution would be 85 percent below 1990 levels. As permits become scarce, the price would go up. 2. Why are there two bills? Is one better than the other? Both bills lead to the Emerald City, but they encounter different lions, tigers, and bears along the way. HB 3176's tax could be implemented quickly, with little administrative overhead. But it would need a constitutional amendment. Article IX section 3a of the Oregon Constitution conscripts all taxes on motor vehicle fuels for use on highways, not dividends for Oregonians. HB 3176 would also need to garner support from 60 percent of legislators, because Article IV section 25 of the Oregon Constitution, as amended in 1996 by Measure 25, requires three-fifths of legislators to approve tax increases. Alternatively, the legislature or voters could reverse the Measure 25 amendment and reinstate majority rule in Salem, as Washington's supreme court did in 2014. HB 3250, on the other hand, could pass by simple majority in the legislature and would not be subject to the limitations on gas taxes. But the Department of Environmental Quality would have to set up a permit and auction system, which would take time. 3. Why give everyone a check? We all own the sky. Clean air is a shared asset. If a private company wants to use our air, it should have to pay us. Just like shareholders get a dividend check from company profits, Oregonians could get a dividend check when fossil fuel companies appropriate the atmosphere. 4. Would charging polluters and paying dividends to Oregonians really help Oregon transition to clean energy? If fossil fuel companies paid a fee to dump their pollution-just like you and I pay a fee to dump our trash-it would level the playing field between energy sources. Solar and wind continue to grow faster than anyone predicted, but they could grow even faster if fossil fuel sellers weren't getting a free lunch. In a fair competition-where fossil fuels aren't stealthily passing their costs along to us in our health bills, fire department bills, water bills, and damages to our shellfish industry-clean energy would prosper and fossil fuels would wither. 5. But don't we need the money to fund clean energy? We have most of the technologies we need to transition to clean energy. We just need to scale up. Utilities and private companies can invest in scaling up. Setting a hard cap or increasing tax on pollution will make clean energy more competitive than ever, whether or not the proceeds of capping or taxing are dedicated to clean-energy subsidies. 6. Will the dividend checks go away? Not until the latter half of the century. To avoid the worst effects of climate change, we must facilitate an orderly, multi-decade, transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. As permits become rarer they would also become more valuable, so the Trust Fund and dividend checks would continue to grow for decades before leveling off mid- century. Even with the aggressive pollution cuts science requires, we will still use some fossil fuels in 2050. Eventually the Trust and dividend checks would wane as we move towards a 100 percent clean economy by the end of the century. 7. Polluters will pass costs along to consumers-won't that hurt low-income people? About two-thirds of households would be richer with a polluters-pay-plus-dividend law. While low-income households spend more of their money on fossil fuel energy compared to better-off households, they still don't spend that much. Low-income Oregonians' fossil fuel costs would rise about $100, so the $500 dividend check would leave them $400 better-off. Upper-income families spend much more money, so they would see a slight (2 . , , percent, according to an analysis of a 4 see 0 nation-wide cap and dividend law) increase in expenditures, even after the dividend check. But wealthier households often have options to oust fossil fuels, by Net impact on retrofitting their homes, for example, or household inco>ilc buying clean energy from their utilities or putting solar panels on their rooftops or buying more efficient cars. 1L 8. Polluters will pass costs along to consumers-won't that hurt people in rural Oregon? No. People in rural Oregon, on average, o would make money from a polluters-pay- plus-dividend law. Lowest Second Middle Fourth Mighext 20% 20% 20 20% 20%. Say what? It turns out, rural Oregonians emit about half as much pollution as urban. Portland State University modeled a carbon tax in Oregon and found that 43 percent of Oregonians live in the Metro region but emit 60 percent of the pollution. Non-Metro Oregonians would pay 40 percent of a carbon tax but would get 57 percent of the value back in dividend checks. This is partly because rural Oregonians, on average, have cleaner electricity than urban. Most of rural Oregon-about 30 percent of the state overall-gets electricity from consumer-owned utilities (COUs: public utilities, cooperatives, and municipal utilities). COUs get 85 percent of their power from carbon-free hydro. COU customers pollute less, and therefore would pay less, than Pacific Power customers who get 67 percent of their power from coal, or Portland General Electric customers with 30 percent coal. Contrary to popular myth, rural Oregonians do not all drive more than urban residents. According to a 201.2_survey, people in rural Western Oregon drive about 7 percent less than urban Oregonians, while people in rural Eastern Oregon drive about 13 percent more. Rural eastern Oregonians might pay about $2 per month more than urbanites. The $500 dividend check would more than cover that difference. OREGON STATE Investor - Owned Utilities, Public Utilities, Cooperatives and Municipalities ` lr • o K r i < < IN'M, TOR OWNEDUTILFFIES _ ® Idaho Power Company TV/ ® PaciFiCorp(PacificPower B.Light) © Portland General Electric (ENRON) 1,zr. v.r!xcrnuar.nc.e.ir C:23 Sierra Pacific 9. Is this just another "tax-and-spend" plot to grow the government? Not at all. The money would go from fossil fuel sellers to Trust Fund to dividend checks. Public agencies would not spend any of it. 10. Is this just about climate change or is it more than that? Climate change threatens the Pacific Northwest, but it is not the only threat. Cascadia's middle class is also imperiled. Readers of Thomas Piketty's Capital In the 21st Century, or even of Rich Dad, Poor Dad know that rich people mostly don't get rich by working (labor income), they get rich and stay rich and make their kids rich by owning assets that produce non-labor income. Because non-labor income rows faster than labor income, and the US tax system favors non-labor income over labor income, almost all the economy's gains in productivity accrue to the people who own companies, stocks, and property. Wages for middle-class workers-people who work for their living-have flat lined. To resuscitate the middle class, we need to find a mechanism for more people to own assets that generate non-labor income. We could give everyone an ownership share in common assets such as our money supply, air, land, and water. A carbon pollution dividend could be the first step toward such shares. 11. Is anyone else considering this idea? Members of the US Congress have introduced several dividend bills. The "Healthy Climate and Family Security Act" would pare pollution to 80 percent below the United States' 2005 emission levels by 2050. Fossil fuel companies would buy permits at auction and deposit the fees into a Trust Fund. The administrator of the Fund would send checks every quarter to all Americans with social security numbers. Alaska already has a dividend program. The Alaska Permanent Fund is not about pollution, but it ensures that all Alaskans get a dividend from their rightful share of the state's resources. A Republican Governor created the Alaska Permanent Fund and Sarah Patin expanded it, explaining that a state's resources should be for the "benefit of the people, not the corporation, not the government, but the people of [the state]." Since 1982, the Fund has paid out $19 billion in dividends to Alaskans. 12. Why doesn't everyone love this idea? A polluters-pay-plus-dividend law should appeal not only to liberals who want to stop climate change, but to everyone who would like to get a check every year. Even Fox News conservatives like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs agree that certain resources belong to The People and energy companies should have to pay into a Fund that pays out to citizens, putting "a little dollar sign next to what it's worth to be a citizen." Why aren't we doing it already!? Many people think it sounds too good to be true. They can't believe the state treasury will really send everyone a check. They can't believe we could really break fossil fuels' stranglehold on our economy. And fossil fuel interests know that if each man, woman, and child in Oregon starts getting a $500 check, there will be no going back to the free lunch. RR #4-14 December 2014 State of Oregon Research Report °F ° LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE y~ 900 Court St NE Rm 143 _ : O Salem, Oregon 97301 N z (503) 986-1266 I••69 Research Report #4-14 December 2014 Economic and Emissions Impacts of a Clean Air Tax or Fee in Oregon (SB306) The Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 306 (SB306) during its 2013 Regular Session, which directed the Legislative Revenue Office (LRO) to conduct a study of the economic and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of implementing a clean air tax or fee in Oregon. After an open RFP process, LRO (with the assistance of a Technical Advisory Committee) chose and contracted Portland State University's Northwest Economic Research Center (NERC) to conduct the analysis. The Oregon Legislative Revenue Office (LRO) also contracted with Edward Waters (local economist and consultant) to provide quality monitoring and assurance for the Study. Mazen Malik was tasked with leading the study, and other LRO staff including Christine Broniak and Vijay Satyal provided support and feedback. LRO and the study team continued to utilize the Technical Advisory Committee to assist with methodology design and to provide feedback throughout the process. The technical advisory committee was made up of representatives from: • Oregon Legislative Revenue Office (Paul Warner) • Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office (Paul Siebert) • Oregon Business Development Commission (Michael Meyers) • Oregon Department of Revenue (Mary Fitzpatrick) • Oregon Department of Transportation (Jack Svadlenak) • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Colin McConnaha, David Collier) • Public Utility Commission (Aster Adams, Jason Klotz) • Oregon Department of Energy (Phil Carver, Jessica Shipley, Bill Drumheller, Julie Peacock) Pagel RR #4-14 December 2014 The Northwest Economic Research Center (NERC) is based at Portland State University (PSU) in the College of Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA). The Center focuses on economic research that supports public-policy decision-making and relates to issues important to Oregon and the Portland Metropolitan Area. The Director of NERC is Dr. Tom Potiowsky. NERC assembled a team of economists, physicists, and other researchers to perform the study. The NERC team was led by Jenny H. Liu (NERC Assistant Director) and Jeff Renfro (NERC Senior Economist). The research team also included Christopher Butenhoff, Mike Paruszkiewicz, and Andrew Rice. Additional research assistance on this project was provided by NERC research assistants: Janai Kessi, Kyle O'Brien, and Marisol Caceres Lorenzo. In order to customize the impact of a carbon tax on the price of electricity in each of six regions in the state of Oregon, NERC required region-level electricity demand data from several utilities. This data was generously provided by Consumers Power Inc., Midstate Electric Cooperative Inc., PacificCorp, Portland General Electric, and Wasco Electric Cooperative. The study team is grateful for the data, which improved the quality of the modeling results. Additional data was also provided by Clean Energy Works of Oregon, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and the Oregon Department of Energy. The study team thanks them for their generosity. NERC and LRO obtained input from Legislative Committees on the initial study outline and proposed methodology. The study team and LRO also met with a variety of stakeholder groups representing Oregonians who would be affected by the tax. The goal of these conversations was to get feedback on the proposed study methodology and to better understand the modeling outputs that would be most useful to the different groups, including business, utilities, low-income representatives, and labor representatives potentially affected by the policy. After the study outline and methodology were finalized, NERC continued monthly update meetings with LRO to ensure progress. NERC, LRO and the technical advisory team convened once every quarter for a total of 4 meetings, with additional meetings and consultations with subcommittees, formed within the technical advisory team. Naturally, towards the end of study period, meetings updates and contacts became much more frequent to ensure the timely completion of the study. The rest of the report is the product of the efforts of the study team and reflects the research and expertise of the team's collective work. Liu, Jenny H.; Renfro, Jeff; Butenhoff, Christopher; Paruszkiewicz, Mike; Rice, Andrew. (2014) Economic and Emissions Impacts of a Clean Air Tax or Fee in Oregon (SB306). Northwest Economic Research Center (NERC). Portland State University, College of Urban and Public Affairs. http://www.pdx.ed u/nerc/sites/www.pdx.edu.nerc/files/carbontax2014.pdf Portland State ® U N I V E R S I T Y Northwest Economic Research Center Page 2 RR #4-14 December 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................4 Introduction 9 1. Background and Process ..................................................................................................................9 Carbon Pricing Background ................................................................................................................10 II. Carbon Tax Structure .....................................................................................................................12 Administrative Structure ....................................................................................................................12 Revenue Repatriation and Expenditure .............................................................................................13 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................15 1. Emissions and Revenue Modeling .................................................................................................16 II. Economic Modeling (REMI PI+ Model) ..........................................................................................17 Results... 21 1. Baseline Scenario ...........................................................................................................................21 II. Carbon Tax Scenarios 23 Emissions Reduction by Sector 25 Emissions Reductions by Region 26 Comparison to Previous Carbon Tax Studies 27 III. Revenue 29 IV. Revenue Repatriation and Expenditure Scenario Results .............................................................30 Key Industries .....................................................................................................................................33 Scenario A - No Repatriation 35 Scenario B - Revenue Neutral .............................................................................................................40 Revenue Positive ................................................................................................................................44 Scenario C - Revenue Neutral (Excluding Transportation Revenue) ..................................................45 Scenario D - Public Investment and Expenditure ...............................................................................54 Scenario E - Alternative Transportation-Related Carbon Tax Revenue Disbursement 62 Other Considerations 66 Border Tariffs 66 Non-Combustion Emissions 67 Impacts on Tourism ............................................................................................................................68 Impacts on Government ....................................................................................................................69 Evaluation of a Carbon Tax Relative to Existing Oregon Laws ....................................................................71 1. Analytical Framework ....................................................................................................................73 II. The Carbon Tax in Context .............................................................................................................77 1. Laws Regarding Renewable Portfolio Standards ....................................................................77 2. Laws Regarding Motor Vehicle Emissions ...............................................................................84 3. Other Laws Regarding Electric Utilities ...................................................................................90 III. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................92 Further Research and Applications .............................................................................................................93 Conclusion 95 Appendix I - Detailed Description of Modeling Methodology ....................................................................96 Appendix II -Detailed Revenue-Usage Scenario Schematic and Results ..................................................108 Appendix III - Net Impacts by Income Quintile ........................................................................................151 Appendix IV - Public-Purpose Charge Background ..................................................................................155 References and Bibliography ....................................................................................................................160 Page 3 RR #4-14 December 2014 Executive Summary In this study, the carbon tax is applied to fossil fuels combusted in the state as well as imported electricity at maximum levels of between $10 and $150 per metric ton of C02e. The tax is applied to fuel purchases at the wholesale level, except for electricity purchases wherein it is levied on the final consumer. The study features results from scenarios that demonstrate the effects of different revenue repatriation and expenditure options in order to demonstrate tradeoffs between different policy choices. These include scenarios featuring personal and corporate income tax reductions, targeted low-income and worker support, targeted business investment, and energy efficiency investments among others. Because of Oregon constitutional requirements, carbon tax revenue collected on sales of transportation fuels must be allocated to the State Highway Fund. The modeling incorporates this requirement, but also features scenarios in which these revenues are used to offset existing transportation taxes and fees or for other transportation-related projects. The study team created a forecast of Oregon C02e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions out to 2034 to serve as a baseline for estimation. The Oregon Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, and utility Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) were used to calibrate the baseline forecast to ensure that the study results were compatible with ongoing work on emissions forecasting in the state. For economic modeling, NERC utilized a customized version of the Regional Economic Modeling Inc. (REMI) software. The model split Oregon into six regions (Central, Eastern, Metro, Northwest, Southwest, and Valley) and features impact results for 70 industry sectors within each region. During the initial phases of the project, NERC worked with REMI to customize the model output estimates to more accurately reflect Oregon's economic structure. During this same period, the study team developed average carbon intensity estimates for electricity consumed in each region based on published data as well as data requested directly from utilities. A basic modeling input was the deviation in fuel price from expected baseline prices due to the assessment of the carbon tax. To calculate this expected price change, the study team used the Energy Information Administration's Extended Policy forecast. This forecast includes all existing state and federal laws, and assumes that laws with sunsets which are normally extended will continue to be extended. This forecast is derived from EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and includes expected price by fuel type. Annual changes from the EIA's expected baseline prices resulting from alternative carbon tax levels and the average carbon content of each type of fuel were used as model inputs. Changes in household energy demand and business output resulting from the increase in energy prices under each carbon tax scenario were then used to update the emissions model. The expected change in emissions was calculated, which also determined the estimated tax revenue under each scenario. This estimated tax revenue was fed back into the economic model according to the assumptions of each repatriation and expenditure scenario. The final Page 4 RR #4-14 December 2014 results are dynamic estimates of changes in emissions and key economic variables (e.g., employment, output, and compensation) under an array of alternative carbon tax and revenue repatriation/expenditure scenarios. Figure 1 shows the expected emissions levels under a range of carbon prices and one set of revenue repatriation and expenditure scenarios'. The dotted line represents the 1990 level of emissions from in-state combustion and imported electricity use. In the estimation process, the differences in impacts between scenarios were small relative to the size and output of the Oregon economy. While this figure shows results for one particular set of scenarios, similar expected emissions levels were estimated for most of the other scenarios examined. Figure 1 - Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the CA Carbon Tax Scenario 60 20 aN 50 O 0 n 40 N -20 c rn o _ M kA _ N r) 30 W - - 1990 reference 40 -Baseline -$10 M 20 L _..w.,.$30 -60 $45 tio $60 d C w 10$loo -80 -.~-$12s -$150 0 -100 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 1 Emissions units are million metric tons of C02 equivalent emissions. Note: The C.4 scenarios are revenue neutral (excluding transportation-based revenues) with repatriated revenue distributed 70% to corporate income tax cuts and 30% to personal income tax cuts. Page 5 RR #4-14 December 2014 Figure 2 shows the expected revenues at alternative carbon price levels.' As with the previous figure that shows impacts on emissions, this figure shows results from a single set of scenarios. However, the differences in carbon tax revenues estimated under the different scenarios are relatively small. Since the expected impacts on employment and output are small relative to the size of the overall economy, once the tax rate reaches its cap we expect carbon tax revenues to be relatively stable going into the future. Figure 2 - Total State Revenue Generated for Different Carbon Tax Rates 5000 -$10 4500 -$30 4000 $45 p 3500 ""°`$100 N ...-.$125 {/j. C 3000 --$150 t` 2500 N 2000 a X 1500 1000 500 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 Table 1 summarizes the estimated emissions impacts, carbon tax revenues, and employment and output impacts under each scenario at a range of carbon prices. Emissions, employment and output impacts are reported as a change relative to the forecast baseline. The values are all relatively small when compared to the size of the overall Oregon economy. Even in the most negative scenarios, overall employment and output growth will remain positive - the carbon tax acts as a small drag on economic growth. The table reports impacts in the year that the carbon price cap is reached. The impacts vary by year for each scenario. The Results section of the report (pg. 21) graphs the impacts of each scenario over the course of the forecast period. z Revenues for carbon prices of $45/ton and below are shown on the lower branch in the diagram. These scenarios feature a $5/ton annual increase in the tax rate until the price cap is reached. For prices above $45/ton (shown on the upper branch), the assumed annual increase is $10/ton until the cap is reached. Page 6 RR #4-14 December 2014 Revenue usage scenario A in Table 1 (Rows) signifies the extreme case of the tax revenue not being returned to the economy and kept in reserve funds. Grouping B shows the revenue neutral scenarios, while grouping C is revenue neutral with the exception of transportation taxes and fees. The D scenarios show the results of returning the revenue to the economy by the way of tax cuts and public expenditures or targeted investments. The last grouping, E scenarios, assume non-transportation revenues are used for tax cuts while the remaining revenues are used for transportation projects which differ from the current Highway Trust Fund expenditure patterns. Table 1 - Results Summary: Annual Impacts in the year Carbon Price reaches cap Maximum Level of Carbon Tax (per mTC02e) $10 $30 $60 $100 $150 Emissions Impact -7% -15% -26% -35% -43% Tax Revenue' $490M $1,350M $2,350M $3,450M $4,550M Employment -15K to 25K -27K -37K Output -0.6% to - -1.1% -1.35% 0.4% Employment -1.1K -4K -8K -9K -14.5K Output -0.05% -0.2% -0.5% -0.5% -0.7% _ I Employment 0 +4K +7K +5.5K +2K J Output -0.02% -0.7% Employment +5K -13K to -9K Output -0.5% Employment 0 -5K Output In response to Section J of S13306, this study also includes a discussion of how the carbon tax would compare and interact with specific Oregon statutes. A table summarizing the conclusions can be found on pg. 71, followed by a more detailed analysis of each set of statutes and potential interactions. Overall, this study finds that the impact of a carbon tax policy which repatriates the revenue back to the economy would have relatively small impacts on employment and output, although the benefits and costs of the policy would vary across geographic regions, income levels, and industries. Revenues could be used to offset negative impacts, but any repatriation or expenditure necessarily takes revenue away from other priorities. The choice of revenue-use methods will ultimately determine the overall impact of the tax policy. Applying the tax to a s In inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars Page 7 RR #4-14 December 2014 broad base will help reduce inefficiencies and ensure the expected levels of carbon tax revenues and emissions reductions are achieved. Page 8 More information available at https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/ Citizens' Climate Lobby Regional REMI Summary for the Pacific (PAC) Region (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington) National Highlights in 2025: • 2.1 million more jobs with Fee and • 90,000 American lives saved from better Dividend (F&D). air quality. • C02 emissions 31% below 1990 levels. • $80 - $90 annual billion increase in GDP. PAC-Specific Findings: Gross Regional Product (GRP): $40,000 $30,000 --NE $20,000 - ° $10,000 MA -ENC o -$10,000 WNC - - - c -$20,000 - - SA _ - - - - - - - - u -$30,000 o -$40,000 -ESC - - - - - - -$50,000 - WSC -$6o,ooo MNT -$70,000 - - - LO .o r. oo ON O N co d- LO ~0 r- oo rn O H N M v- M PAC ' r N N N N N N N N N N co CO co co co cf) O O O p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure 1: Gross Regional Product (GRP) Changes in the Nine Regions (p. 21). PAC has the greatest growth of their GRP thanks to the policy, peaking at +$34 billion. This is mainly thanks to the region's very small coal presence, which means the region escapes much of the negative impacts to the energy sector until around 2025 when the precipitous growth to the GRP plateaus. [Note: all numbers for this graph, and all graphs, are relative to the baseline $0 carbon fee scenario in the models.] 2025: Top 3 Industry Winners (GRP) 2025: Top 3 Industry Losers (GRP) 1) Real Estate (+$5.98 billion (b) to GRP) 1) Air Transportation (-$2.67b) 2) Retail Trade (+$4.70b) 2) Petrol. And coals manufacture (-$1.22b) 3) Ambulatory Health Services (+$4.65b) 3) Oil and Gas Extraction (-$0.81b) Net of all industries in 2025: +$33 billion to regional GRP. Count of the industries considered in 2025: 48 add to and 19 subtract from GRP. Employment: 700 - - - - c 600 -NE W n 500 MA > 400 -ENC 0 -WNC 0 300 - - - - -SA - - - - - 200 to -ESC y 100 - - WSC 0 0 - .c 0 MNT F- PAC -100 - - - Ln Lo r` co rn o r-i N m :t Ln to r- oo cn o r-i N m Kt Ln r-i r-i T -I r I vJ N N N N N N N N N N m m m m M m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure 2: Regional breakdown of employment increases (p. 20). PAC is an early leader in job growth, again from the lack of coal industry in the region. The growth plateaus after 2025. 2025: Top 3 Job Gainers 2025: Top 3 Job Losers 1) Retail Trade (+65 thousand (k) jobs) 1) Air Transportation (-9k) 2) Ambulatory Health Services (+58k) 2) Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation; 3) Administrative and Support Services Support activities for Transportation (4k) (+31k) 3) Oil and Gas Extraction (-3k) Net of all industries in 2025: +442,000 jobs. Count of the industries considered in 2025: 44 add jobs, 8 lose jobs, 15 have no change. Energy Production: Baseline (So/year) Alternative (Sio/year) 6o0 6oo Solar Gas-CT Wind U 'Gas-CC 500 500 ® Biopower Goal-CCS Geothermal Coal-IGCC `400 400 Hydro Coal-New ■ Nuclear Cofiring 300 300 ■ Oil-Gas-Steam Coal-Old Scrubbed Gas-CC-CCS ® Coal-old Unscrubbed k 200 200 loo loo o o 2010 22020 2030 2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 Figure 3: Electrical Power Generation (p. 117). PAC is the region least reliant on coal for its power production and thus the policy does little to impact the energy production until around 2020, when there is a big expansion in wind and geothermal energy production along with a move away from natural gas. PAC also produces -25% more energy in the F&D scenario, which would then be available for export to other regions. Real Income: 4 _NE $1,500 A4A o i _ENC N ~ _ - v*VNC - -rw''~... --SA $500 ------ESC &4 $o 'VVSC tiQ r` cc 011 G 1-4 N M I- 'S~ ~O R 00 ON G ` N M ~ PAC G G G p N C N N N N Cd N N N M C O G C C N N N N N ~,Gj N N N N N N N~ N N N N N N N Figure 4: Real Income Per Capita (p. 38). This reflects the increase io income per person after accounting for increased cost of living (up by 1.5% in 2025, the smallest increase among all regions; p. 33), increased energy prices (peaking in 2026 then dropping; p. 34), net of the impact to the labor market, F&D checks, as well as population and demographic trends. Also worth noting is that the inflation over the entire 20-year period for the region is equivalent to adding one "extra" year of inflation. Other notable findings: The biggest growth occupations for the region in 2025 are retail sales workers (+37,000 jobs), health diagnosing and treating practitioners (+22,000 jobs), building cleaning and pest control workers (+20,000 jobs). These occupations are winners because of the dividend, which boosts consumer spending, and thus results in job gains in labor- intensive industries. While many of these jobs are entry-level, they beat unemployment, and indeed the poorest 20% of Americans see the largest boost in employment. This means fewer Americans reliant on the state, and with the satisfaction of a paying job. Conclusions: The region's economy doesn't rely on coal at all meaning the loss in GRP and jobs seen in other regions is absent in the Pacific region. This leads to a large +$34 billion increase to the GRP and a 450,000 increase in jobs. Overall the fee and dividend puts money into people pockets and thus into the economy without the energy sector dragging it down. Thanks to previous investment in climate-friendly energy policies, the PAC region is a clear winner from Fee and Dividend, with some of the largest benefits of any region! Full report: http://citizensclimatelobby.ora/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/REMI-carbon-tax-report- 62141.pdf Revision 1: Feb. 17, 2015 r t LLM N ~ a -0 n O C U m x -ML E ~ 4E wv - _ y 41 a 3 s B O c= v E Cu -mu _0 O c r6 v 0 E T o o m CD cu E u 0 a) C) p o x u a a a cam' ° ° o> W Q ?-0 o 'E -E V 13 0 > m o i N c V v } G N N o v Q O w cm E LLJ c C „ [C 1D U V1 L L Z o > N c n O U o V 6 Q O o co Q, V O n 9 O v L c) u v° u E mvx~^a v ~o~ a) E ru C) n c O ' ° > j, O X v u a} w N v r ~ v Q i O vi ro _0 O° N v v> w° 4- O V ^ T a c+ a o Z c O v Co mo ro Q) =3 ro c n Q Q O Cf + a c v c' U} v of o a a c O~ a O~ v0 _L 0 r- Q o w Ln C) ro N 0 Ln v v r6 61 N Q O £ k z c° c a ° c v a c C O r0 v, V V v rB _v u Z T C 41 N 41 c) v E O rn Q o U Z c v ~C Q ~ v ~ o ~ u tp V v O Q Q - V r6 rn In V N lJ - + c D Q f- > p U° W 0 O c In ry) (L) C: CL cr~ 4-j ru _-0 Q a E Q O m L4- W O O a) c c n ~6 Q C-- P V_ ti}- V E C6 z S o W U- > m O 0 0 0 „ Q o L LA w a C c° c M =3 o u o = c o O S2 ~ N r6 QJ -r C) ° v r c N fl- r6 T ~ ~-•y- w ~ C ° M vNi _0 N v p w v 0- CL ~ -E ru O z v O O O c N O Q C) c c U T v fo 'Z /vl/ T c Z + lJ O U r-4 0) c- c a) E -0 O c o° v 0 0 0 0- L c v c rB O w v -C _0 D fa (13 0 (u (1) ru o- < O r V M I- O t- O N 00 N M N N N N M M o 0 V uJ h O Zh N L ~ U N oc O 0 Q. cc _ E c O f0 - V > cn N o C ~r . N O i O E E -0 0 LOU V O w n o ~ls fa -0 ~n c ~ a m F`S a~ N N O X X c cn o O .O N C E fa _ v N a Q c a) W m N V Li- Q Q W h q t4 s ~ r~ t ~ii f h 7L1~~YY t. TTT }h..t r t~r v 11 ~ ~ ~ ♦d S ~ sf l Mi f~> f~.lY 4r ~ f TiM 4-j 44, Jvl 4 t n1 ~ F. J r{ Ny y , i C i o V1 L Q1 O + n + v in C u ~ L N (V Ln (p Q V Q O o N v Vf cn v u N E n Q v p c6 N 0 o N + v v X O o~ o > u n _ f0 O C C N O E 1-j O Q V 0 Q O o v E Ln v x o o~ - a) 0 -Q O '~-Ov v E o O o u 0-) v v~ m v C a v> L O ° c c o O T) E O a~ . o v C $ ~ c N v o-C c v Q ~ o 6 O ) = D v-0 O v0--o 5 E > u v v v M U) v c_ ~ N X Q Q)0) L Q v v V i a 7 p C fu V~ CO a u O 75 c 4-- > c - 0 _0 c N ° o O a c v-C co -0 QJ E v V) 0 _0 0 V N Ln o O O x i c Q u M E v u (U Q. O V) v x o - v v L- C:L N O E .x m Q V N V V c N o a' c v o u ~-m O c c > O v E O r o ° v E m o" O N E a Q 41 U) L c u O O o V o v L M a, u C E- E o v a u o V m o v Ln aJ X C r • > H y.. - .t f4 d' Lr) Ln > ro - O C]) ~l 7D C O 00 ro l9 0 = E O N b9 in I ro +-Q v O > iI O + O CU N Q N rB p O O v v y OL T o U M (13 ~ O O T ' Q1 - c V1 0 ro N N T ra O m m 7 a) 7 0 u O M Ln N O O C 7 NO > E E 0- D + v O N 0) u O O N 'X O ro M i U N > > 4~y T_0 (D a) c E ~ E o-- c _ N r~ M T 6) (O Q. U T Q. Q X M l0 N M l0 M m p m N p pl O O Ln N Ln p N w w w e9 G) 0 M Q) N N m N w w eNa j 0 73 a) - - U) LO LLJ x U) kA 'X f ,9 6 rv. CD U) 1 > S_ 0 QJ Q) (D _ C C Ln ° ° rn n W m M L,n r6 N O- N O m o m N ui Ln m N. X u O N O v} i0 O e° o 0 0 N Lc N° N C] w U) 41 r4 Q) 0 U :3 - - - E - p in 7 _O (U } N O N p N (Z o .I + 00 m OOC Q Ln 89 o O N n r- in n O V v O O n M 0 0 0 n m rn rn m m -i v p x O> O N a 4 m N Ln Nw 1Ow 75 CD a~ a C, a, ~D 3: a) co p, p n O m O c E u~ co rn v Ln 7 Ln v Ln E rn O m o p O - c E E CD + Ln M i O O x L, o E > n O v M O N 7 Q) O r0 ( o w N O Ln c b~ : V Q O U rC6 pi - o y °C - o ri (v m N OL > N Q N v r0 C .i rp i - f. ra i `6 ^ r C 4J N O LL p Q (6 O d s c v O m r c v p -0 v 1.1 U) E 9- V n E m v C O O E\ G a) I Q- , 0 F v p E -0 E Ln -0 c- r6 Q1 m p C U E w LA %D CT F~- tR l7 V H H l7 V V c F pl Q U Q r6 in 21) U Q Q QJ Ln c ro O O 'in O Q) x CL) (y) m Q+ ~ yq Co C o y o 0- c E O o d o o, 0 E 00 Q v C _ .w o O 7 v U 41 O `G E V O v> QJ v e 7 0 U v N Q O O a V QJ c o x+ N 7 to V x m a o ro N U E rO~ v U 6 v 0 fu ' n O N v 7 ,n Sa, _ p O o n O O _ _ Q L S QJ O O r6 l7 C C) v _ O Ql O 7 v Q 7 0 a N n Z to ra o- L v E - } ro > v > - 5 rnQ x o o ~ W o I IS IS 18 a ra v> ii O M M ' n u v v c O O U]1Ud uoclEiW c to O ~o Q O 'n > .u v 00 E0 c p r6 7 U QJ ov c c v o- c QJ o v v G) c a~ Q' O v o O v x Q +J N p 7 L CL Q p v CY) V (ua O)t a~ O 7 3: u - v N O-0 O Q1 N E U Z QJ > C , u 6+- 0 O W y ° o w ~ ~ v to ~ ~ S• a) 6 O CS O a3 „ N ~ ~ ~ v a> >c ca ~ .Y• ~ co O O Q «s N O N r' r. O v N f~ O 6 N Zj U C O 6 M d 0- 0 -0 co Ln Y C i (6 1' t6 N r4 o p v O O v m T 0- O ts6 m O V O O v- N ~i Q m O O O G 41 '70 0 43) N N O N u O m t] O 6s O u~ 7 N p O 18 U C, 4J i U O s- 0 'i " v Q cn N D ~O v (x6 ° p T s. N N M H-- ..i Z:5) N (~6 N O i6 O O n v n v Q o 7 O v 9 0 0- -5 o -0 ~ ~ v U O s N Q O O v v N O N ,J O d O? O -C- E --D CD 01- C~ N .N c6 C -D V a~ O O cb d? n ° u n O U 'O v C O O ° R a~ O `v V s ~ ~O x6 O- O O ci O G O 4 Q O Ov 00 a Le) 41 0 cD is 0 C- v ° fl. o o o o a~ a~ cs Y ai o o o fl v Y u c L s c o v v o° -W -0 co u C, LA un 4-j U) -5 -0 LA o a~ a, ~O O o s D~ S Ov O C6 T O c7 -0 0 O T o ° o o v+ v o o vi Lr) -0 Ln -0 O N C O N G+ O o O N O Q M N 0 4w -0 O O N ` "O_ O G o x O N' v_ a~ O p ° O o N tU O- • co Q CITY OF MILWAUKIE z Dogwood City of t1)e U%sf" Resolution No. 48-2015 ~NDF"P ti A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKIE, OREGON, SUPPORTING A CARBON PRICING POLICY FOR THE STATE OF OREGON. WHEREAS, the City Council is compelled by the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the primary cause of global climate change; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that climate change is already having an effect in Oregon and is a crisis demanding immediate measures to reduce its negative effects; and WHEREAS, climate change is a threat to public health, national security, food security, and business supply chains. These have costs to our society that are not reflected in the price of fossil fuels; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that assigning a cost to carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most efficient ways to decrease carbon pollution, discourage consumption of fossil fuels and encourage development of alternatives; and WHEREAS, the 2013 Tax and Shift: How to Make it Work for Oregon's Economy report published by the Portland State University (PSU) Northwest Economic Research Center and the December 2014 report to the State Legislature on the feasibility of a fee or tax on greenhouse gas emissions, also by the Northwest Economic Research Center, conclude that imposing a price on carbon within the State of Oregon would have relatively small impacts on the economy and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Milwaukie, Oregon, that the City of Milwaukie requests that the Oregon State Legislature carefully craft legislation to impose a carbon pricing policy according to the most credible climatological and economic research, with special attention for mitigating adverse impacts on low income families; and Be it Further Resolved that the City of Milwaukie will transmit copies of this Council Resolution to United States Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, United States Congressman Kurt Schrader, Governor Kate Brown, to State Senator Diane Rosenbaum, State Representative Kathleen Taylor, and to all members of the Oregon State Legislature actively proposing carbon dioxide price legislation; and Be it Further Resolved that passage of this Council Resolution shall not preclude the City of Milwaukie from further lobbying efforts as deemed appropriate. Page J of 2 - Resolution No. 48-2015 Introduced and adopted by the City Council on 412112015. This resolution is effective immediately. Wilda Parks, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jordan Ramis PC Pat DuVal, City Recorder City Att ey Page 2 of 2 - Resolution No. 48-2015 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A CARBON PRICING POLICY FOR THE STATE OF OREGON. The City Council of the City of Ashland finds that: A. The City Council is compelled by the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of global climate change. B. The City Council agrees that climate change is a crisis demanding immediate measures to reduce its negative effects. C. Climate change is a threat to public health, national security, food security, and business supply chains. These have costs to our society that are not reflected in the price of fossil fuels. D. The City Council believes that assigning a cost to carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most efficient ways to decrease carbon pollution, discourage consumption of fossil fuels and encourage development of alternatives. E. The 2013 Tax and Shift: How to Make it Work for Oregon's Economy report published by the Portland State University Northwest Economic Research Center and the December 2014 report to the legislature on the feasibility of a fee or tax on greenhouse gas emissions, also by Northwest Economic Research Center, conclude that imposing a price on carbon within the State of Oregon would have relatively small impacts on the economy and would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASHLAND, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. The City Council requests that the Oregon State Legislature carefully craft legislation to impose a carbon pricing policy, in part relying on modeling described in the reports outlined in the above findings and the experience of British Col a ibia with special attention for mitigating adverse impacts on low income families. Section 2. The City Council urges the Environmental Protection Agency to allow states the option of voluntarily using market based, economy-wide carbon pricing as an alternative compliance mechanism for the Clean Power Plan. Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to Governor Brown, Senators Resolution - Page I of 2 Wyden and Merkley, Congressman DeFazio, and the City's local state legislative delegation. The City shall lobby in its support when appropriate. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted on the day of 52015. City Recorder Resolution - Page 2 of 2