HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0922 Council Packet Info
EXHIBITS
· U.S.D.A. Agreement (dated August 21, 1929) and
amendments (A)
· Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease (dated July 9, 1992) (B)
· Ski Area Term Special Use Permit (C)
· Memo from Paula Brown (dated May 1,2000) regarding
comments on the DEIS (0)
· Transmittal letter for the DEIS (E)
· DEIS Abstract (F)
· DEIS Executive Summary (G)
· Memo from Paul Nolte (dated June 27,2002) regarding role of
the City in Mt. Ashland Expansion (H)
· Map of Mt. Ashland Ski Area & Ashland Creek Watershed
,
" " I
UNITED STATES DEPABmBn or AGRICULmBE
Office 0 t the Secret afT.
OOOPW,TlVE AGR~Rr iUR THE RJRPOSE OF CONSERVING Am> PR~EOTING mE
WAmt SUPPLY OF 'rUE OITY 0:1 ASHLAm>, <mnON.
This AGREEYEBT made and entered into this 21st
day ot
A ugu.s t
one thoman4, Dine 'hundred. and twenty-n1>>e
by and between the 01 ty of Ashland, State ot Oregon, through
J. EdVl. Thornt on
, 1 ts Kayor t and the Un1 t ed S~tate8 Department
ot AgriOulture, through
R. W. Dunlal>.
AotinR: Seoret&17
ot Agrloul ture, WITDSSEm tba t,
WHEREAS, the following described landau all national forest
lands in 'townships 39 am 40 south, raDge8 1 west and 1 eaat. W.Il.
wi thin the watershed of Ashland Creek, comprising approxitrately 11,432
acres. within the boundaries of the Crater National Forest, are within
the watershed from which the water supply ot the City Of Ashland is
obtained;
NON, THEB.DORE, for the purpose of conserving and protecting the
water supply ot the said city, it is agreed:
1. ~t before enteriIJg into any agre8Jl8nt tor the Qutti:ng ot
timber or remoTal ot other torest prodmt8 from national forest lands
within the area. the officials of the City.Of' Ashland will be consulted
and fUll consideration will be given to any requirements the City ot
Ashland may desire to impose a8 necessary tor the aafeguard1Dg ot the
wa ter supply.
2. 'L'hat in permitting the use of said lws for timber cutti11g
or other purposes. full consideration shall be giTen to the preservation
EXHIBIT "A"
Iii
-2-
of tbe volume and purIty ot the city water supply, and if the proper
state or federal 88enc1es shall determine, after due study and investi_
gation, that the oi ty water supply 18 being or will be diminished, COn-
tatninated or polluted through permi tted operations upon 8sid lands, and
there 1s no other more practioable remedy tor the situation, the Seoretary,
80 far as he has legal authori ty to do so, will cause snoh permitted
operations to be restrioted, modified or discontinued.
3. Grazing of lIvestock on national. forest lands in the watershed
will not be author1z ed by the 70rest Service exoept wi th the consent of the
officials ot the Oi ty of Ashland. Any temit]€: or other 1mprove~nts
:round necessary to ettectlyely' exclude livestock from the watershed or
to aid in sateguardhJg the water supply Will be constra::ted and D81ntained
by the City u%Jder special use pemIt to be issued by the Forest SupervIsor.
4. So tar as practicable with the means at his disposal, the
Secretary of Agriculture will extend and improve the torests upon these
lands by seed1ngsnd planting, and by the nK>8 t approved D18thods ot s11..,1-
cuI ture and fores t management.
5. The Porest Servioe will administer and proteot the area 1n
conneotion with adJoining national forest lands. Should the 01 ty of
Asbland desire 8117 8pecial protective mea8ures not provided by the
regular Forest Service administration, they may be obtaiZJSd at the 8Z-
pense of the 01 ty of .Ashland by the appointment of addi tional employees
to be appointed by and to be direotly responsible to the Forest Super_
vi80r ot the Crater National llorest, but their oompensation wlll be paid
by the sald 01 ty at the same rate &s men emplo;yed by the lorest Service
on s~ll8r duties.
· J~ ~
'---- --.
-3-
6. Both parties reserve the right to terminate this agreemsnt
at any time on notice to the other party, provided that all obligations
under the agreement up to the date of the termination have been mt.
The undersigned agree to the above propos! tlons and agree to
carry them out 80 'far as they MT8 official power and authority to do so.
...-.J'" ~-'
:TY~~
/' Jrayor
rJ; _/1/~
Aoting
~ seor~~~ of ~o ~~e
. - \-~~~
, .
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
USDA FOREST SERVICE, REGION 6
ROGUE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
ASHLAtND RANGER DISTRICT
and the
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
This Memorandum of Understanding is made by and between the City of Ashland, hereinafter called the City,
by and through its Mayor, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, acting by and
through the Forest Supervisor, Rogue River National Forest, hereinafter called Forest Service, WITNESSETH
THAT:
WHEREAS, as specified in the Clean Water Act of 1995, Iln order to meet the rapidly expanding demands
for water throughout the Nation, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to encourage
conservation.uand utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on au coordinated basis
by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprise with the cooperation of all affected
Federal agencies, States, local governments... I; and, .
WHEREAS, the parties hereto did in 1929 enter into a Cooperative Agreement, entitled ICooperative Agree-
ment For The Purpose Of Conserving and Protecting The Water Supply Of The City Of Ashland, Oregon of
19291; and .
WHEREAS, the parties hereto did in September of 1979 agree upon except as qualified the Ilnterim Water-
shed Planl and subsequently the .Rogue River National Forest Plan of 1989. and the updated INorthwest
Forest Plan of 19951; and,
WHEREAS, the parties hereto are in consensus that both the above referenced Cooperative Agreement and
The Rogue River National Forest Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan of 1995, although still in effect, now
require further clarification and updating to address issues and circumstances which have changed since
they were entered.. into; and,
WHEREAS, The City:
1. Has the responsibility for providing its citizens with a water supply; and,
2. Has historically used the water from Ashland Creek; and,
3. Has helped develop a short-term plan and currently guided by the Interim Watershed Plan for
the analysis and implementation of stated objectives to meet the on-going responsibilities of
general stewardship of the land. The Interim Plan was replaced by the Rogue River National
Forest Plan of 1989 as updated by the Northwest Forest Plan of 1995. The objectives of the
Rogue River National Forest Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan address Late Sucessional
Reserve objectives, water quality, erosion control, fire prevention and supppression, maintain-
ance of a healthy and vigorous cover of vegetation - particularly in the event of severe fire, insect
or disease occurrence to vegetation creating extreme fire danger; and,
4. Has developed and adopted a Forest Management Plan, and the Hamilton Creek Coordinated
Resource Management Plan; and,
5. Has agreed as specified in the above referenced Cooperative Agreement, I...should the City of
Ashland desire any special protection measures not provided by the regular Forest Service
1
III
administration, they may be obtained by the appointment of additional employees to be appoint-
ed by and to be directly responsible to the Forest Supervisor... a; and,
6. Has provided during the 1982, 1983 and 1984 fire season routine patrols of City fire personnel
through the Ashland Watershed for the purpose of fire prevention; and,
7. Has provided annually since fire season 1985 volunteer City personnel who patrol within the
Ashland Watershed for the purpose of fire prevention and detection; and,
WHEREAS, The Forest Service:
1. Has the responsibility for managing the watershed from which Ashland Creek originates and
drains; and,
2. Has delegated to the Ashland District Ranger authority and responsibility to administer, the
Ashland Watershed; and,
3. Has agreed with the City to manage the watershed in such a way as to conserve and protect
the City's water supply; and,
4. Is required by Law and Policy to manage National Forest lands consistent with protection of the
basic resource, soil, and maintenance of State and Federal water quality standards; and,
5. Has developed the Rogue River National Forest Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan which
address pre-suppression, suppression, fire prevention and fuel management actions necessary
to prevent a catastrophic wildfire occurrence in the Ashland Watershed; and,
6. Has developed and implemented four closures under the authority of the Code of Federal
Regulations within the geographic location and for the protection of the Ashland Watershed
which stipulate aNo Overnight Camping.; No Off Road Vehicles.; aNo Open Fires. and aRoads
Closeda; and,
7. Will close the Ashland Watershed to the public under the authority of the Code of Federal
Regulations applicable to National Forests during periods of extreme fire danger; and,
8_ Does recognize e~reme fire danger by the moisture content of live vegetation and dead
vegetation during summer months in combination with the Palmer Drought Index; and,
9. Is required to provide public notice and posting of signs bringing to the public's attention
closures that are in effect in the Ashland Watershed so that the public has a reasonable
opportunity to be aware of closure area and requirements; and,
10. Has the responsibility for news releases that affect National Forest land, including the Ashland
Watershed; and,
11. Has established at the City's expense gates on road 2060 at T.39S., R.1 E, Sec. 21 NENE, the
Ashland Loop Road at the Rogue River National Forest boundary and road 2060200 at TAOS.,
R.1 E.. Sec. 15 NENE north of Bull Gap, to be used to close the Ashland Watershed during
extreme fjre danger when approved by the Forest Supervisor; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
The Forest Service shall:
1. Establish vegetative fuel moisture plots within or adjacent to the Ashland Watershed to assess
fire danger in order to determine when to close the Ashland Watershed; and,
2. Establish Palmer Drought Indices as a criterion to predict in late spring or early summer the
likelihood of serious fire danger conditions due to drought of significant duration of time during
the late portion of summer; and,
3. Use the 1000 hour timelag fuel moisture (>38 dia to 68 dia dead and down fuel) as a criterion
for watershed closure for extreme fire danger; and,
4. Upon determination of a Palmer Drought index of -2.00 or less during the month of May prepare
for a closure of the Watershed because of impending extreme fire danger. If during the month
of June, July and August the Palmer Drought Index is -3.00 or less and the 1000 hour timelag
fuel moisture is < 15% and shrub foliage moisture content < 1 00% watershed closure for
restriction of public access should be. implemented; and,
2
5. Have an Ashland Watershed closure proclamation prepared for signature by the Forest Supervi-
sor for timely implementation when the Palmer Drought Index. 1000 hour fuel moisture and
vegetative fuel moisture indicates extreme fire danger. Prepare for public notification through
the news media and signing of the proclaimed closure; and,
6. Annually provide fire prevention literature and handouts, procedures and training as required
by Forest Service management for fire prevention contacts with the public by employees and
volunteers of the City; and,
7. Annually provide training and information to employees and volunteers of the City concerning
closures pertaining to the Ashland Watershed and procedures, authorities and responsibilities
for enforcement of closures; and,
8. Notify the City when the closure for Ashland Watershed for extreme fire danger is rescinded due
to a change in weather and/or vegetation conditions, which are usually brought about by
precipitation of significant amounts usually > ,51 within a short period of time; and,
9. Place a Forest Service lock on the gate constructed at T.39S, R1 E, Sec. 16 SWNE on Road 2060
above Morton Street; and,
10. Annually review, evaluate and discuss with the City, the Ashland Watershed as it relates to fire
danger, fire prevention, closures and coordination between the City and Forest Service; and,
11. Not withstanding any of the above, base the closure of the watershed on fire danger taking into
account other administrative considerations such as; reduced. availability of firefighting forces
due to other fires in or out of our area, or a high incidence of arson or other human caused fires
in the area; and,
12. Include the City in the planning level and project level, where appropriate, of projects in the
Ashland Watershed; and,
13. Make available on a contractual basis resource specialists to aid the City on projects influencing
the Ashland Watershed.
The City Shall:
1. Designate the City Administrator as the City's representative for coordination in this Memoran-
dum of Understanding; and,
2. Notify the Forest Service before the City close the gates on private land outside the National
Forest Boundary that would affect access onto National Forest; and,
3. Make time available during the month of April or May for their employees and volunteers in
positions of fire prevention patrol to receive training by the Forest Service. Such training will
entail fire prevention procedures and specifics of the closures that are in effect with the Ashland
Watershed; and,
4. Maintain ~ log by their employees or volunteers on a daily basis while on fire prevention patrol
within the Ashland Watershed. The log will record such things as vandalism, illegal activities in
violation of closures, numbers of people and type of public use within the Ashland Watershed
and other pertinent information; and,
5. Through the designated City representative participate in and input into the resource manage-
ment process for planning, management review and evaluation any resource activity within the
Ashland Watershed.
6. Take the lead with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission to coordinate resource
management issues influencing the Ashland Watershed.
The City and Forest Service shall mutually:
1. Make staff available to take advantage of opportunities to achieve mutual objectives on projects
such as fuelbreak construction and prescribed fires; and,
2. Acknowledge Reeder Reservoir and streams in the Ashland Watershed will be used in fire
suppression for helicopter bucket refill and engine/water refill during initial and extended attack:
and,
3
III
3. During drought years where water supply is limited, consult on use of Ashland Watershed water
sources for prolonged project fire suppression efforts. The Ashland District Ranger will coordi-
nate with the City and the Incident Commander.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
BY~~4~
Cathy G6iden, Mayor
Date b -1- 7?:
USDA FOREST SERVICE
BY
C-c./ Jim Gladen, Forest Supervi
'\.. Rogue River National Forest
Date ~1L<-1 \4J1Cl ~
\
Page 4
4
(Revised 10/7/77)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASHLAND
AND
USDA FOREST SERVICE
(PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION)
This Memorandum of Agreemen~, made and en~ered in~o by and be~ween ~he Ci~y
of Ashland, hereinafcer called Cicy, by ana chrough ics Mayor, and che United
S~aces Depar~menL of Agriculture, Forest Service, acting by and through the
Forest Supervisor, Rogue River National Forest, hereinaf~er called Forest
Service,
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, The CiLY:
1. Has Lhe responsibility for providing its citizens with a wa~er supply,
2. Has hiStorically used ~he water from Ashland Creek,
3~ Did enter in~o an agreement wi~h the Fores~ Service in 1929 "for the
purpose of conserving and protec~ing the ~a~er supply of Lhe said ci~y\l,
4. Water-developmen~ facili~ies have been impacted by silt partially
originating from Fores~ Service managemen~ ac~ivities wi~hin the ~ater5~ed,
III
5. Has incurred and may incur addieional expense in maineaining its water
development facilities as a result of Forese Service activities in the
watershed or as a result of failure to perform necessary aceivities,
6. Has been directed by the Oregon Staee Deparement of Environmental
Quality to develop a solution to the waeer-quality problems caused
by ehe discharge of sediment from waeer-development facilieies,
7. Has been funded by ehe Environmeneal Proteceion Agency co hire a
consulcing firm co examine and reporc on alcernatives,
8. Has received ehe said repore coneaining a recommendation chae beeter
managemene of the waeershed is one essential element of dealing wieh
the sediment problem, and
WHEREAS, The Forese Service:
1. Has the responsibility for managing the waeershed from which Ashland
Creek originates and drains,
2. Has agreed with the City to manage ehe watershed in such a way as to
conserye and protect the City's water supply,
3. Is required by Law and Policy to manage National Forest lands for optim~
prodUCtion of all resources consistene with protection of the basic resource,
soil, and maintenance of State and Federal water quality standards.
4. Has concurred with the aforementioned consultant's recommendation to
improve management of the watershed and to many of the consultant's
specific recommendations for said managemenL,
5. Needs to develop a short-range plan for analysis and implementation
of said recommendations and to meet the on-going responsibilities
of general stewardship of the land, including fire prevention and
suppression; control of erosion in general and particularly from
existing roads; maintenance of a healthy and v~gorous cover of
vegetation - particularly in the event of severe fire, insect or
disease occurrence; and also action plans designed to prepare for
and deal with severe Storms,
NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as
follows:
The Forest Service shall:
1. Undertake the development of a short-range (interim) plan following
the outline attached hereto which has been jointly developed and
agre~d to between the Forest Service and the City;
2. Complete said plan by October 1, 1978, and during the developDent of
the plan, maintain close cor.~unication with the City with the
objective of jointly identifying problems, searching for solutions
agreeable to both parties, and aiming toward joint adoption of the
plan by December 30, 1978, (subject only to each party's limitations
due to laws, policy or other organizational or budgetary constraintS).
III
3. Also schedule and work toward a long-range plan for the Ashland
Creek watershed as part of the Rogue River National Forest's on-
going land-use planning process. This plan will address land-use
allocations and encompass the total NEPA process employed in National
ForeSt land-use planning.
4. Designate a Forest Service representative to the City and others
involved in the development of the plan and that that person will
consisLenLly inform and involve the CiLY, Ashland Districr P~nger)
Oregon S~are Department of Environmenral Quality, Environmenral
Prorection Agency, Rogue Valley Council of Goyernments and the
Public, through the media and community'leaders and spokesmen as to
problems, major proposals for dealing with problems and the general
status of the p~an's development.
s. Utilize an interdisciplinary approach to developing the plan -
including all disciplines within the Forest Service organization
and State agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Department, Foresrry
Department, and Federal agencies such as the Soil Conservation
Service,.Army Corps of Engineers, and Geological Survey.
6. Conduct soil and water monitoring programs to determine natural and
accelerated rates of erosion due to activities within the watershed
and in relaLed areas having similar characterisLics; which may include
contracts with Southern Oregon Srate College and others to collect,
analyze and reporL on Lhe processes involved in managemenL of Lhe
criLical graniLic soils characLerisLic of Lhe Ashland Creek waLershed.
7. Via Lhe conLraCLS menLioned above, Lhrough iLS own analysis and in
consulLaLion WiLh Lhe CiLY and oLher agencies menLioned above, develop
a soil and waLer-moniLoring SYSLem LhaL will be recommended for adopLion
as parL of Lhe waLershed managemenL plan (subjecL LO funding aULhoriLY
and capabiliLY of Lhe various involved agencies).
The CiLY shall:
1. Provide Lhe ForesL Service WiLh waLer consumpLion, sLorage capaciLY
and oLher such daLa necessary LO analyze presenL and projecLed fULure
needs.
2. DesignaLe the Public Works DirecLor as Lhe CiLY'S representaLive for
developmenL and coordinaLion of Lhe plan (or such oLher person as Lhe
CiLY may desire in Lhe future).
3. Through its Mayor and/or Lhe City Council, meet every three or four
monLhs, or as iL deems necessary, for review and consideraLion of Lhe
)
plan and iLS proposals during developmenL.
4. AssisL Lhe ForesL Service in attempting LO analyze Public attitudes
abouL the plan in general, or about specific proposals in Lhe plan.
~I
5. Inform Lhe Forest Service of Lhe City's assessment of the need for
additions to or changes in the present water-development facilities
(particularly the additional dam recommended in the Engineer's report)
so far as Lhese may have an impact on National Forest land or the
sediment problem.
6. Continue to assist the Forest Serv~ce in assessment of the sediment by
sharing records of sediment accumulation and disposal from Reeder
Reservoir, East and West-Fork reservoirs, and make the latter impoundmentS
available (where practical) for use in sediment rnoniroring projects.
7. Provide a representative(s) to accompany Forest Service personnel in
a review of watersheds composed of granitic soils in California that
were burned-over by wildfire this su~~er and in recenL summers La:
a. Assess the eXLent severity and kinds of problems (if any) occurring
to water and/or water-development facilities.
b. Help determine the necessity for and the extent and intensiLY of
proLection from fire that is justified.
A
c. Coop~rate in Lhe development of a resLoration and protection plan
in case an extensive wildfire should occur in Ashland Creek
drainage.
d. Cooperate in the assessment of short-term degradation of water
quality from sanitation-logging, access-road construction, fire-break
construction, etc., versus possible long-range benefits from these
activities.
8.' Cooperate with the Forest Service in its historical review and analysis
of the laws, policies and agreements providing direction for management
of the ~atershed (including Congressional records and other evidence of
the intent of such legislation, policy, etc.) and jointly consider if
addicional or revised legislacion, agreements, etc., are needed to
accomplish joint objectives.
III
Ic is Mucually Agreed and Vnderscood by and Becween che Parcies chac:
1. Noching herein shall be conscrued as obligacing che Foresc
Service or che Cicy co expend funds or as involving che Vniced
Scaces or che Scate in any conLracc or other obligation for Lhe
fucure paymenc of money in excess of appropriacions auchorized by
law, and adminiscracively allocated for this work.
2. No member of, or delegace LO, Congress or resident Commissioner
shall be admitted to share any part of this agreemenc, or to any
"
benefic chac may arise therefrom; but chis provision shall noc be
conscrued co excend co this agreemenc if made wich a corporation for
its general benefit.
This agreemenc is vaIid until terminated by either party wich 30 day's writte:
notice to che ocher parcy.
In wicness whereof, che parties hereto have execuced this agreemenc as of the
~.
lase dace wriccen below.
DATE /// -~.5- - 77
DATE
f 0 .- ~, -- I I
, Oregon
~ . f
. (~ . (
~ ( '..L'''..\ i
~-' , (" .~-~ ~l
-,_. .; '; '. I, ,~
BY -C3\,~ \-'J \'J\..\... "__
DONALD H. SMITH, Forest Supervisor
Rogue River National Forese
":
ASHLAND CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
I. Background
A. His~ory of Ownership
B. Geology
C. Agreements
D. Applicable laws and regulations
II. Resource Descrip~ion
A. Water
1. Presen~ yield and quali~y
2. Present watershed problems
3. Future management activities and their
effect on water production
B. Timber
1. Timber management
2. Insect infestation
3. Salvage sales
4. Blowdown
C. Recreation
1. Present "uses
2. Expansion of presen~ uses
3. Exclusion of all uses
D. Hining
1. Presen~ use
2. Potential for expansion
3. Wi~hdrawal
E. Road system
1. Presen~ system
2. Future needs
3. Main~enance
4. Abandonment
F. Research Area
1. Descrip~ion
2. Managemen~ restrictions
III
G. Fire Protection
1. Present hazard
2. Detection system
3. Pre-fire 'protection
a. fuel breaks
b. closures
c. other
4. Post-fire rehabilitation
III. Resource Management
A. Past activities
B. Present activities
c. Future activities and needs
IV. Rehabilitation of Existing Damage
A. Assessment of problems
B. Rehabilitation needs.
~
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
AND
CITY OF ASHLAND
This memorandum documents the understanding between the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, through the
Forest Supervisor, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service, and
the City of Ashland, Oregon, acting by and through its City Council,
hereinafter referred to as the City.
Whereas, the Forest Service and the City of Ashland entered into a Coop-
erative Agreement in 1929 for the purpose of conserving and protecting the
water supply of the City of Ashland, Oregon; and
Whereas, the Forest Service is responsible for multiple use land management
in the Ashland Creek Watershed; and
Whereas, the City needs to assess the management of the Watershed as a
prerequisite for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System pennit from the state Department of Environmental Quality;
Nc therefore to facilitate the assessment of the Ashland Creek Watershed,
the Forest Service and City agree as follows:
A. The Forest Service participation in the assessment will be in the
form of supplemental staff time in support of the City's consultant
in both field and office work in supplying and interpreting various
kinds of information concerning the Watershed.
a. Following completion, the City will provide the Forest Service with
a written report of their findings.
C. The Forest Service and City will meet periodically to revie\t! progress.
This Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated or amended at any time
by mutual consent of the Forest Service and the City.
u. S. D. A. FOREST SERVICE
I
CITY ?F ASHLAND /~
\ / )
~~ ~/~ t;;;M
.' G L. rickett
Mayor
~~ ~~~~~
Donald H. Smith '
Forest Supervisor
Date
p- LJ 7' )
----
Da te / ) - /~ - 7.5
III
')
RESOLUTION NO. 79- S/
A ~SOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RELATTI7E
TO THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED BY
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE 'CONCERNING THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL WATERSHED.
WHEREAS, the Presidential Proclamations of 1893 and 1906 setting
aside the AShland Watershed, the Cooperative Agreement of 1929,
and the Act of Congress of 1920, established provisions for the
conservation and protection of the City of Ashland's water
supply; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland and the U.S. Forest Service have coopera-
tively pursued the adoption of an interim plan for the .management
of the Ashland Municipal Watershed; and
WHEREAS, the U. S. Forest Service is in the process of developing an
overall plan for the Rogue River National Forest as required by
Presidential order~ and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland concurs with the need for an interim plan
to limit activities in the watershed until sufficient data is
available to determine the effects of human activities on its
water supply.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland hereby adopts the Interim Plan for
the Management of the Ashland Municipal Watershed, conditional on the
recognition of the' matters set forth in the attached report entitled
"Concerns of the City of Ashland Regarding the Forest Service Interim
Plan" dated October 30, 1979, and labeled "Attachment Ai" and further
that the foregoing concerns be addressed to the satisfaction of the
City of Ashland in the final Forest Management Plan for the Rogue River
National Forest. -
SECTION 2. That the above concerns be added to the appendix of the
approved copies of the Interim Plan so that all parties are aware of
the City's position.
SECTION 3. That the City of Ashland be advised, and given an pdequate
opportunity to respond, and its mutual agreement secured, prior to
any proposed application of insecticides, herbicides or other chemicals.
SECTION 4. That officials of the City of Ashland lvater Utility be
consulted and kept fully apprised during the development of the final
Forest Plan in those subject areas affecting the Municipal water qual-
ity and supply.
The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the Ci ty of Ashland on the Jib tJ,.. day of
'/'/-tL2-#l k';'f.-' , 1979.
. .
'YJC..pj ~ ~~ ,iA.d
Nan . Franklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ..~"'f ~ day
r
III
II' .,..
I ~
HSDA- FOREST SERVICE
ROC;UE R1 VKi{ NA'I' [()NAL FOREST
INTERLM PLAN
ASIH.ANL> CREEK WATERSIH:O
JACKSON COUNTY
()fU:CON
<;(INTACT: Forest SlJperV1Sor, Rogue River NHtional Forest
P. O. Box, ~1~>dfilrd, C'rt'p,on 97501
.~--~* .---
nTH, Forel:it Superv', r
')/ (e /79
- - .-~- -- -L--.- --- - -,--
Date
L~J!~2-
Date
* Subject to the conditions and exceptions contained in Ashland Resolution No. 79-51,
attached hereto.
"""
.
\
~TTAC:-rMENT "A"
October 30, 1979
CONCERNS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
RECARDING TIlE
FOREST SERVICE INTERIM PLAN
This paper summarizes the concerns of the City of Ashland regarding the Forest
Service long-term objectives and lnterim Plan for the Ashland watershed. The
,Forest Service has requested "concurrence" by the City with the draft of the
Interim Plan which. has been reviewed and previously commented on. However,
without certain revisions and additions to emphasize municipal water supply
as the nwnber one priority and outlining certain aspects of the planning pro-
cess leading to the 1982 plan, we cannot concur in the Interim Plan.
Previously the City has attempted to come to agreement with the Forest Service
whenever possible. However, at this point, based on the Interim Plan and dis-
cussions with the Forest Service, it appears to us that the Forest Servicels
long-term objective in the'watershed is to emphasize timber removal. This,
we believe, will seriously impair the municipal water supply values of the
watershed. We are also concerned that we are consistently reminded by the
Forest Service of past instances where we have "concurred" with management
activities recommended by the Forest Service that later resulted in major
problems. Consequently, We do not concur with the'Interim Plan as drafted
to date and are concerned about the Forest Service's Ashland watershed man-
agement objectives related to municipal water supply.
Specifically, we have seven major areas of concern as summarized in the follow-
ing:
. Surface erosion: ~fuch more emphasis is needed in the Interim Plan on
the phenomenon of surface erosion, particularly on the cut, ditch,
driving surface and fill areas of the road prism. The most important
conclusi~ in the Montgomery/Ashland watershed analysis was that this
process was. very significant in the Ashland watershed, but it is hardly
mentioned in the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan should specify a pro-
gram to collect the needed surface erosion rate information and discuss
the relationships between road maintenance alternatives and surface
erosion of the road prism.
. Mineral entT)': The Interim Plan should include a Forest Service recom-
mendation that the watershed be withdra~~ from mineral entry. The
Interim Plan should also su~~arize 1) the status of the applicable
mining laws, regulations and impleQentation success (particularly
involving mining claims and exploration) and 2) the process for
accomplishing mineral entry withdrawal of the watershed.
. Fire management: The Interim Plan as presently drafted presents a
biased discussion of fie, fire management and the alternatives for
controlling disease, insects and fire. The Interim Plan should present
an objective discussion of fire, in~ects and disease, including their
roles in natural forest ecology and their implications to water quality.
IT.
III
~
.
Both the positive and negative aspects should be equally discussed.
Certain fuels management alternatives such as controlled burning should
at least be summarized.
. City involvement: A representative of the City of Ashland should be
included as an ex officio member of the interdisciplinary plann'ing
team. Regular team meetings should be held to discuss the status of
planning for the watershed.
. The Interim Plan should briefly summarize the process and methodolo-
gies to be.used in the preparation of the 1982.plan. . Specifically,
the Ashland watershed should be treated as a seperate "Management
ATe a" , and for each management activity considered, a full range of
alternatives, including those advocated by the City. should be pre-
sented and objectively analyzed.
. Impact analysis: The process and methodologies that the 1982 planning
process will utilize to analyze the environmental impacts, particularly
water quality, relat~d to the management activities considered, should
be summarized in the Interim Plan since the Forest Service.has men-
tioned the EIS as a major element of their planning process.
. Priorities and the 1982 plan: The Interim Plan should acknowledge that
the Interim Plan will be superceded in 1982 and specifically ensure
that the "Ashland Watershed Management Area Plan" will be the top
priority in the Rogue River National Forest plan development process.
BACKGROUND DISCUSSIONS
Surface Erosion
The 1977 J~f study concluded that over three-fourths of the sediment which
accumulated in Reeder Reservoir over a 22 year period resulted from surface
erosion due to road construction and maintenance, logging, and the Mt. Ashland
ski area. An additional man-caused contribution of approximately 10 percent
resul ted froll mass erosion. Based on the JMM watershed study and on the sub-
sequent years of exchanging ideas and information on the subject of erosion
with the Forest Service~ it is still our conclusion that by far, the largest
percentage of sediments eventually deposited in Reeder Reservoir and subse-
quently released to Ashland Creek and Bear Creek, resulted from man-caused
disturbances. Specifically these include road construction, operation and
maintenance; logging; and ski area development.
The Forest Service expressed concern about the Jt-IM erosion analysis method-
ology and consulted with their leading batholith erosion research specialist
who examined the Ashland batholith during a two day tour. His conclusions
are summarized as follows:
'7his, I would not hesitate to extrapolate the basic principles
found in the Idaho batholith to the Ashland watershed. However,
the physical properties of th~ two areas do vary somewha~~ so I
would be reluctant to extrapolate erosion and sedimentation rates
directly from one area to the other without some on-site data for
verification."
""'" .
.
In effect, this statement coimcides very well with the JMM description of
conclusions/limitations. The primary difference is that from a research
standpoint, site specific research data to determine basic coefficients such
as erosion rates is a standard recommendation. JMM recognized that such data
would be desirable, but the options of increasing the funding level and
extending the tim~ period of the ~tudy were not available.
Up until the last few years most of the concern about erosion of granitic
soils was focused on the construction of roads. Various research projects
have demonstrated conclusively that road construction, particularly during
the first 2 to 4 years after construction, results in very high rates of ero-
sion on the cut/fill and driving surfaces, and in the ditch. In discussing
this with Forest Service erosion specialists, it was found that current
research was examining road maintenance as also a potentially major contri-
butor to erosion and sedimentation.
.
The early batholith erosion studies examined jammer roads which were con-
structed and used for a few years and then no lo~ger used or maintained.
This was one of the primary reasons for the return of post construction
erosion rates to near natural levels after a few years. It was found that
this resul ted from "armoring" of the road prism, of the removal of the fine
grain soils with the coarse material remaining. Such an armored condition.
is the antithesis of a "good" road surface and road blading and maintenance
operations are intended to resurface and reshape by replacing the fine grained
particles which have been lost. The likely results of road grading was dis-
cussed with various erosion specialists, and it was concluded that the pro-
cess, although understood qualitatively but not very 'well quantitatively,
should be integrated into the JMM erosion model. This was done by adjusting
post construction erosion rates. The resulting contribution was a major
factor in the JMM erosion budget, which coincided reasonably well with the
larger esti~3tes of material deposited in Reeder Reservoir during the 22 yea.r
period examined.
It was JMM's conclusion in 1977 and it is still our,conslusion that one of
the highest contributors of eroded sediment in the Ashland watershed is the
annual maintenance or blading of the road system. Since maintenance is
required if any major activities such as logging occur in the watershed. JMM
recommended that as ~uch or the road system as possible be put to bed and that
access, particularly involving motorized vehicles, be held to an absolute
minimum. In view of this and the other associated proble~, logging or any
activity whiCh requires road use does not appear to be appropriate if the
municipal water supply values of the Ashland watershed are to be maintained.
The Interim Plan, however, includes a full 0 Ii M program for the roads.
Concerning surface erosion on other parts of the road prism, it appears that
an additional process may be operating. Current research indicates that ver)p
high surface erosion rates are probably occurring on the cut surface of the
TOad prism. In the JMM erosion budgeting, it was assumed that the cut sur-
face would return to near natural rates a few years after construction. If
this is not the case, and if the rates which appear to be occurring on the
cut surface are applied, the 1977 estimate of erosion over the 22 year period
would be even closer to the estimates of sediment removed over that period
from Reeder Reservoir.
III
.....,;--~_.
~.
..
The implication of this would be that not only is the construction of roaas
and the maintenance of the road surface on batholith soils extremely proble-
ma~ical from an erosion standpoint, out also the existence of the fil~.surface.
For watersheds and streams where sediment movement and downstream deposition
must be minimized or avoided. this would mean that very little. if any,
disturbance of the watershed involving roads could be tolerated.
Based on the Montgomery analysis of erosion in the watershed and all of the
other information sources concerning erosion of granitic soils, the most
important existing and potential problem in the Ashland.watershed is, in our
opinion, surface erosion of the varius parts of the road prism. The phenome-
non is significantly increased by the blading of the road surface and ditch
area. The conclusion that this relationship exists in the Ashland watershed
conforms to processes found to operate on other granitic~ batholith soils.
The assumption of such relationships is also the only way to account for the
large volwne ~f matc~ial whi~h was deposited historically in Reeder Reservoir.
Concerning specific provisions of the Interim Plan, it is noted that the
Forest Service assumes that with a "natural disaster" new roads might be
constructed. Since the watershed is relatively small, and helicopter or
vehicle access is possible in all portions of the watershed, it is doubtful
that such new roads would have any value during or immediately after a fire
and could only be expected. if planned and constructed on a rush basis, to
complicate the problems of water supply for the City of Ashland. The Forest
Service Interim Plan states that grading season controls will be in effect.
however, it is not stated how often grading is envisioned between now and
1982 when the fully developed plan is produced.
It is disturbing that ~he Forest Service in its Interim Plan deals with sur-
face erosion, particularly of the road prism and the implications regarding
maintenance of the roads, in such a cavalier fashion. The processes are
mentioned along with a literature search and an erosion study of the Ashland
ski ares. However, the type of research recommended by Dr. Megahan has appar-
ently not been initiated and is not included as part of the planned research
in the Interim Plan. In addition, an evaluation of listing of issues empha-
si2.es numerous aspects of watershed concern. including some "straw-man"
issues such as minimizing wildlife production. but does not deal in any
detail with the issues related to surface erosion of the road prism, 0 & M
of the roads and-surface erosion of the ski area.
In summary, the entire concept of road maintenance as a potential problem was
glossed over in' the Interim Plan. This aspect needs to be emphasi2.ed in the
discussion of issues and the subject of a major research and planning effort.
Before the City could agree to consider any kind of major surface-disturbing
activity within the watershed, the research should be completed and the results
integrated into the planning.
MINING
The Forest Service's refusal to withdraw the watershed from mineral entry is
particularly disturbing in view of the low to non-existent mining potential
and the extremely high potential for damage which could result from m~neral
~,.
.
exploration (which the Forest Service has little~ if any, effective control
over). The City objects to this, particularly in view of the reason stated
in a March 27, 1979 Forest Service memo.
'~e City of Ashland would prefer to have the Ashland Watershed
withdrawn from mineral entry so as to prevent possible contami-
nation of the water supply due to mining activity. Historically,
there has not been much mining within the watershed, nor is.there
much anticipated. The Forest Service, while recognizing that a
withdrawal of Ashland Watershed from mineral entry may have little
impact on the mining in this area, are concerned that withdrawal
of a watershed per se to preserve a watershed's water quality
would have tremendous effects on the mining industry nationwide."
This confirms the suspicion that, for the Forest Service, municipal water
supply is below mini~g in priority, even when there is no significant poten-
tial fo~ mining.
FIRE l>fANAGEMENT
There seems to be some confusion about our concern and recommendations related
to fire management in the watershed, so these are briefly summarized.
1. The history of fires and fire management in the Rogue Valley indicates
that the major problem fires were man-caused and that natural fires
were generally suppressed in a short time.
2. There is' a large potential for increased erosion due to an intense fire
in the watershed. - However, there is also research information available
that demonstrates that wildfire through unlogged watersheds can result
in significantly less erosion and sediment movement than wildlife
through a logged watershed.
3. We believe that high levels of human activity such as that associated
with logging or extensive over-night camping could be expected to
increase the likelihood of a large problem fire.
4. We recommend that fire management involving intensive observation and
quick response in suppressing all fires was' the most appropriate program
for the Ashland watershed.
s. We have concluded that, although the removal of fuel from the watershed
would present certain benefits, the extensive logging activities required
to do this effectively would present far more hazards and potential for
loss than for benefit. However, we are open to other methods of fuels
management, such as controlled burning.
6. One of themost important deficiencies of the Interim Plan is the absence
of an objective discussion of all aspects of fire and fire management,
particularly as they apply to the municipal water values of the water-
shed. The discussions included are very one-sided.
IT.
III
~';"':':'
.
CITY INVOLVEMENT
The City has always been unsure as to its'role in determining the future of
the Ashland watershed relative to Forest Service planning and management
acti vi ties. In ~iscussing this with the Forest Supervisor, it is apparent
that the City is viewed as merely one special interest. facet in a multi-faceted
public sector. It is also apparent that the Forest Supervisor considers his
authority to adopt plans and carry out management activities as a unilateral <.
function unless a specific appeal is made by an affected party. The City
recognizes and encourages planning and management activities that allow the
fullest possible extent of public involvement, but as the recipient of any
sedimentation burdens which mistakes in Forest Service management create, it
is our opinion that we have far more than a normal public interest in the
decisions made.
In discussing the problem of City involvement and role in the planning process,
it appears to us that a City representative could be an ex-officio member of
the interdisciplinary planning team and meet regularly with the technical
planning group as it proceeds through the preparation of the 1982 plan. We
feel that suCh involvement is the minimum good faith gesture by the Forest
Service to involve the City in its planning for the Ashland watershed.
PLAh~ING PROCESS
The Forest Supervisor has informed City representatives that the Ashland water-
shed can be treated as a separate "Management Area" in the development of the
Rogue River National Forest Plan. This we enthusiastically support since we
believe the problems within the Ashland watershed require planning with a
different type of emphasis than the rest of the forest.
We are also concerned that the Interim Plan tends to focus on a few major
directions for each type of use and then emphasizes those limited objectives
in terms of the background information and analysis presented. It is our
opinion that a sound p~anning process treats a full range of alternatives
for each use seriously considered for the resources involved. For example,
road maintenance should consider in a fair and impartial manner a full range
of low-to no-maintenance alternatives as well as the more intensive 0 & M
alternatives preferred by the Forest Service. This was not done in the
lnterim Plan, and we believe that at least the framework describing such
alternatives should be included.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
In diSCUSSing the Interim Plan with the Forest Supervisorl a high importance
was assigned to the environmental impact statement process which will accom-
pany the 1982 plan. We encourage such an impact analysis based on the best
methodologies and research information available. We urge the Forest Service
to not gloss over surface erosion as they have done in the past. We recommend
that the Interim Plan should contain at least an outline of the general analy-
sis methodologies to be used in the assessment of impacts and a description of
the categories of impact which will be emphasized.
PRIORITIES
The City be~ieves that the Forest Service should clearly indicate that the
Ashland watershed will be the top priority in its planning process leading
to the 1982 plan. The City also encourages the Forest Service to acknow-
ledge that the Interim Plan would be superceded in 1982 and that management
activities will be held to an absolute minimum in the watershed until the
adoption of the 1982 plan.
CHANNEL EROSION
The Forest Service also expressed concern ,that the Montgomery analysis did
not inclu.ie channel erosion. It is our opinion that channel erosion, while
undoubted~y occurring constantly in the Ashland watershed, is primarily an
inte'.r!!ledi.::~tf' p:-':'c~;~s :nvol'.'in.g 'the !!:Q',:e~ent .)f sediment erodcG in the
watershed proper, particularly from areas of man-caused disturbances, to
some downstream location such as Reeder Reservoir. There are methods
whereby the channel erosion phenomenon can be better understood and these
should be explored. However we suspect, based on field inspection, that the
volume of material eroded from the channel after long-term residence in the
channel will be very low and that'mo'st of the channel material eroded will
have been at its last location for less than 10 years.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The following research should be initiated on the Ashland watershed, and
the "Interim Plan" should specify the process to be pursued in implementing
such a program:
1. Surface erosion rates for the:
a. Road cut surface including the ditch.
b. Driving surface including the relationship to the ditch.
c. Road fill surface.
d. Ashland ski area.
e. Undisturbed areas.
2. Contirlual monitoring of maS;i fail'.lre a.reas.
3. Channel erosion using capacity, aggradation, degradation methods
as developed and used by Dr. William W. Emmett of theU. S. Geo-
logical Survey.
4. Monitoring of the stI'eam system just above the reservoir for
o suspended solids
. turbidity
~ bedload '
s. Monitoring of total organic carbon at various locations in the'
wat~rshcd and reservoi r (for the purpose of determining trihalo-
methane potential).
111
'I
~
......,.
//
~.?
<f2 - ) 00
-,;\. ...,.
I -..,
MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE
This Lease Agreement is made and entered into this t:fIJA day of V
1992 (hereinafter the -effective date of this Agreement17bY arld between
ASHLAND ("Lesso...) and the MT ASHLAND ASSOCIATION. an Oregon
corporation (-Lesseell).
In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein. the Lessor and Lessee agree
as follows:
1. IIml. The initial term of this Lease shall begin on the.date Indicated above and
shall terminate on June 30. 2017. At any time on or before June 30. 2017. Lessee
shall have the right, if the Lease has not theretofore been terminated by either party
and if Lessee Is not then in default with respect to any obligation under this
.Agreement, to notify Lessor in writing that the term of the Lease shall be e~nped for
an additional twenty-five (25) years. until June 30. 2042. in which case the Lea$e term
shall be so extended. Notwithstanding the two preceding sentences. Lessee's
leasehold rights under this Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration or other
termination of Lessor's rights under the Permit.
2. Definitions: Description of Leased Property: P~rmit: and lease AQreement.
2.1. Definitions: Description of Leased Prq>erw. As. used in this Agreement,
the following tenns shall have the indicated meanings:
2.1.1. .Permlt" shall mean and refer to that certain United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service Special Use Permit which is attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit -A". and any subsequent permit which may be issued as a
. replacement or renewal of the permit attached hereto as Exhibit · A".
2. 1.2. -Permit Pro~ shall mean and refer to that certain real
property located on Mt. Ashland. In Jackson County. Oregon which Is described In ,
and is subject to the Permit. together with all improvements owned by Lessor and now
or hereafter constructed or existing thereon.
2.1.3. "Equipment" shalt mean and refer to all personal property.
fixtures. fumishings. inventory and items of equipment owned by Lessor which are
now attached to or located on or about the Permit Property. including but not limited
to the Items of personal property Identified on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. As soon as
practicable after the execution of this Agreement, Lessor and Lessee shall cause to be
taken a physical inventory of all personal property. fixtures. fumishings, inventory and
items of equipment owned by Lessor which are now attached to or located on or
about the Permit Property, and shall amend Exhibit "B. to conform with that physical
.' inventory, it being the intention of the parties that this Agreement apply only to those
items of personal property verified by the physical inventory and listed on Exhibit -B"
as so amended.
PAGE 1-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA lEASE (p:dally\lkIuh\maa-ffdJ..)
EXHIBIT "B"
Iii
----
-......,;
~:-...
1. 4 ..
.;
2.1.4. "Leased Property" shall mean and refer to the Permit Property
and the Equipment.
2.1.5. .Index" shall refer to the following index published by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of labor: Consumer Price Index,
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI--Allltems C-standard reference
base period" 1982-84 = 100). "Base CPllndex Figure" shall refer to the Index
number indicated for the month of January, 1992, and the "CPI Index Figure" for any
other month shall refer to the Index number for that month. If the "Index" is no longer
being published as of a particular date, then the "CPllndex Figure. for that date shall
be th~ figure. reported in the U.S. Department of Labor's most recent comprehensive
official index then in use and most nearly answering the description of the Index (or. if
the U.S. Department of Labor is not then publishing any such similar index. shall be
determined under another comparable, authoritative. generally recognized Index to be
selected by mutual agreement of Lessor and Lessee). If the Index is calculptep from a
base different from the base 1982-84 = 100. then the figures to be used In calbulating
any adjustment mandated under this Agreement first shall be converted (If possible,
under a formula suppfled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
labor) to account for that difference.
2.1.6. For purposes of this Agreement,the -Minimum Uquldatlon
Valuell for the Leased Property with respect to any particular calendar year shall be
determined as follows:
2.1.6.1. With respect to the 1992 calendar year, the
-Minimum Uquidation Value- shall be $200,000.00.
2.1.6.2. With respect to the 1993 calendar year and each
subsequent calendar year throughout the Lease term, the IIMinlmum Liquidation Valuell
for 8 particular calenclar year shall be determined by multiplying $200.000.00 by a
fraction, the numerator of which is the CPllndex Figure for the month of January of
that subject calendar year, and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index
Figure. To Illustrate the preceding sentence, the "Minimum Uquidation Value- for the
1998 calendar year wm be equal to the product determined by multiplying $200,000.00
by a fraction. the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of January,
1998, and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure.
2.1.6.3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2.1.6.2, the
Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property shall never decrease, regardless of
any decline In the Index.
2.1.7. "Ski Area Trust Fund- shall mean and refer to a segregated trust
fund which shall be held, invested and maintained by the City of Ashland, 8S trustee,
and shall be administered and distributed for the benefit of the Lessee and the Lessor
in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement The Initial principal of the Ski
Area Trust Fund shall be contributed to the Fund by the. City of Ashland on the
PAGE 2.MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:daJly\lIdalh\maa-ffd.lse)
'-
~
~
l,
,.
effective date of this Agreement, and shall consist of those assets which are identified
on Exhibit .e" attached to this Agreement.
2.2. Permit. The terms, covenants, provisions and conditions of the Permit are
incorporated into this Lease and Lessee assumes responsibility for payment and
performance of all obligations of the City of Ashland under the Permit. Lessee agrees
to hold harmless, defend and indemnify Lessor from and against any loss. clai.m or
liability suffered by or asserted against Lessor as a result of Lessee's failure to fully
pay and perform the obligations of the Permit.
2.3. Lease Agreement. Lessor hereby leases the Leased Property to Lessee,
and Lessee leases the Leased Property from Lessor, subject to all of the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement.
2.3.1. Lessee is thoroughly familiar with the Leased Property and its
condition and state of repair, and agrees to take the Leased .Property in its PreSent
condition, and specifically agrees that all of the Leased Property is in an acceptable
condition for the purpose for which leased. Lessor makes no warranty of
merchantability or fitness of the Leased Property for any purpose. Neither Lessor nor
its agents have made any representations with respect to the Leased Property except
as expressly set forth in this Lease, and no rights are acquired by Lessee by
implication In fact or In law, or otherwise, except as expressly set forth In this Lease.
Taking possession of the Leased Property shall be conclusive evidence that Lessee
accepts the Leased Property -as is. and 'With any and ail faults-.
3. Use of Leased PropertY. Lessee shall have sole and exclusive possession and use
of the Leased Property during the entire term of this Lease for the purpose of
constructing, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational and/or
reaeational facilities for the benefit of the general public ~ncluding but not limited to a
ski area and/or winter sports resort).
4. Consideration. Lessee Is a not-for-proftt corporation, all assets of which will
devolve to Lessor in the event of Lessee's dissolution and liquidation. In. addition,
Lessee has assisted Lessor in obtaining the funds necessary to purchase the Leased
Property. Under these circumstances the parties have determined that a lease
payment of $1.00 per year is full and adequate consideration for this Lease.
5. Title to Assets. Throughout the entire Lease term the Permit Property and the
Equipment shall be and remain the property of the Lessor.
5.1. All buildings, structures, facilities and improvements of whatever kind and
nature erected upon or made to the Permit Property by Lessee during the term of this
Lease, together with any and all additions or alterations thereto and any permanent
. fixtures now or hereafter affixed or attached thereto. shall upon termination of this
Lease become the property of Lessor.
PAGE 3-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dalty\lIdash\maa4fd,IH)
III
'-
-
.. ,
.~
5.2 Lessor shall not acquire any ownership. title or interest in any machinery,
equipment, appurtenance or fixture hereinafter placed by Lessee in or upon tl1e Permit
Property which is not so affixed as to become an integral part of the buildings
structures, facilities or improvements located on the Permit Property; provided.
however. that if any machinery, equipment. appurtenance or fixture replaces a portion
of the Permit Property or the Equipment or serves a similar function to the Permit
Property or the Equipment, or is necessary to preserve the value specified in .
Paragraph 7.1, then such machinery. equipment, appurtenance or fixture shall become
and remain the property of the Lessor.
6. Alterations. Lessee shall have the right to make changes to and alterations of the
Leased Property. subject to the following conditions:
6.1. Except as herein provided, Lessee may at Lessee's expense make such
alterations. Improvements. additions and changes to the Leased Property as it may
deem necessary or expedient in the operation of the Leased Property t prov1deCt that
Lessee, without the written consent of Lessor (which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld) shall not tear down or materially demolish any of the
improvements upon the Permit Property or make any material change or alteration in
such Improvements. which. when completed, would substantially diminish the value or
substantially alter the use of the Leased Property.
6.2. At all times When any change or alteration is in progress. there shall be
maintained. at Lessee's expense. workers' compensation insurance in accordance
with laws covering all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration.
and general liability insurance in accordance with laws covering all persons employed
in connection with the change or alteration. and general liability insurance for the
mutual benefit of Lessee and Lessor expressly covering the additional hazards due to
the change or alteration.
7. Repair and Maintenance. Lessee shall not cause or permit any waste, damage or
injury to the Leased Property. Lessee. at its sole expense shall keep the Leased
Property as now or hereafter constituted (with all improvements made thereto) clean
and in good condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted) and shall make all repairs.
including all structural repairs. necessary to maintain the Leased Property. All repairs.
replacements. and renewals shall be at least equal in quality of materials and
workmanship to that originally existing in the Leased Property. Lessor shall in no
event be required to make any repair, alteration. or improvement to the Leased
Property. Any fixture. equipment or materials replaced by Lessee shall belong to
Lessor, and all proceeds from the disposition thereof shall belong to Lessor. Lessee
shall indem.nify Lessor against all costs. expenses. liabilities, losses. damages. suits.
claims and demands because of Lessee's failure to comply with the requirements of
this Paragraph 7, and Lessee shall not call upon Lessor for any disbursement or
outlay whatsoever in connection therewith, and hereby expressly releases and
discharges Lessor of and from all liability therefor.
PAGE 4-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:danv\lkla8h\maa.ffd....)
'--
-
,.
7.1. Lessee shall perform its obligations for maintenance and repair, shall make
improvements to the Permit Property t and shall replace portions of the Equipment, as
required to ensure that the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property is not less
than the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property.
7.1.1. Lessee shall not be required under this Paragraph 7.1 to .replace
any portions of the Equipment which are not needed in Lessee.s opera.tions,
except that this provision shall not operate as a waiver of Lessee's obligation to
maintain the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property at a level not less
than the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. If for any reason
the actual Dquidation value of the Leased Property declines below the Minimum
Uquidation Value of the Leased Property, then Lessee shall deposit Into the Ski
Area Trust Fund a sum of money ("the Restoration Sum-) equal to the
difference between the actual Uquidation value of the Leased Property and the
Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. The Restoration Sum shall
. .
be so deposited within ninety days after delivery to. Lessee from Lessor tot
written demand therefor. If Lessee disputes the Lessor's determination of
deflci~ncy. then Lessor shall proceed as provided in Paragraph 7.1.3. Except
~ provided in Paragraph 7.1.2 or as otherwise agreed in writing by Lessor and
Lessee, amounts deposited by Lessee into the Ski Area Trust Fund pursuant to
this Paragraph shall be used only for costs of restoration of the Permit Property
as required under the Permit. and the trustee shall not use or permit the use of
the assets of the Ski Area Trust Fund for any other purpose.
7.1.2. In recognition and support of Lessee's intention to provide
educational and recreational programs to residents of the City of Ashland and
to operate the Leased Property in 8 manner which will stimulate the economy of
the City, and in recognition of Lessee's inability to commence ski area
operations for the 1992 - 1993 ski season without financial support from the
City. Lessor authorizes the trustee to pay and distribute to Lessee. within 30
days after the effective date of this Agreement, the entire principal of the Ski
Area Trust Fund. During 1993 and all subsequent years throughout the Lease
term, the trustee shall distribute to Lessee, promptly upon demand from
Lessee. all amounts of principal theretofore deposited by the Lessee to the Ski
Area Trust Fund pursuant to Paragraph 7.1.1. but only if and to the extent that
the sum of the value of the assets remaining in the Ski Area Trust Fund (after
making that withdrawal) plus the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property
at that time exceeds the Minimum Uquldation Value of the Leased Property at
that time. Lessee shall not under any circumstances be entitled to receive any
Income earned with respect to the Ski Area Trust Fund. All income earned with
res~ to the Ski Area Trust Fund shall be credited to (and shall be deemed
for all purposes to have been eamed by) the City of Ashland. but shall be.held
and retained by the trustee in the Ski Area Trust Fund for use in connection
with the eventual restoration of the Permit Property. All income and principal
remaining in the Ski Area Trust Fund upon termination of the Lease shall be
distributed by the trustee to the City of Ashland.
PAGE5-MT. ASHlAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:daIly\sklash\maa.ffd.lse)
III
'-'
--
.-
7.1.3. Whenever Lessor reasonably determines that the sum of the
actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then heJd by
the City of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than the Minimum
Uquidatlon Value of the Leased Property. Lessor may request an appraisal of
the Leased Property by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by Lessee
from a list of not f~wer than three submitted by Lessor in conjunction with the
request. If Lessee does not make the choice within five days, Lessor may do
so. The appraiser shall have access to all of Lessee's records as neCessary for
the appraisal and shall take such steps as the appraiser deems necessary to
make a competent appraisal. The appraiser shall report to the parties within 30
days after being chosen. The report shall be final and binding upon both
parties. The cost of the appraisal shall be bome by the Lessee if the sum of
the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then held
by the City of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than 110% of the
Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. Otherwise the cost of the
, .
appraisal shall be borne by the Lessor. "
7.2. Lessee shall be solely responsible for any improvements. alterations or
repairs to the Leased Property required pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
8. Utilities. Lessee shall be responsible for, and shall pay all charges for Janitorial
services, garbage removal, gas, electricity, fight, heat, power, telephone, sewage
disposal and domestic water used, rendered or supplied upon or In connection with
the Leased Property.
9. Fire and casuatty insurance. Lessee covenants and agrees to keep the Leased
Property insured against loss by fire with extended coverage endorsement. Including
risk of loss resulting from collapse of the structures, lightning. vandalism and malicious
mischief. SucI:llnsurance policies shall at aU times be maintained in force in an
amount equal to the full insurable replacement value of the premises and properties
Insured. It Is 8 condition o~ payment of such insurance premiums by Lessee that the
proceeds of any such insurance shall be applied to the repairing or restoration of the
property damaged whether the loss is partial or total. The City of Ashland shall be
named as an additional insured on such policies.
10. Uability insurance. Lessee shall procure, and during the term of this Lease shall
continue in force, at Lessee's cost, public liability and property damage insurance,
including ski operators liability coverage, issued by a responsible company with limits
of not less than $500.000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily Injury and
property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000
per occurre.oce for property damage. Such insurance shalt cover all risks arising
directly or indirectly out of Lessee's activities on, or as a result of.the condition of, the
Leased Property and shall protect Lessor and Lessee against all claims of third
persons. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bearing endorsements requiring
30 days written notice to Lessor prior to any change or cancellation shall be fumished
to Lessor. It is agreed that the Lessor shall not be liable to any third persons as a
result of the use of the Leased Property by the Lessee. its employees or agents, and
PAGE 6-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:daily\.ldash\maa.ffd....)
'-
---
I'
the Lessee covenants and agrees to save the Lessor harmless from the claims of said
third persons by reason of the use of said premises by the Lessee herein.
11. Real property taxes. In the event any property subject to this Lease shall be
assessed for property taxes, such taxes shall be paid by the Lessee on or before the
15th day of November of the taxable year.
12. Default or breach. In the event the Lessee commits any default or breach of any
of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct the same
within six months after notice thereof by the Lessor, then and in such event, the
Lessor shall have the right to immediately expel the Lessee from the Leased Property
and declare this Lease terminated. In the event the Lessee fails to operate the Leased
Property as a ski area and/or winter recreation resort at any time during a period of
twelve consecutive months, except for war, catastrophe, natural causes (lIlcludlng but
not limited to lack of sufficient snow for reasonably profitable oper~tions), or other
Circumstances beyond the control 91 the Lessee, the Lessor shall have the hgl\t to
immediately terminate this Lease.
13. Lessee Compliance with Environmental Laws.
. 13.1. Definition of -M7Ardous materlal-. As used Is this Paragraph, the tenn
-hazardous material- means eny hazardous or toxic substance, material. or waste,
including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed In the
United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. S
172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous
substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567,466.205,
466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of
EnvIronmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other
substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority
under any environmental laws. environmental laws means those laws cited in this
subparagraph.
13.2. Lessee's compliance with laws and oermits. Lessee shall cause the
Leased Property and all operations conducted on the Leased Property Oncluding
operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws.
13.3. Umitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow
any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the Leased Property to generate,
manufacture. refine, transport. treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any
hazardous materials, other than as reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's
adivities as contemplated under this Agreement.
,..-
13.4. Lessor's RiOhts. Lessor shall have the right to conduct reasonable
,.. inspectiOns and investigations of the Leased Property and the operations conducted
/ on the Leased Property at any time and from time to time, and Lessee shall cooperate
fully with Lessor during such inspections and investigations.
PAGE 7-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:daIIy\lIduh\maa-ffd....)
IT.
III
---
.......
.
.'
13.5. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to defend (with counsel approved by
Lessor), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless Lessor from and against
all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses Qncluding,
without limitation, diminution in value of the Leased Property. damages for the loss or
. restriction on the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Leased
Property, damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space. sums paid
in settlement of claims. attorney fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which ~ise
during or after the lease term and which are imposed on. or paid by or asserted
against Lessor by reason or on account of, or in connection with, or arising out of
Lessee's generation, manufacture, use, transportation, refinement. treatment, storage.
or disposal of hazardous materials, or any release of hazardous materials as a result
of lessee's use or activities, or of Lessee's agents, contractors, or subtenants.
14. Umitation On AssiQnment Or Sublease By Lessee. Lessee shall not assign this
Lease or sublease any portion of the Leased Property without obtaining in each
instance the written consent In advance of Lessor. which consent shall not be Withheld
unreasonably, and which consent shall be deemed for all purposes to have been
given by Lessor if not expressly given or withheld within thirty (30) days after receipt
by Lessor of Lessee's written request for that consent. In determining whether
consent Is reasonable. Lessor may consider any and all relevant factors, including, but
not limited to, the financial. stability of the proposed sublessee or assignee and the
extent to which the pubnc interest is affected by the sublease or the assignment.
Consent by Lessor in any one instance shall not constitute a waiver or consent to any
subsequent instance.
15. Miscellaneous. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create between the
parties hereto, or shall be relied upon by any other person as creating, any
relationship of partnership, association, joint venture, principal and agent, or otherwise.
The sole relationship of. the parties hereto shall be that of landlord and tenant. There
are no oral agreements or representations between the parties hereto which affect this
Agreement. and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous
negotiations, arrangements, agreements, warranties, representations and
understandings, if any, between the parties. The paragraph headings set forth in this
Agr~ement are set forth for convenience purposes only, and do not in any way define.
limit or construe the contents of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement
shaU be determined to be void by any court of competent jurisdiction. then that
determination shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement. and all such
other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intention of the parties
that if any provision of this Agreement is capable of two constructions, only one of
which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning
which renders it valid. If suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy
arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that suit or action or any appeal
therefrom shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief, the sum which the
court may judge to be reasonable attorney fees. Any notice required or permitted
under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given and delivered when
personally delivered or when deposited in the United States maU, as certified mail.
postage prepaid, and addressed to the last-known address of the party being
PAGE 8-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dally\lIdash\maa.ffd.lse)
-
-
.... .................-. fII
I
provided with the notice. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be
binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives of Lessor
and Lessee. This Lease Agreement is being executed in two counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, and. both of. which shall constitute a single instrument, when
signed by both of the parties. Waiver by either party of strict performance ,of any of
the provisions of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of, and shall not prejudice the
party's right to subsequently require strict performance of, the same provision or any
other provision. The consent or approval of either party to any act by the other party
of a nature requiring consent or 'approval shall not be deemed. to waive or render
unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. This lease
shall be govemed and performed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon.
Each of the parties hereby irrevocably submits to the Jurisdiction of the courts of
Jackson County, Oregon, and agrees that any legal proceedings with respect to this
Agreement shall be filed and heard in the appropriate court in Jackson County,
Oregon.
.. .'
.
16. Nondisaimlnation. In connection with any operations of Lesse~ under this lease,
Lessee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race. color. religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Lessee shall
not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis or race,
color. religion, sex. national origin. age. or disability by curtailing or refusing to fumish
accommodations. facilities, services. or use privileges offered to the public generally.
Lessee:
Lessor:
MT. ASHLAND ASSOCIATION
CIlY OF ASHLAND
:: 1a,~rr~'~-
~~
Mayor Cathy den
BY
Its
BG141 ~rK~
Nan Franklin, City Recorder
PAGE 9-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dally\....h\maa.ffd.t..)
,0'
II.
i v hi
~ ~ ~ ~ u
i e ~ E ~ I ! i
~aA~at:!g
i E << 5 I I ~i
81313~1!!I~~"
w
>
i=
C(
z
a:
UJ
...
..I
C(
~ 52...
ffi (1)13
~ C~
~ Z~
<c~z
...I ~ 0
:r: % ffi
(I) ffi ~
<t2:c
a:z
t-=~S
~8~
.:: a: C(
r
(~ 't IJ II
31;1. ,
t ~ I ;-
, i ~ EI { i i
I ~ n ~i i1 .
<C
w
a::
<t
~
:c
--
J:
><
W
t
e
Q
Z
UJ
CJ
UJ
..I
~....;'....::.'.
.
L
.-- -.--" I
III
_I
SKI AREA
TERM SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FS-2ivv-24 (6/89)
OMB No. 0596-0103 Ex ires 5 92
Holder No. Type Site
1204 02 161
Auth. Type Issue Date
18
Location Sequence No.
USDA - Forest S~rvice
Act of October 26, 1986
Latitude
Longitude
LOS Case
(Ref. FSM 2710)
City of Ashland
(Holder Name)
of
City Hall
(Billing Address - 1)
(Billing Address - 2)
Ashland
(City)
Or.
(State)
97520
(Zip Code)
(hereafter called the holder) is hereby authorized to use National Forest System
lands, on the Rogue River National
Forest, for the purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a winter
sports resort including food service, retail sales, and other ancillary
facilities, described herein, known as the Mt. Ashland
ski area and subject to the provisions of this term permit. This permit covers
1180 acres described here and as shown on the attached map
dated May 10,1991 identified as Exhibit 1.
The following improvements, whether on or off the site, are authorized:
parking lots, buildings, ski runs, ski lifts & terminals, roads, paths & trails
utilities (including, but not limited to sewage, electrical, water, telephone,
& fuel tanks), nordic skiing trails, and snow play areas.
Attached Clauses. This term permit is accepted subject to the conditions set
forth herein on pages 2 through 22 , and to exhibits 1 to 2
attached or referenced hereto and made a part of this permit.
ervisor
TITLE
fG~\'Y~-{~~.~~ rs n -,\.fl
:, . . . ~ ':A7 1....3 'J .
; i
EXHIBIT "C"
IT.
III
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
I. AUTHORITY AND USE AND TERM AUTHORIZED.
A. Authority. This term permit is issued under the authority of the
Act of October 26, 1986, (16 U.S.C. 497b), and Title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, Sections 251.50-251.64.
B. Authorized Officer. The authorized officer is the Forest
Supervisor. The authorized officer may designate a representative for
administration of specific portions of this authorization.
C. Rules, Laws and Ordinances. The holder, in exercising the
privileges granted by this term permit, shall comply with all present and
future regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture and federal laws; and
all present and future, state, county, and municipal laws, ordinances, or
regulations which are applicable to the area or operations covered by this
permit to the extent they are not in conflict with federal law, policy or
regulation. The Forest Service assumes no responsibility for enforcing
laws. regulations, ordinances and the like which are under the jurisdiction
of other government bodies.
D.
in Dl.
in D.2)
Term. (For existing areas with a Master Development Plan place N/A
For new areas or areas without a Master Development Plan place N/A
1. This authorization is for a term of NA years
to provide for the holder to prepare a Master Development Plan. Subject to
acceptance of the Master Development Plan by the authorized officer, this
authorization shall be extended for an additional NA
years, for a total of NA years, to provide the holder
sufficient time to construct facilities approved in the Master Development
Plan within the schedule outlined in clause II.B. (Site Development
Schedule), so that the area may be used by the public. Further Provided;
This authorization shall be extended by its terms for an additional
NA years, for a total of NA years, if it is
in compliance with the site development schedule in the Master Development
Plan and being in operation by the lO-year anniversary date of the issuance
of this authorization. Failure of the holder to comply with all or any
provisions of this clause shall cause the authorization to terminate under
its terms.
2. Unless sooner terminated or revoked by the authorized officer, in
accordance with the provisions of the authorization, this permit shall
terminate on JULY 4, 2017 , but a new special-use authorization
to occupy and use the same National Forest land may be granted provided the
holder shall comply with the then-existing laws and regulations governing
the occupancy and use of National Forest lands. The holder shall notify
the authorized officer in writing not less than six (6) months prior to
said date that such new authorization is desired.
.. ---.-.... _.~ ........... --~...~ -~-,*".~~-_.,' ........ ' "'-.' ,.--------. --.-.-....-- ..- ...--.-.. _.. ..-
E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest
Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the
permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially
interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized.
F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the
authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation
and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and
waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all
lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads
or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the
public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder
and the authorized officer.
G. Master Development Plan. In consideration of the privileges
authorized by this permit, the holder agrees to prepare and submit changes
in the Master Development Plan encompassing the entire winter sports resort
presently envisioned for development in connection with the National Forest
lands authorized by this permit, and in a form acceptable to the Forest
Service. Additional construction beyond maintenance of existing
improvements shall not be authorized until this plan has been amended.
Planning should encompass all the area authorized for use by this permit.
The accepted Master Development Plan shall become a part of this permit.
For planning purposes, a capacity for the ski area in people-at-one time
shall be established in the Master Development Plan and appropriate
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. The overall development
shall not exceed that capacity without further environmental analysis
documentation through the appropriate NEPA process.
H. Periodic Revision.
1. The terms and conditions of this authorization shall be subject to
revision to reflect changing times and conditions so that land use
allocation decisions made as a result of revision to Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan may be incorporated.
2. At the sole discretion of the authorized officer this term permit
may be amended to remove authorization to use any National Forest System
lands not specifically covered in the Master Development Plan and/or needed
for use and occupancy under this authorization.
II. IMPROVEMENTS.
A. Permission. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to imply
permission to build or maintain any improvement not specifically named in
the Master Development Plan and approved in the annual operating plan, or
further authorized in writing by the authorized officer.
B. Site Development Schedule. As part of this permit, a schedule for
the progressive development of the permitted area and installation of
facilities shall be prepared jointly by the holder and the Forest Service.
Such a schedule shall be prepared by January 1, 1993 (Date), and
11.
III
shall set forth an itemized priority list of planned improvements and the
due date for completion. This schedule shall be made a part of this
permit. The holder may accelerate the scheduled date for installation of
any improvement authorized, provided the other scheduled priorities are
met; and provided further, that all priority installations authorized are
completed to the satisfaction of the Forest Service and ready for public
use prior to the scheduled due date.
1. All required plans and specifications for site improvements, and
structures included in the development schedule shall be properly certified
and submitted to the Forest Service at least forty-five (45) days before
the construction date stipulated in the development schedule.
2. In the event there is agreement with the Forest Service to expand
the facilities and services provided on the areas covered by this permit,
the holder shall jointly prepare with the Forest Service a development
schedule for the added facilities prior to any construction and meet
requirements of paragraph II.D of this section. Such schedule shall be
made a part of this permit.
C. Plans. All plans for development, layout, construction,
reconstruction or alteration of improvements on the site, as well as
revisions of such plans, must be prepared by a licensed engineer,
architect, and/or landscape architect (in those states in which such
licensing is required) or other qualified individual acceptable to the
authorized officer. Such plans must be accepted by the authorized officer
before the commencement of any work. A holder may be required to furnish
as-built plans, maps, or surveys upon the completion of construction.
D. Amendment. This authorization may be amended to cover new,
changed, or additional uses(s) or area not previously considered in the
approved Master Development plan. In approving or denying changes or
modifications, the authorize officer shall consider among other things, the
findings or recommendations of other involved agencies and whether their
terms and conditions of the existing authorization may be continued or
revised, or a new authorization issued.
E. Ski Lift Plans and Specifications. All plans for uphill equipment
and systems shall be properly certified as being in accordance with the
American National Standard Safety Requirements for Aerial Passenger
Tramways (B77.1). A complete set of drawings, specifications, and records
for each lift shall be maintained by the holder and made available to the
Forest Service upon request. These documents shall be retained by the
holder for a period of three (3) years after the removal of the system from
National Forest land.
III. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.
A. Conditions of Operations. The holder shall maintain the
improvements and premises to standards of repair, orderliness, neatness,
sanitation, and safety acceptable to the authorized officer. Standards are
subject to periodic change by the authorized officer. This use shall
normally be exercised at least 30 days each year or
season. Failure of the holder to exercise this minimum use may result in
termination pursuant to VIII.B.
B. Ski Lift, Holder Inspection. The holder shall have all passenger
tramways inspected by a qualified engineer or tramway specialist.
Inspections shall be made in accordance with the American National Standard
Safety Requirements for Aerial Passenger Tramways (B77.l). A certificate
of inspection, signed by an officer of the holder's company, attesting to
the adequacy and safety of the installations and equipment for public use
shall be received by the Forest Service prior to public operation stating
as a minimum:
"Pursuant to our special use permit, we have had an inspection to
determine our compliance with the American National Standard
B77.l. We have received the results of that inspection and have
made corrections of all deficiencies noted. The facilities are
ready for public use."
C. Operating Plan. The holder or designated representative shall
prepare and annually revise by October 1 (Month/Day) an
Operating Plan. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the
authorized officer or designated representative and cover winter and summer
operations as appropriate. The provisions of the Operating Plan and the
annual revisions shall become a part of this permit and shall be submitted
by the holder and approved by the authorized officer or their designated
representatives. This plan shall consist of at least the following
sections:
1. Ski patrol and first aid.
2. Communications.
3. Signs.
4. General safety and sanitation.
S. Erosion control.
6. Accident reporting.
7. Avalanche control.
8. Search and rescue.
9. Boundary management.
10. Vegetation management.
11. Designation of representatives.
12. Trail routes for nordic skiing.
The authorized officer may require a joint annual business meeting agenda
to:
a. Update of Gross Fixed Assets and lift-line proration when fee
is calculated by the Graduated Rate Fee System.
11.
III
b. Determine need for performance bond for construction projects
and amount of bond.
c. Provide annual use reports.
D. Cutting of Trees. Trees or shrubbery on the permitted area may be
removed or destroyed only after the authorized officer has approved and
marked, or otherwise designated, that which may be removed or destroyed.
Timber cut or destroyed shall be paid for by the holder at appraised value:
Provided that the Forest Service reserves the right to dispose of the
merchantable timber to others than the holder at no stumpage cost to the
holder.
E. Signs. Signs or advertising devices erected on National Forest
lands, shall have prior approval by the Forest Service as to location,
design, size, color, and message. Erected signs shall be maintained or
renewed as necessary to neat and presentable standards, as determined by
the Forest Service.
F. Temporary Suspension. Immediate temporary suspension of the
operation, in whole or in part, may be required when the authorized
officer, or designated representative, determines it to be necessary to
protect the public health or safety or the environment. The order for
suspension may be given verbally or in writing. In any such case, the
superior of the authorized officer, or designated representative, shall,
within ten (10) days of request of the holder, arrange for an on-the-ground
review of the adverse conditions with the holder. Following this review
the superior shall take prompt action to affirm, modify or cancel the
temporary suspension.
IV. NONDISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this permit, the holder
agrees:
A. In connection with the performance of work under this permit,
including construction, maintenance, and operation of the facility, the
holder shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or
handicap. (Ref. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended).
B. The holder and employees shall not discriminate by segregation or
otherwise against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age or handicap, by curtailing or refusing to furnish
accommodations, facilities, services, or use privileges offered to the
public generally. (Ref. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as
amended, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the
Education Amendments, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975).
C. The holder shall include and require compliance with the above
nondiscrimination provisions in any subcontract made with respect to the
operations under this permit.
D. Signs setting forth this policy of nondiscrimination to be
furnished by the Forest Service will be conspicuously displayed at the
public entrance to the premises, and at other exterior or interior
locations as directed by the Forest Service.
E. That the Forest Service shall have the right to enforce the
foregoing nondiscrimination provisions by suit for specific performance or
by any other available remedy under the laws of the United States of the
State in which the breach or violation occurs.
V. LIABILITIES.
A. Third Party Rights. This permit is subject to all valid existing
rights and claims outstanding in third parties. The United States is not
liable to the holder for the exercise of any such right or claim.
B. Indemnification of the United States. The holder shall hold
harmless the United States from any liability from damage to life or
property arising from the holderts occupancy or use of National Forest
lands under this permit.
C. Damage to United States Property. The holder shall exercise
diligence in protecting from damage the land and property of the United
States covered by and used in connection with this permit. The holder
shall pay the United States the full cost of any damage resulting from
negligence or activities occurring under the terms of this permit or under
any law or regulation applicable to the national forests, whether caused by
the holder, or by any agents or employees of the holder.
D. Risks. The holder assumes all risk of loss to the improvements
resulting from natural or catastrophic events, including but not limited
to, avalanches, rising waters, high winds, falling limbs or trees and other
hazardous events. If the improvements authorized by this permit are
destroyed or substantially damaged by natural or catastrophic events, the
authorized officer shall conduct an analysis to determine whether the
improvements can be safely occupied in the future and whether rebuilding
should be allowed. The analysis shall be provided to the holder within 6
months of the event.
E. Hazards. The holder has the responsibility of inspecting the area
authorized for use under this permit for evidence of hazardous conditions
which could affect the improvements or pose a risk of injury to
individuals.
F. Insurance. The holder shall have in force public liability
insurance covering: (1) property damage in the amount of fifty
thousand dollars ($ 50,000 ), and (2) damage to persons
in the minimum amount of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000 ) in the event of death or injury to one individual,
and the minimum amount of one million dollars ($ 1,000,000
) in the event of death or injury to more than one
11.
III
individual. These minimum amounts and terms are subject to change at the
sole discretion of the authorized officer at five-year anniversary date of
this authorization. The coverage shall extend to property damage, bodily
injury, or death rising out of the holder's activities under the permit
including, but not limited to, occupancy or use of the land and the
construction, maintenance, and operation of the structures, facilities, or
equipment authorized by this permit. Such insurance shall also name the
United States as an additionally insured. The holder shall send an
authenticated copy of its insurance policy to the Forest Service
immediately upon issuance of the policy. The policy shall also contain a
specific provision or rider to the effect that the policy shall not be
cancelled or its provisions changed or deleted before thirty (30) days
written notice to the Forest Supervisor,
Rogue River National Forest, P.O. Box 520, Medford, OR 97501
(Address)
by the insurance company.
Rider Clause (for insurance companies)
lilt is understood and agreed that the coverage provided under this
policy shall not be cancelled or its provisions changed or deleted
before thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice to the Forest
Supervisor, Rogue River national Forest, P.O. Box 520, Medford, OR
97501
(Address)
by the insurance company.1I
VI. FEES.
A. Holder to pay fair market value for the permitted use. The holder
must pay fair market value for the use of National Forest System land.
1. The provisions of the Graduated Rate Fee System (GRFS) identified
under this permit may be revised by the Forest Service to reflect changed
times and conditions. Changes shall become effective when:
a. Mutually agreed; or,
b. Permit is amended for other purposes; or,
c. A new permit is issued including reissue after termination.
2. The Graduated Rate Fee System may be replaced in its entirety by
the Chief of the Forest Service if a new generally applicable fee system is
imposed affecting all holders of authorizations under PL99-522. Replacement
shall become effective on the beginning of the holder's business year
following establishment.
B. Fees - Graduated Rate Fee System. The annual fees due the United
States for those activities authorized by this permit shall be calculated
on sales according to the following schedule:
Kind of Business
Grocery
Service, food
Service, car
Merchandise
Liquor Service
Outfitting/Guiding
Rental and Services
Lodging
Lifts, Tows, and Ski
Schools
Break-even point
(Sales to GFA)
(Percentage)
70
70
70
70
60
50
30
40
20
Rate Base
(Percentage)
.75
1.25
1.30
1.50
1.80
2.00
4.50
4.00
Balance of
Sales rate
(Percentage)
1.13
1. 88
1.95
2.25
2.70
3.00
6.75
6.00
2.00
5.00
1. A weighted-average break-even point (called the break-even point)
and a weighted-average rate base (called the rate base) shall be calculated
and used when applying the schedule to mixed business. If the holder's
business records do not clearly segregate the sales into the business
categories authorized by this permit, they shall be placed in the most
logical category. If sales with a different rate base are grouped, place
them all in the rate category that shall yield the highest fee. Calculate
the fee on sales below the break-even point using SO percent of the rate
base. Calculate the fee on sales between the break-even point and twice
the break-even point using 150 percent of the rate base. Calculate the fee
on sales above twice the break-even point using the balance of sales rate.
IT.
III
2. The mlnlmum annual fee for this use, which is due in advance and is
not subject to refund, shall be equal to the fee that would result when
sales are 40 percent of the break-even point. This fee shall be calculated
and billed by the Forest Service during the final quarter of the holder's
fiscal year, using the most recent GFA figure and previously reported sales
data for the current year, plus, if the operating season is still active,
estimated sales for the remainder of the year.
C. Surcharge. [Use when there is a surcharge.] A surcharge of
NA percent shall be applied to and added to the basic fee. The
surcharge shall be applied for NA years beginning with the
year that sales first occur under this operation.
D. Definitions of Sales Categories and Gross Fixed Assets (GFA).
1. Sales categories. For purposes of recording and reporting sales,
and sales-related information including the cost of sales, the activities
of the concessioner are divided into:
Grocery. Includes the sale of items usually associated with
stores such as staple foods, meats, produce, household supplies.
the sale of bottled soft drinks, beer and wine, when included in
grocery operation.
grocery
Includes
the
Service, Food. Includes the serving of meals, sandwiches, and other
items either consumed on the premises or prepared for carry out. Snack
bars are included.
Service, Cars. Includes servicing and the sale of fuels, lubricants.
and all kinds of articles used in servicing and repairing autos, boats,
snowmobiles. aircraft.
Merchandise. Includes the sale of clothing, souvenirs, gifts, ski and
other sporting equipment. Where a "Service, Cars" category of business is
not established by this permit, the sale of auto accessories is included in
this category.
Service, Liquor. Includes the sale of alcoholic drinks for consumption
on the premises and other sales ordinarily a part of a bar or cocktail-
lounge business. Where a bar is operated in conjunction with a restaurant
or overnight accommodations liquor, beer and wine sales shall be accounted
for consistent with holder's normal business practice. The sale of
alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is also included in
this item, except as indicated in "Grocery".
Outfitting, Guiding. Includes all activities or commercial guiding
services involving back-country travel, regardless of mode of travel, when
associated with a resort or dude ranch with a mixture of business. All
fees charged are considered sales.
Rentals and Services. Includes lodging where daily maid service is not
furnished by the holder; the rental of camping space, ski equipment and
other equipment rentals; fees for the use of cross-country ski trails.
Also included are services such as barbershops, and amusements including
video games.
Lifts, Tows, and Ski Schools. Includes charges for use of all types of
uphill transportation facilities and for sports lessons and training.
2. Gross Fixed Assets. The capitalized cost of improvements,
equipment, and fixtures necessary and used to generate sales and other
revenue during the permit year on the permitted area or within the
development boundary shown in this permit.
GFA shall be established by and changed at the sole discretion of the
authorized officer based on the current interpretation of guidelines
supporting the Graduated Rate Fee System.
a. Costs of the following items as presented by the holder and
verified by a representative of the authorized officer to be in existence
and in use are included:
(1) Identifiable structures, major equipment, such as road maintenance
equipment, or land improvements which playa distinct role in the permitted
activity.
(2) Identifiable holder costs, to provide utility services to the
area. Utility services that extend beyond the development boundary may be
included in GFA to the extent they are necessary for the generation of
sales and are paid by the holder. Costs for user surcharge or demand rates
are not included as GFA.
b. The following, and similar items, are not part of GFA:
(1) Assets that ordinarily qualify for inclusion in GFA, but which are
out of service for the full operating year for which fees are being
determined.
(2) Land.
(3) Expendable or consumable supplies.
(4) Intangible assets, such as goodwill, permit value, organization
expense, and liquor licenses.
III
(5) Improvements not related to the operation.
(6) Luxury assets, to the extent their design and cost exceed
functional need.
(7) The prorata share of GFA assets used in off-site activities not
directly associated with the authorized use.
(8) Expensed assets.
(9) Operating leases.
As of the date of this permit, ( June 30, 1992 ) the initial GFA under
this ownership has been determined to be $ 1,289,999 as shown in detail on
attached exhibit 2 If an error is found in the GFA amount, it shall
be changed to the correct amount retroactive to the date the error occurred
and fees adjusted accordingly.
E. Change of Gross Fixed Asset Amount Upon Sale or Change in
Controlling Interest. Upon change of ownership, effective dominion or
controlling interest or upon sale of assets or common stock which results
in a change of ownership, effective dominion, or controlling interest, the
value of Gross Fixed Assets shall be established applying Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
F. Determining Sales and Other Revenue. Sales and Gross Fixed Assets
shall be derived from all improvements and facilities, including those of
sublessees, which constitute a logical single overall integrated business
operation regardless of the land ownership. A map shall be prepared
designating the development boundary and may be augmented by narrative or
table and shall become a part of this permit.
1. Sales. Fees shall be assessed against all receipts from sales
unless specifically exempted. Sales for the purpose of fee calculation
include, (1) all revenue derived from goods and services sold which are
related to operations under this permit and all revenue derived within the
development boundary, unless otherwise excluded, (2) the value of goods and
services traded-off for goods and services received (bartering) and (3) the
value of gratuities.
a. Definitions.
(1) Gratuities. Goods, services or privileges that are provided
without charge or at deep discount to such individuals as employees,
owners, and officers or immediate families of employees, owners and
officers and not available to the general public.
(2) Acceptable Discounts. Transactions for goods or services below
stated, listed or otherwise presented prices to the public at large .
Included are such things as group sales and organized programs. These are
included in sales at the actual transaction price.
(3) Discriminatory Pricing. Rates based solely on residence, race,
color, or religion. Discounts based on age or disability are not
discriminatory pricing.
(4) Preferential Discounts. Discounts offered to certain classes or
individuals based on their status, such as members of boards of directors,
contractors, advertisers, doctors, and VIP'S. etc.
(5) Market Price. The price generally available to an informed public
excluding special promotions. It may not be the "window price".
(6) Bartering or Trade Offs. The practice of exchanging goods or
services between individuals or companies.
(7) Commissions. Commissions are payments received by the holder for
collecting revenue on behalf of others as an agent or providing services
not directly associated with the operations, such as selling hunting and
fishing licenses, bus or sightseeing tickets for trips off or predominantly
off the permitted area, accommodating telephone toll calls, and so forth.
(8) Franchise Receipts. These are payments made to specific
permittees by sublessees solely for the opportunity to do business at a
specific location. The permittee provides little, if anything, in the way
of facilities or services. They may be the only fee paid to the permittee
or, if some facilities or services are provided by the permittee, they may
be made in addition to a rental fee. The franchise receipts may be in the
form of fixed amounts of money or in reduced prices for the franchiser's
product or service.
b. Inclusions. The following items shall be included as gross
receipts to arrive at sales:
(1) Gratuities. Daily and season passes are valued at market price
unless the permit holder has sufficient records of daily individual use to
substantiate a "value of use". Value of use is the number of days the pass
is used times the market price. Does not include employees. See (4)
below.
(2) Preferential Discounts. Include the amount that would have been
received had the transaction been made at the market price.
(3) Value of Discriminatory Pricing. Discriminatory pricing is
disallowed. Include the amount that would have been received had the
transaction been made at the market price.
(4) Employee discounts in excess of 30 percent of market price. These
discounts are exclusively given or provided to employees, owners, officers
or immediate families of employees, owners or officers are gratuities and
are included in sales at 70 percent of market price. Employee discounts
less than 30 percent are recorded at transaction price.
III
(5) Value of bartered goods and services (trade offs).
(6) Gross sales of sublessees. Includes sales of State controlled
liquor stores.
(7) Fifty percent of franchise receipts.
(8) All other revenue items not specifically excluded below shall be
included as sales.
c. Exclusions. The following items shall be excluded from gross
receipts or revenue to arrive at sales:
(1) Value of goods and services provided to employees, agents,
contractors or officials to facilitate the accomplishment of their assigned
duties or work-related obligation or to others for educational or technical
competence related to the type of permitted use such as lift operation, ski
patrol, water safety, avalanche control, etc. Similarly, local, state and
federal government officials including Forest Service employees who in the
course of their oversight responsibilities or otherwise on official
business use goods or services. The holder is not required to report the
value of such duty-related or official use as sales for fee calculation
purposes.
(2) The value of meals and lodging furnished by an employer to an
employee for the employer's convenience is if, in the case of meals, they
are furnished on the employer's business premises. The fact that the
employer imposes a partial charge for or that the employee may accept or
decline meals does not affect the exclusion if all other conditions are
met. If employer imposes a charge for meals and lodging it shall be
included at transaction price. The holder need not keep records of
employee meals and lodging more detailed than those required by the
Internal Revenue Service.
(3) Refunds from returned merchandise and receipts from sales of real
and nonrental personal property used in the operation.
(4) Rents paid to the permittee by sublessees, even if based on sales.
(5) Taxes collected on site from customers, accounted for as such in
the holder's accounting records, and that were paid or are payable to
taxing authorities. Taxes included in the purchase price of gasoline,
tobacco and other products, but paid to the taxing authority by the
manufacture or wholesaler are included in sales, and subject to the permit
fee.
(6) Amounts paid or payable to a Government licensing authority or
recreation administering agency from sales of hunting or fishing licenses
and recreation fee tickets.
(7) Value of sales and commissions where the holder is serving as an
agent for businesses not directly associated with the permitted operation.
This includes such things as bus or sightseeing-ticket sales for trips not
related to activities on the permitted area, telephone-toll charges, and
accident-insurance sales.
(8) Sales of operating equipment. Rental equipment, capitalized
assets or other assets used in operations shall be excluded from gross
receipts. Examples are such items as, used rental skis and boots, ski
lifts, grooming equipment which are sold periodically and replaced.
G. Concession Payment, Graduated Rate Fee System. Reports and
deposits required as outlined above shall be tendered in accordance with
the schedule below. They shall be sent or delivered to the Collection
Officer, Forest Service, USDA, at the address furnished by the Forest
Supervisor. Checks or money orders shall be payable to ItForest Service,
USDA. "
1. The holder shall report sales, calculate fees due and make payment
each calendar MONTH (month, quarter, or year) except for periods in
which no sales take place and the holder has notified the authorized
officer that the operation has entered a seasonal shutdown for a specific
period. Reports and payments shall be made by the 30th of the month
following the end of each reportable period.
2. The authorized officer, prior to DECEMBER 1 ,shall furnish the
holder with a tentative rate which shall be applied to sales in the fee
calculation (item 1), such rate to be one that shall produce the expected
fee based on past experience. The correct fee shall be determined at the
end of the year and adjustment made as provided under item (5). Any
balance that may exist shall be credited and applied against the next
payment due.
3. During the final fiscal month, pay within 30 days of billing by the
Forest Service, the annual minimum fee for the next year.
4. The holder must also provide within three (3) months after close of
its operating year a balance sheet representing its financial condition at
the close of its business year, an annual operating statement reporting the
results of operations including yearend adjustments for itself and each
sublessee for the same period, and a schedule of Gross Fixed Assets
adjusted to comply with the terms of this permit in a format and manner
prescribed by the authorized officer.
If the holder fails to report all sales in the period they were made or
misreports Gross Fixed Assets and the authorized officer determines that
additional fees are owed, the holder shall pay the additional fee plus
interest. Such interest shall be assessed at the rate specified in clause
I and shall accrue from the date the sales or correct Gross Fixed Assets
should have been reported and fee paid until the date of actual payment of
the underpaid fee.
II.
III
5. Within 30 days of receipt of a statement from the Forest Service,
pay any additional fee required to correct fees paid for the past year's
operation.
6. Payments shall be credited on the date received by the designated
collection officer or deposit location. If the due date for the fee or fee
calculation financial statement falls on a non-workday, the charges shall
not apply until the close of business on the next workday.
7. All fee calculations and records of sales and Gross Fixed Assets
are subject to periodic audit. Errors in calculation or payment shall be
corrected as needed for conformance with those audits. Additional fees and
interest due as a result of such audits shall be in accordance with item 4,
paragraph 2.
8. Disputed fees must be paid in a timely manner.
H. Interest and Penalties.
1. Pursuant to 31 USC 3717 and 7 CFR Part 3, Subpart B, or subsequent
changes thereto, interest shall be charged on any fee not paid within 30
days from the date the fee or fee calculation financial statements
specified in this permit was due.
2. Interest shall be assessed using the higher of (1) the most current
rate prescribed by the United States Department of the Treasury Financial
Manual (TFM-6-8025.40) or (2) the prompt payment rate prescribed by the
United States Department of the Treasury under section 12 of the Contract
Disputes Act of 1978 (41 use 611). Interest shall accrue from the date
the fee or fee calculation financial statement is due. In the event the
account becomes delinquent, administrative costs to cover processing and
handling of the delinquent debt may be assessed.
3. A penalty of 6 percent per year shall be assessed on any fee
overdue in excess of 90 days, and shall accrue from the due date of the
first billing or the date the fee calculation financial statement was due.
The penalty is in addition to interest and any other charges specified in
item 2.
4. Delinquent fees and other charges shall be subject to all the
rights and remedies afforded the United States pursuant to federal law and
implementing regulations. (31 U.S.C. 3711 et ~).
T. Nonpayment. Failure of the holder to make timely payments, pay
interest charges or any other charges when due, constitutes breach and
shall be grounds for termination of this authorization. This permit
terminates for nonpayment of any monies owed the United States when more
than 90 days in arrears.
J. Access to Records. For the purpose of administering this permit
(including ascertaining that fees paid were correct and evaluating the
propriety of the fee base), the holder agrees to make all of the accounting
books and supporting records to the business activities, as well as those
of sublessees operating within the authority of this permit, available for
analysis by qualified representatives of the Forest Service or other
Federal agencies authorized to review the Forest Service activities.
Review of accounting books and supporting records shall be made at dates
convenient to the holder and reviewers. Financial information so obtained
shall be treated as confidential as provided in regulations issued by the
Secretary of Agriculture .
The holder shall retain the above records and keep them available for
review for 5 years after the end of the year involved, unless disposition
is otherwise approved by the authorized officer in writing.
K. Accounting Records. The holder shall follow Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles or Other Comprehensive Bases of Accounting acceptable
to the Forest Service in recording financial transactions and in reporting
results to the authorized officer. When requested by the authorized
officer, the holder at own expense, shall have the annual accounting
reports audited] or prepared by a licensed independent accountant
acceptable to the Forest Service. The holder shall require sublessees to
comply with these same requirements. The minimum acceptable accounting
system shall include:
1. Systematic internal controls and recording by kind of business the
gross receipts derived from all sources of business conducted under this
permit. Receipts should be recorded daily and, if possible. deposited into
a bank account without reduction by disbursements. Receipt entries shall
be supported by source documents such as cash-register tapes, sale
invoices, rental records, and cash accounts from other sources.
2. A permanent record of investments in facilities (depreciation
schedule), current source documents for acquisition costs of capital items.
3. Preparation and maintenance of such special records and accounts as
may be specified by the authorized officer.
VII. TRANSFER AND SALE.
A. Subleasing. The holder may sublease the use of land and
improvements covered under this permit and the operation of concessions and
facilities authorized upon prior written notice to the authorized officer.
The Forest Service reserves the right to disapprove subleasees. In any
circumstance, only those facilities and activities authorized by this
permit may be supplied. The holder shall continue to be responsible for
compliance with all conditions of this permit by persons to whom such
premises may be sublet. The holder may not sublease direct management
responsibility without prior written approval by the authorized officer.
,
III
III
B. Notification of Sale. The holder shall immediately notify the
authorized officer when a sale and transfer in ownership of the permitted
improvements is planned.
C. Divestiture of Ownership. Upon change in ownership of the
facilities authorized by this permit, the rights granted under this
authorization may be transferred to the new owner upon application to and
approval by the authorized officer. The new owner must qualify and agree
to comply with and be bound by the terms and conditions of the authoriza-
tion. In granting approval, the authorized officer may modify the terms,
conditions, and special stipulations to reflect any new requirements
imposed by current Federal and state land use plans, laws, regulations or
other management decisions.
VIII. TERMINATION.
A. Termination for Higher Public Purpose. If. during the term of this
permit or any extension thereof, the Secretary of Agriculture or any
official of the Forest Service acting by or under his or her authority
shall determine by his or her planning for the uses of the national forest
that the public interest requires termination of this permit, this permit
shall terminate upon one hundred-eighty (l80) day's written notice to the
holder of such determination, and the United States shall have the right
thereupon, subject to Congressional authorization and appropriation, to
purchase the holder's improvements, to remove them. or to require the
holder to remove them, at the option of the United States. and the United
States shall be obligated to pay an equitable consideration for the
improvements or for removal of the improvements and damages to the
improvements resulting from their removal. The amount of the consideration
shall be fixed by mutual agreement between the United States and the holder
and shall be accepted by the holder in full satisfaction of all claims
against the United States under this clause: Provided. That if mutual
agreement is not reached, the Forest Service shall determine the amount and
if the holder is dissatisfied with the amount thus determined to be due him
he may appeal the determination in accordance with the Appeal Regulations
and the amount as determined on appeal shall be final and conclusive on the
parties hereto; Provide further, that upon the payment to the holder of 75%
of the amount fixed by the Forest Service, the right of the United States
to remove or require the removal of the improvements shall not be stayed
pending final decision on appeal.
B. Termination, Revocation and Suspension. The authorized officer may
suspend, revoke, or terminate this permit for (1) noncompliance with
applicable statutes, regulations, or terms and conditions of the
authorization; (2) for failure of the holder to exercise the rights and
privileges granted; (3) with the consent of the holder; or (4) when, by its
terms, a fixed agreed upon condition, event. or time occurs. Prior to
suspension, revocation, or termination, the authorized officer shall give
the holder written notice of the grounds for such action and reasonable
time to correct cureable noncompliance.
IX. RENEWAL.
A. Renewal. The authorized use may be renewed. Renewal requires the
following conditions: (1) the land use allocation is compatible with the
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; (2) the site is being used for
the purposes previously authorized and; (3) the enterprise is being
continually operated and maintained in accordance with all the provisions
of the permit. In making a renewal, the authorized officer may modify the
terms, conditions, and special stipulations.
X. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON TERMINATION OR NONRENEWAL.
A. Removal of Improvements. Except as provided in Clause VIII.A, upon
termination or revocation of this special use permit by the Forest Service.
the holder shall remove within a reasonable time as established by the
authorized officer, the structures and improvements and shall restore the
site to a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer, unless
otherwise waived in writing or in the authorization. If the holder fails
to remove the structures or improvements within a reasonable period, as
determined by the authorized officer, they shall become the property of the
United States without compensation to the holder, but that shall not
relieve the holder's liability for the removal and site restoration costs.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. Members of Congress. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or
Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this
agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom unless it is made with
a corporation for its general benefit.
B. Inspection, Forest Service. The Forest Service shall monitor the
holder's operations and reserves the right to inspect the permitted
facilities and improvements at any time for compliance with the terms of
this permit. Inspections by the Forest Service do not relieve the holder
of responsibilities under other terms of this permit.
C. Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the
authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of services provided
the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory
standards. The holder may be required to furnish a schedule of prices for
sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may
be regulated by the Forest Service: Provided. that the holder shall not be
required to charge prices significantly different than those charged by
comparable or competing enterprises.
D. Advertising. The holder, in advertisements, signs, circulars,
brochures, letterheads, and like materials as well as orally, shall not
misrepresent in any way, either the accommodations provided, the status of
the permit, or the area covered by it or the vicinity. The fact that the
permitted area is located on the National Forest shall be made readily
apparent in all of the holder's brochures and print advertising regarding
use and management of the area and facilities under permit.
._ ...~..._._.. ____.._....._. ___ _.. ...4_'
I"
II
E. Bonding. The authorized officer may require the holder to furnish
a bond or other security to secure all or any of the obligations imposed by
the terms of the authorization or any applicable law, regulation, or order.
Bonds, Performance. When bonding is called for the following shall be
used: As a further guarantee of the faithful performance of the provisions
of terms and conditions OF THE RESTORATION ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
IDENTIFIED IN THE OPERATION PLAN of this permit, the holder agrees to
deliver and maintain a surety bond or other acceptable security in the
amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000). Should the sureties or
the bonds delivered under this permit become unsatisfactory to the Forest
Service, the holder shall, within thirty (30) days of demand, furnish a new
bond with surety, solvent and satisfactory to the Forest Service. In lieu
of surety bond, the holder may deposit into a Federal depository. as
directed by the Forest Service. and maintain therein, cash in the amounts
provided for above, or negotiable securities of the United States having a
market value at time of deposit of not less than the dollar amounts
provided above.
The holder's surety bond shall be released, or deposits in lieu of
bond, shall be returned thirty (30) days after certification by the Forest
Service that priority installations under the development plan are
complete, and upon furnishing by the holder of proof satisfactory to the
Forest Service that all claims for labor and material on said installations
have been paid or released and satisfied. The holder agrees that all
moneys deposited under this permit may. upon failure on his or her part to
fulfill all and singular the requirements herein set forth or made a part
hereof, be retained by the United States to be applied to satisfy
obligations assumed hereunder, without prejudice whatever to any rights and
remedies of the United States.
Prior to undertaking additional construction or alteration work not
provided for in the above terms and conditions or when the improvements are
to be removed and the area restored, the holder shall deliver and maintain
a surety bond in an amount set by the Forest Service, which amount shall
not be in excess of the estimated loss which the Government would suffer
upon default in performance of this work.
F. Water Rights.
water by the holder.
This authorization confers no rights to the use of
Such rights must be acquired under State Law.
G. Current Addresses. The holder and the Forest Service shall keep
each informed of current mailing addresses including those necessary for
billing and payment of fees.
H. Identification of Holder. Identification of the holder shall
remain sufficient that the Forest Service shall know the true identity of
the entity.
Corporation Status Notification:
l. The holder shall notify the authorized officer within fifteen (15)
days of the following changes:
a. Names of officers appointed or terminated.
b. Names of stockholders who acquire stock shares causing their
ownership to exceed 50 percent of shares issued or otherwise acquired
controlling interest in the corporation.
2. The holder shall furnish the authorized officer:
a. A copy of the articles of incorporation and bylaws.
b. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the board of directors
specifically authorizing a certain individual or individuals to represent
the holder in dealing with the Forest Service.
c. A list of officers and directors of the corporation and their
addresses.
d. Upon request, a certified list of stockholders and amount of stock
owned by each.
e. The authorized officer may require the holder to furnish additional
information as set forth in 36 CFR 25l.54(e)(1)(iv).
Partnership Status Notification:
The holder shall notify the authorized officer within fifteen (15) days of
the following changes. Names of the individuals involved shall be included
with the notification.
l. Partnership makeup changes due to death. withdrawal, or addition of
a partner.
2. Party or parties assigned financed interest in the partnership by
existing partner(s).
3. Termination, reformation, or revision of the partnership agreement.
4. The acquisition of partnership interest. either through purchase of
an interest from an existing partner or partners or contribution of assets,
that exceeds 50 percent of the partnership permanent investment.
I. Archaeological-Paleontological Discoveries. The holder shall
immediately notify the authorized officer of any and all antiquities or
other objects of historic or scientific interest. These include. but are
not limited to. historic or prehistoric ruins, fossils, or artifacts
I~
1:1
discovered as the result of operations under this permit, and shall leave
such discoveries intact until authorized to proceed by the authorized
officer. Protective and mitigative measures specified by the authorized
officer shall be the responsibility of the permit holder.
J. Protection of Habitat of Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Species.
Location of areas needing special measures for protection of plants or
animals listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, or as sensitive by the Regional Forester under
authority of FSM 2670, derived from ESA Section 7 consultation, may be
shown on a separate map, hereby made a part of this permit, or identified
on the ground. Protective and mitigative measures specified by the
authorized officer shall be the responsibility of the permit holder.
If protection measures prove inadequate, if other such areas are
discovered, or if new species are listed as Federally threatened or
endangered or as sensitive by the Regional Forester, the authorized officer
may specify additional protection regardless of when such facts become
known. Discovery of such areas by either party shall be promptly reported
to the other party.
K. Superior Clauses. In the event of any conflict between any of the
preceding printed clauses or any provision thereof and any of the following
clauses or any provision thereof, the preceding clauses shall control.
L. Superseded Permit. This permit replaces a special use permit
issued to:
Ski Ashland, Inc.
(Holder Name)
on
February 27
(Date)
1986
M. Disputes. Appeal of any provlslons of this authorization or any
requirements thereof shall be subject to the appeal regulations at 36 CFR
251, Subpart C, or revisions thereto. The procedures for these appeals are
set forth in 36 CFR 251 (54 Fed. Reg. 3362. January 23, 1989).
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 16 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer,
OIRM, Room 404-W, Washington D.C.20250; and to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB # 0596-0082), Washington, D.C.
20503.
Note: Additional provls10ns may be added by the authorized officer to
reflect local conditions.
United States
Department of
Agriculture
r. '''qst
lice
Rogue River
National
Forest
^-~land Ranger District
; Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520
503-482-3333
Reply To: 2720
Date: October 29, 1992
City of Ashland
Attn: Brian Almquist
City Hall
Ashland, Or. 97520
Dear Mr Almquist:
In accordance with Clause VII. Transfer and Sale, A. Subleasing, of the Ski
Area Term Special Use Permit, you are granted permission to sublease the
operation of concessions, facilities and direct management of the Mt Ashland Ski
Area.
Sincerely,
/' 11' r A r'/ a
l _ 7 n ;. :... / ... _
~, , .'111l.. .I '6 f\.o. ,':JL--.
MARY L SMELCER
District Ranger
..,-/
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Cc: Mike Freeman
From: Paula Brown
Date: May 1, 2000
Re: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcr
STATEMENT MY. ASIlLANDSKlAREA EXPANSION
The Mount Ashland Ski Area is an exiSting winter sports recreation area located within the
Siskiyou Mountains on National Forest Service Lands. The City of Ashland with significant
community support, bought the ski area in 1992 and holds a special use pennit fortlte Mt Ashland
Ski Area which is managed ,?y the Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District. The
City leases the Mt A$hland Ski Area to the Mount Ashland Association as a publicly-owned
nonprofit coqxntion. The ski area is 7 miles ftom the City of Ashland and is la:cated primarily
within the Ashland WateQhed., The Ash1and W~ed cJrai.ns to Ashland Creek and into Reeder
Resetwir,which serves as the primary drin1dng~: ~urce'for the City.
SIding has been a Winter'~9Q.,art cm,MountAv.1smd-sittcc the 196()s. SIding and other
winterspods bave,~in ~~..'~~ountaUi~\'a'~ ~ The 1991 decision to
allow expansion and the recent request to implement the cxpmision project required an
environmen1al impact ~cnt. 1:bC draft BIS is open to public oommcntprior to the Forest ~',
Service decision to~enow the ~on tq.D)Qye..~ ~ere were several alternatives
evaluated. and several cntel.'U\evaluatccltisr taollo(tlic'attenfatives. " '
..' .' ". . . .,.: ','1 ........ '. ." . . ..;
I '
My co~ are &ni~' to water4uaHtY i~dtS.My eYa1uation of the draft EIS is as a iesult of
reviewing the DEIS"physically observing,the ~te, knovviDg the CU1TCI1t status and impacts to the
City's water treatm~t plant and Reeder Rcservqir,. ~ basic knowledge of the soil'cOnditions,
1istening"~ COl1CCl1IS wicedby QODU1l1u1i~ ~~:~baviDgln~ny cOnversati~ withthe
technical team that wrote detenninations,,(br the OBIS. .
, Chapters m. Affected Environment, ~ -IV,. ~viromnen1al'Consequences. are the primary
fOQQSeS ofall cnvimmncntal impaQts Qf _9ft,Q~,~y~ The ~lAnd watershed bas a lot
of" . .". .a4_.c~"]M,~!_~~.~~Ieods.i1sQ1fto'~
~:.s1QC,lited.liiat<Qaf~~._W&S."~e;Forest.Servloe "
EXHIBIT "0"
IT.
1.1
';:~.Y(:...:1';/({f:':':~~()+i'~r ;". . .
i, ..:,<)l~A*,~;;~~.tJte.proposed expansion area, in 1998 after the 1997 flood, and
.... .:~ . .... ': ..: \,,'" ,~~V~,. '. "-';' dSlides. The Forest Service's 1989 mapping showed eight active
.{:;t.,.,~i' '.>t " .' ":/:', ong the east and west fodes of Ashland Creek, but outside the ski
. J:'~&i" cL.: C;':, l)1",,Q(irilpleted similar landslide mapping and found several new or active
debris slides in the east and west forles above and below the water treatment plant It is generally
agreed that these localized landslides can become active or are likely to become active.with .
satqration and significant snowmelt or rain-on-snow events.
.J
One recommendation is to ensure annual physical evaluation of these landslide areas to ensure
they are not increasingly active due to additional snowmelt or rain events. Tree plantings or other
erosion control measures can help to stabilize these Potential debris landslide events. This may
need to be a shared Forest Service, Mount Ashland, and City of Ashland responsibilitY~
As stated in the DEIS, if the soils are disturbed, sediment yield potential is high. However, it is
also pointed out that undisturbed weathering and sediment yield is also high.. Native vegetation
and dufflayers help'to lower the erosion potential. Over the years there have been varying degrees
of success with different revegetation efforts. My recommendation is that this be a primary focus
of the entire ski area and the watershed as a whole. ColleCt evaluation, monitoring and continued
native revegetation could significantly reduce naturallyoccuning erosion in the ski area and the
overall watershed. Again, this is most likely a shared responsibility, especially outside of the ski
area.
The City of Ashland ~tly treats up to 3 million gallons of water a day in the wintertime and
up to 7 or 8 million gallons of water on a peak day in the summer. As Ashland continues to grow,
so will the demand for water. The plant is designed to treat up to 12 million gallons of water a
day. The raw water in Ashland Creek is generally very good. It is cold but relatively clear and bas
good taste. Recently (the past two years) the cold winters have experienced a very cold somewhat
glacial nm-off condition that makes. the water more difficult to treat For a two-week period in
Ianuaty/Febmary 1999, the City was unable t() meet the water demand duriilga hatd'fteeze due in
part tothc turbi~ty in the very cold water, and due in part to breaks and frozen water pipes which
drove the ~tw tor water up. Although it is unclear wbatportion was attn"butedto die g1aOial
tutbidity.and cold _. theIe is some COJ;lCCDl about the ftcqucnCy in w1iidt 'the Citywfll~veto.
treat water that JIas ~. type of~ti~ and whether the ski area eXpansion migttt.add':to,tbat
burden in any.way.': - . '.. .
Thc chapter on envirOnmental consequeqCes is well written. It proVides.teobtttcal'silDpUoityiCt.a
very complex analysis. It is difficult to 1imit my comments just to the ski area and.tHe proposed
expansioq area" however. that is what-is being evaluated for the expansion proposalandithe DBIS~
The comment is ~e. ~ IV - 15 top ofpagc) "There bas been no evidence ofaoeeferatOO
slope instabili~ during over 30 years of'ski area o~tion; therefOre, no adverse' cumUlative
effects ~m imDl~entation of cither.action alternatives arc anticipated." Technically we, bulas
these are unstablc ~ils subject to natural instability, I would . like to see mom monitoriltg and;
mitigation of naturally ooourring. unstable areas.
ini~'~i~R'1Y ..: 1$).~ is,tl ~oiJ,~ hnpaots to Soits, ~Ol1; ~ent
~_Jt;,' ....~. W'dli~iIal'''''t'Il~~=~
activitl~~~:,li. .~:;'~f;lai~~atb'... ."'. ;~
"
r
'..;...;.;
managed erosion contIo~measures are less ,likely to, impact water quality. It is imperative in my
estimation, that throughout the coDStlUction period an&atf~tbo first S years following
construction, th~mustbe.,very,active erosion control. miti&JtiOD; management and. revegetation
efforts. Relying.on pastobscrvations is not enough. ConsttuoUOIl~c1lbrts;,can be managed'
correctly and significantly reduce erosion potential, ,even tor short-term cffects. It is notedtbat the
short-tenn effects of erosion are high (page IV - 18). It is further noted (page IV - 19) that "by
utilizing the appropriate construction .methods and mitigation measures to minimize disturbance,
the potential for sediment delivery would be reduced to. nwder.ate,and water quality would be
maintained over the long term. " I fully agree, but a strong active program must be developed. If
these impacts are not addressed on site and further, if they are. not monitored below the ski area
(and expansion site) then there is a potential of missing the compounded impacts of this highly
erosive soil and sedinient transport capability. Again - it is a very active monitoring program, not
passive observation and merely "adequate" techniques.
Overall, I maintain my original statement regarding expansion.ofthe ski area. . If done correctly,
the long tennimpacts will be negligible. However, to correctly implement the total projeot, it is
important to fully establish an ongoing observation, monitoq and means of corrective action.
This means reSources (dollars and technical people). must be dedicated to. the project and to making
corrections ~ the watershed.. This means that there must be a fully developed plan before
constmction begins. This also means that we should be coUectin.s bapkgrounddata now on .stream
(even thc seasonal water flows) impacts, sediment.loadl~ .ronoft: and seasonal Variability.
. ,~(;" ,.', ..
,. .... '. .
': '. .'..,
. . ." . . . ~~! .... I ....r~.;..~!..t.,;.~ /,--~..~,,,.., i~ ,'( ~.~', ",~.,"..J...~'~'il;...,,'..,..:"~'~.,. ,j""
';' ,~~.~~~.-6.'j, ,.~I4M*,.4~' ~~~"',i.,..u.'~~~ jj;iL-mW:,._I~(;~1i.~, ,', :J);,)-'Ji..:t:r......, .
>.......~,~( .'~ '...: )1t.SJI.~~khl..;.)a\.st*~~.~~~~~.h:..I'.l-.,~ :',';.:1\; . '.':. . :11, .,'" .~ ';oJ}:" :),
. . ".:. .....;~.. . h . .' .. . . . .,......;;.;1~~~.}.;..:;i'.\.\'...". :,~~..i,fI:. .~.~:".~:.~ ii.
'r~t; . 7!.~:.,.:.iI'l]~:r\"II.. .~ ,.~~ ..
. .y"., ~.. .,' .... . ;:.~ Yo;. .,...... r, . :..;:. .....(." l~."\'... ....1..~.~~... ,. .....; ,..... '. .." "
".
G>
United States
Department of
AgrIculture
Forest
Service
Rogue River National Forest
Siskiyou National Forest
Supervisor's Office
333 W. 8" Street
P.O. Box 510
. M~foro. OR 97501-QZ09
~)
File'€ocle:' 19S0'NEPA
Date: July 14,2003
Dear Mt. ~d'Ski Area Expansion Participant:
As you have requested, enclosed is the full text (or Summary) of the Draft Mt. Ashland ski Area Expansion (July 2003)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared by the Ashland Ranger District, Rogue River National Forest
In July of 1991, the,Forest Service decided that expanding the Mt Ashland Ski Area was an appropriate use of National
Forest SYSteDlS Land. and documented that decision for a programmatic Master Plan in a Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Record of Decision. As a step toward implementing that decision, a site-specific Draft EIS addressing
ski area expansion was released in February 2000, documenting detailed analysis of three alternatives including No-
ActioQ.. This 2000 Draft EIS analyzed proposed expansion alternatives exclusively within the western portion of the
Special Use Permit area. Extraordinary public response on that Draft EIScaused the Forest Service to conduct .: .,'
additional analysis resulting in a new 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement This new Draft EIS provides an analysis
that reflects active citizen participation and expands the range of alternatives considered. in detail This, is a continuation
of the ongoing environmental analysis and all input previously received has been utilized in the fonnulation of this new
2003 Draft BIS~ '
The 2003 Pulpose aD.d Need is modified and expanded from the February 2000 Dmft EIS. The Proposed Action, based
on an updated proposal received from the proponent (the Mt. Ashland Association; March 2002), has also been
modified, including refinements that would further reduce environmental effects when compared to the expansion
proposal addressed in the 2000 DBIS.
As the two Forest Supervisors with responsibility to make the final decision on expansion, we have tentatively
identified A1temative 6 as our Pref~ A1temative because of how well the Significant Issues are addressed and
elements ofPulpose are met. However, the final decision (following development of the Final BIS) may be some
combination of Draft EIS alternatives considered. in detail.
')
This DBIS is made available for a 6O-day Comment Period, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act (40 a'R. 1500-1508), and Notic:e. Comment, and Appeal Procedures for National Forest System Projects and
~ (36 (Ef21S). The Forest Service will.accept writtel1, electronic and oral Comments as provided in
12IS.6(aX4). ~n.1 on the clay following the date ofpub1ication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the F~l
RegIster. This day is dcdu1e4 to be July 25*. 2003.' ,
The Forest Service will respood to substantive COIDIDCIlts ~vccl in an appendix. to the Filial BIS. Commenters must
IUbmit IUbstantive comments (see 12IS.2). in onter to have standiDg to appeal the forthcomiDg clecisioD.CommeDts
teeeiYecl wD1 be reviewed ancllOltecl into two categories: substantive and IlOIHUbstai1tive. Bvery coouneot'sublt1ittcd
wiIl'be~' reviewccl, &Del coasidcml, regardless ofwhether it was one CODUDellt fepeated many times by many people,
or a comment IUbmiUccl by only one person. Ad4itioDaIly, cmpbais wiD be placed on the substantive content of
commeots, rather than on the Dumber of times a cOmment was received (or the Dumber of signatures on petition or form
letter I'CSpODSc).
For this review, a substantive comment is defined as: "A review comment made by a respondent with a valid signature
that offen a concern with factual bask that may have bearing on the decision being made" (USPS Public Participation
Handbook). S~ ctJlIUftent$ tu'e1lUJt'e wdlldl~ tlJth~ Forest SenIce because they act to:
-Provide aew lnformatloDpertalDlag to aD)" a1t~tlve
-IdeQtl(y. aew relevant lsiue'orap...'apoll,~exIstbIg:lssue '
-IdellCi, ,Ci . dIfl"erea", t W,&)'(a1tenaatlV~) :..dlor ..odlfJ' ~a1tera.Uves eoasldered"" '
..oeve(o. uclenl_te a1tenaatlvel'.otp,nYloasiy eoal8feretl,to.eet the aderl1llll.aeed
..... '. ' :.,. " fit" Ia the auIJsIs to ...1St .. la mQlDg r.ctad' eoriectlCi.... udlor l.ppJemelllt
.,' . ".' '," '," ' " ,t". '" ' ' ,
, '. .. ~'''.'..' ' , " '. '
()
, , '.:: J. .' ~
t--",MtI' . ,.1., :~.'lS'~"~~,~f:~t'.::",."
:r~/, . ;~~.l.,,3i:. ' ;:J
EXHIBIT "E"
Page 2
In contrast. non-substantive comments include those that:
-Primarily foeus on penonal values or opinion, or simply provide or Identify a preference (vote) for an
,alteraatlveCODlldered :. - .
-Restate exlstlag managemeat d1redioa.,laws, poUdes, or lDf'ormaUontit.t was documented In the DEIS (or
provlde'penollli'laterpretatlOD of'.ae1i)\"';'i ~.. ~
-Provlcle cOmmeat that Is considered outside the aeopeof tile analysis (not In compliance with earrent laws
and poUdes, Is not relevant to the Ipedf1C project proposal, or Is outside of the Responsible Omdals decision
space) ,
-Are composed of general or vague statements Dotsappol1ec1 by real data or 'research, or lack sufficient
specificity to support a change In the analysis or permit '. meaalngful response
Thank you for your participation and involvement in this project. which is a demonstration of your commitment to a
better future for our ski area and community. We value your time and your effort.
If you have questions or would like additional information about Ml Ashland Ski Area Expansion, please let us know.
Contact Steve Johnson, Forest Service Project Leader, or John Schuyler, Acting District Ranger, at (541) 482-3333.
L
Enclosure: Draft EIS or Summary
PUBUC REVIEW EVENTS
Fleldtrtps to Ml Ashland Ski Area
Each tip may be 8 day'long ewnt of moderate m arduous I1II<qJ t),.;e and discuss expansion altematives~ Participants shOuld
wear.approprIate c:IoChIngand footwear, and bring food'endwaterft8ededlor&day.
~ .' ...
hlgust23.%1, 30, end 8eptenm"3:. 91)Oem,t) ~8:30pm
MeetlllMl Astu"cfSlcl Area parting lot '
FiekftrIp orgarRer: Steve Johnson '(541) 482-3333
~'lIouse
A day tJ ~ discuss wflh Forest SeMce SpecIalists cfdferentaspects of I1eproJect (for\'ihld1youmayf1ave questions or need '
more k1fonnaUon). . , , ,
Septembei. Exact date not yet detenrined. Approximately '10:00 am to 3:00 pm.
Locatfon riot yet'determlned. . , , .
pubnC"'O
FormaIIme ~ give verbal comment about sid area'~ alternatives. ThIs hearing wltl be structured;and facilitated.
"'b~~!~~~~~. "~.
",., .~.. .t\, . '1) .' , " .l' '. , - - ' " '" '
,,;~';)-,' ("'ti;,~.!J~ ,.,Pq '1;.'tt',''1.,'f'~I' 't:..'~p~ ;,['_' ,;Jt)'
l..~l.
:/,'"'!'!:-,..., '~;"'.~ ,~, 'i..~
:I
Iii
I
I
,,.
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
., '
"
I
I.
I
I:
1
I'i
Ii
.',
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMBNT
Mt. Ashland. Sld Area Expansion
Ashland Ranger District '-.
Rogue'RlVer- Na6onat:F-orest
Jackson:Oounty, Oregon
Scott River Ranger District
Klamath National Forest
Jackson County, Oregon
July 2003
Lead Agency:
USDA Forest Service
- Rogue River National Forest
Responsible Officials:
Scott D. Corvoy
Forest Supervisor
Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests
Margaret J. Boland
Forest '8upeNisor
Klamath National Forest
John Schuyler, ActIng District Ranger. or
Steve Johnson; Project Leader
Ashland Ranger District
645 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97620
Phone: (641) 482-3333
Abstract:
In July of 1991. ile Forest SeMoedeckled that expalding Ile Ml AshBld'SId Area was Sl appropriate use of NationaI,ForestSyslems.
a...s (tESl).8nd documented lts,dedsIonb' . progr81Il1IIicMaster'PIa\ In . Record of'DecIsIon ani FInaI~En~_~Jq)aCl
....11 (as). A IItHpecIIcDraft EIS addressklg ski.. ..-lSIanwas IeIeased In FebnBy2000. ~ .detaIed"":of
MeIllBmllYIIIncluclog Nchtdon. The 2000 DEIS IMymd pmposed ..._lIBmaIYesail&lwly""Ile~:.'of
.. SpecIsi UIe Perd... &Iraorchry pubic teSpOnSe on ..Draft as has cued Ile ForestSeMce t) conckIcti~~
lull has IeSUIIed In a new EnWonmentaIInwct Statement. ThIs newElS IeSuIs In IIlI1\1dys1s I\at tdects dw,~~;tIRd
~"rqe of IIematiYes CQnSIdeIed In det8t ThIs pcocess Is designed as a' contiudioriof Ileongolng 8151'" ,,' " . (.'
II1CI ~ Input pnMousIy receIwd has been utbd In I1e bnUaIIon oflle new EIS. The stated Purpose IIld Need:1s ...,:,,', ':: ,',t(lQlf .
~ tom.tle Febn8y 2000 DEIS. The Proposed Action. based on III updated proposal receIY8d ,mile :. .~ , cUt
Ashland AssodatIon; Ma'ch 20(2). has,.uo been modified. b:Iucing,ldnements Ilat v.otM Uther reduce envlronmen" .~"~.
~.~I1e.~addressedlnlle 20000018. ' ' . . :- .' . -
'. ,
The Ml Ashland SkI Ilea (MASA) Is III existing \Wlter sports reaeation na.bcated YeflhIn IleSisklyou Mountalns In:Southem' Oteqon on
NaUon8I Forest system Lands. ani Is operated under &pedal use'~ Issued by Ile Rogue River NaUonaI Forest.;AshIandR81ger
DistrIct. A small poc1ion of.1le ,lid nals located on Ile KIamath.NaIioQaI Forest. MASA Is bcated about 7 .. miles south of the. CIty of
AshIaL pdn&IyYtflhln I1e Ashlclld Creek WaterIhed. The ML AshBld AssocIation cunently leases Ile lid area fromlle CIty,ofAshIand,
holder of a Foceit SeMce SpecIal Use Penrit ~ Ile 'MASA. The Mt. Ash1sld AssocIation operalesth8 8kI na b' the aty Of AshWld '..
pubIoIyoow1ed~oxporaUon. .
,The ~ SeMce ownII Purpose ani Need ~ on ~_,1I1ld1of,~~tII,~and,.) \~.:~
queItJ. t8ChaIIonaI opporb1ItIes m tit outdoor natanll8tG.Qa.4',. ~""',~, . I' . ".: il;., (, '. . .' .
~ SeMce pIcy.chclves.llIfcnst PIn. fRllte~Uie.PermL 1Ia,dhctIan~ .'.. '..". ' ','" " ~
.tJr'" '......~ if...... . , ~'. , ('0
llii~~"-~,"~" ~~~ ' , ' {, .'.':,'
. ... ~ ..... ' 6, 'fl,' '", . -, .
-. . ...~ "
,.. ."'''' .'. ....j . ,;. \~;, . 3'
For Further Infonnatlon
Contact:
:~J
"
I
EXHIBIT "F"
.~'. ... , .. ~, ~ --..., .~..
The proponent. Ml Ashland Association, has designed and submitted 8 proposal for action that v.ould provide those faollities necessary for
.qoyabIe skIng ald 8 diwne 8ld safe ~ experience. Ml AshkIld Association beieves that operations 8ld eoonorqc viability at
!':~Jrf,'-n'~~,','tY,",';:~,'-,~Y,','~, .~, ': Co 0" (fl8W,~.~~~ =~!t:r, ,re:,~,',~,':" ~~,~,II1e._.)8kt"., F,,', ~,',:",U "f8Ial!veA~'A\".,:',,' ,,'~, ski
""""UU, , ., " , '_,- " , '~IU 8OCOI.""'I' , " ~qfJ.." ,',',' ,t~~1:"',meel
curent sieler ind tdunfuaeupeCt8lions'u. quality feCleaIion.eJperIence,81d.v.uddi)OSftion.MAsA.,~ '. .tIP_JPQtenUat'\I1ure
gRM1h kl,the 1oc8I81d regIonaI.8kIer nateL ThIs, kl Un. YaJkllIIIowtlelldasortt(Ueman,~..wae_-ftft~mrIket'nlche
Info Ile iIture. 1he for8sl SeC\1ce'agreesllat-llIstxOP.OS8lJlOldaAnd'b: meeting:JJ1e,:~~'~~~1t)consIder
edcItionaI options U meeting tlem. Under I1e Proposed 'AdiOn- (descrtbedlRl wtytecf as'~ kl\ft8J~~lthe FOrest
ServIce YtOUId adhodze Mt. AshBMfAssociation tJ construct two ch8rIfts.,tv.o uface Ifts, aldepproxlmately 71'8CI88of!8SSOClatednew
sid temin primarIy \\flhin the western half (the East Fork of Ashland Creek or 1AiddIe ~ sea) oHhe MASA SpecIaI,Use Permt na..
There v.oold be -' additional 4 acres of cIesfng b' 1ft con1dors end staging 1I'88S. In adcItion, expslded. ~ v.ouldlnclude a tubing
facRity In the 80Ufhem portion of the pennt sea; three guestservloes buildings. a yurt. additional night Ighting; additional maintenance
access road segments; adcfdional power, water lnes and storage bilks, sewer Ines; and addifionaI,paldhgnas resuIfing ~ an Increase In
vehicle parking by 200 spaces. Watershed restoration projects \WUId be ~ted, Including 81ruClurel. stonn water control, and non-
structural controls. .
Six alternatives are considered in detail ilcIuding No-Action. Three action aItematives .consldered in detail that are, primarily based on 8
sIte-specIfic analysis of a current proposal reCeIved from the proponent to develop a portion of the Master Plan In .theJllddle Fork 'area. 1M
additional alternatives are analyzed in detal that v.ould, expand the ski sea predonilately in areas other than Middle Fork, YAthin the
SpecIal Use Penrit area as authorized b'consideration In the 1991 Final EtS 81d'Record ofOecislon.
The Significant Issues 8lucfaed kl this Draft EIS Include: Effects on Soils, Effects on Watershed Resouroes, Effects on Water Quality, Effects
to EngeII18Ul Spruce, Effects to Ml AshIMd Lupine ald Henderson's Horkela, Effects Associated \'Ath Human Social Values, and effects
AssocIated Ytflh Econonics. Beyond Ilese seven Significalt Issues, oCher Issues n &so analyzed. Ala Issues are based upon pub&c and
agency comments reoeIv8d during the on-going sooping process or &'e related tJ satisfying Federal, State, and local requirements and
standards.
Comments:
11is DEISIs made avai~ b' 8 6(kIay Comrn8nt PerIod, under ihe pnMsloos~fthe.NaIionaI Environmental ~:Act.(40CFR1500-
1508), end Notice, Comment. and Appeal Procedures b' National Forest System Aojectsald Activities, (36 a:R215). The Forest Service
WI accept wttten. electronic and oral comments as provided kl S215.6(aX4), beginning on the day bIIoY.1ng date of publication of the notice
Of 8Y8IIabIIity (NOA) In the Federal Register. ThIs day Is scheduled to be July"'. 2003. '
The Forest Service YtII respond to substaltive'oonvnents received in an appendix to the final EIS. CommentersJ11.lstsubmit substantive
comments (see 1215.2) In order ~ have stalding tJ appeaIlle b1hooning decision.
Mall, responses to:. '
John'6cblayterj,ActIng,DlltdctRanger .
Ash1sId R81ger!QIstdc{
64S Wafiagb18het
Ashland. OR, 9t62O
PhOne: (541)482-8333
F~ (641).402
emaII responses tS: co_<4'OgUedvertilthland@fdecLus
Important Notice:
Q)nmns teeeIwd In IeSpOnSe ~ tis eoIcItaIion, Including names end edckesses of Ilose Wlo corM1eIt wUJe cOnskIeredi~d!Che:publc
I8COId on tis proposed dQn end WI be avaII8bIeb"pubIC 1nSpecUor.. Comments UxdUed,~ .~be,ecepted'.h)(X'sldnd~
however, Ilose . only Ud enonymous cdmmenb ...., not have ~ tJ eppeeIlle subsequent decIsIon....( 36 CfR' Part. 215~
AdcItionaIy. ..... tJ 7 a:R 1.27 (<I). eny~_.JIqUOSt"ageOcJ .,.WthhoId.~.:tom Ile publiC I9CCXd by,II1oYQ'how:~
Fteedom of .lformaIIon M. (FOIA),~.-:h~. ,~~ aucb confidentI8lty IhoUil be aware" ,uncJeflle'FOIA,
confidenIaItymavbeGnne(Unonly..wry;In1Ifed~_'.,t),protec(dIe:eecreca., . .
<-
Rev1ewer11houId provide I1e focest &nice v.tth .. comments ~ Ile I\Mwipedod of Ile ckaft as. ThIs wi ~ ~ Forest SeMceto
...., ~ ~ t) I1e comments at one Ime Md '~~'~ qnt In Ile prepnUon of the InaI EIS"llU8evo1d1ngunduede1ay In
... decIiIai........'pcQCIII. ,..... have.. abIpIon, ~........~ In III HaIIanat.EnvIRinmentaI; . . ikt'pQOeIIlIO.,tlat
...._..~~IIeds-...aaencrt)..........poIIIanlendcQnI1.lIou.; " . " ,: ,.., _.It ~,;653
) (t978).r'EIM, ~~"'obJecIcx,',,' ., bit, . ..hM.....~,.,'., ,'.8$,.........., GOt ' , ' . a.tie, . " ~,'/,./
.1Mt~:or ", . "~...," ... '13~1Ote.102l"Ct.19.86) , -_ . ,'"
.}~t l.' 'f ..,\ -..- . .: "10'~i~ ;~~PZ2;';i;~f<_.-"-_
III
I
I
I.:~
I,
I
I
I
I
I
'\.'"
I
I
I
'1
1
I:
1\
..,~
J
:\
. ,..' ;::4..."..'..'..
G.
::.:~: . - ::',- ::<::. . :
....~" ",1-,. :
,,' ',! '"~.
".' "~.":. '-''', ^~'_M~'"'' ",~-"Mi';~;(r;'c;(/;i~/~~' ',.~~'(J~/jj~j/\z(\!\/ ^.. ",^ '^.. ", ^""^ "'^^
,.. " ... ^ ..'~... ..., "..... , . ~ N' ^ " "...... ^ ^ ,,>.. /. ,,,, .(.. , . .... ~ ..." ... ^
., ~;1 . ; -h .
,"".' ';;',-,,~--! "(".I'" '~i.;
.()
" ./
'bRAn E~NTAL lMtt~(C1t$~~~. ;., ': NT
. ,....' . ......
JULY 2003
MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION
/ .
This Executive Summary is ~ntended as a brief overview of the site-specific analysis for ski area
expansion at Ml Ashland. It does not present the depth of analysis contained within the complete text
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; please consult the complete text for further detailed
information, including large scale maps of the Alternatives Considered in Detail.
INTR.OQUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), documents analysis of a site- specific project
proposal to expand a portion ofthc Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This proposal and' analysis is tiere4 to the
Flntd Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and its R~cord oj Decision (ROD)jorMt. Ashland
Ski AreII, released in July of 1991. Thc focus of this analysis will be on a current (Marclt 2002)
proposat:todevelop a ,portion of the ski area programmatically approvecl.in the 1991 "Master Plan".
Analysis of the current proposal also considers new information and changed circumstances since the
programmatic 1991 decision on the Master Plan was made, i. c., the current conditions in 2003 (see
Affected Environment, DBIS Chapter ID). Additional discussion includes Forest Plan' Amendments to
, adjust thcacreagcwithin management area allocation boundaries for the 1990 Rogue Rivet National
Forest Land and Resource Management PIa", (RRNF LRMP) as amen4ed by the 1994 Northwest
Forest Plan, and area within allocation boundaries for thc 1995 Klamath National Forest (KNF) LRMP.
This DraftEIS will not re-opcn the decision approving expansion base4,onthe i991 Master Plan that
has already been made. This Draft BIS will analyze options for authoiizinlrexpansion activities at thiS
time, 'iDclucIiDg tho No-Action option. .
A Draft ms addressing ski area expansion was released in FcbnIary 2000, documenting,detailed
, aoalysis ofdtree alternatives including No-Action. The 2000 DmS analyzed proposed expansion '
a1~ei exclusivcly within thc westem portion ofthcSpecial Use Permit area. Bxtraordinat:;Y public
response on that Draft BIS has caused the Forest Service to conduct additional ana1ysistbatbasfesultecl
in a new Environmental 'm~ct Statement This new BIS results in an analysis tbat-reflects active ,
citizen participation and expandS thc range ~raltematives considered in detail. This.process is designed
as a continuation'ofthc ongoing,environmental analysis and all input previously received has'~. .
utilizecfintho formulation ofthenewBIS. Th~ stated Purpose and Neec1;is:modified.andex(t81ldedfrom
thc F~ ~OOO DBlS. Thc'Proposed Action, based ~;an updated'proposalreccived ftomtbe
propoIleQt (tboMt. Ashland ~otl; Matd12002), has also beenmodifi~ including refin~ents
that would further reduce environmental cffects when compaiedto the expansion addresse(finthc'2000;
DEIS~
')
I '
. ~ . .
III
BAClfMQUND
" , " ,-, '; , . ';",' ~ ! ~ l' .~...
. ~ ' ! ~ I ..
The Mouat Asllland Sid Area ~A"~ilDexistln$winter~rts~OIl.area'looated;withinfthe
SisldyouMountains in,Soutlietn~';0l1~N8tt0D81~~~tJsl~~al
use authorization issued by the Rogue River National Forest, Ashland'Ranger.District. A smai1:portion
of the ski area is located on the Klamath NatlonalForcst. MASA is looated:abQut',7air,mHessouthof
the City of Ashland, primarily within the Ashland Creek Watershed. 11tis'mUdieipal'watershedserves
as the source of drinking water for the city 'of Ashland. .
Ski area constiuction began in 1963. The currently existiDg ski area developmentoonsists of a , day
lodge, a ski rental shop building, ancillary sbuctures, four chairlifts, and 'approximately 123 acres of ski
runs. A parking lot for approximately 550-600 vehicles is located south of the lodge along Forest Road
20. The lcgallocation description for all actions being considered is T. 40 S., R. 1. B., within portions of
sectionS 15, 16, 17,20,21, and 22, W.M., Jackson Comty, Oregon. .
The Mt Ashland Association (MAA) currently leases the ski area from the City of Ashland, holder of
a Forest Service Special Use Permit (SUP) for theMASA. MAA operates.the ski area for the City of
Ashland as a publicly-ownednonprofit'corporation.
MAA is proposing this expansion, and is therefore the "proponent". MA,A\is'l'eSpOnsible for all
financial aspects of construction of improvements re1ated to proposediskt:,~bn. 1herole,of
the USDA Forest Service is to analyze a ProposeclAction as it would'affect, National Forest System.
Lands (NFSL) and to.tonsidei' authorization ofMAA to implement acti()D&. 1he~Forest.Service;hasnot
invested public funds to propose and design an expanded ski area; the responsibility for't1Uslies with the
proponent. The Forest Service has the responsibility (and obligation) to analyze a proposal for an action
on Fed<nlly managed lands and to conduct analysis mder NEP A, that would determine the
appropriateness of authorizing action.
PURPOSE AND NEED AND PROPOSED ACTION
The Forest Service overall Purpose and Need focuses .on mjlin~h1giandlor eabancii1g.envircmmental
resources 8Ild providing the public qu8tity ~ opportunities In 811 OUfdOor.d8furat'.umg,on
NFSL The basis for accomp1isbiD8ibis Is containecJ in Pedera1'1aws'8Dd'Forest,seMce1JOUcy'
directives. the Forest Plans, and the Special Use I.-ermit. This direction also provides the ForesfService
the aud10rity for ski area ~eQt OIl Nati~'forest S)'Stem ~ ~~orc, tf1e'UI1~
Forest Servicc'Needfs:' " : . .' "," -. ." '. .:'
> To respond to a pioposal by MAA that would expand facilities at this time, witbin;the
~gnated Special Use PemUt area;-and in accordance \Vith the,~c MasterPhm
approval made by the 1991 ROD_S~ - ' '. '.
Th~ proponent, MAA. has designed and submitted a proposal for action'~ would provide 'those ,
, facilities Decessary for eqjoyabte siding .d a dlverse ilid'af'e'recreation experlettcc. MAA, believes
that: Operations and economic viability at the MAsA would be eabanoed:by,oonstruotion of proposed
new facillties, which are intended to bring the ski area up 'to date relative to ski industly temdn and;
safety standards.
The ProPosed Action would ~mplish this by addressing existing shortcomings at MASA to meet
current skier and future use expectations for a quality recreation experience, and would, position, MASA
to taket8dvantage of pQtential tuture growth ~ the local and regional skier market This, in turn, would
allQwtbe .aresQrt,\lQ.~~eJ.y ~ble within their market niche into the future. The Forest )
ScArlce, ,;;88f*. , " that,,' ,,~,,", ,,',' ," ',' ," ",Ids,' ,Illetitformeeting,tb, .estatedQbjeotives.andhaS,agreed.tofoonSider
additlon8l~or';Ql~4_ , " ' .
'., .
Although the F()rest$ervi~eAd MAA have separate needs and objectives for the Proposed Action, they
are connected through a conunittcd long-term SUP partnCl'Ship to provide quality rea;eation
opportw1ities on NFSL. By satisfying current and future visitors, MASA would remain a healthy and
competitive ski resort. This would help fulfill Forest Service policy, objectives, and direction for ski
area management in the ~ve Forest Plans. The Forest Service and MAA have cooperatively
determined six specific Pumos~ elements for ski area expansion at the MASA at this time. The
, Proposed Action includes varioU$ elements to address Forest Plan consistency, opportunities for
wat~ed recovery, and the shortcomings at MASA. ,These Pwposes, are presented and discussed in
this Executive Summary With a comparison of response of the Alternatives Considered in Detail.
Under the Proposed Action (desaibed and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the DEIS) the Forest Service
would authorize MAA to ~ two cluiir1ifts, two surface lifts, and approximately 71 acres of
associated new ski temdn primarily within the western half (the East Fork of Ashland Creek or "Middle
Fork" area) of the ~A SUPerea. There would be an aidditional4 acres of clearing for lift conidors
and fhtgi~ areas. In <<ddition.,~ded features. would include a tubing, facility ,in the southern portion
of the permit area;thrccguest services buildings. a yurt, additional night lighting; additional
maintenance access mad,ce.gments; additional power, water lines andsto.-age,tanks, sewer lines; and.
additional,parldng areasl'e$Ultingin an increase in vehicle, parking by 200 spaces. W~ed
restoration projects would be implemented, ,including structural storm water control, and non-st1uctural
controls, such as,the placement of woody material.
DECISION FRAMEWORK
The Draft B1S is not a decision document. Its main pwpose is to disclose and allow public comment on
the consequences that could resu1t,from implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives to ~
deJa. Shoul<l..8CtiOC\~c'be .,.e.Qtcd.~ cleciiions willbo documented in a forthcoming
!lOD. AccordiOaJy, ~.DraftmS'fOCQSCSOQpJ"OY.iding analysis sufficient to vltitnately make the
fonowing,FedepI,docisl~; . . '
.... .
· Wcb,it any. of~~..s.td _~expansiQD. improvements 'will the Forest Service
4autllOrize and allow. 8Ild'under what conditions? ' ,
· What mitigation and monitoring measures will be required if an action alternative is selected?
The Respons1"le om~ (the' Oecisi~ Makers) for this analysis and forthco~ decision,are,th~
Forest Supervisors of the Rogue River Natiooal Forest and the Klantath National Forest. The RRNF is
the lead unit for this NBP A analysis and the Ashland District Ranger under delegated authority from the
RRNF Forest Supervisor~, _cd tlte,ana1ysis.,pided the..h1.terdisciplinary ~ and coordinated the '
public involvemcnt',process,(tee,DBIS, Appendix, A).
.,~)
III
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION AND OTHIiR R1iLAiTBD STUDIIiS
~. . .... ; ~ !l.
In evaluating anddeci~ upon MAA ts~sa1 for ~on, tbeForest.gervioe:is;~tCllSure.
that management direction has been addressed for proposed;actions;8I1dJproJeot.areas'8Ild\tftat~.atbum:
are in the public interest.1bereare a variety of laws andregul8ti0nsdaf.tCldl;fort1ie~1IgeIl0)'fto'P,~;
with private industry to provide needed recreational facilities, including~downhill*iCC8S; ODisultabte
NFSL. Special Use Permits are to be administered for public recreational uses;that promoteilubUc
health and safety and protect the environment. The major laws ,include the Organic Administrative Act
of 1897, the Weeks Act of 1911, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the, Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National Forest ManagementAct of 1916,
and the National Forest Ski Area Pennit Act of 1986. The Forest Service is authorized to provide
recreational oppo~ties on NFSL ftmded through private enterprise, (16 United States Code [Use]
497). Special Use Permits are to be administered for recreation uses that SClVe the public, promote
public health and sa(ety, and protect the environment.
Skiing is an nnPOrtant component of the recreational opportunities offered by the National Forests.
Forest Service policy also encourages year-round recreation opportunities at ski areas to serve the
public, provide economic stability to local communities, and promoteeoonomic commercial ventures.
The Recreation Agenda (USDA FS 2000) details the Forest Service role in increasing outdoor recreation
on NFSL through partnerships with ,other public and.private entities (e. g~ state ,agencies, the ski
industry. and non-profit organizations). Forest Service policy eJlcourag~,year-round~tln
opportunities at ski areas to serve the public, provide economic stabilitY to local conununities, and
promote economic commeCcial ventures (FSM 2342.1)., .
Rogue River a~d Klamath National Forest Land and ,Resource Management Plans
Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this Draft BIS is tiered to the FEIS and ROD for the RRNF LRMP (USDA
Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Seryice and
USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). The Proposed Action and altcmlatives are located on lands
allocated to Adminimatively Withdrawn under the Northwest Forest Plan. .1'bis Draft BISis 'also tiered
to the FBIS and ROD for the:Land and Rcsource~em. Plan for the KJ,mn~National'Forest
(KNF LRMP '1995),. O,f, the 960 acres within the SUP, area, '8,88 acres are looateelon the RttNP and 72
acrcsareond1e~. ., .. " , ' '.
1891 Mt. Ashland SkI Area Master PIan,RODIFEIS
The 1991 RODIFBIS autborizedthe programmatic ~ ~lan that ~tlycontro1s dev~.~~;at
MASA..1blsMasterrlan~~~f9~(lIS,~in~~
page 13) in accordance with Alternative 7. ~ Selected.~,~d':~~~j~, .,.." '.,'.
to ~,795 PAOT, served by .' total of eight'~~l~tci'i1iih,~~aJ)~'Jil~~ ,~~,,~,::,,:': ,:~~. '.
mile of cross-country trail would be groomed on ~ 20. N~~tacmticsvv.oti1a'j~f!:1~"
cbaractcr of the south side of Mount Ashland. A transport lift wowdconnect the,existing lodge'fij':a
new facility at the Knoll. MASA's permit area would be expanded to ,enclose a total of i,lSO acres1,
primarily including areas north of the Bowl and the Knoll. Parking capacity would be increased to
accommodate just over ,1,900 vehicles. S\q1Ul1er uscs'would';be devel~ tt -
: .
!
F'
r
ALtERNA 71\mS CO~ilNrlf1lt1iAtb,
.,'-)
. :', ; ~ " -':f::" : ~(:~ .;, =-;.'\.: ,':: '~';' O:-,tt -'~-r~oi~~J!.~ t~<J:-O,l]'-;: .",~.:-,~ ""}.~~ ......' .~ . ..., I. ~ . .t.., . ~
This Q1apter in the' Draft ,BlS 'ideo.tlfies.7and1:lpb1gareS ca;nuige.'ofcavtiol1StGdi alte.rnatives to, address, in
varying ~ the Purpose and,Needfor fOtureexpat1sion'oftheM~ AshtandlSktArea <MASA). Six
alternatives are, considered in detail" including No-ACtion. Three action.alternatives considered in detail
that are primarily based on a site-speoific analysis of a cUrrent proposal received (rom the proponent to
develop a portion of the Master Plan in the Middle Fork area2. Two addition8l alternatives are analyzed
in detail that would expand the ski area predominately in areas other than Middle Fork, within the SUP
area and in accordance with the programmatio' Master Plan approval made by. the 1991 Record of
Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement
The following brief descriptions of the Alternatives Considered in Detail ,in the ,Draft BIS are presented
in this Summary. The complete text of the DBIS contains 11 by 17 inch map foldouts in color, with
contours, based on orthographic photos, corresponding to' all six alternatives (Draft BIS Chapter IT).
.' ,,~'. :"... '. r.., " '~..:'.IY~, ....;. ;......:A1. t'.' '" .,' '~' Qtl" ~'~\' "''', .o'~':~.:,...,~,~:.. ':f:....".. , .,''':, ,....' .,.,..,
. :....., .Iot." "", , " ,'" Ii;':),.,., ,,-. ' ,~. . e.....Uu,e; ~ ' 0, '~J'.,I ".,', ''fy" .,."... ' <, '
. t, to,' ~,"'r.' ....... .',,', .". ~j&'~..''''~.oI!''''.' oI!.. .,. ~"....of...,:,I',t~ ~~.' '.j-' ,.~
Alternative 1 identifies an~ describes the ~line conditions~ of the physical, biologieal, social and
economic environments within the ptesentMt Ashland Ski Area. Tbeterm "No-Action" ~eans no
change to present con~ons; the Curralt set of recreation and reso\ll'Ce'management activities would
continue but no additional expansion or modification of existing facilities would be: authorized at this
time. Alternative 1 does not address the stated PurPose and Need.
Action Alternatives are options that were .cpnsidered by Forest Servi~ Responsible Officials, as
alternatives that propose some form ofsid ~ expansion and development Five Action Alternatives
are analyzed in detail in this Draft BIS. For purposes of this docwnentation Wlder NBP A, the Propo~
Action beins~yzed iscon~in ~ve. 2. Additional actiOJ1~~Y~were developed to.
considel' atteinative Ways to attain (be stated NeedS and the ~c ~fdet1tified'b1 Cbapter,Iof
the DBIS. ,This alternative range is also designed to 8ddrcssthe signifi~t itSource and'socialissues ,
ideatified during scoping as beins associated with ski area expansion and/or Alternative 2.
AilActi~~~~es in~ ~,~ IIld ~~~ on extensive professional study
of the ~'.~ an4 ~,~,.aJ~"~._ '~.~,".'~~c~~'~~~ed OIl the Fetiruaty
,2000 Dm~:~dscopbigiii 2~,AU'ACij~._~ ~;id~~~~based on
extaisiw ~ dial. 8l!d. ~ M~.iit dJ.esnow spOtt$ ~ (8ili:Ii as die increase in
snowboard.~.$ld,tlie,~veDt~~~p:": '~. attci~blbt,ateaS)~ '" " , '
I'" '.. I' ".
(~.)
Iii
II
I
" ~
t
I
I
I
I
I
FanetiOD "
Under the Proposed Action (AltCmative 2), the Forest. Service' would authorize MAl\. to implement a
variety offaci1ities improvements. Projects being propOsed inclUde: construction of a'newClUiirlift and
associated skiing terrain within the westem'pordon (the Middle Fork area) of the Special Use Permit
area, additional skier service facilities, a surface lift providing novice access to the proposed nms, a
'short cbairlift in the vicinity of the Base Area to better utilize existing terrain, a snow tubing ,&rea,
additional parking, necessary supporting infrastructure, and watershed restoration projects.
DescriptioD
Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct two chairlifts, two surface lifts, and
approximately 71 acres of associated new ski nut terrain primarily within the western half of the SUP
area (the Middle Fork area), including widening of existing runs. There would be approximately 4 acres
of clearing for lift corridors, and staging areas. In addition,.this alternative would incJude a 4-acre
tubing facility in the southern portion of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a ywt, additional
night lighting; additional maintenance access road segments; additional power, water lines and storage
tanks, sewer lines; an additional snow fence, and an increase in parldng by 200 spaces. Watershed
restoration projects would be implemented, including stntctura1 storm water control, and non-structural
controls, such as the placement of woody material.
This alternative would tmdt in the addition of approximately 71 acres of new beginner to expert skill
level skiing ten'ain. Constituting an approximatelyS7 percent increase, the proposed terrain
mlargememwould combine with 125 acres of existing ski nutS.to provid~approximately"196 acres of
total terrain at MASA. In total, ski nut development would require approximately 68 acres of tree
removal.
I, ~~l~~'?::' ,~.. I
FoetiOD
Alternative 3 is designed to address the Purpose and Need identified in Chapter I of the DmS, with less
resu1tiDg consequence in regard to factQrs associated with the identified' Significant-Issues. SPCfCifically,
Altematiw3 is primarily based on A~ 2, with modifications that would not develop skiing
tenain west of the proposed LC-6 C1airlift. This a1temative ftmcti.ons to address the S~ ~
in comparison to Alternative 2, by avoiding direct effects to Engelmann spntee, reducin8 direct,eft't#S
to wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quality, and ,reducing effects OIl Mt.
.a\$hlandLupine and Henderson's horlcelia. It would,alsoreduceeft'ects associated with theMODonald
Peak InventoriedlRbadle'ss area over Alternative' 2. ' .
~a , , ", . . ., "
Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct twocbairlifts,;ope 8\Il"&.~ .~,and ~ . ,
approximately 42 acres of associated new ski nm terrain primarily within the WC$.tC1ll~rofttie SUP' .
area, including widening of nine existing nms. There would be an. additional 2 acres of clearing for lift
corridors Il1d~g areas, and approximately S 1 acres of'gladed ~~ten:aJ.Q. In addition, a ~
tubingi&cUity in.,thcsouthemportionoftho.sUP area;tbree,gueat,SCl'Vl~:,~_ .,~..t.d4iti~ '
night,Jightinmadditional.maintenanoe.acccss.toad.seglnents; additioDal,~,_"Uh~:'~~~
tanks, ~ lines; III additional SIlow.feacC.,andan increase~in:paddng,~.l~~~~~~~~, .
restoration, projects would be 1mplemented, including,structura1 storm waterccqnttQt.8t1Q"n~~
oonirols.lUCh,as.the placement of woody material.. .
This alternative would result in the addition ()f ~proximately 42 acres of new beginner to expert skill
level skiing terniin.-In addition, 51 acres oftemdn woUl(ftbe gladect. 'Nbt including,glading, this
constitutes an approximately 34 percent increase in terrain and would combine with 125 acres of
existing ski l'U11$ to provide approxin1$tr '167.cres oftotai temdnat MASA. In total, ski nul
developmeQt would:requirc appro~l~ 42, acres.:of~:Qm1ov~~ .
')
n:;'?:~;\';:~;<~'.;i:~'~!:\:r: ':?,~~:::J . ,',,;"'/it ',\t{,;~~.~~~:~:,t,:;':>" Aj~~~.,~~,; "';".<::,,'/:',,,;:.:' ." ....:~'
Function
Alternative 4 is designed to address the Pwpose and Need identified in Chapter I ,of the DEIS, with less
resulting consequence with regard to some of the identified Significant Issues. Specifically, Alternative
4 would develop slQin.g te1T8in at this time in the eastern portion of the SUP, 'in and around the 4'Knoll"
area. Development in this area was analyzed as part of the Master development Plan and was
programmatically authorized in the 1991 RODIFEIS. This alternative functions to address the
Significant Issues by avoiding effects to ,Engelmann sproce, reducing effects to wet1ands,and Riparian
Reserves, reducing effects'to water quality, and avoiding effects on Mt. Ashland Lupine and
Henderson's horl.celia.
Descriptiola
Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would constroct five chairlifts, and approximately 66 acres of
associated new ski nm tc1Tain primarily within the eastem portion' of the SUP area, including widening
of eXisting nms. In addition, there would be approximately 4 acresof.clcaring for lift conidors and
stag;ng areas. , Additional facilities include a Knoll area'lodge, a vehiclelJift shop, maintenance access
road segments, additional power, water lines and storage tanks, sewer'lines; an additional snow fence,
and a new parIdng lotptoVidfug;328 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, ,
mcluding structural storm water control, and non-stroctural controls, such as the p1aoement 'of woody
material.
This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 66 acres of new beginner to expert skill
level skiing terrain. Constituting an approximately 52 percent inCrease, the proposed terrain
adargemeot would combine with,l2S acres of existing ski nms to provide approximately 191 acres of
total ~ at MASA. 'In total, ski nm development would requite approximately 57, acres of tree
removal. .
haeClOD ..~ .~.
A1tetDative"S.iS <lesigned to address the NeCds and Purposes ideo.tifi<<t.iil~ I of the DmS, with
less ,adverse consequences with regard to some of the identified<SignUicantlssues. Specifically,
Alternative S 'WOuld develop, slQin.g tc1Tain primarily within the currently deVeloped portions of the Spp
area. Many of the coqlOnents being propoSed under this a1temative, for development in this area were
not specifically ,anal~ it ~e 1991 RODIFBIS. . Tbis'81ternative'is'~y designed to be responsive
to public co~cnts ~ved'on the 2000 Draft BIS,'and:~iug in 2002.
. While manl ~" ,l~~~~~~,' on developm, ent of the current ski areat,' ',' ,this.a1,temati, ""ve also, fun, edons, to
address the" S'~,~,'''",fISsUes6y", ~vol4ing effects to Engelmann spnlCOt, ' " ,redUoibg,'" ,'.". effects, to ~ds and
~ '~:~~cftect8 to \Wter-quality, rcdt1Cing;tbe'~YGm~,Ad1Iand~LupineAl1d
Hen~~":~~6n..~~d' aV~l4ing additional. effects. On the McDorlald'Peak,:lnventoried~Roadless
Area, 8S,~ttO;mfenlittlte'2. " " " .
)
".-/
III
DeserlptlOD
Under Forest Service authorization, MAA would construct three chairlifts (including replacement of
Ariet), two surface lifts, and approximately 20 acres of associated new ski nm teIT8in within the central
portion oftthe,SUP'arca. -including.wideningof ~ght existiQg,nms. There would be approximately 2
acres.ofd~lfor Iift~nidors and:~~~ ~;44 aoresof~ed~mb.. 'In
addition. thisaltemative includes a 4ere tllbing, faoilitf in. the .80uthem pordPJi~ qf1hd ,Sl!JP~1itea; three
guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night lighting; ad4itional maintenance access roadiSegments;
additional power, water lines ,and storage tanks, sewer lines; an additional m()wfence, and an' increase
in parking by 160 spaces. Watershed restoration projects would be implemented, in~luding stmctural
stonn water control, and non-structural controls, such as the placement of woody material.
This alternative would result in the addition of approximately 23 acres of new beglnner to expert skill
level skiing terrain. In addition, 44 acres of terrain would be gladed. Not including glading, this
constitutes an approximately 18 percent increase in terrain and would combine with 125 acres of
existing ski nms'to provide approximately 148 acres oftQtal teIT8in at MASA. In total, ski run
development would require approximately 17 acres of tree removal.
I
I
'i
t
I
f
,',' . , : ~.~;.. ,::,' " ",};:',,:. :::'~'" {/;~~'", '.. ~'teljiaf!~~:i6 ;-wJiet~ '~~e..~tiv~^ , :,~",;;:,,;':,~::::'~;:'::,:(,,'~:~:;~,i;:;~,',::~:1~,;':""~,'" : ..>~",:>:..,
FunCtiOD
Alternative 6 is designed to address the Pmpose and Need identified in Chapter I of the DEIS, with less
consequence in regard to factors associated with the identified Significant Issues. Specifically,
Alternative 6is primarily based on Alternative 2, with environmental modifications that would reduce
effects, but would not reduce skiing temdn as much as is proposed under Altemativ~ 3. ,'This,alternative
functions to address the Significant Issues by reducing effects to Engelmann, sproce, reducing effects 'to'
wetlands and Riparian Reserves, reducing effects to water quaUty, and redUcing effects onMt Ashland
Lupine and Henderson's horkelia. It is also designed to provide an adequate range of alternatives,
including eonsiderations for economic issues. Alternative 6 is somewhat of a blending of expansion
components being eonsidered within the Middle Fork area.
DeserlptiOD .
Under F.orestService authorization, MAA \VOuld construct two cbairliftS; two surface lifts, and
appIOXi~Jltely 65 Seres of associated new sldnm terrain primarily within the westenf:ha1fofthe:,SUP
area, includiag wideaiag of six existing nms. There would be approximately 5 acres,ofoleariDgrfor;Jift
.corridors and ~g;ng areas. This alternative 8Iso includes a 4-acre ~ facility in the southanportion
of the SUP area; three guest services buildings, a yurt, additional night.lilWfins; ..<xud, ,,~;I\f~ce
access road ~ents; additional power. water lines andstoragc tanks, sewer. linCSian.additio~,r8llow
!ence, .and an increase in paddng by 200 ~ Watershed restoration proj~~uld^1X;'impl~ented.
mcludiag stnlctura1 storm. water control, and non-structural controls, suoh as,the placement otwoo4Y
m.aterial. , .'
..
Under ~ve 6, the use of an excavator for 11m clearing (and other excaVation work;~with
clearing for lifts; lift towers and creek crossings) would be 'restricted to a'1ightwe~ 'low g;round
pressure madUne (e. g., a "spider"). This relatively light (16,000 pound) ,excavator can be air 1ifted'in
and out ofconstrucCionsites ifnecessmy. UndcJ' Alternative 6, the specified crossing of.'Lowerr.'Run 12
would be a log strlngerbridge-with.log"footings, as opposed to . steel structlJre wJth coD~~~/~o,otings.
This ,..ternative would result-in the a4ditionOf, ~,6S',.cres of new ~,' " er to ~ skill
levellkihlg terrain. Conititutias enapproxiDiate1y 52 ~ inorease, the ~terrafn' .
eaIarsement would combine with 121 acres of. existing, ski tunS to-provlde,appt()XliDately 1901acres of
tqtal::.~ at MASA. Iatotat. sid nm clevo1ogJl1eait~d require ~lJ' 65' aores~fttee
I,~'"
...,' .' : -1,~}.~~i~_...~~_~_ _ _... ....
.,.,..
~..
MIT/~A rIO,!. MEASURBS AND MONITQRING.
Proj~ specificmitl8~on measures ~ve beei1 developed for all Action Altematives analyzed indetail.()
1bcse lqc;lu4c;~,i~, Pt~.~~~,..b,by Nr!P~~~dD. tW4O'tGFIt 11502.14(t) and; lS08i20.
Additi~ 111.:~ ,inCOq>.O~:ijtto ~$~ffmS'eiit~~a'PPlltfa1Jle~B~IMiutagementPftodoes
(BMPs) and FojeSt':'wide $tan~ and Guidelmes (for the RRNF '$I1dJImF). These mitigation
measures would be C8lried out under all Action Alternatives to reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or
compensate the potential resource intpacts ideritified in the Draft BIS Chapter IV as required by 40 CFR
1508.20. Details on specific mitigation measures are described in Chapter n of the Draft EIS; a
Monitoring Plan Framework is contained in DEIS Appendix M.
COMPAR~ONOFALTERNAnVES
RESPONSE TO PURPOSE,AND NEED
This section of the Summary provides a comparative response to the alternatives considered in detail to
the stated Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. These elements ofPmpose are designed to
delineate the range of alternatives considered and to provide indicators for the alternative's degree of
attainment of Pmpose and Need. These elements are further elaborated below. This section 111i1izes a
graphical presentation of the alternatives respQnse to an element ofPmpose, portrayed on a
"eontiDuum" .
Each alternative coasideredin detaU is portrayed by its corresponding Duber (1-6), OD. a IiDe
represeating the "least" and "best meets" established as the poles or ends. For each Purpose
element, the alternative that results in the least attainmeDt of Purpose Is on the left pqle,' aDd the
altenaative that results iD the best ' attainment of Purpose is on the right pole. The other alternatives
are then plotted between these poles, based on a relative assessment of attainment in a comparative
analysis. Whlle the analysis is often based on specific indicators with resultant numbers, this
continuum does Dot imply precisiOD hi its placement of the ranking of alternatives; it is dODe for a
relative comparison only. When moretban one alternative (represented by an oval on the line) and .
alternative Dumbers occurwder the,linc, itimplics that these alternatives are essentially the same. 'The
indicatOr or,uaitofmeasure(s) used for each continuum is fouitd in the tabtes at the md':oftlik'
Bxecutlw'Rtnmn~. '
'\
~'.t. -' .;.
~ ....:..., '.;' ", . ....
BaIan;J'<KTe~ By Ability LeveI:
A 6JH!4flc Purpose of6kllll"ea exptlllSlon Is to develop additional Novice to Intel1lledJate levdskling
IIiId 61U1W1HMrdJng. ~ In order to tIddress the current dejldt, tlIUl to better IIieet the publlc
demtmdforNtw~ ad Inkrtnedltlte level terrtlIn, ,11;6 expreswl by Industry stalldimIs.
Least'
oll"~
1:~ . '," '
'" ! "'~".. ".., ,
e.o'
48
Best. Meets.,
sa;
2',.'
,~. "
..' .
, .,'
.f~_.! ';:!~~'.l.i~ ~~ t,~; .\(t,~l;
~_.' ..': - ,}~.~ ~~-~:~': .4 I, \. :' .
',.' ' t. ",
-':,': -:;: '(~{":-~: l ". ~tj,
" )
" \
'if'):.,.; ,',
. J ,:
1'.
1.1
Suitable Terrain For Beginners:
A specifIC Purpose of ski tuea expansion Is to develop Beginner terrain with 'IIIIJN appropriate slope
gradients.
Least
()
1
o
6
~Ut,p.
235 4
j
!
I"
Accessibility of Existing Lower Level Terrain:
A specifIC Purpose of ski area expansion Is to provide appropriate access to ti,e existing lower level
te"aln at MASA by eliminating ti,e req~irement for lower level skiers to navigate higher level slopes.
. Least Best Meets
() 0 0
14 236 5
Terrain for Special Programs and Competitions at MASA:
A SPeclrlC Purpose of slcl area expansion Is to Increase total available terrain III MASA, thereby
allowing additional opportunities for special programs and competitions while IIUllntalnlng adequate
skiing opportunltles lor the general publlc.
Least
o
1
o
I
o
3
Best Meets
00 0
842
D~ersity of Non-traditional Terrain atMASA:
A qecIflc, Purpose olslcl tzretI exptlII$lon Is to lncreiIse the total tlCl'etlge'of tlVlIlIable:'tenYIln,. therel!y
tzlIowlng,MASA to pl'tJVlde tuIdiJIolUll non~lontd tltt1YIctlons sucltll$tmwln.pIIIks; IIl11fplpa,
ad glaikd'terrtdn. -
'\
Least
o
'1'
o
Best Meets
Q' '0
13
2\46
~:~
~. 4(.;/ )/ I :~~ ,
~~r of,'n:1t
Recreational OppoJ!tanitiesl for. Non.skiersJ
()
A qeclflc Purpose o[skl ",.~ expiIIISlon Is to'provlde non-skling recreational opportunities at MASA
to meet the CIln'ent.I!IdIt/(/_e<<D"~ldIng publlc.
Least
0,
14
Best ~ts
2356
Guest,;~pii1i.'JitlJ#'OI'c:tlI_tlrin:::' .,...
Lift Access:
A specifIC Purpose of ski ",.ea expansion Is to enhance 11ft access to the western portion of MASA,
thereby Improving guest clr.culatlon ad partlally eliminating dependency on tl,e Arlel Cha/rUft as the
only access to the western portion old,e ski tlIWI.
Least
o
14
Best Meets
G) eQ
321'.
Skier Density and Access to Facilities:
A specljlC Purpose of ski area expansion Is to Improve guest access to the terrain assoclated wltl, d,e
Arle1 CIudrUft ad to provide easier IICCeSS from the Arlel ChtdrUft tI1'etI to skier service facJlitles.
Least
o
14
o
.3
Best Meets
o
'2S.~
Proportionately Sized and'Effieient Sider Service Facilities:
A qecljlC Purpose 0/ ski ",.<<1 expansion Is to enhance tl,e gflest experience by updating d,e quality of
the existing skier 6el'Vlcesfacllltles (ee g.,/ood serVice, toilets, tm4 ptll'lclng) IIIUlby increasing dIe
flUllltlt.1 of services provided tit MA&4, l!J6etter IHdtlIIce with' the capacity 0/ d.e exlstlng ad
proposed lifts and runs.
Least
o
.,1
o
3:
Best Meets
O. 0
..
)
Accessibility of Skier, Service Facilities:
A specific Purpose of sklllreo expllllSlon Is to provUk tldditlonal gu~ services filcH/ties III MASA to
reduce crowding In t1,~ existing BtIS~ AntI, to reduce th~ Cl'oss-mounlidn skler trtIfjlc, 'llIId'ldr<<luce.
th~ dlstImce from th~ ski terrain Id guest facl1/tles. '
Least
o
1
o
4
Best Meets
o 0
3 2"56
.fli,if'$iI~~i~:;~'..'::::~:
;. '........ .,' -.- ,".
. .... ",. ',' ,'.
...,.......
.. ...-.....'.- . .- .
"'. "::....':'.:.:..:. .
'.-.' .~,. --. ,,~::..;".:;.."
. ;-'. ....;.......
.~" ;- :" ::: '; ~ -. :.
...-.:,?:r.::~'''; ,-: .
.- ....~::;. .; .~..' .;: .
";." .--.
;- ; .
'. .;",lo;
". ~':.'; :~:'_'~:':::<...:~.:.::\t;.)f . "':'. .~
:>..:.... :':-.-:~
A concurrent Purpose of sklllrell expansion III tl,is time is to enact improvements tl,m wm provide for
IlIId Improve USel'safety.
Least
O'
1
o
35
Best Meets
0, C
4\6 2
~iHiftt;:'ftia'ilf~'aiidljoiJ '."'~.~i.~~;
'. . ,0. "0 ,or;. .'. ,~',~, ~,' ,,' ,,' '1l,...,. ~'1~ '
. ....,:. I' ~;~ . .~. ")1 ~.~' ". ~
, . ,,' , .,'..':,-',, ~~'..II.. .,'~ ';,' ~
I ,~ "." ,.'~., .'."....:. . . =....
Augment and Modernize MASA Facilities:
A specific Purpose Of6kl areo expansion Is Id augment IlIId modernize existing MASAfacU/tks, thus
enslll'lng the pnwlslon ofllll economlcally vlalJle and stable dl tlI'eo'wlth II competltlve and qlUlllty
1't!CIY!lItlo" ~
Least
o
1
,0
345
Best Meets
o '0.
e 2
Customer Awareness and Regional Competition:
A 6Jlee/r1C Purpose of skllll'eo expllllSlon Is Id provUk ftu;llJty Improvements III MASA In order to
IlJIpetI/ to th~ 6roadest qectrum of the 6kling ad snowbOarding IlUll'Icet piau, thus ensuring Its
economic vlllblllt.Y ad longevlt,y.
Least
,0 0
1 I:
o
4,
Best. Meets
o e
8~ 2
o
3:
1.1
I
,
I~..
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
.r.i
- '"
. ~~ ...l
~-' "
.,
, ,
''-,
Malntal(l::~nd:JmprGve TreTld:of,,''''.at~..Mitt~~4.;',,;' ....;:.::;..
"J
A concu"ent Purpose oj6klt#'eIl expansion b.to maintain Qr lmprove"the~ttJtgJtl.tJ.Q1IIInIled'reco,veq
ofwlltenhedsllSSOclated'w/tll the MASA,SUP II1'eIl. , ' '" ','
Least
o
1
Best Meets
e)
2345'.
COMPARISON OF AL TERNA TIVES
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
NEP A ~ Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation ~n the significant issues related to
a Proposed Action. The interdisciplinary team with Responsible Official involvement and' approval, has
identified the following as Significant Issues associated with the Proposed Action presented in this
analysis. While the Draft BIS and this ExecUtive Summary focus on the Significant Issues, aU relevant
issues identified through scoping are considered and documented in the various resource8lUl1YIeI'~the
complete Draft BIS (approximately 42 C)ther or non-significant issues are analyzed). DBIS,AppendiXB
identifies issues that were determined to be out of scope.
This section of the Summary provides a comparative response to the altematives considered in detail to
the stated: Significant Issues. These elements are designed to delineate the range of alternatives
considered and to provide indicators for the alternative's degree of effect in regard to the Signficant
Issues. These elements are further elaborated below. This section also utiH'7.e5 a graphical presentation
of the alternatives response to an element of Purpose, portrayed on a "continuum".
Each alternative considered lD detaU Is portrayed by its eorresponding,',nuber(l..6).\on;.a~J1De
represeating the "most effect" and "least effect" established as the poles ,or eacls. Foreada
Siga.IficaIlt Issae e1emeat, the alterative that results lD the most effect reganIiag aa,lsslIe "
ladieator IS on the left pole, aad the alternative that results fa the least effect Is oa the'~t;pole.
The other altematives are then ploUecl between ~csc poles, based~ a relativc? ~ent;otiettept
consequcnccs in a arative agalysis. ,While the ~.is oACn ,based,ori spCCifiQindicators.Mtll...
resultant DUtnbers, this eoatiaaumdoes Dot Imply predslo~ Ia Its plaeellleDt of the rallldD(,o,f'
alteraatives; It Is done for a relative comparison only. When more dum one alternative (repttscnted
by an oval on the line) and alternative numbers occur mder the line, it implies that these alternatives are
essentially the same.
,.~)
~.": '
1:1
;~;%';'.
, .
",lrect Eft'~~,', on: Th,e removal ofvC$etation and ground di~ce assoc~ted with. clearing
for ski nms an ' QQUld displace and create direct soil erosion effects within the SUP' area.
BackgroaDd sedimelltlevel is 243 cubic yards per year at the Site Seale. The largest iDcrease in
erosioD would be U6 cablc yards per year for the first two years, before returning to background
levels iD year three.. .
Most Effect
~ 0
328
o
Least Effect
00
51
4
Indirect Effects of Sedimentation: Ski expansion activities could increase sediment production and
indirectly, affect sediment delivery to streams in the Ashland Creek and/or Neil Creek Watersheds on
the RRNF, and in the Cottonwood Creek and Grouse Creek Watersheds on the KNF.. The No-Action
Alternative has the most effect because aU Action A1ter-.atives include watershed restoration
projects that reduce sedimentation. . These restoration projects could be processed under a
separate aDd additional dedsioD process under the NEP A if Alternative 1 (No Action) is selected.
Most Effect,
o 0 0
1 3 2
o
6
Least Effect
o 0
4 5
Effects on Site Prodoetivitv: Implementation of ski expansion activities could affect site productivity
and/or create detrimental soil conditions (through erosion, compaction and displacement) as a result of
the operation of heavy equipment, removal of vegetation and woody material. The most compaetio'n
that would result Is 15.8aeres UDder Alternative 2 within the 1,~9..cre Site Seale Analysis Area.
, .
"~'7,.' ''''~~~~'~~....~. -:.--- ....,~~:',:?~~'-7;:;'~'-.:~....,,~~..~:,:~~f:-.,....- ~~ ,........~~-.~.~~ -~:.._. ~.~"...~
.
.~tL ':1L'~I'" .
~~ '.' ,'.~ \"" ,..".,
:"; ":,"',;-.~ ' ,,-~;\.;t\~...\ ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
,~
,~
Most Effect
o
23
o
48
Least Effect
o 0
5 1.
Effects to Streams and Wedands: The-removal ofvcgetation and ground dist:Urbance associated with
clearing for ski nutS and lifts could directly and/or indirectly affect streams within the four watersheds
associated with the SUP area. The proXimity of ski nms associated with the ski expansion activities
could also affect wetland functions. There are 42.5 acres of wetlands at the Site Seale aDd 384 acres
at the Watershed Seale. The most effect would be 0.83 acres uDder A1te~tive 2.
Most..
o .".,Q
2':&:
Q".,.,.
. ,
At,,' -,
-.
taalt~Effect
..QQ:,'O.' .
'~-'~3' ",' "1t
UJ. r; ",
Effects to Rinarian Conditions: Ski expansion activities, such as. ski lift and RID development may
occur within and could affect Riparian Reserves. There are 219 acres.offorested.cover within ,'~
Riparian Reserves at the Site Scale. Alternative 2 would reduce that by 35 percent. At the .)
Watershed Scale, there:are 4, 942 acres wlthill Riparian Reserves. .
Most . EffeCt
o
2
o
Leasl~ Effect:
00 0 ~.
43 5 1
6
Effeq$~ijR.Watet;~QuattfY
; .i":_:::?:~:"';:1 }.:r.:-:~:. .;\::.::.::)....:.:..
Effects on Water Chemistrv: The removal of vegetation and ground disturbmice associated with
clearing for ski nutS and lifts within or near streams could change pH, increase water temperatures,
introduce bacteria, and/or introduce petrochemical pollutants, particularly in the Ashland Creek
Watershed, a municipal watershed. All Action Alternatives have the same effect, very low to
immeasurable changes'on water chemistry.
Most Effect
o
23456
Least, Effect
o
1,
\
Cumulative Watershed Effects: Implementation of the ski expansion activities may have the potential
to contribute to an increased risk for adverse cumulative watershed effects, considering this and other
foreseeable actions in the Upper Ashland Creek Watc.nhcd, the Upper Neil Creek watershed, the l)pper
Cottonwood Creek watershed, and the Grouse Creek watershed. None of the Action Alternatives
would lacreasethe risk ra(io value more than an estimated 5% (A1temtive 2), and no watershed
would exceed aD)' threshold leveL . .
Most. Effect
o 00
:2 4, 6
o
3,
Least Effect'
OQ
11"1;'
't ','; ,- ~.
.' . .
Dlreet Effeets and Stand ~~Ith: Ski expansion activities Could ~ .affect a locally rare stand of
Engelmann IplUCC. Although not listed 'or protected by law or policy, t1W stand' is at the extreme end of
its range and may rcp~t a uniq\lC component ofbiodivcrsity. Ski expansion. aotlvitif4,euoh as .' ".
cleariitg, could affectf.Oge~ spruce by C%e8ting an "edg, , e effect", PO, ~~\lllltb
conditions and resistance to c1iseasc. T_e .ostelIect to spruce witIdD<tJje1S ,., 'I .,.ct'a)
WOUld, be 1.8 .era ,or 10~, ..;'..,' der ~t.." "av tlvee :2. Eaiebu,'" ,: .~ .race'4CC1tId~,,' ,'".. ,,:', ,:G.I,.Dl.Ues of
stream reaehes,la the Eqt~lork~k Wau,~ . ' ,';~' - .'.
;, ':",:' .. r: " ., '"
, ,
.' ':';;s~ :~k\'~~1\;~{:
, I.,;;~,t;;~~i~';,
. ',", ':i' "; ,::.11. ',;ti .??:..,~;v,~ . ~..
t ,,' :
t\.l;,:;;~;....~.:\ <:t.
"",'. ,.I,'.t.ILt '"''''';'''', ,~,~
. - .,..-",fl'-''', ;..:.~r.,
1'.
M~st ~'
0" 0
2 &:
Least Effect
~
1i3'4".'
\ ": :>_.:
8f~ctt:};fo:'Mtf~iliI;i,illlf:ui!lfi,inllllMlllJ~'#.O:r/(~1i.i......
Direct and Indirect Effects and Lon!! Term Viability: The implementation of ski expansion
activities, particularly in the area of the West Ridge (on the summit between the National Weather
Bureau radar site and the area locally known as the "Rabbit Ears" rock outcrop) may affect two rare
vascular plant species listed by the Forest Service as Sensitive: Mt. Ashland Lupine (Lupinus lepidus
VaT. hhIandensls), and Henderson's horkelia (Horlcelia henderosonii). Construction of snow fence
under all Action Alternatives would affect less than 0.02 acres of habitat. The Mt. Ashland.
Lupine population covers roughly 43 acres and has about 36,000 individuals.
Most Effect
o
2358
Least Effect
o
14
Effects to Inventoried Roadless Area: Although allocated to Developed Recreation as an existing ski
area (RRNF LRMP 1990). and as decided in the 1991 Master Plan RODIFBIS, ski expansion activities
Could affect the McDonald Peak IRA and could affect the current unroaded character and value,
primitive rcczcati~,~ weD as the potential value for additional future Wddemess. Under A1temative
2, 41 acres (OM%lot.~ 'IGS acre IRA woald be directly affected. '
Most Effect
0'0
2 6
Least. Effect
o
1:5
00
34
Effects to Undevelooed Areas: Ski expansion activities could affect other undeveloped areas adjacent
to the McDonald Peak IRA (but not inventoried as Roadless), currently possessing roadless
characteristics. and similarly affect valUes and opportUnity for primitive recreation. Of the 280 acres
outside the IRA that have undeveloped character within the SUP area, 18 aeres would be affected
under Alternative 2.
.oet, Effect .
o 0
",2f 48
Least Effect
,(0 ~
il.:
~'
3'.
'j
'.... .' :........... .'
.~...~:..;..,.;"",r-'....."""H...~....~. .
1.1
I
I
I,:
I:
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~ r ~:-,I ,~;:;r:1l;;i'~~.~~~ r~r; r.!~j\...,r'~ ~;~.~; J ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ,: ", .':. (':-,'~'" " : '.r "; . , " \: ..< I ~" :i. .; -,.: , ,
,~:i;~;",il!
<.-...~l'~t' r.
~.
Effects,to SDiritual Values: Removal of large or old-growth trees and changes to late-successional
ecosystems associated with skiexaansion activities may conflict with human spiritual values that people -.)+.
place on large trees, and tbc. D81uraI environment Alternative 4 would reduce Iate-successional forest
by 37 acres (of 570, aa:es.:of current late-successlonal forest within the Site: Scale).
Most Effect
o 0
4 26
o
Least Effect
o 0..
I 1
3
f;fj?l.i1iii:;A$sor;tafQi:l:witb0}ilpolJomil1s,
.:.-.;....,:.:
Effects Related to Skier Demand: There is a concern that skier demand -is insufficient to establish and
support the need for expansion. The projected increase in demand ranges from 0.5% to 1.70A>> in the
short term.
Least Demand
o
o
Most'Delnand
.0
2346
1
I
Lon2-term Ooerational Ski Area Feasibility: As an economic concern, the proposal may affect the
long-term operational economic feasibUity (i. e., economic viability during drought years, competition
from other ski resorts given the extent of expansion commitment, etc.) of MASA. Consequences are
based on "medium" visitation trend.
Unfavorable
o
45
Favorable
o
236
...................................................................................
.. 'l:~
,~. !.
--)
. .I\J~:~... :
i .
.... CJ)
~ ~
" co
cO ci
(W) co
" ~
~ Iii
co 0
~ ,~
5 i
,i
~
It)
-
m Ii CJ)
cO
cw) -
CD
~ i 0
,...: ti
0
z.
g m~ 0lIII"
~l! an
cw) ....
_C>
~
co
co
~
C'I ..... m I~ 0lIII"
~ ai ~J an
~ cw) -
CJ) fe ~f
~ 0
cw) z=
u
"
CD
CD
Z
" "
" C
\ C'G
.,' CD
.,
o.
e-
::I
G.
1;
c
is
c
<
I
E .
!
<
'0
c
o
.,
1:
!
E
o
(,)
-
"
lii~~!~ II!
!~'i~~-I C9
lii:~~ II!
j"~'i~~ f1l
:s
<3 If
~ If
f
ti
i
o
.... g.~
It) ~~
~
g.~
o ~:s
~.a
CD
o 0 ~i
z=
u
.E .e
~ (I)
~lf t w
i! Iii
1$) il illi~
J ! I c!i
i", i, J. II~~, 1,'-,1'
tiE ~<o~:; ~l
II JI. fl~ I~
i ili J i
Ii
J~ Jj
Ob R2>>
IE ~m
S~ ~.f
"iii
m
1
1.1
Ii
,I '
.,:..... '.1:"
.
;;;
WI
ySi
./ ~~
, 'a.'1. .
"'11 1
.... ~
. ." .~.... - ...,~.....",-...l.t'~;.._..~". "'41,
.. : ~ ,_~,~_}(:~~.: .: .~;9~
~ /~~ ~" ., ',(;
.l;":~~;~~;: .. ...,
. :~';)';'. 'j~'''f'~~,~4~ill>~::'',
,/<" "'/'~""-,'~, '.....'5'1 .'lr"'~~l'"
. .:'l":~." '''-'-j.l;~\\~:;:;.:'~~-t.;o'~':~::
,# ;.;
Isi-lCW)
!llf~
IS~-ICW)
!Ii!~
.CD
C>>
i
&:.
U
o
Z
it
z=
u
'0
C Ii:"
~asl
8.;,
Iii
I ,-
<
J
!:j
~ ilt.
III
~ 1-1&
:? !~~
If
f!F.
~
it
z=
u
(I)
E
It
0::
~'4D
!It
If
f!F.
~
~f
u
I~'~I
'ji. il
I..~~i~
.1' ., · ~ ,t.,'.,', ..
. J~ ";
~ U) " IS
I
it
J~
'I
i'l
Ii,,' ,.,.
.q;, :
11
III
I
I
1,-,'
I.'
I
I
c'
o
! I
f I
c(
32
i I
:c
~
:IE
...
'..
I
I
I,
I
I;
II
':.' j'
~ -l. I~' J
. . . ,'- ,:.~~..,l
. , ..__,;." ,~..t0;_t
";';}~.' ",
".,', ' .
~::"1~,. . '
. ., ;
"! '8 ~ N N tt
- .. N
: Ii
8 fa (It) (It) 10 tt
- ..
Ii
CI)~
0 B~N
- co
~ t) N N (It) (It) -.6
~ ~g
g, I:; tt
<>>.. (It) (It) (It) ..
~ to;.
,8 -, ~ ~ i !t(
CD CD
.- ~ .. m e:!.. e:!..
t:i -
- - - ~8
I i - <0 <0 <0 0
~
-
!~ (lj!t1lf Ii
Ii I.I~ i i j j Ii
'Iji~~: 11 II I II
I~~ ,lit !! ! I
'~~':!! t ~
III ; I III J
II ~ II I ~ I ~ I
..
II. ill I
il'i: "~'I ~t I)
. Ii, ' c.; i I I.
'!'. ',; ; I. j'
:';.~4f . ....-........ . ...........;.... ~~.. J,....... ...""'" 4. . ...." y. ... t.-....;~... .
~ ''',r: :Y1,;",'J\.,.'~,"':~ :::-:~"~~'-~" ..-..,- ~...' . .. . " ,..,
.:;,...f'~;.r.;;.,l,..f....,,''I'.',IiI'.~'iI..,......'''{.,..'' .. '..
JI/." "',. i~t~~ ~ ,..~~ --: . " ~ ;., . ~'.~~ '. ".:,' :~~:'J. ~{' . ~::..;~~~",... .
~ . ":)'.' '","" . ~'l~l'" {.' . "", ~ -...' : .~ ' ':' ..~I.!..':.~: . '.'
fI)
CD
::I
fI)
.!!
~
c
C'G
u
Ii:
C
aJ
(i)
~
c
ti
aJ
ct
fI)
CD
i
E
S
<
'0
c
o
fI)
1:
C'G
a.
E
o
u
~,.
w
S
.aj
., "':_~,
!~ (It) fe ~~ '-')
~ 0 0 q
~
~
~~ 0 fe
an 0 0
. q
"C
~~ ~li~li lllli -lJ1 ~
i!~tlll&I!~1
tit~
lit ~lif
,j( It I Ii
i~ 0 i! fe
co 0
~ ~ c;.i q
(J)~ 0 co
C'f 0 0 to;.
~~ -- q
.
N ~ fe
~'~ 0 0
-- q
.
~~
o 0 0
o
I
w
,0
I
I
o
II
I
&:
a
c
o
'1)
c
ca
a.
~
ca
e
c
32
'"
"D
C
ca
:c
l'" :\
G)
..
.
m
,"1,('0.
,. '~;~~:" .
,:.~~~~~~;.+';~;; ,.:.'
.' ,T~;:i,
I
.e
11
1ij
III 0
~!
~ (b ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~
E,!
'0'0
c::S
I i ~ m i .~
~- ci ci ci ci
CDE
-ajg .
EU
c
o
I
m
'0 _~' ~
(ij '2 == '2 "i ~ 'i O.c: i ,~
e>>: ~~~~ ~~ !.~~ I~~ ~....~
j Ilil~I~~1 ~1(/)ijICJ
i Itlii iliJlrl!'I"
I&l II)
o ci
..... -
cf!.
('t)
~.
.
"
~
ci
~ -
Q) en
co
-
ci
~
q
o
- ClO
~ cO
cf!.
I&l
-
.
N
o
..-
N
ci
~ "=
('t) -
- -
cf!.
~
-
.
o
o
oq ~
II) C'i
- -
cf!.
II)
c?
ClO
~
ci
o 0
o 0
o
o
il
~
II I,
I I
a!
cS
&
:.1
"B
I!,I ;.
Ii
~ .
1 :,'.,"~
~ . ..
......,:. .
'0 :~.',~t~'~::~~~~., ::" .;~
. ~:~~~~~:.:,. "l'.;'~ji~~<'.
...~', "..:'.:--. ~' .. .,,;.' , . ',..~tl':(.' ,
. ' . ,. . .
.' , "\:i.i~{,:~< ~i(~:,??:';,:t....
~ ~ ~
~
d
~
-
C>> ~
~ oq
d 0
~
Q
o
~
"
ci
o
o
re m i
ci ci d
~
ci
~
.....
CD II) ClO ~
~ ~ m
ci 0 ci
~
"
ci
o
zti
o
~
i
c5E
J6
~
~
e
II
~ .
I I,
;f .,;!Ilj
(1 1:,'
. ...... '.
..... ~
~ ~.
c> J
i
CD
C)
o i
ti
o
z
o t
ti
o
z
~
~ ~
<:) ~
'6
I
I
III
I
I
I.,.
I.
I
I
c
0 I
i
n
! I
CIS
e.
cC
i;j I
"C.
C
n
.23
c! ...
:!E
E'
I'
:a::
I
I
~ .1
.
...~ I
'.
.
I
m~ I:
i1i~
.~.. I
."_....,~;.'.
."'. ,
:"'r., .
t:.
";"
I~ fI! CD
JS ,~. :)
N .- ""= e
f8 .-
CIO . C? ~ ~ -"
<dC::>> .-
C't)
I
CD I
CD (/!. JS
~i aq e
0 C? .- j
'6 q
.- c
::J
CD (/) CD
(/!. JS
0) ~:; e
c N r- ""=
('0 cO .- j
'5 C't)
.-~ It) . ~
0 ' CW; 0 .- c:::
Z .- ::J
'" (/!. CD
~;; JS
It) .- ""= e
gj N .- ~
CO~ . ~ C
~O .- 0
.- 1)
C
'" (/!. CD ca
~(/!. JS M
0 N ""= e
oi .-
r-~ It) C? ~ ~ ca
00 .- e
~ u.
c:(
(/!. :;:
CD CD .0
~i 00) q c:( "0
ZE 0 0 .- z
tb c
ti -6 0 ca
:c
t ". \
'.
"C
C ~
See g
g
.t:J
('0
>
E
{E.
J
, !
~
. J. "'r . t...
PI
~
.
o
~I
1~1a
w~~
~i
il
Em
{E.~
J~
I'
..~;..I.
In.
.."/~ ."." .,.....~.:......
.... ......... . .", ......,J..;,_.. -...... -. .. r
.1.. '"J~,.:,
).\Gt.:':..,.: '
'. ~i:. ". ' ~ .
. ,... .':.i~'.".:....;'>..~..,.~,::.~.~.\.,;',~:..
. ,f .i~t., ~,.{..Iy.., "'., ..,,_ .;~
..t,~ .':;..~<;I!,/; .,.,<>,>., ' d'. .
>ii)."",,;~.", ':,
~~';>~~~, ".,l
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
June 27, 2002
FROM: .
Mayor and City Council
Paul Nolte ~
TO:
RE:
Role of City in Mt. Ashland Expansion
The council has requested an analysis of the city's role as lessor to the Mt. Ashland
Association In the proposed expansion of the Mt. Ashland ski area.
1. In July 1992, the City obtained a Forest ServiCe Use Pennit to operate the ski area until
, · ,. 2017. Prior to this time the ski area was operated by Ski Ashland, Inc., a Washington
W(..,..,l8tion, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Stevens Pass, Inc. - Ski Ashland, Inc.,
obtained its pennit in 1986. The City paid Ski Ashland, Inc., $1.3 million for the ski lodge, lifts,
equipment, etc., $500,000 of which was from a OEOO Regional Strategies Fund grant and a
Strategic Reserve Fund grant. The remainder of the funds came f~m community donations.
2. The citYs pennit from the Forest Service contains a multitude of provisions
comprehensively addressing access, Improvements, conditions of operation and maintenance,
Insurance, fees, payments, liabDity, etc. For Instance, paragraph I.G of the pennlt addresses
the requirements for compliance with the Master Development Plan:
-G. Master Development Plan. In ,consideration of the privileges authotizedby
this penn/t, the holder agrees to prepare,' and submit changes In the, Master
Development Plan, encompassing .t/J~ entire winter spotts resott presently ,
eovls/oned for development,ln conneotJon with the National Forest./ands .
authorized by this pennlt, and In a fonn acceptable to the 'Forest SeN/ce.
Additional consftuction beyond maintenance of existing Improvements shall not
be authorized until this plan has been amended. Planning should encompass all .
the alea authorized for use by th/s.pennlt. The accepted Master Development
Plan .,shall become.a pan of this penn/t. For planning purposes, a capacity for the
ski sres In peop/e-at-one time shall be established In the Master Development
Plan and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.
EXHIBIT "H"
PI
III
Memo to Mayor and Council
Page 2
June 27, 2002
The overall development shall not exceed that capacity without further environmental
analysis documentation through appropriate NEPA process. "
Other provisions require protection of habitat for endangered and threatened. species with
protection being the responsibility of the permit holder (the city) as directed "by the Regional
Forester. (Paragraph IX.M)
3.. Simultaneously with, or immediately after, the city acquired the assets and the use permit,
the city leased the assets, use permit (with consent of the Forest Service) and ski area to Mt.
Ashland Association (MAA) which is an Oregon nonprofit corporation formed solely for the
purpose of operating the.ski area. During the campaign to raise .funds to "save" Mt. Ashland,
there was much discussion on how the sl,<i area should be operated.and what the city's role
should be. From my perspective and recOllection, however, it was felt that the city did not want
to be in the ski business. The city was quite willing, however, to be the vehicle that would drive
and coordinate the purchase and ensure that the ski area would survive. After several tries at
deciding what kind of .partnership. the city should enter into with the operator, a decision was
made to use the relationship between Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the city as a' model.
. This relationship is more or less a simple landlord-tenant relationship. The city owns. many of
the Shakespeare improvements and much of the property upon which the improvements are
located, but ha$ no say on the operation of OSF.
4. The MAA lease terms include:
An expiration date at the same time the Forest Service use permit expires. (year 2017 -
unless extended). '
Assumption by MAA of all. responsibility for the Forest Service use permit requirements.
MAA Is required to hold the city hannles.s from any liability for payment or perfonnance under
the. pennlt.
MAA has the .sole and exclusive possession and use. of the ski area "for the purpose
of constructing, Improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational. and/or
recreational facilities for the benefit of the g~neral public (including but not limited to a ski area
and/or winter sports resort).. MAA has the -right to make changes and improvements to the
lea.sed property without seekl'ng consent of the city.
MAA is required to operate the ski area, keep' all the equipment and. buildings repaired,
maintained and Insured and pay all utilities, taxes, etc. These provisions are ~mmon to
-utple-net. leases and ar~ as close. ,as one can come to where the city Incurs no costs.
liabilities. or responsibilities for the property.
\4emo to Mayor and Council
~3
.. '27,2002
-
5. n,v(e is one unique aspect to the MAA lease. An effort was made to detennlne what the
clty's ulJimate liability and responsibility would be if MAA folded or otherwise, defaulted on the
lease. If the city chose at that time to discontinue the operation of the ski area. then, under the
Forest Service permit, the city is require(i to remove the improvements' and restore the
property. The lease provides that a trust fund be established to ensure thata -minimum
liquidation value" be maintained by MM. This value is intended to be sufficient to make the
city whole should the city incur costs to remove the improvements and restore the property.
6. The Forest Service required that the city obtain Forest Service approval before the city
entered into the lease with MM. The Forest Service gave such approval. As such, the Forest
Service works directly with MM in all aspects of the ski operation since MAA has all of the
responsibility of the city under the permit.
G:'.IegaI\PAUL\Skl Ashland\sk/ashland memo 6-02.wpd
~ JI!lfA1ttMENt
zo EaltMlftl8bll'
~.87dl]
~~~
~l 1t~~~:: .
" " (:t .'
t ,
tel: (641)(8l1Q'50
Fax: (64tt~J~',.
. -."" "~". '.......... .
1TY: ~f,~\
,~~~~\
. .,.t~:;;.,;..:,"" ~"<'~";'.:~',';~,
;!'.'~-i ,e,t J.". ,.;l~.;.::,
~.~...
~;Ir,..~~.. :
~~
PI
FINANCIAL RISK
III
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Role of the City in the Mt. Ashland DEIS as Affected by the Mt. Ashland Ski
Area Special Use Permit and the Lease with Mt. Ashland Association
Legal Department
September 2~2' 2 03
Paul Nolte t
Gino Grimaldi
Synopsis:
The issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion of the Mt. Ashland Ski
Area has raised some legal issues regarding 1) the city's role and responsibilities for reclamation of the
ski area should it cease to operate under the Ski Area Special Use Permit issued by the Forest Service
and 2) the city's rights under the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease with the Mt. Ashland Association. As
explained below, the city is responsible for reclamation of the ski area should ski operations cease but
this responsibility has been transferred to the Mt. Ashland Association. The city has no right to operate
the recreational facilities or to control the activities in the ski area. The role of the city in the Ashland
Creek watershed is addressed in a separate memo.
Recommendations:
Recommendations for the D EIS Process
1. A comment should be submitted to the Forest Service on the DEIS that the EIS should address
and quantify the reclamation costs for both the existing ski area and the selected alternative. The Forest
Service should require from the city, as the permit holder, written assurance that it has agreed with the
ski area operator that sufficient assets exist to cover the quantified reclamation costs.
2. A comment to the DEIS should be made that the EIS specify the reclamation requirements for
the ski area.
The following recommendations are not part of the DEIS process:
Lease Recommendations
1. Since the lease between the city and MAA does not address the reclamation costs of the
expanded ski area, the lease should be modified to reflect a minimum liquidation value that includes
these new costs.
1-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
111
IJI
2. The lease does not have a mechanism to reconcile reclamation costs that may exceed the initial
estimate of costs because of new information or the imposition of new standards that may increase costs.
The lease should be modified to incorporate a reconciliation clause.
3. Reexamine the "Minimum Liquidation Value" formula in the lease, in light of clearer
rehabilitation and restoration requirements, to determine whether or not it will provide adequate
financial guarantees to meet termination costs.
Permit Recommendations
1. Explore with the Forest Service the feasibility to revise the Special Use Permit to include
language that more clearly defines what "a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer" would likely
entail and provide for periodic updating of this provision to reflect changing standards or regulations.
Background:
1. Reclamation Requirements for Mt. Ashland Ski Area
1.1. Reclamation Standards. The city, as permittee under the 1992 Forest Service Ski Area
Special Use Permit, must perform certain reclamation measures in the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
upon termination of the permit in the year 2017 or upon revocation of the permit should the ski
area cease to operate prior to that time. The source of this requirement is in section X.A of the
permit which requires the city to:
"remove within a reasonable time as established by the authorized officer, the structures
and improvements and shall restore the site to a condition satisfactory to the authorized
officer, unless otherwise waived in writing or in the authorization. If the holder fails to
remove the structures or improvements within a reasonable time period, as determined by
the authorized officer, they shall become the property of the United States without
compensation to the holder, but that shall not relieve the holder's liability for the removal
and site restoration costs." (Emphasis added.)
Prior to the establishment of reclamation requirements for the ski area, the Forest Service will
conduct a "needs assessment" in consultation with the city to consider whether the operation
should be continued or modified "to best serve the public interest." Forest Service Manual (FSM)
2341.23. (The Forest Service Manual is utilized by officers and staff of the Forest Service to
provide direction, responsibilities, objectives, policies and instructions regarding programs and
activities under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service.)
The ski area has already been the subject of a needs assessment which was completed in 1992.
This assessment addressed the work necessary to achieve an "accelerated natural recovery
process to protect resource values from degradation." See p. 1, Environmental Assessment, Mt.
Ashland Ski Area Restoration, April 1992, USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest.
An environmental assessment was made at this time in order for the Forest Service to determine
what reclamation activities should be implemented should the ski area close as a result of the
2-
G:\IegaI\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
3-
then permittee, Ski Ashland, Inc., a Washington corporation, dismantling the facilities if it failed
to find a buyer.
The goals and objectives of the reclamation requirements were summarized in the environmental
analysis as follows:
"To protect the resource values of the area within a reasonable time i.e., to deter
environmental degradation until natural forces of erosion are stabilized.
"To get the area to a stage that vegetation will stabilize the area if the existing facilities
are dismantled i.e., to reduce the erosion rate to a more natural rate once the man-made
facilities are removed.
"To have disturbed sites dominated by native vegetation in the long term, and to
minimize the spread of exotic plant species beyond their point of introduction.
"To restore the site to a level that meets the Forest Service Standards and Guidelines in
the Rogue River National Forest (RRNF) Land and Resource Management Plan, 1990
(Forest Plan).
"To accomplish the restoration phase of the project in a cost effective and reasonable
manner, i.e., to adhere to Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMP's) for similar
kinds of activities."
The 1992 needs assessment is consistent with other reclamation requirements imposed or
proposed in terminated ski areas elsewhere. Within the last decade several ski areas in Colorado
have closed, including Hidden Valley, Geneva Basin, Cuchara Valley and Conquistador. The
requirements of both the National Park Service and the Forest Service in those areas are
consistent with the 1992 needs assessment completed locally. The reclamation projects in
Colorado include both rehabilitation and restoration aspects. Rehabilitation, in this context,
includes the removal of all structures and equipment and regrading of slopes, while restoration
includes revegetation of native plant species and removal of any exotic species encroachment.
The 1992 needs assessment process ultimately resulted in an alternative that required the removal
of structures and equipment, regrading of slopes, and revegetation of cleared areas. This
alternative would have restored the ski area to a level that protects water quality, and it met State
water quality standards, stabilized the site, reduced surface erosion rates and mass wasting. The
alternative was never implemented, of course, since the ski area never closed.
1.2. Reclamation Responsibility. While the city is the entity ultimately responsible for the
performance of the terms and conditions of the Forest Service Special Use Permit, Mt. Ashland
Association (MAA) has assumed all responsibility of the city under the permit pursuant to a 1992
lease between the city and MAA. Section 2.2 of that lease provides that MAA, as lessee, assumes
all permit liabilities:
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
111
"The terms, covenants, provisions and conditions of the Permit are incorporated into this
Lease and Lessee assumes responsibility for payment and performance of all obligations
of the City of Ashland under the Permit. Lessee agrees to hold harmless, defend and
indemnify Lessor from and against any loss, claim or liability suffered by or asserted
against Lessor as a result of Lessee's failure to fully pay and perform the obligations of
the Permit."
Ultimate responsibility remains the city's, however. IfMAA were to default under the lease and
fail to indemnify the city, the city must answer to the Forest Service. Section VILA of the permit
. explicitly provides that the city (as the permit "holder") remains liable even though MAA is
operating the facility:
"The holder may sublease the use of land and improvements covered under this permit. .
. . The holder shall continue to be responsible for compliance with all conditions of this
permit by persons to whom such premises may be sublet. . ."
In the event that MAA failed to perform to the satisfaction of the Forest Service, should there be
a termination, the city would be required to meet the full obligations and costs for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the ski area.
To that extent, the city ensured that sufficient ski resort assets would be available to the city for
reclamation in its requirement for a minimum liquidation value under the lease. This concept is
more fully explained in Lee Tuneberg's memo to the council dated September 15,2003.
1.3. Post Reclamation Responsibilities. If the permit terminates at its stated term (the year 2017)
or revoked prior to this date, reclamation is required to be performed to the satisfaction of the
Forest Service. Once the reclamation has been completed and accepted by the Forest Service, the
liability of the city as the permit holder ends. The city would have no legal or financial
responsibility for further rehabilitation or restoration 'projects.
Post reclamation responsibilities then lie with the Forest Service. How those responsibilities are
exercised is addressed partly through agreements that currently exist between the Forest Service
and the city. Those agreements include the 1929 Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Ashland and the Forest Service for the management of the Ashland Watershed, and a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) drafted in 1996, and updated in 1999. This MOU and its
update define the roles and responsibilities of both the City of Ashland and the Forest Service in
the management of the Watershed.
Under these agreements, the Forest Service has the responsibility to administer the Ashland
Watershed consistent with conserving and protecting the city's water supply, and to
communicate and coordinate watershed management activities with the city. This includes
involving the city in planning and implementation of projects in the Ashland Watershed and
providing resource specialists on a contractual basis to the city for projects influencing the
Ashland Watershed.
4-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
The City agreed to make staff available to provide input to the Forest Service during all project
planning, implementation, and management reviews and to make staff and personnel available to
work in coordination on projects that achieve mutual objectives. Thus, as it did in the
development of the HazRed and Ashland Watershed Protection projects, the city can playa very
influential role in determining future uses of the former ski area.
2. The Rights and Responsibilities of the City and of the Mt. Ashland Association under the Mt.
Ashland Ski Area Lease.
2.1. Rights and Responsibilities Transferred to MAA. All rights and responsibilities of the city
under the Forest Service Special Use Permit have been transferred to the Mt. Ashland
Association (MAA). The Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease transfers all rights of possession and
control by the city in the Mt. Ashland Ski Area to MAA.
2.2. MAA Responsibilities. The permit contains a multitude of provisions comprehensively
addressing access, improvements, conditions of operation and maintenance, insurance, fees,
payments, liability, etc. For instance, paragraph I.G of the permit addresses the requirements for
compliance with the Master Development Plan:
"G. Master Development Plan. In consideration of the privileges
authorized by this permit, the holder agrees to prepare and submit changes
in the Master Development Plan encompassing the entire winter sports
resort presently envisioned for development in connection with the
National Forest lands authorized by this permit, and in a form acceptable
to the Forest Service. Additional construction beyond maintenance of
existing improvements shall not be authorized until this plan has been
amended. Planning should encompass all the area authorized for use by
this permit. The accepted Master Development Plan shall become a part of
this permit. For planning purposes, a capacity for the ski area in people-at-
one time shall be established in the Master Development Plan and
appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) document.
The overall development shall not exceed that capacity without further environmental
analysis documentation through appropriate NEP A process."
Other provisions require protection of habitat for endangered and threatened species with
protection being the responsibility of the permit holder (the city) as directed by the Regional
Forester. (Paragraph IX.M)
2.3. Role of City in Operation of Ski Area. In conjunction with the city obtaining the permit, the
city leased the assets it acquired from Ski Ashland, Inc., the former operator of the ski area, and
the ski area (with consent of the Forest Service) to Mt. Ashland Association (MAA), an Oregon
nonprofit corporation formed solely for the purpose of operating the ski area. As an aside, during
the campaign to raise funds to "save" Mt. Ashland, there was much discussion on how the ski
area should be operated and what the city's role should be. From my perspective and recollection,
5-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
111
there was never any intent that the city would operate the ski area. The city did not want to be in
the ski business. The relationship between the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) and the city
was used as a model for the relationship between the city and MAA. This relationship with OSF
is more or less a simple landlord-tenant relationship. The city owns many of the Shakespeare
improvements and much of the property upon which the improvements are located, but has no
say on the operation of OSF.
2.4. MAA Rights. The MAA lease was drafted to ensure that MAA has all of the responsibility
for the permit requirements and to ensure that the city was held harmless from any liability for
payments required to the Forest Service or performance under the permit:
2.4.1. MAA has the "sole and exclusive possession and use" of the ski 'area "for the
purpose of constructing, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational
and/or recreational facilities for the benefit of the general public (including but not
limited to a ski area and/or winter sports resort)." MAA has the right to make changes and
improvements to the leased property without seeking consent of the city.
2.4.2. MAA is required to operate the ski area, keep all the equipment and buildings
repaired, maintained and insured and pay all utilities, taxes, etc. These provisions are
common to "triple-net" leases and are as close as one can come to where the city incurs
no costs, liabilities or responsibilities for the property.
2.5. MAA Relationshiv with Forest Service. The Forest Service required that the city obtain
Forest Service approval before the city entered into the lease with MAA. The Forest Service gave
such approval. As such, the Forest Service works directly with MAA in all aspects of the ski
operation since MAA has all of the responsibility of the city under the permit.
G:\1egal\P AUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
6-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements cc.wpd
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
DEIS Financial Issue Review
Finance Department
September 15, 2003
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
Synopsis:
The issuance of the US Forest Service (USFS) Draft Environmental Impact Study for the expansion of
the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MAA) has raised several finance related issues.
A. Will the sale of assets be enough to pay for restoration (reclamation)?
B. Where is the money to pay for restoration (reclamation)?
A review of these issues and some financial points raised by others are provided within this report's
background. At this time it appears as though MAA has remained in compliance of the 1992 lease
agreement but the cost of reclamation under the existing plan or any expansion requires added
information. Additionally, some improvements could be made to the reclamation estimate methodology
and asset valuation guarantees afforded the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the following steps be taken to minimize the risk to the City of Ashland:
1. Require ofUSFS an updated estimate of cost and basis for the estimate (things required to be done)
for the ski area as it stands today and under the selected expansion alternative by USFS prior to
approval.
2. Revise the lease agreement for the updated estimate of current reclamation costs and for any
expansion alternative approved addressing the increased estimate of reclamation costs and work to
be done.
3. Restrict the use of any assets deemed City property from becoming security for any loans or
operations without (a) prior written consent from the City and (b) an independent asset inventory and
valuation for minimum liquidation value to assure reclamation coverage.
Fiscal Impact:
No impact determined at this time.
r~'
III
Background:
First Issue: Will the sale of assets be enough to pay for restoration (reclamation)?
The July 9,1992, lease calls for MAA to maintain a Minimum Liquidation Value (MLV) of leased
property that equals the cost of restoring the mountain. Weare using the term reclamation for
restoration in that the intent was to resolve the impact of the ski activities and related structures, not to
put the mountain back to its natural state. This perspective adheres to the USFS perspective.
The initial estimated amount of such a reclamation was $200,000 in that first year and non-cash assets
were estimated in total at $1.3 million. The lease provides for a calculation to escalate that amount in an
attempt to adjust for inflation. The current amount per the lease's approved calculation methodology is
approximately $267,000. The MAA June 30, 2003, audited report includes $1.55 million in capital
assets net of depreciation.
MAA has provided the City with a September 8, 2003, listing of marketable assets with a depreciated
value of $548,312 and a fair market value of $1 ,251 ,093.
It appears as though MAA has complied with the lease agreement and the assets are sufficient to pay for
current reclamation of the area.
The question then becomes: Are these assets sufficient to be sold and generate enough to pay for the
current estimated cost for reclamation and also under an ex"anded scenario? That requires an estimate
from USFS for the cost and perhaps an appraisal of all assets.
The authority to have an appraisal done and who bears the cost is provided in the lease agreement. I
would not recommend doing an appraisal at this time for the following reasons:
a) Depreciated assets are double the calculated reclamation amount.
b) Estimated fair market level is over 4 times the reclamation amount.
c) USFS has not provided an updated estimate on reclamation that is significantly larger.
d) MAA has complied with the ML V contract requirements to date.
Second Issue: Where is the money to pay for restoration (reclamation)?
There is no cash reserved to pay reclamation costs nor has any been required by the lease agreement or
by direction from the City in accordance with the agreement. The money to pay for reclamation is
within the liquidation value of the assets. It is not likely that USFS would be quick to require
reclamation if MAA discontinued operation and there is a potential that some other party may be
selected to run a ski operation. With that understanding there would be adequate time to sell off assets
to generate the requisite amount or to turn over assets to a third party.
This raises a concern regarding any financing that may have to be done as part of an expansion. Assets
held to pay for reclamation are not to be encumbered or pledged to any other party for any reason.
We understand that MAA intends to do a fund raising to provide capital to pay for the expansion and
that they have a study that identifies the amount that can be generated in a given timeframe. Since that
is the approach that is being taken this becomes less of an issue and an appraisal of equipment and
leasehold improvements can be deferred.
~.l'
If financing was required for the project and that financing needed collateral beyond the pledging of
future MAA revenues, the City would have to be petitioned for approval before any assets were used to
guar'antee debt payment. A valuation of assets would be appropriate at that time before a decision
should be made.
Please note that if the expansion is begun and additional sellable assets are generated beyond those
currently held for reclamation, then the amount that could be gained from the sale is increased based
upon those items purchased or constructed with donated capital. In other words, assets generated by an
expansion should be taken into consideration when considering the cost to restore the mountain due to
an expanSIon.
Review of MAA and Sierra Club financial points
There has been a comparison of information made available to the public by the Rogue Group Sierra
Club (RGSC) that questions MAA financial operations and condition in the following areas:
1. Funds available for expansion
2. Net operating income
3. Operating income and expense per skierlboarder visit
4. Annual skierlboarder visits
Complete explanations for each point must come from MAA but a review of existing documentation
provides the following:
Funds available for expansion - RGSC points out that funds available for expansion have steadily
declined to where MAA has less than $200,000 available and that a City supported $2.1 million loan for
Phase 1 is required. MAA has declared the intention to do a fund raising campaign for phase one and no
loan is intended thus removing the City's need to support such a financing. MAA has purchased
considerable assets over the recent years that are part of the 9/8/03 asset listing.
Net operating income - RGSC observed that MAA's "annual net operating income has steadily
declined. The new DEIS says that Mt. Ashland Association will pay for Phase Two and Three of
expansion from operating income.. .DEIS does not tell us how..." MAA's latest financial report shows
a $140,000 improvement over the prior year in operating income but a $498,104 further reduction of net
assets of which $257,835 was capital acquisitions.
MAA's projections seem conservative about the amount of skierlboarder visit increases and the
revenues it will generate however, it can be noted that there is no formal market analysis to support
MAA's estimates. MAA has relied on industry standards and researched information from other ski
area managers to generate estimates and projections.
Operating income and expense per skierlboarder visit - RGSC states that "Operating income per. . . visit
has been essentially constant while expenses...has doubled over the past ten years. How will (they) pay
interest and principal. . . plus save money for Phase 2 and 3. . ." MAA does not intend to finance so
payment of principal and interest does not apply. One result could be that Phase 2 and 3 are not done if
revenues do not increase.
A side point here is that if borrowing becomes necessary it would be appropriate for it to come to the
City for approval if assets owned by the City or held for reclamation are to be pledged for payment of
the loan.
r.l'
111
Annual skierlboarder visits - RGSC points out that skierlboarder visits have been relatively flat at Mt.
Ashland and region-wide yet the DEIS "assumes" that visitation will be on a steady, continuous rise
with no fluctuations. "This makes for a poor economic analysis."
MAA's projections appear conservative, aiming at the customer groups they are not serving at this time.
The proposed changes will have an affect, the question is how much and to what financial end.
Summary
It appears we have two ends of the spectrum. One side is considering taking some risk to "grow" a
greater customer base and have it be a self sufficient operation rather than watch costs continue to
increase and minimize the service that can be given. The other side has concerns regarding the impact
of the expansion, the association's financial health, the economics behind the estimations from MAA
and the City's financial exposure.
City staff have not assessed the business activities ofMAA or interests ofRGSC on how a designated
ski area is to be used or managed beyond the impact on water quality and coverage for reclamation. It is
up to those two parties to prove their points with USFS.
Attachments:
None
r~'
FIRE RISK
III
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Analysis Of Potential Wildfire Threat To The Ashland Watershed
From The Proposed Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion
Ashland Fire & Rescue
September 22, 2003 . '\
Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief ~
Synopsis:
The Mt. Ashland Association has submitted a proposal to the Forest Service for an expansion of the
existing Mt. Ashland Ski Area. The City Council is reviewing this proposal, and associated alternate
proposals, to determine if they pose threats to the ecology of the Ashland Watershed. At their August 5th
council meeting, the City Council requested an analysis of these proposals by City staff. This memo will
examine the proposals from a fire protection perspective.
Recommendation:
Information only.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
Background:
In July 1991, the forest service decided that expanding the Mt. Ashland Ski area was an appropriate use
of National Forest Systems Land. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued in
February 2000. Due to extraordinary public response to the DEIS, the Forest Service has conducted
additional analysis that reflects active citizen participation and expands the range of alternatives
considered in detail. The City Council is reviewing the DEIS and requested a review by the Public Works
Director and Fire Chief regarding potential impacts on the Ashland watershed from water quality and fire
protection perspectives. The primary concerns addressed in the DEIS are relative to hydrology, soils and
geology. Based on the data provided in the DEIS, the ski area expansion poses no significant threat to the
Ashland Watershed from a fire protection standpoint. Wildfire is linked in the DEIS to increased soil
erosion rates where wildfire bums into clear cuts or cleared ski runs. There is no historic evidence that the
creation of the ski runs themselves pose any specific wildfire risk to the Ashland Watershed. It has been
suggested that the increased patronage as a result of the ski area expansion will result in an increase in
fire starts. An analysis of the fire cause history for the upper elevations of the Ashland Watershed
identifies lightning has the primary fire cause factor, while human-caused fires dominate the majority of
fire occurrences at the lower elevations. Weare not aware of any data for the upper Ashland Watershed
that suggests a direct relationship between increased human occupation and corresponding increases in
fire starts. The location, design and type of construction for additional ski area guest services buildings
should take into consideration the need for fire protection features within these buildings to prevent the
potential for building fires spreading to adjacent wildland resources.
r.,
111
III
Summary of Comments & Recommendations
The following is a list of recommendations taken from the previous reports, which have been
summarized for your convenience.
WA TER QUALITY & QUANTITY
1. Develop requirements and hire an independent third party Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) Team (typically 2-4 persons highly specialized in the specific profession that
is being monitored - in this case soils and hydrology). The QA/QC Team should be selected
by a community team of 6-9 persons, including members from City Staff, FS, maybe the
Ashland Watershed Partnership or the Ashland Watershed Protection Alliance, and potentially
others. Once hired, the QA/QC Team should be paid for by MAA, reports to City and FS (and
potentially the selection team) and gives direction to MAA and their contractor. The QA/QC
Team should be hired prior to construction design completion so that the erosion control,
mitigation, restoration I remediation activities can be defined through a specific erosion and
sediment control strategy prior to construction bidding. Once a contractor is selected, that
contractor must understand the authority of the QA/QC Team and be responsive to their
recommendations (should be included in the construction contract documents).
Specific items to be monitored by the QA/QC Team (taken from Paula Brown's September 5th
report):
a. Effects of expansion on soils: QA/QC Team should analyze each specific area of
construction impact to define the mitigationlrestoration activities associated with each soils
type.
b. Effects of erosion: The QA/QC Team should provide specific BMP (best management
practices) to significantly reduce or control the negative impacts due to erosion. This set
of BMPs must be specific to the alternative selected and be fully defined for the soils
types.
c. Over-snow timber removal: It is recommended that this be the primary removal method
and that if work cannot be completed over snow, then that proposal be submitted to the
QA/QC Team for advice and approval.
d. Construction methods to control erosion and sedimentation: Just as standard erosion
control strategies are in place, specific BMPs to control sedimentation loading should be
included in the erosion and sediment control strategy developed by the QA/QC Team.
e. During construction and after construction completion, the QA/QC Team should define a
monitoring strategy to ensure post-construction BMPs are in place to minimize disruption
to restoration activities due to storms and snow melt.
f. To meet state and federal requirements, a Stormwater NPDES permit must be provided
and that will require an Erosion Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan for
construction. The QA/QC Team should develop this strategy for the Contractor.
g. To eliminate the potential for petroleum leaks from construction equipment, the QA/QC
Team should evaluate the use of vehicle diapers or other petroleum containment
practices.
h. The QA/QC Team should evaluate and it is suggested that they recommend no work
within the mapped wetlands area. This will affect the construction of the bridge for options
Recommendations - Summarized
Attachment 1
III
2 or 6, and the QA/QC Team should make specific recommendations for that area of
construction. If there is any impact (direct or otherwise), mitigation measures should be
defined and directed to fully restore the wetlands.
i. Along with this wetlands area impact, the QA/QC Team may support the recommendation
to complete work within the riparian reserve area to be completed as an over-snow
operation, or that work be completed toward the end of the dry season (end of summer) to
minimize effects.
j. It is my understanding that there is no complete vegetation clearing within the stream
reaches. This should be clarified as a part of the construction design and monitored by
the QA/QC Team. If there is significant vegetation clearing, then mitigation measures to
restore vegetation should be defined and implemented.
k. Although I am surely not a blast expert, it is recommended that the significant use of
blasting be discouraged. However, this recommendation is deferred to the QA/QC Team
for their analysis and recommendation.
I. The lifts have a straight haul rope and are typically cleared to a width of 40 feet. As
clearing can impact erosion, it is recommended that this be as narrow as practical to allow
for maintenance and safety.
m. Erosion control methods should include silt fencing and fabric. These are only two of the
BMPs available. The QA/QC Team should provide a detailed mitigation plan.
n. There may be areas to add seeding, mulching and re-vegetations to reduce erosion. The
QA/QC Team should evaluate those opportunities.
2. The Forest Service and the MAA should be required to monitor creek impacts (erosion and
sediment loading primarily) at the 2060 Road at the crossing of the middle fork of the east fork
of Ashland Creek.
3. In addition to the second recommendation made in the September 5th analysis (monitor
erosion as sediment loading at the 2060 Road), there is one other recommendation that is
being identified. This recommendation is not a specific QA/QC Team responsibility so is
called out separately. This is a need for assurances from MAA. The MAA must provide
assurances to the City and FS that they will take corrective actions as recommended by the
QA/QC Team.
FINANCIAL RISK
1. A comment should be submitted to the Forest Service on the DEIS and the EIS should
address and quantify the reclamation costs for both the existing ski area and the selected
alternative. The Forest Service should require from the city, as the permit holder, written
assurance that it has agreed with the ski area operator that sufficient assets exist to cover
the quantified reclamation costs.
2. A comment to the DEIS should be made that the EIS specify the reclamation requirements
for the ski area.
Recommendations - Summarized
Attachment 1
Other Recommendations (Not part of the DEIS process)
Lease Recommendations:
1. Since the lease between the city and MAA does not address the reclamation costs of the
expanded ski area, the lease should be modified to reflect a minimum liquidation value
that includes these new costs.
2. The lease does not have a mechanism to reconcile reclamation costs that may exceed the
initial estimate of costs because of new information or the imposition of new standards that
may increase costs. The lease should be modified to incorporate a reconciliation clause.
3. Reexamine the "Minimum Liquidation Value" formula in the lease, in light of clearer
rehabilitation and restoration requirements, to determine whether or not it will provide
adequate financial guarantees to meet termin~tion costs.
4. Restrict the use of any assets deemed City property from becoming security for any loans
or operations without (a) prior written consent from the City and, (b) an independent asset
inventory and valuation for minimum liquidation value to assure reclamation coverage.
Permit Recommendations:
1. Explore with the Forest Service the feasibility to revise the Special Use Permit to include
language that more clearly defines what "a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer"
would likely entail and provide for periodic updating of this provision to reflect changing
standards or regulations.
The Role of the City in the Ashland Watershed under aQreements with the Forest Service.
To strengthen the city's role in post-termination uses for the ski area, the city should seek to
add language to the existing Memorandum of Understanding to specifically address the ski
area. Such language should outline the process that will be pursued after any termination of
the ski area special use permit and delineate the role the city will play in determining future
uses.
Recommendations - Summarized
Attachment 1
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
The Role of the City in the Ashland Watershed under agreements with the Forest
Service
Legal Department
September 22, 2003
Paul Nolte ~
Gino Grimaldi
Title:
Synopsis:
The authority of the city in that part of the Ashland Creek Watershed controlled by the Forest Service is
set forth in a series of agreements beginning in 1.929. The agreements serve as a guide for the city's
participation in the planning and development of programs and projects within the watershed but are
silent as to the specific relationship involved in the Mt. Ashland Ski Area.
Recommendations:
To strengthen the city's role in post-termination uses for the ski area, the city should seek to add
language to the existing Memorandum of Understanding to specifically address, the ski area. Such
language should outline the process that will be pursued after any termination of the ski area special use
permit and delineate the role the city will play in determining future uses.
Background:
1. The 1929 Agreement. Agreements between the city and Forest Service in management of the Ashland
Creek Watershed include the 1929 Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Forest
Service for the management of the Ashland Watershed, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
drafted in 1996, and updated in 1999.
While the 1929 agreement is the seminal instrument in the evolution of the city's relationship with the
Forest Service, the city has no power under the agreement to require or prevent Forest Service projects
or programs within the watershed. By its terms, the agreement constitutes a requirement by the Forest
Service to meet and confer with the city in certain actions affecting the watershed:
". . . before entering into any agreement for the cutting of timber or removal of other forest
products from national forest lands within the area, the officials of the City of Ashland will be
1-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements MOU cc.wpd
Attachment 2
consulted and full consideration will be given to any requirements the City of Ashland may
desire to impose as necessary for the safeguarding of the water supply." (Paragraph 1)
The agreement requires the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict or prevent activities within the watershed,
"so far as he has the legal authority to do so," that will diminish or pollute the city's water supply. The
legal authority is now controlled to a great extent by the environmental protections adopted by Congress
since the 1929 agreement. Undue reliance on the 1929 agreement to protect the watershed should be
avoided, since it can be terminated upon thirty days' notice. Nevertheless the agreement has guided the
relationship of the governmental entities for several decades and continues to shape the interaction
between them.
2. The 1996 MOU. The 1996 Memorandum of Understanding between the city and the Forest Service,
which was entered into to clarify and update the 1929 agreement, emphasizes watershed protection
through fire suppression and fuel management programs. This agreement recognizes the various
environmental laws and constraints affecting the watershed that have been adopted or implemented since
the 1929 agreement. By its terms the city has the authority to:
2.1. " . . . participate in and input into the resource management process for planning,
management review and evaluation any resource activity within the Ashland Watershed, and
2.2. ". . . with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission to coordinate resource
management issues influencing the Ashland Watershed." (Page 3, paragraphs 5 and 6, 1996
MOU)
3. Refining the Relationship with the Forest Service.
3.1. Bull Run Model: An example of possible language to incorporate into a MOU with the
Forest Service can be found in the legislation governing the Bull Run Watershed near Portland:
" The policy set forth. . . shall be attained through the development, maintenance, and
periodic revision of land management plans . .. the development and revision of land
management plans for the unit. . . shall provide for public participation and shall consult
and coordinate with appropriate officials and advisors of the city, and shall consider such
data and research as the City may collect through its own monitoring systems and
scientific efforts, if any. Such plans shall be prepared by an interdisciplinary team; be
embodied in appropriate written material, including maps and other descriptive
documents; shall contain. . . standards developed. . . after consultation and in
cooperation with the city. . . The Secretary or his representative shall, upon request, and
at least annually, meet with appropriate officials of the city for the purpose of reviewing
planned management programs. . . and assuring that their respective management and
operational activities within the unit are appropriately coordinated. . ."
3.2. Stewardship Contracting. The city could request, in the event of termination of the special
use permit, that the Mt. Ashland Ski Area be considered for stewardship contracting. Under this
2-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements MOU cc.wpd
111
program the Forest Service is authorized to enter into projects with private persons or other
public or private entities to perform services to achieve land management goals for the national
forests and the public lands that meet local and rural community needs. The land management
goals of a project may include, among other things- (1) road and trail maintenance or obliteration
to restore or maintain water quality; (2) soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or
other resource values; (3) setting of prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure,
condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat; (4) removing vegetation or other
activities to promote healthy forest stands, reduce fire hazards, or achieve other land management
objectives; (5) watershed restoration and maintenance; (6) restoration and maintenance of
wildlife and fish habitat; and (7) control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing native
plant species. Many of these goals easily apply to a post-termination Mt. Ashland Ski Area and
such a designation, if achieved, would give the local community direct imput and control over
the activities and uses in the former ski area.
3-
G:\Iegal\PAUL\Ski Ashland\2003 DEIS\Reclamation requirements MOU cc.wpd
WATER QUALITY & QUANTITY
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Review and Discussion of Watershed and Water Quality and Quantity Impacts as
a Result of the Proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion DEIS
Public Works
September 22, 2003
P7~Ptember 5" 2003)
Title:
Synopsis:
The Mount Ashland Association (MAA) has requested to expand their current ski area. The USFS has
developed and released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for review. An extension for
comments has been given through October 23,2003. The attached analysis was prepared for council's
review and consideration. Recommended comments to the DEIS have been provided at the end of the
document.
Recommendation:
This item has been prepared for the Council's Study Session and is for discussion only.
Fiscal 1m pact:
This analysis has no direct fiscal impact, but has consumed over 60 hours of staff time.
Background:
The attached analysis has been performed solely by Paula Brown, PE (licensed Civil and Environmental
Engineer). Each recommendation and evaluation comment is as a result of Paula Brown's professional
opinion and information in the DEIS. The comments on the DEIS are limited to impacts on Ashland
Creek, the Ashland Watershed, sediment delivery, erosion, soils, hydrology, and restorationJmitigation
measures to reduce the potential impact to the watershed.
The resulting opinion of the increase to the ski area shows limited or no measurable impact to the
watershed or to water quality if the construction activities are completed as anticipated in the document,
with appropriate mitigation measures and continual monitoring and corrective actions taken, as described
in the DEIS. There are two specific recommendations to consider that will have a broad impact on the
monitoring and mitigation activities. It is recommended that the City require a Quality Control/Quality
Assurance Team be selected through a coordinated process that includes MAA, the USFS, and the City,
and that this team remain actively involved through the duration of the project and up to three years after
the final work is completed. The other recommendation is that the City require MAA and the FS to
monitor creek impacts (erosion and sediment loading primarily) at the 2060 road at the crossing of the
middle fork of the East Fork of Ashland Creek. Additional recommyndations are included in the attached
document.
Attachments:
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\CC SS Mt Ashland Discussion 22Sep03.doc
r~'
111
III
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Summary of Recommendations for protection of Watershed and Water Quality and Quantity
Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Mount Ashland Ski Area Expansion DEIS
Submitted By:
Paula Brown, PE (written September 14th 2003)
Below is a summary of all of the recommendations made in the report written on September 5th. The
first section discusses recommendations pertinent to the QAlQC Team. The second recommendation in
the September 5th analysis was specifically targeted to monitoring at the 2060 Road and is not repeated
in this memo. However, there is a third recommendation that does not affect the QAlQC Team that is
defined under "2" in this memo as it depends on assurances from MAA.
1. Develop requirements and hire an independent third party Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QAlQC) Team (typically 2-4 persons highly specialized in the specific profession that is being
monitored - in this case soils and hydrology). The QAlQC Team should be selected by a community
team of 6-9 persons, including members from City Staff, FS, maybe the Ashland Watershed Partnership
or the Ashland Watershed Protection Alliance, and potentially others. Once hired, the QAlQC Team
should be paid for by MAA, reports to City and FS (and potentially the selection team) and gives
direction to MAA and their contractor.. The QAlQC Team should be hired prior to construction design
completion so that the erosion control, mitigation, restoration / remediation activities can be defined
through a specific erosion and sediment control strategy prior to construction bidding. Once a contractor
is selected, that contractor must understand the authority of the QAlQC Team and be responsive to their
recommendations (should be included in the construction contract documents).
Specific items to be monitored by the QA/QC Team (taken from my September 5th report):
a. Effects of expansion on soils: QA/QC Team should analyze each specific area of construction impact
to define the mitigation/restoration activities associated with each soils type.
b. Effects of erosion: The QAlQC Team should provide specific BMP (best management practices) to
significantly reduce or control the negative impacts due to erosion. This set ofBMPs must be specific
to the alternative selected and be fully defined for the soils types.
c. Over-snow timber removal: It is recommended that this be the primary removal method and that if
work cannot be completed over snow, then that proposal be submitted to the QAlQC Team for advice
and approval.
d. Construction methods to control erosion and sedimentation: Just as standard erosion control
strategies are in place, specific BMPs to control sedimentation loading should be included in the
erosion and sediment control strategy developed by the QAlQC Team.
H:\MOUllt Ashlalld\Memo from PE re sunmlary of recommendations. doc
~.,
111
e. During construction and after construction completion, the QA/QC Team should define a monitoring
strategy to ensure post-construction BMPs are in place to minimize disruption to restoration activities
due to storms and snow melt.
f. To meet state and federal requirements, a Stormwater NPDES permit must be provided and that will
require an Erosion Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan for construction. The QAJQC
Team should develop this strategy for the Contractor.
g. To eliminate the potential for petroleum leaks from construction equipment, the QAJQC Team should
evaluate the use of vehicle diapers or other petroleum containment practices.
h. The QAJQC Team should evaluate and it is suggested that they recommend no work within the
mapped wetlands area. This will affect the construction of the bridge for options 2 or 6, and the
QAJQC Team should make specific recommendations for that area of construction. If there is any
impact (direct or otherwise), mitigation measures should be defined and directed to fully restore the
wetlands.
1. Along with this wetlands area impact, the QAJQC Team may support the recommendation to
complete work within the riparian reserve area to be completed as an over-snow operation, or that
work be completed toward the end of the dry season (end of summer) to minimize effects.
J. It is my understanding that there is no complete vegetation clearing within the stream reaches. This
should be clarified as a part of the construction design and monitored by the QAJQC Team. If there is
significant vegetation clearing, then mitigation measures to restore vegetation should be defined and
implemented.
k. Although I am surely not a blast expert, it is recommended that the significant use of blasting be
discouraged. However, this recommendation is deferred to the QAJQC Team for their analysis and
recommendation.
1. The lifts have a straight haul rope and are typically cleared to a width of 40 feet. As clearing can
impact erosion, it is recommended that this be as narrow as practical to allow for maintenance and
safety.
m. Erosion control methods should include silt fencing and fabric. These are only two of the BMPs
available. The QAJQC Team should provide a detailed mitigation plan.
n. There may be areas to add seeding, mulching and re-vegetations to reduce erosion. The QAJQC
Team should evaluate those opportunities.
2. In addition to the second recommendation made in the September 5th analysis (monitor erosion as
sediment loading at the 2060 Road), there is one other recommendation that is being identified. This
recommendation is not a specific QAJQC Team responsibility so is called out separately. This is a need
for assurances from MAA. The MAA must provide assurances to the City and FS that they will take
corrective actions as recommended by the QAJQC Team.
Further clarification will be provided at the Council Study Session on September 22nd.
H:\Mount Ashlal1d\Memo from PB re summary of recommendations.doc
ri.'
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area
Expansion. - Paula Brown, PE, City Engineer / Public Works Director, City of Ashland
September 5, 2003
What is the DEIS?
The DEIS is not a decision document. Its main purpose is to disclose information and allow
public comment. The Forest Supervisors of the RRNF, acting as the lead agency, and Klamath
National Forest will make the final decision on an expansion option. The City/City Council has
this opportunity to comment on the DEIS.
Why is the DEIS being written?
Purpose and Need of the Expansion as defined by the Forest Service:
To maintain and lor enhance environmental resources and provide public quality recreational
opportunities in an outdoor natural setting on National Forest Serve Lands. Specifically
applicable to the City's watershed and water quality, Purpose #6 (pg. 1-13) states: Maintain and
Improve Trend of Watershed Recovery; Ashland, Neil, Upper Cottonwood, and Grouse Creek
watersheds receive flow from the Mount Ashland Ski Association (MASA) Special Use Area
(SUP). These watersheds, located in granitic terrain, naturally produce high amounts of
sediment to watershed streams. Watershed Analysis covering Bear Creek (including Ashland
and Neil Creeks), and Beaver Creek (including Grouse Creek), determined human caused
disturbance can accelerate detrimental sediment production. These watersheds are recovering
as a result of natural processes from watershed restoration efforts aimed at stabilizing soils and
slope conditions.
DEIS Professionals:
The work on the DEIS was completed by a Forest Service (FS) interdisciplinary project team
lead by Steve Johnson; other FS members Pete Jones (Geotechnical Engineer), Dan Sitton
(Engineering Geologist), Dave Steinfeld (Soil Scientist), Jay Power (Geologist). The
Hydrological Analysis was completed by a consulting firm, the SE Group, out of Bellevue W A,
with contributions from Phillip Williams and Associates (hydrology firm from Portland OR).
Other contributing science professionals included Tom Ferraro (engineering geologist, Ashland
OR), Northwest Biological Consulting (Ashland OR), TJ Bossard and Associates (engineering,
Grants Pass OR), Parsons Engineering Sciences (water resources, Reno NY), Fred Phillips
(engineering and land surveying, Medford OR) and JRB Environmental Consultants (Reno NV).
Debbie Whitall, Hydrologist with the Forest Service, has reviewed the document and has
participated in prior work on Mount Ashland and the MacDonald basin.
City Engineer Review of DEIS Components:
My review does NOT include analysis of native or rare plant or tree analysis, habitat analysis,
wetlands impacts (other than how impacts to wetlands affect water quality/quantity), riparian
reserves (other than how impacts to wetlands affect water quality/quantity), ecosystem balance,
environmental values, roadless area debates, financial analysis, ski operations, or economic
impacts, as well as other items not mentioned here.
This review DOES include review of the watershed as it impacts the Ashland water system,
wetlands and watershed restoration with respect to erosion, sediment loading for potential
impacts to Reeder Reservoir and the Ashland drinking water system, water quality and
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 1 of 11
III
III
cumulati ve effects to the Ashland Creek watershed. Impacts to the other watersheds were not
specific all y reviewed.
Area Involved:
Attached to this document is a watershed scale map that will be used at the Council Study
Session presentation on September 22, 2003. Although the map is not specifically referenced in
the document, it serves as an overall view of the scale of the project. There are several maps
found in the DEIS specific to alternatives and terrain, wetlands, landslide hazards, etc., that have
been used in this analysis.
Synopsis:
This evaluation focuses primarily on the impacts of erosion and sediment loading as a function
of the proposed expansion. Although not every option has the same effects, I have looked at the
two primary alternatives, 2 and 6, as their impacts are the largest to the Ashland Creek
watershed. The DEIS is a compilation of a variety of pieces of information and can be tedious.
Much of the information is shown in many locations. I have selected to organize my review in
the following manner:
Summary of Effects on the Ashland Watershed in terms of scale (spreadsheet of data)
Effects of the Proposed Expansion on Soils
Direct Effects of Erosion: mitigation measures
Effects on Water Quality: chemistry, 303d listing, riparian reserves, wetlands
Stream Types and the effects of erosion and sediment transport
Stream Flow and Flood Concerns
Summary of Specific Construction Activities
Major Recommendations
Photos of a recent site visit
If I have used information directly out of the DEIS, it is shown in italics. My comments and
recommendations are in regular font. I have tried to add page numbers of the DEIS for your
reference, but may not have been consistent in all cases.
Summary of Effects on the Ashland Watershed in terms of scale (spreadsheet of data):
Total Ashland Upper Ashland SUP Area
Watershed Watershed
Total acres
current SUP totals (acres)
percentage of watershed total
14,920
796
5.3%
12,700
796
6.3%
960
960
100.0%
riparian reserve in SUP (acres)
total wetlands in SUP (acres)
218.7
42.5
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 2 of 11
Synopsis of Ashland Watershed and Water Quality Data in the DEIS relative to each
Alternative
ALTERNATIVE 1 2
no action proposed
3
4
5
6
preferred
current ski surface areas 125.11 125.11 125.11 125.11 125.11 125.11
proposed ski area surface acres 125.11 196.09 167.07 190.7 147.72 190.08
% change in area 0.0% 56.7% 33.5% 52.4% 18.1% 51.9%
current % of ski area in upper 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Ashland watershed
proposed % in upper watershed 1.0% 1.5% 1.3% 1.5% 1.2% 1.5%
change (%) 0 0.56% 0.33% 0.52% 0.18% 0.51%
Erosion potential to Ashland Creek ONLY (acres); primarily due to road construction, reconstruction,
slope grading
Erosion potential per year in frrst 2 156 346 346 258 156 301
years of disturbance (cy)
conversion to truck loads at 9 cy 17 38 38 29 17 33
per truck
Potential cost to remove and $936 $2,076 $2,076 $1,548 $936 $1,806
transport at $6/cy (for relative cost
comparison only)
Sedimentation (access to creeks) amount reaching Ashland Creek - the overall reduction is due to sediment
basins being installed at the SUP area (requires MAA maintenance 3-6x per year depending on summer
storms): based on area disturbed within 100 feet of waterway (12% of the land within the site scale
analysis); majority of existing sediment load going to Ashland Creek is released from meadows; new
increases from skiway (note that alt 6 has only 4 acres disturbed with excavator verses alt 2 with 50.7 acres
disturbed with excavator)
sediment delivery (cy per year)
increase in disturbed acres
% within 100ft of waterways
13.6
12.2
71
10%
12.4
71
5%
9
54.2
4%
8.6
o
0.5%
11.3
68.6
6%
Wetlands (existing acres = 42.52; existing SOURCE area 127.80 ac)
SOURCE wetlands are defined as the area within 150 feet of mapped wetlands)
effects to total wetland area (acres)
o
0.83
o
0.21
0.16
0.54
effects to total SOURCE wetlands
area
o
8.36
2.1
1.99
0.74
7.33
.
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 3 of 11
111
III
Effects of the Proposed Expansion on Soils:
The soil types vary greatly from the top of the mountain to the edge of the SUP. Each type of
soil has different characteristics and cannot be generalized for mitigation measures. The photos
on the last two pages of this document show the wetlands areas and the meadows that are found
in the lower portions of the SUP area near the base of the proposed LC6 chair and the middle
fork of the east fork of Ashland Creek. These soils are very different from the base of Ariel chair
to Falstaff Road and the soils from Falstaff Road to the top of the mountain are different again.
Each area must be analyzed separately and each area will have different mitigation/restoration
activities associated with a successful project.
The development of the ski area in 1963 involved a considerable amount of vegetation and soil
disturbance and was long considered to be a major source of sediment to Reeder Reservoir.
However, a 1978 to 1983 study determined that while the ski area is a contributor of sediment, it
was not a major contributor as once thought (USDA 1987). Erosion control work continues to
be an important part of ski area operations; this is ongoing work along with natural revegetation
has reduced the area of active erosion and is contributing to an overall recovering trend in
watershed conditions in the East Fork [Ashland Creek] Watershed.
Direct Effects of Erosion - the removal of vegetation and ground disturbance associated with
clearing for ski runs and lifts could displace and create direct soil erosion effects (III & IV, B, 5)
Indirect effects of sedimentation: ski expansion activities could increase sediment production
and indirectly affect sediment delivery to streams (III & IV, B, 5). No increase or measurable
sediment delivery is anticipated to Ashland Creek from expansion activities (IV-1 01). Although
site scale effects would locally degrade watershed conditions, the benefits of watershed
restoration projects would serve to maintain or improve conditions on a larger scale.
The term "locally degrade" is correct if applied specifically to the construction sites. However,
these sites are at a sub-sub-watershed scale (basically they are local drainage areas), all local
impacts would be 4-5 miles above Reeder Reservoir. Soils and sediment will move to the creek
channels, but will be slowed down and even stopped with correct mitigation measures as shown
in the DEIS. Sediment loading is actually shown as improved from baseline through mitigation.
The impacts due to erosion can be significantly reduced or controlled through effective best
management practices (BMP). The BMPs are identified in the DEIS, but are more general in
nature and have not specifically been defined for each alternative. Once an alternative is
selected, the entire erosion control, mitigation measures and site specific BMPs will need to be
fully defined. This is also a primary focus of the QA/QC Team (see recommendations below)
for evaluation and monitoring. The direct impacts due to erosion show an increase of as much as
485 cu yards per year for the first two years after disturbance. As the projects would be phased
over 2-8 years (or more), this estimate of 485 cu yds is actually higher than what would likely be
seen. The sediment loading to the creeks is significantly less, with an increase due to
construction activities of 3.6 cubic yards, but due to the mitigation measures, there is an overall
decrease of 1.4 cubic yards of sedimentation from background loading.
Under Chapter 8 Common Mitigation Measures (P. 11-93), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs
11-94), specifically in the hydrology section (11-95) the document notes erosion control strategies
that have been effective; log and check dams, erosion control blankets (see also pg 11-97),
vegetation planting (intermittent streams) and log/limb anchoring and rocks/limb placement in
large open areas for slope stabilization. While these measures do provide successful mitigation
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 4 of 11
measures, the other emphasis must be on maintaining each mitigation area. FS/City needs
MAA's assurance (through the QAlQC Team review and involvement in making
recommendations) that they will ensure correct measures and repair of failing measures will
happen. To have a successful project, regardless of the alternative selected, a specific
monitoring, mitigation and controls strategy plan must be developed first and approved by the
City and FS (and QAlQC Team), before any construction is started.
In this same section (hydrology 11-95) - the comment regarding "over snow" timber removal is
shown as an optional method. Perhaps the language should be stronger to reflect the desire that
this be the primary option, and that only specific operations that cannot be completed over snow
be used only as a last resort and approved by the QAlQC Team.
Construction methods for stability and erosion resistance to earthwork (11-97-99). Emphasis is
on BMPs regarding "no contaminant will flow into the stream courses. . ." and "mitigation
measures will be implemented to prevent accelerated sedimentation to streams." These
statements are a bit contradictory as sediment is a contaminant in Ashland Creek - this set of
BMPs must be a priority; both for construction periods and post-construction monitoring and
further mitigation requirements. Again - this is would be a specific requirement for the QAlQC
Team.
The October 15 deadline for required road work (or prior to the onset of wet season) is good, but
there are also summer storms that can bring as much or more immediate damage. DEQ, as well
as the FS/City and QAlQC Team, must approve the Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater
Management Plan. The SWMP must include other storm water protection than just the parking
lot and road surfaces.
Effects on Water Quality:
Effects on Water Chemistry: removal of vegetation and ground disturbances associated with
clearing for ski runs and lifts could change pH, increase water temperatures, introduce bacteria,
and/or introduce petrochemicals into Ashland creek (municipal watershed). (III & IV, B, 9)
Cumulative Watershed Effects: implementation may have the potential to contribute to an
increased riskfor adverse cumulative watershed effects (indicator was Equivalent Roaded Area
(ERA) methodology and Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) methodology...)
ERA model shows a slight increase in risk ratios (5% for Alt 2 and 3.7% for Alt 6); but the
overall risk ratio remains low at 0.255 to 0.268 for each alternative. Risk factors approaching 1.0
or above raises "yellow flags" which are indicators that one should take another look. A risk
ratio of 0.27 is low (p. IV -96). As such, the cumulative effects are insignificant and at most,
raise the risk factor by 5%, but the risk ratio remains in the low category.
Compacted snow created from ski expansion could potentially affect runoff patterns or the
ability to effectively filter and process domestic water (III & IV, B 5). The Ashland Water
treatment plant is very capable of treating and effectively filtering and processing high quality
domestic drinking water. The water in our watershed is very cold in February and March and as
a result of very cold, very pure water, the ability to filter out the very fine sediments (almost
glacial like ) in this short time period has required changes to our routine treatment processes.
However, the additional areas of compacted snow and snow melt will not adversely affect our
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 5 of 11
III
III
current process to treat drinking water. In fact, the potential for an additional two weeks of snow
remaining on site (IV) could be a positive impact to the flows into Reeder Reservoir.
Water Quality Impacts due to Facilities:
Moraine Lodge - the concern with regard to water quality is due to a sewer line break. Although
possible, the immediate effects are localized, containable and correctable. This does not cause
concern to the City's drinking water as all of the water in Reeder Reservoir (after being filtered
naturally as it flows through the granitic soils, or as it passes down the stream channels) is fully
treated to high water quality standards..
Water Quality 303d listing - the ski area expansion activities could affect the current or
potential ODEQ 303d listings for Ashland Creek (III & IV, B, 8&9). Lower Ashland Creek is
303d listed for sediments and any measurable increases could negatively impact the sediment
loading - although the likelihood of a significant amount of sediment providing ANY impact
further than the upper reaches of the East Fork of Reeder Reservoir, are very unlikely. Section
303d of the Clean Water Act requires each state to identify streams, rivers and lakes that do not
meet water quality standards. These waters are referred to as "water quality limited" and states
are required to establish a list of these waters referred to as the 303d list. The entire Ashland
Watershed, including the lower watershed reaches below Reeder Reservoir already have the
potential for minor landslides and contribute to the current sediment loading in Ashland Creek.
This background, often naturally occurring situation contributes to the sediment loading both in
the upper and lower reaches of the watershed. Erosion control measures, bank stabilization,
vegetation are all ways to reduce this loading and should be considered as a part of the mitigation
plan. Currently, sediment occurring above Reeder Reservoir is deposited in the east and west
forks of Reeder Reservoir and City crews are able to remove this material with a loader. We
have not removed any material since the flood in 1997, but have plans to remove approximately
200 cubic yards this year.
Riparian reserves: the effects to riparian reserves include short term risk to riparian vegetation.
These short term risks include smothering riparian vegetation through increased sedimentation,
chemical runoff, clearing vegetation and other such activities. Alternative 2 has the greatest
potential for negative effects on riparian reserves, but the risks can be reduced by NOT removing
vegetation, NOT allowing any activities in the mapped wetlands, and NOT allowing any
chemical runoff. There are means of addressing chemical/petroleum leaks from heavy
equipment on site (vehicle diapers) and perhaps this should be evaluated for optimizing
environmental concerns for petroleum and chemical risks in the watershed. Regarding the
vegetation loss in the wetlands, perhaps a recommendation that NO mechanical equipment be
allowed in the mapped wetlands would be appropriate. Work in mapped wetlands should be
avoided and completed in late summer or over snow . Work in the riparian reserve areas could be
accomplished in the winter (over-snow tree falling) and if additional log placement, stump
trimming or other work is required, that it be done toward the end of the dry season (late
summer) so that the effects on these areas are minimized.
Wetlands:
A total of 37.2 acres of sloped wetlands and 5.36 acres of riverine wetlands were found within
the SUP; all 5.36 acres of the riverine wetlands are within the upper Ashland watershed and
23.13 acres (62%) of the sloped wetlands are within the Ashland watershed. These wetlands are
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 6 of 11
generally located in the middle to lower elevation portions of the area. Slope wetlands are
characterized by a groundwater hydrology source with unidirectional flow of water through the
wetlands and occur on sloping land. The composition of the soils range from mucky organic
soils to mineral soils with sandy loam textures. Vegetation in the sloped wetlands is dominated
by Shasta Red Fir. The 5.36 acres of riverine wetlands are generally located on the floodplains
adjacent to the Middle Fork of the East Fork of Ashland Creek in the lower elevation portions of
the SUP. The primary hydrologic input to the riverine wetlands is surface water that flows from
streams onto adjacent floodplains during highflow events (spring melt). Secondary hydrologic
inputs include shallow sub-surface flow from up-gradient source areas and from precipitation
(III-58). Soils within identified wetlands are prone to piping and rodent activity (Badura 1998).
The process of piping, where shallow, high velocity subsurface water transports finer grained
material is prevalent in the lower wetland in the middle fork area. Much of this "piping" is open
to the surface. The most common and absolute effect to wetlands systems and their functions is
by removing a wetland completely through covering it with fill material and converting it to an
upland area. Wetlands can also be drained by installing ditches that remove surface and ground
water from the system... (III-59)
Similar to the discussion above on riparian reserves, a recommendation that no work be allowed
in the specific wetland areas would be appropriate. The wetlands can be marked and protected
so that there are no vehicles allowed in the actual wetlands that could create artificial ditches that
could potentially drain areas within the wetlands. The log bridge in options 2 and 6 could be
completed through over-snow activities and minimize any disruption to the wetlands or riparian
areas. The majority of the wetlands within the SUP is undisturbed and should remain in that
condition. If the QAlQC team finds any impact (direct or otherwise), mitigation measures
should be directed to fully restore the wetland area.
Stream Types and the effects of erosion and sediment transport:
Each stream reach has been classified in the DEIS (III-47). Like soil classifications, streams
behave differently and cannot be generalized for the entire area. Within the 5.51 miles of
streams in the Ashland Watershed (within the SUP), 4.57 (83%) are known as Aa+ type streams
which are common throughout the SUP's total 7.47 miles of streams. Type Aa+ streams are
characterized as debris transport streams with high gradients, and deeply entrenched channels
that usually lack a flood plain. Type Aa+ streams in the analysis area are typically intermittent,
headwaters streams located on steep (>10%), high erosion potential slopes. The primary
hydrology source to most Aa+ streams is groundwater discharge from sloped wetlands, while
the secondary source of hydrology is focused overland flow from snowmelt and storm events.
Vegetation mapping indicates that within the SUP, 77% of the type Aa+ streams have bank
stabilizing cover. Removal of stream side vegetation may increase bank erosion, localized mass
wasting and channel incision above background erosion during large, non-winter peak flow
events (typically summer thunder storms that are short duration high intensity storms).
Within the upper Ashland watershed, there are 46.91 miles of streams, 25.53 miles (54.4%) are
Aa+. As the terrain becomes less steep (less than 10% slope) the streams change to type A
streams which are similar in character to Aa+ without the ability to transport material as quickly.
Sediment build up in type Aa+ streams is low, and is somewhat higher (especially in lower flow
events) with type A streams. Within the entire upper Ashland Watershed, there are 20.65 miles
(of the total 46.91 miles) that are classified as type A. Type A streams have higher natural bank
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 7 of 11
III
III
erosion rates but less channel headcutting (slopes are not as steep) and less downcutting than
Aa+ streams. Channel migration in Type A streams is heavily influenced by channel slope and
channel confinement, and as such, rates of bank erosion may not increase substantially following
removal of streamside vegetation relative to background bank erosion rates. However, mass
wasting along stream channel may increase following vegetation clearing especially if all
overstory and understory vegetation is removed (III-51). It is my understanding that there is no
complete vegetation clearing within the stream reaches. This needs to be clarified as a part of the
construction implementation and be incorporated in the monitoring by the QNQC team.
Stream Flow and Flood Concerns:
At a larger watershed scale, maximum peak stream flows have typically resulted from rain-on-
snow events. In comparison to the summer thunderstorms, winter storms have historically
brought the most devastating flooding in southwest Oregon (111-61). The dominant land cover
change that affects stream flow conditions is large-scale timber harvest which increases residual
soil moisture as the water once used by the trees (transpiration and interception) is available to
the surface. The increased soil moisture contributes additional groundwater flows. The
construction of impervious areas can also increase stream flows (not likely in the Ashland basin
as these are primarily constructed outside the Ashland watershed areas). Based on the size of the
watershed and the proposed expansion activities, the increase in flows would be minimal and
likely not observed. Additional spring flows due to longer snow melt and lack of
evapotranspiration would likely be a positive impact to the Ashland drinking water.
Specific Construction Activity Concerns:
Parking lot (p. II-16) mitigation measures: geotextile fabrics, welded wire retaining structures,
rock armoring, revegetation with native plants, and other methods. They stated that they might
use explosives for the removal of bedrock or large boulders - the City discourages significant
use of blasting.
Lifts (p. II-I?) - typically vegetation is cleared in a straight line for the haul rope (steel cable)
and towers. They have stated that this is typically 40 feet clearing for all lifts - not sure this is
necessary in all cases. Recommend this be completed but with as narrow a pathway as practical
to allow for maintenance and safety.
Roads (p. II-23) - the construction of Falstaff Maintenance road (.44 miles) is in all but one
alternative. Bull Gap Road reconstruction is in Alt 4 only. Erosion control methods should
include fabric and silt fencing as well as adequate drainage. Although mostly "natural" there
may be a need for larger crushed rock at drain dips to retain sediment and soil erosion. The City
would like to ensure that all DEQ methodology and all BMPs are used and followed and that
erosion control permits are utilized. This is another area that would benefit from QNQC Team.
Crushed rock might be required for the entire length of the road if there is erosion following use
and construction. They stated that they might use explosives for the removal of bedrock or large
boulders - the City discourages significant use of blasting
Power (p. II-26) - power cables are to be in a 30" trench for 3-5 conduits. They stated that they
might use explosives in order to fracture rock or large boulders - the City discourages significant
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion,doc
Page 8 of 11
use of blasting. Erosion control methods should include fabric and silt fencing as well as
adequate drainage.
Watershed Restoration (p. II-51 and detailed in IV-64) - developed in coordination with the FS
and consultant resource specialists; MAA has the responsibility for funding and implementation
of all projects in coordination with the FS and/or resource consultants. Included in all action
alternatives concurrent with the first development phase in the first year (p. II-53). This is an area
of improvement from prior EIS.
Ashland Creek - added stormwater controls with sediment retention facility (will need
maintenance 2-4 times a year). Non-structural controls with SWM and LWM (small and large
woody material in various locations). Enlarge the sediment trap at Windsor Road to be
monitored by the FS and material removed and transported off-site by MAA. Everything looks
fine, but there may be areas to add seeding, mulching and re-vegetation to reduce erosion even
further. The more areas that are vegetated, the less chance for the material to move in the first
place.
Construction Phasing:
It is understood that the phasing shown in II-lIS is preliminary. It is anticipated that if
approved, the project will be a 10 year program. It is recommended that the first item, regardless
of alternative selected, be the Watershed restoration projects. Many of these could be started
before actual construction on any other portion of the project. It is expected that the restoration
projects, monitoring and other mitigation measures will continue throughout the life of
construction and continue well past construction completion.
Recommendations:
1. Develop the requirements and hire an independent third party Quality Assurance /Quality
Control (QAlQC) Team. This Team would be selected by all three impacted parties; City,
FS and MAA and would report to the City and Forest Service. The Team is contracted by
MAA and makes recommendations for improvements to the construction contractor. The
primary purpose of the Team is to monitor and report on construction activities and make
sure erosion control and restoration/remediation activities are being constructed correctly and
are repaired as necessary. This Team could be hired before the construction starts and could
prepare the monitoring and restoration plan. One of the major concerns is erosion during
summer storms. This would be part of the QAlQC Team's responsibilities to monitor and
recommend solutions as necessary.
2. Specifically monitor erosion as sediment loading at the 2060 Road East Fork of Ashland
Creek below the confluence of the east forks and middle forks of this reach of East fork of
Ashland Creek (easiest seen on the map). This could be completed by the QAlQC Team and
would assure that there is not sediment load into the upper Ashland Watershed that could
impact Reeder Reservoir. Impacts from construction activities are dependent on water flows
and storm events. We might not see impacts for several years. This would provide a better
location to observe the overall impacts to Ashland Creek.
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion,doc
Page 9 of 11
III
III
li~~~~~:~~~\~!t~~~~~(~,~t~~:..... '..
.). .t-..:....,v! >,,4'~I)Y.':" ,,' "'~'-'!"~"60'!"~' I' .~-. ':t~~~~.'~~"
~~-~i~}l~:~:':~~';;~ ;f~-':'>' "'\:' '~;'1'rJI:\f. '~'~~l~~~; " r:":'~ '~"'~,~:i'~.~'f.~~(
.' ~~''''~f.'~~ :/:" " v;. r,' t,'... '1'. ~.:. .,...,~~,~ "'>1~t;y:;~,.~
:'~ ::~.';~1;~ >..~::'t/~,;::. {~~} >~~.~~}" :~..',~:~)<~;,~:~~.,t:". ~.~. . ;::~ .~~i.\~.. ~
~ 'A.' '';;'4-' > ~,."".. .,., C(... . ,10, ..~..~<',.t, ,,"". . . "_'.i."~'
~~" . ~ :.. ~..f.#i!Ii~'" ., ........ 'f!tI .,.. 'r, '.~4'1... . .,. O.....~..
,.,' ~"" ~ .'.1,;:' ':')i' . '. .,... ..,.... ~~". ..'.' .... ~ .
,,!\ . ;.~i. ,',,',, {t.., :.: '''' ;..... '.!-:.~':'~I.\~~ :~~ "'\'o(~
,,,. .....,l..l~Jk'j.'-. 'Z ,-,If;. . .' .'."'1 ,,' '... ~..,.~...~~; ll~.
, ~~ , ..j;, '" ..~ ....t' ." 't " I ;\, . I '. . ..,. '\ I ~"'. ... ~...--
Sandy soils at the meadow; downed trees
hold a lot of the sandy materials in place
Edges of the wetlands/riparian areas;
vegetation needs to be preserved
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 10 of 11
City staff and Kate Jackson -
Mt Ashland Ski Expansion site visit
hike to LC6 base, up run 14, back across to
RIO and R4 to base of Ariel chair
August 5, 2003
Analysis of Watershed and Water Quality Impacts as a Result of the Proposed Ski Area Expansion.doc
Page 11 of 11
111
III
illff \\ \\~ '.
J .~ 1Ii11,\ ';: ~\'\.~ .,
( . .~ ,A
'-. CITY OF
ASHLAND
MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA
& ASHLAND CREEK
WATERSHED
II' If;:"
\..."~' 111 ,\"")\ilit "f,\\
MAP KEY
. rr.i1UMPanung"
II Traits & Bikepaths
1m - ~KEPATH
){ == ;~:7~: ,
~( MUl Tl USE
.. .. .. .... PROPOSED GREENWAY
-TlO
-~ICCresl:Trall
CJ IW>Iand CleeIl Watershed
o Ml Aat'landProperty
~ MI. Ashland Permit Area
_,-Stl'ftlmfo
40' eor..- Inlt!f'AII
- 200' Index ConIO\n
- Cou-ItyRoads
La" & Ponds
_..........
D A5hhnd Cty Lnllt.
_ .Ashlaod C'y Patb land