HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0830 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting,the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you,if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the aware of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 30, 2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued
to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC'2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Special Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING, Continued from August 16. (Persons wishing to speak are
to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public
hearing )
1. Does Council find that it would further the public interest to enter into an
agreement with the Mount Ashland Association (MAA) that would dissolve the
existing lease agreement, replace the lease with new terms, convey the
property currently owned by the City to MAA, and require the City to
relinquish the Special Use Permit for the Ski Area so that MAA can directly
obtain the SUP? [90 Minutes]
IV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900).
Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
C01-INC11I M if;fliti(iS ARG, 13ROADC_ 1S"I' L:1VI:L)N CI11ti\F.,L9
VISI"I* "1'1IG, CITY CFA� 1iL1 ND's V 'EBSll1 ;1'I'WN\ NV.ASH1.AND.OR.IIS
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Mount Ashland Association Lease and Ski Area Special Use Permit
Meeting Date: August 30, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Martha Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm @ash]and.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None fia Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Bennett 1} Qr° Estimated Time: 90 Minutes
Question:
Does the City Council find that it would further the public interest to enter an agreement with the
Mount Ashland Association (MAA) that would dissolve the existing lease agreement, replace the lease
with new terms, convey the property currently owned by the City to MAA, and require the City to
relinquish the Special Use Permit for the Ski Area so that MAA can directly obtain the SUP?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has no recommendation on the question of whether to relinquish the SUP. If Council desires to
transfer the SUP, staff recommends that the Council approve the draft agreement negotiated with
MAA.
Special Note:
This item was continued from the August 16, 2011 City Council meeting. The Public Hearing has not
been closed. The Council will take additional testimony from people who did not testify on August 16,
2011. People who wish to offer testimony should sign up with the City Recorder before the Council
re-opens the hearing.
Background:
Meeting Update
At your August 16, 2011 City Council meeting, nearly 50 people testified about the question of
whether the City should relinquish the SUP, convey the assets that the City owns to MAA, and sign a
new agreement with MAA. The majority of the people who testified were opposed to relinquishing the
SUP for a variety of reasons. At the August 30, 2011 Council meeting, staff will specifically address
three of the issues raised in the testimony, including:
1. Does the SUP give the City additional power or control related to construction and operations of
the ski area? Many people stated that the City should use the SUP to influence MAA on decisions
related to the expansion. Staff has asked the City's legal counsel on this matter to give you a brief
analysis of what powers the City has under the SUP given both the terms of the 1992 Lease and
Judge Shiveley's ruling in MAA v. City of Ashland in 2008. We will distribute this memo as soon
as it is available.
2. What is the City currently doing to ensure that the City's drinking water is protected if the
Expansion Project moves forward? The City's top priority in working with the Forest Service and
MAA dating from the beginning of the proposed expansion back in the early 1990s has been
protection of the City's drinking water. The City's original comments on the Environmental
Pagel of4
IA,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Impact Statement were primarily related to concerns about sedimentation and erosion. The City
most recently participated in the draft supplemental EIS and hired an outside firm to analyze again
whether the expansion would affect drinking water. If the expansion moves forward, the City staff .
will work with the Forest Service and the Department of Environmental Quality on all permitting
decisions to attempt to prevent sedimentation and erosion. Staff will do this regardless of whether
the Council decides to relinquish the SUP. This issue, however, is specifically addressed in two
ways in the agreement that would replace the existing lease if the Council decides to relinquish the
SUP. Public Works Director Mike Faught will be prepared on August 30, 2011 to answer any
questions about drinking water.
3. Does the City have to receive a cash payment from MAA if the City conveys the assets to MAA? As
with the first issue, the City's legal counsel will prepare a quick summary for the Council to
address this issue. We will again distribute this information as early as possible.
Previous Back rg ound
February, the City Council met in a study session with members of the Executive Committee of the
Mount Ashland Association Board to discuss whether the City Council wanted to consider MAA's
request that the City relinquish the SUP. MAA believes that they would be more effective in
fundraising if they directly hold the SUP. Alan DeBoer has also argued that it would reduce the
potential liability for the City if the City were to relinquish the SUP.
At that study session, Council and the MAA Executive Committee discussed the fact that even if the
City were to dissolve the lease and relinquish the SUP, there are still issues that the City and MAA
need to have an agreement to cover. Attached are the minutes from that study session. Since your
study session, Kim Clark, the MAA General Manager, and I have met to discuss those issues. MAA
prepared a first draft of an agreement. City staff and then legal counsel then reviewed it and proposed
some changes. The attached agreement includes the issues that were agreed by both parties. As
discussed below, we discussed whether MAA should make a payment to the City for the assets, but
MAA was not willing to agree to pay cash to the City.
This agreement would replace the current lease. The issues included in this agreement include:
I. The City would relinquish the SUP to the USDA Forest Service and MAA would apply for it...
If the Forest Service grants the SUP to MAA, then the City would convey the assets that it
currently owns to MAA.
2. MAA would add a nonvoting seat on their board for a member of the City. The City would not
participate in any executive sessions, and MAA would reserve the right to ask the City to
appoint a different Councilor.
3. The City would have the right to review and comment on all construction plans prior to
construction for the purpose of ensuring that any issues that might affect City drinking water
are addressed.
4. MAA would agree to comply with the same standard of sedimentation that applies to the City
for Reeder Reservoir(no sedimentation over normal background levels)
5. MAA agrees to keep the amount that will be required for restoration under the new SUP
unencumbered, and that the amount they keep unencumbered will increase each year by CPI.
We discussed having these funds in cash.
Page 2 of 4
11FALAA
CITY OF
ASHLAND
6. MAA agrees to keep current provisions in their articles of incorporation that spell out that if the
nonprofit is ever dissolved, the association's assets revert to the City.
7. MAA agrees not to sell, sublet or transfer the ski area without the City's written approval.
8. MAA will pay the first $7,500 of the City's legal fees for the cost of constructing this contract.
9. If the USDA Forest Service does not grant MAA a new SUP before December 31, 2012, then
the City and MAA will have to negotiate a new lease agreement, assuming that the City would
then apply for a new permit to operate the Ski Area. This is unlikely, but should be understood
by both parties.
Staff believes that these negotiated terms achieve three basic things. First, the seat on the MAA board
should improve the communication between the City Council and MAA. Second, the issues related to
City technical review, agreement to comply with the TMDL for Reeder, and assurances that the
restoration sum is unencumbered allow the City to protect the community's primary drinking water
source. Third, the City would be somewhat protected in the event of the dissolution of MAA or a sale
of MAA. If MAA finds itself in this financial condition, there will be other issues that we will have to
address, but we will be able to tackle those issues under this agreement.
We also discussed having MAA make a cash payment to the City. MAA was not willing to agree to
this. You have heard MAA representatives say before that the ski area was purchased without any City
funds. The City was the fiscal agent for grants and private fundraising in 1991, and the City's
contribution was staff time. The following is a paragraph that the Council could insert if you decide
you want to ask for a payment. You will need to decide, as well, what the dollar amount would be:
Within five (5) business days after the Forest Service issues the Permit or a comparable permit
to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement, MAA will pay 1he following amounts to the City:
(1) $ for the Permit Property; and(2) $ for the Equipment.
If the City Council wishes to execute this agreement, you must find that transferring the property
owned by the City (the lodge, the lifts, and the equipment) is in the public interest. In staffs opinion,
two arguments have been offered by either MAA or the public that would fulfill this criterion. MAA
representatives have argued that they would be more successful in their fundraising if they directly
held the SUP which would improve their ability to operate. Other people have argued that it would
reduce the direct legal liability of the City if the City was not "in the middle" between MAA and the
Forest Service. While the lease indemnities the City, there is a potential that someone could sue the
City for negligence by MAA. Findings related to these two issues are included in the draft agreement,
but Council should deliberate about whether you think it is better for the public for the City to release
the leased property, and you should include any reasons you believe are valid in any motion, whether
your decision is to approve or reject the agreement.
Council Options:
• Approve the agreement as presented.
• Reject the agreement as presented.
• Modify the agreement and then ask MAA whether they want to agree to the modifications. If
you choose this option, the Council may have to ask MAA for additional time to consider the
proposed changes.
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
1,
• Postpone action on the proposed agreement. If Council chooses this option, staff would request
direction from Council on any modifications they would like to consider or any other staff
work they would like performed.
Potential Motions:
• 1 move that Council find that conveying the Permit Property, as defined in the draft Agreement,
would further the public interest and that Council approve the Agreement as presented.
• I move that Council find that conveying the Permit Property, as defined in the draft Agreement,
would not further the public interest and that Council deny the Agreement as presented.
• I move that Council find that conveying the Permit Property would further the public interest
and that Council approve the Agreement with the following modifications
Attachments:
• February 28, 2011 Study Session Minutes
• Draft Agreement
• Existing Ski Area Lease (electronic only)
• Current Special Use Permit (electronic only)
• Circuit Court Decision of 2008 (electronic only)
• Memo from Bob Steringer
• Public Comment Letters
Page 4 of 4
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, as lessor("the City"), and the Mt. Ashland Association,
as lessee ("the MAX'), on or about July 9, 1992, entered into the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Lease
("the Lease") a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit"I";
WHEREAS, the City desires to surrender to the United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Special Use Permit ("the Permit") as described in the Lease if a comparable
permit is issued to MAA, and the MAA desires to have the Permit or a comparable permit issued
to it;
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain improvements in and on that certain real
property located on Mt. Ashland in Jackson County, Oregon,pwhichais described in and is subject
to the Permit ("the Permit Property"); ! i
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain personal property, fixtures, furnishings,'
inventory and items of equipment used in connection with the operation of the Mt. Ashland Ski
Area and/or located on the Permit Property including but not limited those items described in the
i t " i
Lease and identified in Exhibit' B" t8 the Lease,(th� Equipment ); and
-� m
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it would improve MAA's ability to provide
winter recreation to the Rogue Valley which is beneficial to the economy of the region if MAA
became the holder of the Permit and.the owner of the property; and
WHEREAS,the City"has further determined that it would reduce the potential legal and
financial liability of the City to convey the Permit and property to MAA; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that conveying the Permit Property and Equipment
to the MAA would further the public interest and the MAA desires to receive the Permit Property
and the Equipment to use in the operation of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area;
Based on the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City
and the MAA shall as soon thereafter as practicable accomplish the following:
1. The City will surrender the Permit to the Forest Service, and the MAA will apply
for issuance of the Permit. The City agrees to assist reasonably the MAA in the process of
issuing the Permit or a comparable permit to the MAA.
2. The City shall convey whatever interest it has, or by rights should have, in and to
the Permit Property and the Equipment to the MAA by execution of a bill of sale for personal
property and a statutory quitclaim deed for real property.
3. Upon issuance of the Permit or a comparable permit to the MAA, the provisions
of the Lease shall have no further force or effect whatsoever, except that MAA will remain
responsible for any amounts the City is required to pay pursuant to the Permit as a result of the
City's surrender of the Permit.
PAGE ] - AGREEMENT
4. The parties further agree that:
a) The City shall have the right to appoint one person to serve as a non-
voting member of the Board of Directors of the MAA; however, the Board of Directors of the
MAA must approve any director nominated by the City. Any director nominated by the City and
approved by the MAA will serve as any other director of the MAA and will be provided with all
information provided to directors, except that any such director will not participate in personnel
or legal matters.
b) MAA will provide the City with copies of all architectural, engineering,
construction and logging plans, including without limitation any related environmental impact
studies, relating to any improvements contemplated by MAA within the Permit Property, now or
in the future. MAA will deliver such plans to the City no less4han thirty (30) days prior to the
commencement of any construction, earth movement orjl go gmg�I Within 30 days of receiving
the plans from the MAA, the City may but is not required to conduct a technical review of
MAA's plans with respect to its impact on water quality,including without limitation erosion,
sedimentation and spill control. MAA agrees to/confer with the City in good faith on any
matters raised in a technical review relating to watery quality.
C) MAA agrees�to(comply with any obligations imposed with respect to
sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir in the July 2007 Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL)
document prepared by the Oregon/Department of Environmental Quality to meet the
requirements of Section 3030f the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act.
d) The Permit or a comparable permit will require MAA to maintain a
"Restoration Amount," which shall mean and refer to the maintenance of available funds or
assets by the MAA to cover area restoration in the unlikely event of the ski area closure. MAA
agrees to increase the amount it maintains as the Restoration Amount on July 15 of every year by
a percentage equal to the percentage increase of the US Department of Labor: Consumer Price
Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI—All Items ("standard reference
base period" 1982-84= 100) in the previous twelve (12) calendar months. MAA further agrees
that it shall at all times maintain the Restoration.Amount (as increased pursuant to this
paragraph) in unencumbered funds or assets, i.e., readily transferable assets subject to no lien.
MAA shall ensure that any security interest in its assets that it has granted or may in the future
grant excludes the funds maintained for the Restoration Amount.
e) The MAA agrees not to amend its articles of incorporation,without the
express written consent of the City, in any way that would impair its current provision that, in the
event the MAA dissolves, all of its assets which remain after MAA's creditor claims and other
obligations are satisfied shall be distributed to the City.
f) The MAA agrees that in the event it dissolves, that none of its assets shall
be distributed to a director, officer or other private person or private entity.
PAGE 2 - AGREEMENT
4,40 -f-° Kzd-
Fj vb
g) MAA agrees that it will not, witho the express written consent of the
City, :'(1) transfer or convey to another person
or entity the Permit or the comparable permit issued to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement;
or (2) enter into an agreement with any other person or entity whereby the rights and obligations
under the Permit or the comparable permit issued to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement
would be assumed by any other person or entity.
h) MAA will reimburse the City for the City's reasonable attorney fees and
any other out-of-pocket expenses up to $7,500 incurred in connection with the negotiation and
performance of this Agreement through the date the Forest Service issues the Permit or a
comparable permit to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement or declines to issue such a
permit. The City will provide MAA with a complete accounting of its attorney fees and out-of-
pocket expenses within thirty (30) days after the Forest Service issues the Permit or a
comparable permit to MAA as contemplated in this Agreement or declines to issue such a
permit. MAA will pay the amount owed under this paragraph within ten (10) business days after
the City delivers its accounting of those fees and expeni ees i
5. This Agreement is conditioned on the Forest Service issuing to MAA the Permit
or a comparable permit and, with the'exception/f�Paragraphs 3 and 4(i), shall be of no force or
effect if that condition is not��et- n oar,before ece'mber 31, 2012.
6. Miscellaneous: j
a) There I e 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, warranties, representations and understandings, if any, between the
parties.
b) The paragraph headings set forth in this Agreement are set forth for
convenience purposes only, and do not in any way define, limit or construe the contents of this
Agreement.
C) If any provision of this Agreement shall 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.
d) 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.
C) 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.
PAGE 3 - AGREEMENT
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 18, 2011
1- Page I of 3
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday,February 28,2011
Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Chapman,Silbiger, Lemhouse, Morris,Voisin,.and Slattery were present.
1. Does Council have direction about a response to Mount Ashland Association's (MAA's) request that
the City request that the Special Use Permit (SUP) for the ski area be transferred from the City to
MAA?
Members of the Mt.Ashland Association (MAA) Board of Directors present were General Manager Kim Clark,
Treasurer Lisa Beam, Guest Services Manager Ada Rivera, President Tom Mayer, Vice President Frank Rote,
Marketing Manager Rick Saul, and Secretary Darrel Jarvis.
Mr. Mayer noted transferring the Special Use Permit (SUP) was economically, socially, and environmentally
important and would make it easier for people to invest in the expansion by eliminating third party involvement.
City Administrator Martha Bennett added in transferring the SUP the City would relinquish ownership of all
assets of the ski area and MAA would take over completely. A replacement contract would determine the terms
of the dissolution and the transfer of assets.
Monitoring
Ms. Bennett explained the City's concern regarding the expansion was erosion and sedimentation in the
watershed and a potential negative impact on one of the City's major drinking water supply. At an earlier
meeting with Mr. Clark both discussed the possibility of a multi-party monitoring team similar to the Ashland
Forest Resiliency (AFR) Master Stewardship Agreement (MSA). The monitoring team could include onsite
review of activities and plan review prior to construction. The group would be comprised of a member
appointed by MAA, one by the City, one by the Forest Service and possibly a fourth with monitoring
experience:
The MAA Board and Council agreed it was a model that worked well. Council suggested adding someone from
the Public Works Department and possibly a fifth member from the community. Both the MAA Board and
Council supported setting up criterion for monitoring and guidelines. The AFR monitoring team did not vote
but had specific roles through the Master Stewardship Agreement.
Ms. Bennett clarified if the SUP was transferred the new contract would address the City's concerns and other
than the monitoring group, the City would no longer have a relationship to the Forest Service and a direct
relationship with MAA only on issues of concern. Mr. Clark added that it made sense to establish a cooperative
and a member of Public Works would be a logical participant. He preferred having a Memo of Understanding
versus a contract.
Council and MAA Board consensus supported establishing a monitoring team.
Reserves/Unencumbered Assets for Future Restoration
The City was concerned there were enough assets to pay the cost of the required restoration in the event MAA
ceased to operate the ski area. The SUP required $200,000 for restoration. The lease between the City and the
MAA had the same amount but increased it yearly by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) requiring the MAA to
maintain more in terms of cash assets than the SUP. The MAA agreed to maintain those reserves.
When MAA expands the ski area, the U.S. Forest Service will adjust the required dollar amount. In the event
MAA failed,the U:S. Forest Service would ask the City to operate the ski area, if the City declined,they would
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 28, 1011
Page 1 of 3
look for another operator. If no one took over operations, they would start requesting the restoration
requirements in the SUP.
There was the possibility the U.S. Forest Service might require a certain level of restoration that does not meet
the City's expectations. Mr. Clark clarified the U.S. Forest Service had definite standards, was the property
owner and had the final decision. If the expansion happened and the restoration amount was readjusted, the
MAA Board was fine taking that amount and starting over with a new CPI.
Current restoration included streambed stabilization and four of the 27 identified sites complete with work
started on sites 6& 7. However,no work has happened for three years due to the court case.
Ms. Bennett explained the City did not have the in-house expertise to conduct a separate study to compare it to
what was in the SUP. The U.S. Forest Service had jurisdiction over the property and set the correct standard.
Council noted the issue of restoration and failure would increase dramatically with the expansion especially in
the early years. If the expansion went forward and MAA failed, the impact would extend far beyond the U.S.
Forest Service restoration requirement. Alternately, the U.S. Forest Service requirements may be sufficient to
protect the watershed and the expansion might not be harmful to the water supply. Council wanted to know the
cost to restore the area in the event MAA failed. Other comments from Council supported the amount the U.S.
Forest Service suggested in the SUP. Staff clarified that the U.S. Forest Service may not allow the City to do
the restoration they thought necessary to protect the watershed.
Mr. Rote's understanding was that once the expansion concluded, there would be less sediment than there was
now, the expansion would actually decrease the problem. Both the MAA Board and the City purchased testing
.equipment and have tested and monitored specific sites downstream from the ski area for 10 years. Public
Works Director Mike Faught explained new requirements for the total daily maximum load prohibited more
t than 3.62 cubic yards of sediment going into the reservoir daily.
Council commented the issue was water quality and the City should focus on that and form an agreement that
highlighted the weaknesses and the City's position in relation to those weaknesses. Staff responded the existing
agreements between the U.S. Forest Service and the City captured the issues and the results from monitoring the
water quality could be included in a replacement agreement. In the worst-case scenario of not enough reserves,
the City could negotiate with the U.S. Forest Service to restore the area to City standards whether they held the
SUP or not.
The MAA Board thought the existing restoration sum including the expansion restoration sum and inflation was
acceptable although some of Council thought the amount was too low.
Staff..would bring back an agreement between the MAA and the City regarding background data, monitoring
and remedies available to the City if sedimentation exceeded an expected level during the construction.
Non-Voting Seat on the Board
The Board supported having a Councilor serve as a non-voting member of the MAA Board and referred to the
model the City used with the Ashland Community Hospital. That member was non-voting, and the Board
wanted to reserve the right to reject whom the City suggested. The member would sit in on all Board actions
with the exception of personnel and executive meetings. Mayor Stromberg suggested making the member ex
officio so they could participate in discussions and the MAA Board agreed.
Cash Payment
Ms. Bennett explained a Council member asked to receive cash for the transfer of the assets. The City owns the
lodge, ski lifts, and some of the equipment for an appraised value of approximately $700,000. The lease
required a minimum liquidation value and allowed the City to appraise the assets at any time. If the MAA was
below the amount required,they set aside cash and paid for the appraisal. If MAA had sufficient funds,the City
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 28. 2011
Page 3 of 3
would pay the $22,000 for the appraisal. Mr. Rote added in operating permit transfers charging for the permit
was not allowed.
Comments from Council opposing the request for a cash transfer of assets stated it was an overreach and
inappropriate. Supporting comments suggested more funds going towards restoration, would position the City
better in the event of failure. A Council member suggested the MAA pledge the cash value of assets towards
restoration costs.
Ms. Beam thought the U.S. Forest Service would be in first position for restoration,even if they set aside more
assets. Asking to pledge all assets would hinder their ability to make improvements, and apply for loans in the
future, they could not use the assets as collateral, and the bank would sit second to the City. Staff clarified the
SUP holder would be in first position if there were a failure.
Mr. Clark confirmed funding for the expansion would be donations only and the MAA would not borrow
against assets unless the Board changed their minds. Ms. Beam added-there were people who would make
donations only if the City was not involved.
Councilor Chapman clarified the assets would not be pledged to the City and would only happen if the U.S.
Forest Service was unable to locate another operator. In the event of a failure and no one took over, his
suggestion would require the MAA to pledge a portion of the cash liquidation of assets for restoration projects
and have that requirement as part of the SUP. Ms. Bennett added this was the reason to hold the SUP, if MAA
fails, the City could choose the next operator and have the first right of refusal. Ultimately, the U.S. Forest
Service would have to approve any agreement.
Mr. Clark commented on the potential liability of the City retaining the SUP. If the MAA failed, the entire
liability would rest with the City finding a new operator or restoring it as the SUP holder. Additionally the City
could incur litigation if there were a major accident at the ski area.
Council consensus was to continue the process of possibly transferring the SUP.
2. Does Council wish to revise direction related to an ad hoc committee to address homelessness?
Councilor Slattery suggested having one central ad hoc committee with several groups from the community
forming "stakeholder" committees and presenting the central ad hoc with each of their top three issues and
solutions regarding homelessness. Examples of stakeholder groups included the Chamber of Commerce,
League of Women, Southern Oregon University (SOU), City of Ashland, Homeless Representatives, and the
Faith Community. The central ad hoc committee could consist of two Councilors, 3-5 experts on homelessness.
and I staff person. This group would review each committee's three issues and forward to Council for
deliberation. He also recommended taking the ideas on the short-term list-and implementing ones that were
feasible and have the stakeholder groups address the more controversial items or all of them.
Council supported the suggestion of multiple ad hoc committees. Councilor Slattery will provide a formal plan
and a revised Council Goal on Homelessness at the April 5,2011 meeting.
3. Look Ahead Review.
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
HARRANG LONG GARY -
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
PORTLAND OFFICE
TO: Ashland City Council
FROM: C. Robert Steringer
DATE: August 22, 2011
RE: Proposed agreement with Mt. Ashland Association -
Legal issues raised in August 16, 2011, public testimony
At the City Council meeting held August 16, 2011, members of the public offered testimony
regarding the potential agreement with the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) that would result in
the City relinquishing its Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate the Mt. Ashland ski area and a
termination of the lease between the City and MAA. To assist the City Council with its
deliberations on August 30, 2011, or thereafter, this memo provides information about two legal
issues raised in the public testimony.
1. Payment for the assets.
Some members of the public have asserted that the City may not convey the ski area
improvements that constitute real property, such as the buildings and lifts, without receiving cash
and/or property of equal value in return. The only statutes that have been identified by persons
taking that position are found in ORS 271.300 to 271.340. Those statutes provide that, if the
City Council determines that the real property is not needed for public use or if the public
interest may be furthered, the City "may sell, exchange, convey or lease" some or all of the
property. ORS 271.310(1). In the same subsection, it is provided that the consideration for a
transfer or lease"may be" cash or real property, or both, but it does not expressly require
consideration for the transfer. There are two instances in ORS 271.300 to 271.340 where a
public body is required to receive equivalent value in return for property, but both of those
instances involve the exchange of real property for other real property. ORS 271.310(3) and
ORS 271.340. Thus, there is no provision in ORS 271.300 to 271.340 requiring the City to
obtain equal value in return for a conveyance of the property. The fact that the statute permits
the City either to "sell' or to "exchange"or to "convey" the property(if doing so may further the
public interest) also indicates that the City may transfer the property without receiving cash or
property in return.
1001 SW FIFTH AVENUE,16`FLOOR 360 EAST 10'"AVENUE,SUITE 300 333 HIGH STREET NE,SUITE 200
PORTLAND,OR 97204-1116 EUGENE,OR 97401-3273 SALEM,OR 97301-3614
PH 503.242.0000 PO BOX 11620 PH 503.371.3330
F 503.241.1458 EUGENE,OR 97440-3820 F 503.371.5336
PH 541.485.0220
F 541.686.6564
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN AUGUST 14,201 1, PUBLIC TESTIMONY
AUGUST 22, 2011
PAGE 2
2. Effect of relinquishing the SUP.
Many members of the public expressed concern that relinquishing the SUP will impair the City's
ability to impact MAA's plans for expansion of the ski area. When considering this concern, it is
important to keep in mind Judge Schiveley's decision in the Mt. Ashland Association v. City of
Ashland litigation. As some of you may recall, that litigation followed from certain efforts by
the City to have the U.S. Forest Service direct future contracts and permits regarding the ski area
to the City, rather than to MAA, and to address certain issues identified in a City Council
resolution before the City would authorize the Forest Service to put MAA's name on a Timber
Settlement Sale Contract. MAA alleged in its Second Amended Complaint that MAA has the
right under the Lease to "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,"
without seeking the City's consent, so long as such changes do not substantially diminish the
value of the property. Judge Schiveley decided the case by granting MAA's request for the
following judicial declarations:
"That the City has breached and continues to breach the Lease by
directing the USFS to not deal directly with MAA on contracts and
permits relating to the MASA expansion project and that the Lease
confers rights to MAA to deal directly with the USFS regarding
the expansion project;
"That the City has breached and continues to breach the Lease by
refusing the allow MAA and the USFS to execute the Timber
Settlement Sale Contract;
[and]
"That the City has no right under the Lease to request any business
plan or otherwise interfere with the financial affairs of MAA in
connection with matters relating to the MASA expansion project or
otherwise * * *."
Thus, the court decided that the terms of the current Lease limit the City's ability to influence
MAA's expansion efforts, at least to the extent identified in the declarations quoted above.
P0247184.DOC;1
George Kramer
george @presemv regon.com
18-August-2011 ,
RE: Testimony on the Mt.Ashland Special Use Permit
Submitted to the Public Record,30-August-2011 Hearing
Dear Mayor Stromberg and Members of the City Council,
At the 16-August hearing on this matter,Ron Roth rightly asked an entirely reasonable question;Where are the supporters of the
return of the SUP to the Mt.Ashland Ski Association? I can tell you that at least one was sitting at home shaking my head in
wonder that this issue continues to occupy the City's time and the Council's agenda. I am not a skier,a member of Mt.Ashland,
and personally don't care whether they expand the resort or not. I do,however, have an opinion about the continued role of the
City in this process. My opinion is that we should retain the role of interested neighbor but allow MAA to proceed without
further doubt over the Special Use Permit that the City only accepted on their behalf. You should return it to them.
For the City of Ashland to continue to deny MAA the SUP is an abuse of the trust that thousands of southern Oregonians,not all
of them from Ashland,placed in our city many years ago. If a majority of Ashland residents so firmly believe that the expansion
of the resort will damage the water shed(and I will admit that I would be far happier were MAA to be expanding outside the
water shed),then the City should attempt to change the MAA plan through negotiation or legal means,as would any interested
party. I think you know that most Ashlanders do not hold that opinion and it is unfortunate that more have not come forward to
tell you so. Of course,most of us came forward many years ago to voice support for a successful,non-profit,ski resort on Mt.
Ashland and perhaps some are baffled why they ought do so again and again,as every single aspect of this issue is debated
anew.
Yes,Ashland holds the SUP,but we only do so in partnership with the original plan to Save Mt.Ashland. It was a sign of trust in
our city by donors and supporters from all over our region who saw Ashland as a responsible partner to maintain a regional ski
resort. It time,once again,to act responsibly and return the SUP to its rightful owners. For Ashland to continue to use the SUP
as additional leverage may be a good practical strategy,but it is simply dishonorable. For too many,any change on the mountain
has somehow been transformed into an environmental disaster. Some voice enjoy the battle too much to accept any reasonable
compromise and take comfort in having an enemy. In this situation they have unfortunately cast MAA as Disney at Mineral King.
I think MAA deserves far better.They are our neighbors and our friends and they care about the watershed too.
I strongly encourage the Council to take the next step of dis-entangling ourselves from this over-long and overly-expensive
situation. I cannot say,nor I believe can you,whether or not Mt.Ashland's proposed expansion is the best business decision,but
it is their business decision, not ours. The City has already inserted itself far more deeply in their planning than is appropriate
and it is high time that we extricate ourselves and let them proceed with the SUP that their donors paid for.
If,on the other hand,the City of Ashland firmly believes that the expansion project as proposed will really damage the watershed
then say so. Sue MAA to stop the project,and protect the citizens and assets of Ashland as you are obliged.But if you do not
believe that,or don't feel that you have the expertise to make that determination,then either give MAA the SUP and let them
proceed,hire and pay for the expertise to answer your concerns,or simply accept the numerous studies funded by MAA and the
USES,who are confidant in the project. Withholding the SUP because you can,without any concrete reason to do so beyond a
fear of offending or making the wrong choice,is simply wrong. Ashland is better than that.
It is time to move beyond this issue. It was time ten years ago. I really hope not to be writing a letter like ten years hence.
George Kramer
541-482-9504
386 North Laurel,Ashland,Oregon 97520
rte
411-,—IL,J—,CCa4oh5 4J-IMJ
INiU.G .Leh-���Ipw_►.� b`_[5-2y. AKSto✓l Ira 55 —
�✓�W�LtiI✓S_��i+�r.a�—�!I(A�,yG �he��fCl1�f SU�rG� - --- —
—
U� c_j-Zs_���i -
MT tn,-17 0 '5 . /�►,�- ---
--- -------
�a15 -
AhA —
_-- —i_C6_wtw�o_vt-�� ---
tcusafc�W�}1A V14 (�SSaf�Q��ev}S
✓ -1'1�W��b_L_N� 0���%4�L=4�JCfn �V� �JLyiCrct
-
- -G(,C�!�_��L p�,►�Ic. �o Wow l�_ �,J�}1n ��r�5,1�9—!�h�---- -- --
'�1(. --
�� -
_� 'KL wlA mold
�jTrr6i/ 16
7TO: LA (-O(,LAC 1 0-F 45h lanai OlIZev-off
rav , T.J M )IFr 31io }oLkni dnt4orj
T S CL-PPC() ¢'he t lcLn574/' o S pe G,'aJ
To The MT> 145h1d hU , '�i� ccu�8� 13e �; ✓e i i is c� v�c�c+bl�_
uSSel lo 73 45 A1and �c�Iinc�� il'�j d�hCi1 Sc� r(o-rN,r�i�
covn n,wn,q I ,'vPd i h $pcvl1, �1 e
ex hd rng �i i�no�5 a�n� 7°LM/i k hake
�'"oG/y► c� Sri,'n� �-1 l`�� /)S li 1c�n�� , T i3el,'e v�
l Showy Below, To T;x
Mau�+1ai Sa 7�e cap cori,»ue TO
3 iraluQ9/2 aSSei for owe' lw � c/�pcJ�;
I
:
CC, 12�"Y�c7�-�-S'
I /
www.pdnoth.com
LEITNER'
TECHNOLOGIES
- Cm 4
1 }-v CoUALI
b b
Q O OO ' uk, Q lrl 92
�Lb
i
Y\- 1
Thies Y�� S
i
P s�
ebke�`�
i
i
To the Ashland City Council,
I support the transfer of the Special Use Permit from the city to the Mt.Ashland Association. I believe it
will help the economic sustainability of the mountain while also reducing risk to the city.
Brian Tekulve
2101 Poplar Dr. #40
Medford, OR 97504
August 24, 2011
City of Ashland Council Members,
I am writing this letter today to support the transfer of the USFS Special Use Permit to the Mount .
Ashland Association.
By retaining the SUP, the City of Ashland is taking on responsibilities and liabilities that are not yours to
take on. The responsibility and liability of Mt. Ashland, expansion or not, should lie with the persons
who are active in its operations—the City is not. This does not mean that you should not show concern
over things that affect the City (most notably the watershed), by all means, please do. But do so in the
proper fashion by working with MAA, not against them by holding the SUP as a means of manipulation.
I am sure that all of the skiers and snowboarders that have enjoyed winters atop Mt. Ashland are
grateful that the City of Ashland stepped up in 1992 to be the body that held the money to purchase the
mountain, saving it for future generations of winter recreation. But I do not believe that the often
tumultuous relationship between the City of Ashland and MAA is what that city council had intended all
those many years ago.
Please, turn over the Special Use Permit to the MAA. Agree upon a council member to represent the
council as well as the citizens of Ashland to a MAA board seat. Let us all move on.
Respectfully,
Emily Parrish
220 W Rapp Rd#79
Talent, OR 97540
August 24, 2011
Ashland City Council,
I'm writing to voice my support for turning over the Special Use Permit to
the Mt. Ashland Association. I believe the project to expand the ski area will
provide the valley with more job opportunities and help with the long term
viability of the ski area. I think the project can be completed without
compromising the integrity of the watershed.
I know many Ashland residents believe the city should retain the permit and
use it as some sort of carrot or stick in dealing with the ski area. Since a
court has decided that strategy is not legal, this idea falls flat.
Thank you for your consideration,
e Koskela
343 Bridge St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Augu..,C.k 2)1, em
/�wj 99s
August 20, 2011
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Mt. Ashland Special Use Permit
Dear Barbara:
This letter is in support of the City of Ashland returning the Special Use Permit to the Mt.
Ashland Association.
When the community came together to purchase the mountain and save it from closing,
Mt. Ashland Association had not yet achieved its tax exempt status. In order to allow
patrons to write off their donations, a short term solution was envisioned where the City
of Ashland would hold the Special Use Permit,thus making donations to buy the
mountain tax deductible. It was never intended that the City would hold the permit for the
"long tern."
Many people throughout southern Oregon and northern California contributed to keep
Mt. Ashland open and accessible for all. As a member of the Medford Rogue Rotary
Club, we contributed over$25K to help out. Many other clubs and organizations
contributed as well.
Please express our appreciation for the City of Ashland stepping up years ago and
assisting with this endeavor. However, it's time to return the special use permit to the
Mt. Ashland Association.
Respectfully submitted,
ew,� s04nCVt-j0Y-1--
tan& isti Solmonson
Medford, Oregon
August 22, 2011
To: The Ashland City Council
My name is Susan Barr and I live at 7030 Old Siskiyou Hwy.,
Ashland, Oregon. I am in favor of transferring the Special
Use Permit to Mt. Ashland.
I am also very in favor of the Mt. Ashland Expansion. I
believe the EIS that there will not be any damage to the
Ashland Water Shed.
Sincerely,
Susan Barr
August 21 , 2011
To: The Ashland City Council
We are the Fishers and we live at 10377 Mt. Ashland Ski
Road, Ashland, Oregon. We are in favor of transferring the
Special Use Permit to Mt. Ashland.
We support the Mt. Ashland Expansion.
Sincerely,
The Fishers
a��-cam/ ✓ ��
August 23,2011
TO: Ashland City Council
My name is Carl Cargill. I reside in Ashland and own the property at 1716 Colestin Road in Ashland.
I am one of those who would be directly impacted by the expansion of the Mt.Ashland Ski area.
I am in favor of the transfer of the Special Use Permit(SUP)to the Mt.Ashland Association to allow
them to initiate the expansion of Mt.Ashland.
The expansion could make Ashland an attractive winter destination for tourists as well as increase local
traffic to the area—all of which will could keep Ashland economically viable.
Thank you for your consideration.
v4A
Carl Cargill
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page I of 10
DRAFT
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 16, 2011
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Moms, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Housing, Historic,Forest Lands, Planning, Conservation, and
Tree Commissions, and the Audit Committee.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Joint Meeting with Ashland Community Hospital of August 2, 2011 and Regular Meeting of
August 2, 2011 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS
The Mayor's proclamation regarding Mayors United, Helping Feed Our Community was read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Will Council approve the minutes of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Alan Deboer to the Airport Commission
with a term to expire April 30, 2014?
3. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Eric Heesacker with a term to expire April
30, 2013 and Mick Church with a term to expire April 30,2012 to the Planning Commission?
4. Does Council wish to approve a liquor license application from Richard Krebs dba RedZone Sports
Bar N Grill at 303 East Main Street?
5. Does Council wish to approve annual renewals on liquor licenses as requested by the Oregon State
Liquor Commission?
6. Does Council wish to approve the tentative agreement fora labor contract re-opener that staff has
reached with the Ashland Police Officers Association?
7. Does Council wish to ratify the new labor agreement between the City of Ashland and the Laborers'
Union Local No. 121?
8. Will Council approve a$51,859.81 (39.6 percent increase) amendment to the existing contract with
DeVore Electric and Construction Co. for construction of the Laurel Street Sidewalk Improvement
project?
9. Should Council approve a resolution authorizing the City Administrator,Finance Director or
designee to sell General Obligation bonds described in Ballot Measure 15-109 to replace Fire Station
No. 2 and permit bond proceeds to reimburse qualifying City expenditures?
10. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board,approve the award of a public contract to
Springbrook for the Utility Billing Management Solution?
11. Will Council direct staff to continue to work with the Transportation & Growth Management
Program to develop a project of work, select a consultant team, and draft an Intergovernmental
Agreement to undertake master planning the North Normal Avenue Neighborhood?
12. Should Council approve a contract with URS Engineering& Construction,Inc. in an amount of
$117,359.00 for the Hosler Dam Stability Analysis?
13. Will Council approve an amendment of the RVTD/City of Ashland Reduced Fare Program
Agreement discontinuing Route 15 effective September 5, 2011?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 2 oJ'10
DRAFT
14. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a contract amendment for $10,000
to increase the contract for powder coating steel light poles?
15. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to James McNamara (McNamara Engineering) to act as the
project manager for the construction of Fire Station 2?
16. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to Balzer Construction to remove and repair the adjacent
142' of the multi-use path along the frontage of West Bellevue Phase II Subdivision in the amount of
$6,872?
17. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve an exemption from the competitive
bid process to directly award a contract to Pacific Power Products to provide high priority engine
repairs to a Fire Engine?
Councilor Silbiger requested the July 12, 2011 Planning Commission minutes under Consent Agenda item#1
and items#5, #8,and#11 be pulled for discussion. Consent Agenda item#7 was pulled for public input.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items with the exceptions of the July 12, 2011
Planning Commission minutes from item#1 and items#5, 7,8 and #11.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Keith Haxton/1106 Paradise Lane/Spoke regarding the labor contract between the City of Ashland and the
Laborers' Union Local No. 121 and expressed concern the agreement left out certain workers.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained there were five different labor groups representing City employees
that included clerical and technical workers, and part-time and temporary workers.
Councilor Silbiger stated the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2011 lacked a full quorum and would
not approve the minutes.
He went on to note the list for the annual renewal of liquor licenses contained closed businesses and venues
outside city limits and questioned whether due diligence was done. City Recorder Barbara Christensen
confirmed due diligence was done, that staff was working with businesses not in compliance and the State was
aware of them as well. Councilor Silbiger would not approve the item.
He thought the additional 40% for the Laurel Street Sidewalk Improvement project was unacceptable, and
would not vote in favor of the item. It would be easier to add 50% to bid amounts instead of having Council
approve contract amendments. Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson responded the project was initially
under budget and staff decided to make improvements to drainage and heavily degraded areas resulting in
contract amendments.
Councilor Silbiger would not support the North Normal Avenue Neighborhood project based on precedence
given to projects that were not Council Goal projects.
Councilor Chapman/Morris m/s to approve the Planning Commission minutes from July 12,2011. Voice
Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris,Lemhouse,Voisin and Chapman, YES;Councilor Silbiger, NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery,
Morris,Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor ChapmanNoisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #7. Voice Vote: Councilor Slattery,
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 3 of 10
DRAFT
Morris, Lemhouse,Voisin and Chapman,YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item#8. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris,
Lemhouse, Voisin, and Chapman,YES; Councilor Silbiger and Slattery,NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #11. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris,
Lemhouse and Voisin,YES; Councilor Slattery, Silbiger and Chapman,NO. Mayor Stromberg broke
the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Does Council find that it would further the public interest to enter an agreement with the Mount
Ashland Association (MAA) that would dissolve the existing lease agreement, replace the lease with
new terms, convey the property currently owned by the City to MAA, and require the City to
relinquish the Special Use Permit for the Ski Area so that MAA can directly obtain the SUP?
City Administrator Martha Bennett introduced legal counsel Bob Steringer from Harrang, Long, Gary, Rudnick
P.C., who represented the City at the request of City Attorney Dave Lohman who had worked previously with
the attorney representing Mt. Ashland Association(MAA).
She went on to provide history on the MAA request to relinquish the SUP and any assets held since 1992 to
MAA and the terms of transfer. Staff and MAA came up with the following nine areas of agreement:
1. The City would relinquish the SUP to the USDA Forest Service and MAA would apply for it. If the
Forest Service grants the SUP to MAA, then the City would convey the assets that it currently owns to
MAA.
2. MAA would add a nonvoting seat on their board for a member of the City. The City would not
participate in any executive sessions, and MAA would reserve the right to ask the City to appoint a
different Councilor.
3. The City would have the right to review and comment on all construction plans prior to construction for
the purpose of ensuring that any issues that might affect City drinking water are addressed.
4. MAA would agree to comply with the same standard of sedimentation that applies to the City for
Reeder Reservoir(no sedimentation over normal background levels)
5. MAA agrees to keep the amount that will be required for restoration under the new SUP unencumbered,
and that the amount they keep unencumbered will increase each year by CPI. We discussed having
these funds in cash.
6. MAA agrees to keep current provisions in their articles of incorporation that spell out that if the
nonprofit is ever dissolved, the association's assets revert to the City.
7. MAA agrees not to sell, sublet or transfer the ski area without the City's written approval.
8. MAA will pay the first$7,500 of the City's legal fees for the cost of constructing this contract.
9. If the USDA Forest Service does not grant MAA a new SUP before December 31, 2012, then the City
and MAA will have to negotiate a new lease agreement, assuming that the City would then apply for a
new permit to operate the Ski Area. This is unlikely, but should be understood by both parties.
The tenth term negotiated was financial'consideration. In 1991 and 1992, MAA privately raised $1.1 million of
the funds to acquire the ski area and the State of Oregon granted the remaining $500,000. The City did not
make a financial contribution but processed the paperwork related to the SUP. MAA was unwilling to give the
City financial consideration for an asset the City did not purchase. Additionally the State of Oregon would need
to sign off on the transfer since they provided funds for the purchase.
If there were issues regarding the construction plans that MAA and the City could not resolve, Council would
use the 1929 Memo of Understanding (MOU)the City established with the US Forest Service who had ultimate
authority regarding decisions on any activities undertaken by MAA.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 4 of 10
DRAFT
Ms. Bennett explained the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would act as the regulatory agent to
ensure MAA used the appropriate sedimentation standards.
MAA General Manager Kim Clark added MAA would provide construction plans to City staff at least 30-days
prior to construction to ensure the quality of drinking water was preserved. The US Forest Service would
resolve any issues.
Donna Mickley the US Forest Service District Ranger for Siskiyou Mountains and US Forest Service Permit
Administrator Steve Johnson explained the process for transferring the SUP.
Ms. Mickley added the US Forest service was interested in exchanging information based on expansion data and
findings provided by Geologist B.J. Hicks and would inform Council of their progress.
Public Hearing Open: 7:41 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to extend the Public Hearing to 9:30 p.m.Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Judy Cangiamilla/277 North Laurel Street/Explained she was a skier and in favor of preserving the
watershed. The agreement lacked substantial data and a strong mitigation process. She encouraged Council to
postpone a decision until they had reviewed B.J. Hick's data. She requested Council not to transfer the SUP.
Keith Haxton/1106 Paradise Lane/if the US Forest Service provided the checks and balances regarding the
permit and watershed issues the agreement should include the relationship with the Forest Service. The main
issue was damage to the watershed. He did not support transferring the SUP and assets to MAA at no cost.
Pat Acklin/270 Scenic Drive/Served for 14 years on City Council and shared her experience on other Boards
that included MAA. She supported the transfer and cautioned people to keep the expansion separate from the
SUP.
Emery Way/753 Siskiyou Boulevard/Thought the agreement lacked oversight and could lead to disastrous and
permanent consequences for the watershed. It was vital to have proper oversight and strong leverage in
negotiations regarding natural resources and this agreement lacked both.
John Fisher-Smith/945 Oak Street/Stated the issue spoke to 201h Century values of unbridled progress versus
the 21"century awareness of limited resources. He agreed with Mr. Way's testimony. He referenced editorial
comments he submitted in response to a 2006 newspaper article on how the expansion would protect the
environment and enhance the watershed and provided details why that was impossible.
Larry Cooper/223 5`s Street/Referred to a video he placed on YouTube depicting the property of the proposed
expansion. He noted the damaging affect of clear cutting and how the City needed to own the responsibility the
expansion would have on the city water supply. The Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)that resulted in the
approval of development in the middle of Ashland Creek branch was due to the US Forest Service placing more
importance on recreational use than preserving the ancient forest and creek. It clearly stated there would be
additional sedimentation from the approved development, expose erosive soils and reduce creek flow. He also
agreed with Mr. Way's testimony.
Val Bubb/7501 Wagner Creek,Talent/Currently served on the MAA Board and explained the original intent
of the acquisition included the City as permit owner only to expedite raising money for charitable contributions.
There was no intention for the SUP to stay with the City as the community at large acquired the organization.
He acknowledged there were issues regarding water and clear cutting but there were also alpine skiers that
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16,2011
Page S of 10
DRAFT
needed a place to go locally that should not have to travel elsewhere. He noted possible liabilities the City could
incur by retaining the SUP in the event of a serious incident.
Tom Mayer/29 Richard,Medford/Introduced himself as the President of the MAA Board and stated the
guidelines were always regulated by the US Forest Service. The MAA intention was to do the right thing and he
thought they had.
Chris Uhtoff/78 4th Street/Skied Mt Ashland seasonally and hoped that MAA succeeded. However, it was
painful to watch the MAA Board of Directors promote a plan that did not respect the sensitive nature of its
placement in the watershed or the roadless biological region. That the US Forest Service supported the
expansion showed their neglected responsibility to protect water quality by following the recommendations of
ski area planners. Having the City retain the SUP was the only way community,retained a voice in expansion
development. He listed pollutants the area would encounter with the expansion.
Barbara Comnes/444 Park Ridge Place/The expansion currently proposed put the water supply at unnecessary
risk. What if the mitigation was more expensive, failed, or MAA was financially unable to bear the cost of
maintaining the area? Would relinquishing the SUP expose the City to lawsuits for not protecting the
watershed? She asked Council to vote against the SUP transfer and encourage alternative ways to expand that
did not threaten the watershed.
Albert Pepe/321 Clay Street/Thought it was essential the City maintain the SUP. His main concern was the
quality of the water and noted the City represented all Ashland citizens and MAA represented skiers. He
encouraged Council to maintain the SUP so community had a voice.
Ephraim Andrew/103 Manzanita Street/Expressed concern for potential damage to the watershed and shared
personal experience of water poisoning through a contaminated water supply. He asked Council to consider a
poisoned water supply when making their decision.
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Opposed transferring the SUP and noted the existing lease stated the City
owned the property. She thought the City should charge for the transfer and added MAA did not have the cash
and that was why they were unwilling to pay. She went through the contract and stated her concerns.
Lynn Ransford/1183 Village Square Drive/Hiked extensively around the Mt. Ashland area and recently went
through the proposed expansion area and confirmed it was extremely different from other areas. In the EIS the
US Forest Service and the Sierra Club approved three other areas outside the watershed for the expansion. She
urged Council to retain the SUP, uphold the Comprehensive Plan, and stop the 10-year debate. She provided
details on how sedimentation levels increased dramatically in 1962 after road building and the development of
Mt. Ashland occurred.
Allan Peterson/807 Beach Street/Thought giving up the SUP would relinquish the City's authority. The lease
had the City indemnified against "judgments, fines, damages, penalties, liabilities, losses, etc"and the lessee
paying for repairs and replacements as needed. According to users, MAA had not made needed repairs. The
City should not give up the SUP. He reminded Council 100%of community drank water and only 7%skied.
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Opposed the expansion and stressed how important it was for the City to
maintain the permit. Transferring was relinquishing control over possible restoration. Whether the expansion
went forward or did not, there was no advantage for the citizens to have the City give up that control.
Tom Peil/335 Garfield Street/Stated that the City needed to keep the SUP in order to protect the watershed.
Giving up the SUP promoted the expansion. His concern was MAA did not maintain its current footprint in the
watershed nor was able to update their lifts or lodge. He questioned why the City would promote the expansion
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 6 of 10
DRAFT
when MAA could not maintain their current infrastructure.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street/Stressed the risk of harming the water supply trumped any argument for
recreational benefit because the expansions location would permanently destroy the unique hydrologic features
of the watershed. Past and present councilors had put recreational uses for the elite few ahead of the protection
of the many. The expansion would eliminate ancient spruce trees and ruin a unique hydrology system.
Laura Campbell/165 '/2 Van Ness Street/Talked about the importance of facilitation and personally witnessed
what happened to land and community when development was given precedence over people. She asked
Council to remain in their role of power and listen to the citizenry.
Wil Thomson/360 Maple Street/Asked the City not give up the SUP. If they did, there would be more
accidents and increased sedimentation in Reeder Reservoir the community could not afford.
Jeffree Matthews/1330 B Street/Explained the US Forest Service had a policy of industrial timber sales in
unprotected, roadless areas to declassify federal protection status of forests. Council was acting in complicity
with an illegal timber operation that would fragment the McDonald Peak roadless area forever and declassify it
for federal protection. He found that unethical and immoral.
Ross Stuart/1551 Webster Street/Noted people were living in a time where the perception of government was
not protecting public interest and hoped Council would prove that wrong.
Mori Samel-Garloff/248 North 2"a Street/The proposal made her sick and it was hard to remain objective.
She expected Council to maintain their leverage on decision making regarding Mt. Ashland. She indicated the
variety of people present for public testimony and emphasized they were all there because they were concerned
about the water supply. She implored Council to think of future generations.
Daniel Lehmer/2135 Siskiyou Boulevard/Noted it was 2011, time to ascend and shared a poem he had written
titled"The End of War."
Liza Maltsbeiger/276 B Street/Transferring ownership of the SUP would cast a positive vote for the expansion
and allow MAA to fundraise with Council directly supporting it. MAA donors refuse to donate while the City
holds the SUP. She noted past failures related to the ski area, added it was important to invest in businesses that
would succeed and it was bad business to let MAA expand.
Abraham Bettinger/779 Oak Street/Opposed the SUP transfer. He attended an MAA public meeting and
thought the board was one-sided in terms of being coherent to public concerns regarding the water supply and
quality. There were ways for the MAA to be fiscally responsible if they were open to environmental options
that could generate revenue instead of acting as if the expansion was essential to their survival. He wanted the
non-profit MAA Board of Directors to function as a good management organization for Mt. Ashland.
Kathryn Hoover/826 Voris Avenue/The expansion was about the sacredness of the land and ecosystems. The
current industrial capitalistic system was based on the extraction and pillaging of the earth for extreme selfish
benefits to maximize profit and disregard the future. She asked Council to consider the ancestors, future
generations and how these extractions impact life.
Jessica Harris/99 Emerick Street/Opposed transferring the SUP to MAA. She hiked the area for the proposed
expansion and noted markers for future ski lift pilings were in actual springs. She questioned why there was not
another place to expand on the mountain. There was a lot of special interest happening. The citizen's give
Council power, she asked Council not to give that power away.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 7 of 10
DRAFT
Suzie Aufderheide/321 North Mountain Avenue/Read from the Valdez Principals and noted citizens would
have to pay for any damage due to the expansion. She asked Council to question the scientific research that
states there will be no damage to the area. It was ironic the SUP was initially used by the MAA to raise funds
and now MAA was claiming the City holding the SUP hindered their fund raising efforts.
Kevin Satterfield/165 '/n Van Ness Avenue/Asked the Council to do their best to protect the watershed. He
explained how vital Ashland Creek was to the area. If this was about progress and profit, he urged Council to
put more money and effort in developing Ashland as a regional leader of eco-sustainability.
Noah Philpot/78 North Mountain Avenue/Wanted his children to grow up in the pristine beauty that Ashland
currently was and not in what it could be if disaster occurred in the ski area.
Marla Welp/78 North Mountain Avenue/Spoke on behalf of future generations. People came to the area to
raise children, clean water and air was essential. She urged Council to retain the SUP.
Ian Riversong/321 N Mountain Avenue/Described issues with MAA that ranged from not needing additional
beginner runs to the unfair treatment of Mt. Ashland Ski Resort employees. He stated MAA was full of greedy
people, commented on their inability to manage their business, and urged Council not to give them the right to
tamper with community water.
Tenasi Rama/513 Carter Lane/Spoke on living water versus dead water. He noted his educational background
and research conducted on the ecological risk assessment of recreational expansions. In every case, expansions
contaminated and deadened the water. Protecting water should be the highest ambition and this was an
opportunity to do that. He hoped Council would make the right decision.
Caleb Olson/6505 SW, Aloha, OR/Taking away the water removed the soul from the area. Putting a ski resort
on the mountain would make it another Aspen CO. Too many people would come and ruin everything.
Xyara Asplen/1342 Seena Lane/Shared her experience of backpacking through the expansion area and
encountering old growth forest never logged or fragmented by roads and suggested Council spend time there. It
was easy to get lost in studies and economics but ultimately this was the peoples land, water, and future. She
asked Council to make an informed decision.
Helga Motley/693 Clay Street/Expressed concern regarding the tension and urged Council to retain the SUP
and not give more power to MAA. She thought Council should take B.J. Hick's data very seriously and noted
his extensive geological background.
Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 South/Shared his personal experience with MAA. He realized the SUP and expansion
were not different subjects but actually intertwined. After studying the issue for decades he was in favor of the
SUP transfer but wondered where the supporters were. The only ones present to show their support were former
MAA members.
Carrie Zoll/78 North Mountain Avenue/Requested the City retain the SUP, it did not make sense to transfer,
and it was illegal to hand over City owned assets of$600,000. If the sediment load were too much after the
expansion it would be too late. Trees hold up the ecosystem and maintain the watershed. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)and the US Forest Service science had been wrong before. She was assembling a team of
scientists to monitor the watershed and the City would be accountable. Other governments recently declared the
earth has rights. It was time to devise systems and programs that fed the ecosystem rather than destroyed them.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 8 of 10
DRAFT
Tonya Graham/2007 Mac Street/Introduced herself as the Executive Director of the Geos Institute and
explained how the Climate Wise program worked. In every case the key point was available and clean water.
There was a need to be conservative and protective of the watershed and always on the side of caution as it
related those resources. The City holding the SUP was an important way of erring on the side of caution. She
encouraged Council to pay attention to the long-term interests of the community. This was not a decision a
future Council could change or reverse. It was an opportunity to protect a lasting resource and legacy for future
generations and she encouraged Council to do so.
Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Shared her personal experience of skiing in the area and urged Council
not to give up the SUP. Retaining the SUP allowed the City,MAA, and the US Forest Service to act as
3-legged stool. It would take everyone working together to ensure it was a viable ski area and retained a viable
water source.
Darwin Thusius/897 Beach Street/Stated the SUP was not separate from the expansion controversy. The MAA
was a self-elected body that was not beholden to ski association members, Ashland voters, nor Southern Oregon
residents. MAA was determined to go forward with their plans despite an outburst of community concern. He
shared his experience attending a MAA Board meeting and a subsequent conversation with the MAA Board
President he found disturbing. By keeping the SUP, the Ashland elective body retained the means although
modest of influencing an organization that seemed more concerned with preserving a legacy of beating
environmentalists rather than reaching a community based compromise.
Liam Hunter/1257 Siskiyou Boulevard/Spoke on behalf of snowboarders and skiers, shared his experience
touring multiple ski areas and noted that Ashland has a great-untouched area that makes it more valuable than
other ski resorts. The expansion would devalue the area and detract people from going there.
Michael Daole/247 North Laurel Street/Was an avid skier that grew up in an area with three ski areas that shut
down due to climate changes. He supported the expansion but did not agree it should go in watershed.
Development in the watershed was irreversible. Additionally the snow could stop. It was too much of a risk to
take. The snow in the area of the proposed expansion was soft and in future could have only rain. Having a ski
resort was essential to the economy and moving the expansion to an area outside the watershed would solve a lot
of problems.
Colin Riversong/321 North Mountain Avenue/Was against the expansion. While waiting his turn to speak he
observed many people stated similar things but what they said was important. He shared a poem he wrote and
asked Council to think seriously on the issue before making a decision.
Sara Mues/357 Vista Avenue/Reminded everyone that the earth was true wealth and money and the concepts
of rich and poor were manmade. Giving up the wealth of natural resources for money gambled irresponsibly
with the wellbeing of future generations. Without the resources provided by the environment future generations
would experience true poverty.
Michael Dawkins/646 E Main Street/Explained his father was originally responsible for the Mt. Ashland ski
area. He acknowledged the controversy and commented on the lack of partnership between the City and MAA.
He provided alternative ways Mt. Ashland could expand and have a better product. It came down to financial
impact. He thought Council should hold onto the SUP and work with MAA to make Mt. Ashland a viable ski
area.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to have a special meeting on August 30, 2011 to continue the Public
Hearing and consider this issue only. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse,Morris, Silbiger and
Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 5-1..
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 9 of 10
DRAFT
PUBLIC FORUM
Mike Mullins/10308 SE 90 Avenue, Happy Valley/Represented Stoney Girl Gardens Foundation, a research,
and development association on the industry of medical marijuana. They sponsored a club they wanted to open
in Ashland and provided details on how the organization worked.
Jennifer Valley/10308 SE 96`h Avenue, Happy Valley/Explained she was diagnosed in 1993 with advanced
Thyroid cancer and given a 50%chance of survival. She provided details on her treatment, extensive trips to the
Emergency room yearly, and the amount of medication taken daily. In 1999, she joined the Medical Marijuana
program that eliminated Emergency room visits, allowed her to take two pills daily, and reduced her healthcare
costs 85%.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS(None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does Council wish to adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution on behalf of the City of Ashland
recommending resolution of issues related to the City of Ashland as part of the adoption of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan"?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Jackson County Planning Commission concluded .
deliberations and this was an opportunity for cities to provide input until September 14, 2011. Included in that
deliberation was the City's Resolution 2010-21 identifying six issues. The City's suggestion to reduce the 1,200
acres of higher value farmland had not changed Jackson County's recommendation. However, Council could
support a provision by the Rogue Advocates that established farmland conservation programs. Additionally,
staff added similar language to the draft resolution.
Mr. Molnar thought Jackson County Planning Commission used unincorporated areas to create the population
reallocation to avoid contention from other communities and would review population when it came up again as
part of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan.
Colin Swales/143 8`h Street/Explained he was glad the Jackson County Planning Commission restored
Ashland's population allocation but thought it was disingenuous of the other major municipalities for not giving
back land. RPS was turning out to be a land grab. Ashland's decision not to enlarge its urban growth boundary
set a good example of decent planning for the rest of the Rogue Valley. Additionally he noted that while
Ashland promoted transit oriented and pedestrian friendly development there were many multi-family zoned
properties that consisted of large family homes on large lots with no incentive for residential to develop higher
densities in the city core. The requirements for residential development prevented people from building small
residential units.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City used an overall policy of compact urban form for density in the Comprehensive
Plan and Associate Planner Derek Severson added new residential land use approvals over the last 5 years was
7.46%. The Urban Growth Boundary (UBG)allowed 6.5 —6.9 dwellings units per acre based on a State safe
harbor when doing a UGB amendment. The cities of Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland used 6.6. The Cities of
Medford and Central Point were based on 25% increase in their current density per population and State law.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2011-28 including amendments #3 and#13.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger noted the plan was not perfect but put restraints on growth unfortunately not
all on high valued farmland.
Councilor Voisin/Silbiger m/s to amend the Resolution#5 High Value Farm Land and add "Ashland's
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 16, 2011
Page 10 of 10
DRAFT
first preference would be to see the majority of RL RC identified high value farmland removed from the
plan,"then begin the italicized "Absent meaningful reductions..." DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin
explained Council and staff stated repeatedly to Jackson County Commission the need to protect farmland.
Councilor Lemhouse agreed it was not a perfect plan but better than the alternative of not participating.
Councilor Morris commented regional problem solving seemed to have created more problems than it solved
and was not sure Ashland's requests provided change. Mr. Molnar described the changes Resolution 2010-21
had generated in the RPS plan. Mayor Stromberg thought the amendment was not a deal breaker and just stated
a preference. Councilor Slattery supported the amendment. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse,
Morris,Slattery, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON MAIN MOTION: Councilor Chapman would not support the motion and
thought the City was better off with State law that restricted farmland use more than the RPS Plan would.
Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to add#2 Efficient Land Use and Transportation Planning"In addition
Ashland wants it noted that its density is 7.0%. Because the importance of a regional transit system is so
critical to the region." DISCUSSION: Councilor Moms would not support the motion. The City was not set
up with land use ordinances to support 7.0%. Mr. Severson clarified in the last five years 90.419 acres created
674.75 units resulting in a total percentage of 7.46% growth for that period. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin
and Chapman,YES; Councilor Lemhouse,Morris,Slattery and Silbiger,NO. Motion denied 2-3.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution #2011-28 as amended: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Slattery and Silbiger,
YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Does Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained there were no budget violations but several
accruals in revenues and expenses that would change the Ending Fund Balances. However, the total cash
amount would remain close to what was currently stated.
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Quarterly Report. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None)
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does Council wish to provide staff direction to investigate possible changes to the City's listserv?
2. Does Council wish to provide staff direction regarding updating the ordinance related to commission
and committee quorums and legislative intent?
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) Review
Meeting Date: April 19, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught
Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to direct staff to prepare written comments on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to prepare written comments on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Background:
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Mount Ashland Ski Area (MASA) Expansion was issued
September 2004. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to enjoin the MASA expansion project until the Forest Service corrected the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
violations found in opinion CV-05-03004-PA. The NFMS was violated by failing to appropriately
designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain.
The Forest Service has now prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)
in response to the violations and the 45 day comment period for the DSEIS. The 45 day Comment
Period started March 26, 2010 and as such all comments have to be submitted by May 10, 2010.
Staff then engaged Carollo Engineers, the same engineering firm that has the Water Master Plan
contract, to review the DSEIS for potential impacts to the watershed. To that end, the consultant's
scope of work includes a review of the following components of the DSEIS:
1) Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain- NFMA Claims
• Failure to designate Restricted Riparian (MS 26) and Restricted Watershed(MS 22)
terrain
• Failure to evaluate soils standards and guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22
2) Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim
• Failure to designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve
3) Restricted Watershed Terrain- NFMA Claim
• No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed (MS 22) from Special Use
Permit(SUP) Area
Page ] of 2
�r,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
In addition, the consultant is evaluating the Record of Decision requirement to establish a proportional
reserve fund for the expansion area prior to the issuance of a permit. This review will also include
recommended funding levels.
The consultant will complete their review by Friday April 16, 2010 and will then attend the Study
Session to present their findings and recommendations.
Council Options:
N/A
Potential Motions:
N/A
Attachments:
Link to Draft SEIS: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyoiilproiects/mtashlandski/dseis pdf
Page 2 of 2
�r,
s Q
DAVID EVANS
ANoASSOCIATES iNe.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 2010
TO: Mike Faught(City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
FROM: Ethan Rosenthal
SUBJECT: Review of Mt. Ashland Ski Area DSEIS Relative to City Water Quality Concerns
PROJECT: City of Ashland Water Master Plan
PROJECT NO:
COPIES: Bob Eimstad(Corollo Engineers)
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides a brief summary review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS)for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project as it pertains to water quality issues that could affect the
City of Ashland. Particular emphasis is placed on the connection of the DSEIS and the Reeder Reservoir
Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is part of the overall Bear Creek Watershed TMDL. A
draft comment letter that the City may wish to forward on to the U.S. Forest Service(Forest Service)as part of the
DSEIS public review is provided in the latter half of this memo.
BACKGROUND
The City of Ashland (City) is conducting master planning efforts regarding the City's future water supply needs.
It is also actively carrying out watershed management efforts, within its jurisdictional limits, in support of the
Reeder Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)that was approved by EPA in 2007. The Mt. Ashland Ski
Area (MASA), which resides in the Ashland Creek watershed that feeds Reeder Reservoir, has been seeking to
expand its boundaries and facilities. The City has been concerned about how the MASA may impact the City's
water resources and its ability to effectively carry out its TMDL obligations,particularly the sediment TMDL.
In September 2004, the Forest Service issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the MASA expansion. Legal
proceedings followed and ultimately the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court and instructed it to
promptly enjoin the MASA expansion project contemplated in the 2004 ROD until the Forest Service corrected
the violations found in Opinion CV-05-03004-PA. The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to
properly evaluate the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific fisher; in violation of both the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and that it
violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain. The
Forest Service has prepared a DSEIS in response to these violations. The Forest Service began the 45-day public
review period for the DSEIS on March 9, 2010.
Mike Faught(City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 2
DSEIS DOCUMENT REVIEW
The DSEIS provides project background information including a discussion of what the Court of Appeals found
to be deficient with the Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)and 2004 ROD.The DSEIS then provides
supplemental information and analyses to address the court defined deficiencies,which broadly include issues
pertaining to the Pacific Fisher and Riparian and Restricted Watershed terrain. Of these two topics, only the
Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain topic is relevant to City water resource concerns.
As noted in the DSEIS,"the riles governing the Forest Service's designation and management of Riparian
Reserves and watersheds are complex and overlapping.The principal source of these rules is the Northwest Forest
Plan(NWFP)itself, and, derivatively, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy(ACS)adopted pursuant to the NWFP."
The court found that in several instances appropriate management designations were not applied as outlined
below:
1) Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain- NFMA Claims
• Failure to designate Restricted Riparian(Management Strategy [MS) 26)and Restricted Watershed(MS
22)terrain
• Failure to evaluate soils standards and guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22
Review summary:
The DSEIS rectified the above issues as follows. All perennial streams within the Special Use Permit Area
(SUP) were incorporated into Restricted Riparian(MS 26)areas. Identification of perennial streams was
based on on-the-ground inventory work conducted in 2002 and documented in Appendix E of the FEIS.
Lands within 100-feet horizontal distance from the perennial streams and wetlands defined the area for
evaluation based on standards and guidelines associated with MS 26. Supplemental analysis determined that
the area of MS 26 impacted by the 2004 ROD is 0.83 acres. The Restricted Watershed(MS 22)designation
was applied to portions of the SUP within the Ashland Municipal Watershed(approximately 796 acres),
which is subject to the standards and guidelines for MS 22.
The DSEIS notes there is a total of 48.8 acres of Restricted Riparian(MS 26)terrain within the Site Scale
Analysis Area of which 27.9 acres are within the Special Use Permit area subject to applicable(soils)
standards and guidelines.The DSEIS determined that the area of MS 26 that would be impacted by the
expansion project(i.e. "activity area')would be 0.83 acres. Clearing for ski area expansion would not
compact, puddle or displace more than 10 percent of this activity area because of mitigation measures
including the use of low ground pressure construction equipment.
The ski area expansion decision would occur within Landtype 52. The standard for MS 26 within Iandtype
52 is twenty percent.The mineral soil exposure from ski area expansion is projected as 0.06 acre within this
0.83 acre area within MS 26,or 7.2%. Sid area expansion activities were designed to retain effective ground
cover. The specially designed thresholds for maximum bare soil from ski run construction is 10%.
Regarding the Restricted Watershed(MS 22)standards and guidelines,the"activity area"is assumed to be
the total area of impact for rim and lift clearing for ski area expansion within the Upper Ashland Creek
watershed. Effects from compaction, puddling or displacement are minimized because of mitigation measures
including the use of low ground pressure construction equipment. The 2004 ROD disclosed and supplemental
analysis confirmed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5%for the proposed expansion
project. This figure includes some construction within previously impacted areas,therefore allowing
detrimental conditions to approach 20%.For MS 22,the ski area expansion decision would occur within
Mike Faught(City of Ashland,Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 3
several landtypes;the majority of clearing activities occur within Landtype 80, considered the most
restrictive, which has a mineral soil exposure standard of 30%. The 2004 ROD disclosed,and the
supplemental analysis confirmed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5%for the proposed
expansion project,which is below the 30%standard.
2) Riparian Reserves- NFMA Claim
• Failure to designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2(LHZ 2)as Riparian Reserve
Review summary:
Landslide Hazard Zone 2 areas were mapped and described in the FEIS;however,these areas were not
designated as being part of Riparian Reserves. The DSEIS made this change and now LHZ 2 areas are
designated as Riparian Reserves. The DSEIS analyzed the land cover effects of the proposed ski area
expansion with respect to the revised Riparian Reserves. At the Site Scale Analysis Area, Riparian Reserves
increased by 145.13 acres(from 333.34 to 478.47). However, within expansion areas proposed for clearing
and grading the increase is considerably smaller at 10.08 and 0.56 acres respectively. According to the
DSEIS, clearing activities would occur primarily within upper portions of LHZ 2,not associated with streams
or wetlands. Much of this area is already non-or sparsely forested. Grading activities would occur near the
top of the proposed C-6 Lift, relatively high on the slope and primarily in open dry areas and not associated
with streams or wetlands.
3) Restricted Watershed Terrain-NFMA Claim
• No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed(MS 22)from Special Use Permit(SUP)
Area
Review summary:
Because there is no amendment to the Rogue River LRMP in the record permitting the contemplated change
to the Watershed,the Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to ensure
that the expansion will comply with the Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines. Through the DSEIS the
Forest Service acknowledges that Restricted Watershed(MS 22)is not excluded from Special Use Permit
areas.The Forest Service subsequently addresses the various standards and guidelines of the LRMP.
In summary, the DSEIS addressed and rectified the above issues, incorporating the new areas into their proper
management units. The analysis work did not result in modifications to the proposed project described in the
FEIS, as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management restrictions of the various
management units. Generally speaking, between the FEIS, DSEIS,and supporting documentation, it appears that
considerable effort has gone into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and
outlining the methods with which to address them, particularly at a planning level of design. Additionally, the
2004 ROD, with associated appendices, provides considerable planning level detail regarding project
implementation,mitigation planning,and monitoring requirements.
DSEIS AND REEDER RESERVOIR SEDIMENT TMDL CONNECTION
The FEIS was completed prior to preparation of the TMDL and so the FEIS understandably does not include
discussion of the TMDL. The FEIS did however note that Reeder Reservoir is listed as water quality limited for
sediment. The TMDL on the other hand discusses the MASA Expansion Project and relied-on the sediment
J
Mike Faught(City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 4
modeling conducted as part of the FEIS. The DSEIS does not discuss the TMDL in the main body of the
document, as the DSEIS is intended to address issues identified by the court decision, which did not identify the
TMDL as an issue. Comments about the need to include TMDL issues into the MASA expansion project analysis
were received by the Forest Service from several non-profit conservation groups. These comments were received
during an evaluation by the Forest Service of new information or changed conditions that could have a bearing on
the authorized decision or its impacts. The Forest Service determined that the completion of the TMDL did not
warrant preparation of a correction,supplement, or revision to the FEIS. Although the issuance of the TMDL was
considered to be new and relevant information, it was not considered to be significant since the TMDL took into
account the MASA expansion project including the sedimentation analysis conducted by the MASA project.
The TMDL specifies a loading capacity"set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day
[1,320 cubic yards annual load] total for the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder
Reservoir over that which would occur naturally is allowed." The TMDL provides a surrogate measure for
loading capacity in order to allow for easier monitoring and provide more useful information to guide
management activities.The surrogate measure is that amount of sediment resulting in less than 33 percent cobble
embeddedness in East and West Fork of Ashland Creek.This surrogate measure has been used in other TMDLs in
the region and has been recommended by Forest Service Fish Biologists as an appropriate indicator of fine
sediment impairment to salmonids(the most sensitive resident biological community).
Loading capacity can be divided into the sum of natural background load, allowable loads from NPDES point
sources, non-point sources, and reserve capacity. The TMDL notes that there are currently no NPDES-permitted
point source discharges of sediment within the Ashland Creek Watershed above Reeder. Reservoir. However, it
acknowledges the future construct ion/development activities associated with MASA expansion to require NPDES
storrrrwater or construction permits. These permits (i.e. NPDES General 1200-C permit) would specify the rules
and requirements to prevent the discharge of significant amounts of sediment to surface waters.
A water quality management plan (WQMP)has been prepared in support of the TMDL to address potential non-
point sources of sediments. The WQMP was prepared by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality with
participation from Designated Management Agencies, which includes in part the Forest Service and the City.
Appendix E of the WQMP provides a management plan specifically for Reeder Reservoir. The Reeder Reservoir
WQMP acknowledges that "the Ski Area Expansion proposal has incorporated design features and mitigation
measures to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment production' and that "a Cumulative Watershed
Effects analysis showed no anticipated long-term increase in sediment input (above the natural range of
variability)to the headwaters of the East Fork of Ashland Creek."
CONCLUSION
The DSEIS focuses on issues identified by the Court of Appeals as deficient within the 2004 ROD.The DSEIS
appears to adequately address and rectify these issues,particularly with respect to management unit designations
that could have the potential to impact water quality. The analysis did not result in modifications to the proposed
project described in the FEIS,as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management
restrictions of the various management units.
Between the FEIS,DSEIS, 2004 ROD,and supporting documentation,it appears that considerable effort has gone
into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and outlining the methods with which to
address them,particularly at a planning level of design.The Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL,prepared by
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, appears to agree with this assertion when it states that"the Ski
Area Expansion proposal has incorporated design features and mitigation measures to minimize potential short-
J
Mike Faught(City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16,2010
Page 5
term increases in sediment production"and that"a Cumulative Watershed Effects analysis showed no anticipated
long-term increase in sediment input(above the natural range of variability)to the headwaters of the Fast Fork of
Ashland Creek."
Because the DSEIS has adequately addressed issues identified by the Court of Appeals and this did not result in a
change to the proposed expansion project,there is likely no need to provide comment regarding specific analyses
within the DSEIS. Instead the current open comment period provides an opportunity for the City to express
overall concerns about water quality(i.e. sediment)issues,the need for close coordination during implementation,
and have those concerns included into the public record.
DRAFT LETTER FROM CITY TO FOREST SERVICE
April 16, 2010
Attn: Steve Johnson
Ashland Ranger Station
U.S. Forest Service
645 Washington Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject:.COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVERONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT,MT.ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION
To Mr. Steve Johnson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) Expansion Project, The City acknowledges and appreciates the
U.S. Forest Service's (Forest Service)detailed environmental assessment conducted for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion Project to date. On behalf of the City of Ashland, I am submitting the following comments to be
included in the public record. The comments focus on City concerns about how the MASA Expansion Project
could potentially affect the City's water supply and ability to comply with the Reeder Reservoir Sediment Total
Maximum Daily Load(TMDL), which was established in 2007.
The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to properly evaluate the impact of the proposed
expansion on the Pacific fisher, in violation of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and that it violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately designate
Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain. The Forest Service prepared-the DSEIS in response to these
violations. With respect to the DSEIS, the City is primarily concerned with Riparian Reserve and Restricted
Mike Faught(City of Ashland, Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 6
Watershed terrain designations,as these most relate to the City water supply.
Based on the City's review of the DSEIS, we believe that the Forest Service has addressed and reed the issues
addressed by the Court of Appeals noted above, incorporating the new areas into their proper management units.
The City understands that the analysis work did not result in modifications to the proposed project described in
the FEIS, as it was determined that proposed actions still fell within the management restrictions of the various
management units. Generally speaking, between the FEIS, DSEIS,and supporting documentation, it appears that
considerable effort has gone into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to watershed resources and
outlining the methods with which to address them,particularly at a planning level of design.
The City has concerns about the potential for the proposed MASA Expansion Project to adversely affect the
City's water supply at Reeder Reservoir, particularly the City's ability to meet our obligations of the sediment
TMDL. The sediment TMDL is particularly strict regarding any increases in sediment load to the system. The
TMDL specifies a loading capacity"set to natural background or an erosion rate of 3.62 cubic yards per day total
for the watershed. No significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir over that which would occur
naturally is allowed."
Although the City appreciates the thorough work conducted by the Forest Service to date, it is now ultimately the
quality of project implementation that will determine the expansion project's resulting level of sedimentation. In
an effort to support TMDL compliance and protection of the City's water supply, the City requests that the Forest
Service continue close coordination with the City as the MASA Expansion Project proceeds from the planning
phases to the more detailed engineering design, construction, and post-constmction monitoring phases.
Additionally, the City recommends close coordination between the Forest Service and the City regarding
monitoring efforts associated with the MASA Expansion Project and monitoring efforts associated with the
Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL.
In an effort to foster good communications and successful project implementation, the City recommends the
following actions:
• Establish a coordination committee between the Forest Service,the Mt. Ashland Association(MAA),and
the City to discuss project implementation on an on-going basis as needed (e.g. monthly during pre-and
post-construction periods, and weekly during construction).
• The City would like to have the opportunity to review and comment on project design plans, including
but not limited to the following: storm water system design, grading, clearing, and revegetation plans,
erosion control plans and 1200-C permit application, and watershed restoration project plans within the
Reeder Reservoir Watershed.
• The City would like to have the opportunity to visit project areas during and post-construction.
In addition to the above items, the City is also seeking clarification of statements made in the 2004 ROD
pertaining to the need for the MAA to post bond money to cover the cost of ski area restoration in the case of
bankruptcy and subsequent decision to abandon the ski area. Specifically, the City seeks clarification of the
following:
• The ROD states that,"the bond or assets available amount under the SUP will be proportionally adjusted
to account for the increase in developed area...."What is meant by proportional?Or,how is the amount
determined?
Mike Faught(City of Ashland,Public Works Director)
April 16, 2010
Page 7
• The ROD states that,"...and the subsequently increased need for funding for reclamation(above the
current amount (i.e. $200,000 based on April 1992 Decision Notice])in the event of ski area closure."
How is the increased amount determined(e.g. $200,000 factoring for inflation, based on assessment of
actual current day costs,etc.)?
• What is the total new dollar amount required to be bonded?
• When will MAA be required to post the new full bond amount?The City requests that the new full bond
amount be posted prior to or at the time of the Forest Service authorizing the MASA expansion project.
In summary,the proper designation of riparian and watershed management units per the DSEIS and the proposed
impact avoidance, minimization, monitoring strategies, and watershed restoration projects per the FEIS should, in
combination, allow for successful development of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area in an environmentally sound manner
that allows for compliance with the Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL. However, proper implementation and
close coordination will be critical.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment. If you need further clarification,please contact me at
(541)488-5587 or via email at faughtm(dashland.orms.
Sincerely,
Mike Faught
Public Works Director
Copim Bob Eimsud
File Name:OAMARKEIMProposels FYWAshlondMater Consent\CmNactmg\TwkOrder-1-SDEIS_review\EIS-TMDL-BedcgamdLinks\DEA Mrt
DSEISreview vrW v-].clot
To: Martha Bennett, Administrator, City of Ashland
Fr: Julie Norman, Ashland resident (596 Heiman, 488-9474)
Dt: Monday, April 19, 2010
Re: Comment Letter to the USFS on proposed Ashland Ski Area Expansion
Dear Martha,
I'd like to offer a suggestion for the City's Comment Letter to the Forest
Service on the proposed Ashland Ski Area Expansion:
1. Urge the Forest Service to drop its opposition and include climate change
impacts in their analysis of environmental and economic factors.
(a) As indicated in the enclosed ClimateWise Rogue Basin Summary (2009),
scientific data confirm that the impacts of climate change will decrease snowpack,
increase severe rainstorms, increase erosion rates, and increase forest fires. All
these factors will make Mt. Ashland's water supply less reliable and ecosystems
less resilient.
(b) Under these changing conditions, maintenance of the proposed ski runs and
associated infrastructure (roads, ski lifts, bridge over the Middle Branch, etc.) will
cost more than originally planned, increasing the economic risk for the Ski Area
Association and the City of Ashland.
(c) Under these changing conditions, a higher use for the area would be to optimize
the resilience of the ecosystem by limiting development of forests and riparian
areas and taking action to increase the capacity for holding and filtering drinking
water.
Thank you for your attention to this request,
ulie Norman
t
climate Wise
Rogue Basin Summary
° � What Does a Climate-Changed
• Stretches from the
Future Hold in Store?
crest of the Cascade Climate change is not just future speculation affecting polar bears and icecaps in
Mountains near faraway lands. It is here now, it likely will worsen, and the impacts to drinking water,
Crater Lake to the infrastructure, and wildlife will affect us in our own backyards. Preparing now for
Pacific Ocean on climate change makes dollars and sense as impacts from climate change-driven fires,
the southwest coast floods, droughts,and rising sea level increasingly affect the Rogue Basin.
of Oregon Through its ClimateWise "...communities must take the necessary
• Home to process, the National steps to learn how to cope with the
Center uses the best
approximately science on climate effects of climate change, and to
302,000 people change models to help develop the systems that will allow
people predict and
• Incorporates most them to recover from its impacts:'
prepare for climate -_Crag llar er,Rogue lallc Council o Governments of Josephine, change impacts at the e r f �_oos�
Jackson, and Curry local level. In the.Rpgue Basin of southwest Oregpn,climate.change.likely_mean
Counties
Temperature
• Encompasses most • Annual average temperatures will increase 1 to 3• by 2040 and 4 to 8° F by
of the Rogue and 2080
Siskiyou National • Summer temperatures may increase dramatically, going up 7 to 15• F by 2080
Forests • Winter temperatures may average 3 to 8° F warmer by 2080
• Agriculture, Precipitation and Snowpack
forestry, tourism, More precipitation_will_bef-concentrated into winter months
and a diverse At lower elevations, rising temperatures_will3hift winter snows to rain
array of other resulting in a loss of at least 50%of the January Mciwpack,_,_'__7
commercial sectors Disturbance
support the local More severe storms and sea level rise will affect coastal areas
economy (Higher,flasKie�wwinter and spring runoff will cause more flo`odingJ
• Wet and drycycles will.last longer and be more extreme
• Salmon and Increased forest_fires will affect a lager area`oMaind each'year
steelhead fill the �n P—` --
rivers, and wildlife Vegetation Patterns
• less of the basin will have growing conditions favorable for coastal spruce and
is abundant fir and more will support hardwoods and mixed pines
• Growing conditions will favor different grape varietals and fruit trees
National Center for
-rte Conservation Science &Policy
84 Fourth Street•Ashland, Oregon 97520 - 541.482.4459 • info@nccsp.org • www.nccsp.org
l hIlldlli' WI '. i - ROGUE BASIN SUMMARY
ASSESSING RISKS AND BUILDING PREPARATION PLANS
Recommendations from the Rogue
ClimateWise Workshops . Change disaster insurance policies and pricing
In 2008,the National Center for Science& Policy in structures to ensure costs of loss coverage are
partnership with the University of Oregon's Climate borne by those living in high-risk areas
Leadership Initiative, and working with the US Forest Shift costs of providing fire protection and other
Service Pacific Northwest Research Station MAPSS Team, emergency services to residents of high-risk areas;
released a report on preparing for climate change in the
Rogue Basin.' constrain development and encourage preventive
"Climate change poses actions in low-risk areas
The report was
the culmination clear, catastrophic threats. Use fire and ecologically-appropriate thinning
the culmination
---RupertMurdorh strategically to reduce fuel loads in critical areas
coordinated with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (e.g.,tree plantations and around homes)
that brought scientists, natural resources managers, • Link public transportation systems to facilitate
policy experts, and community leaders together to movement of people and equipment in
consider climate change risks and design cross-cutting emergency situations
recommendations. The goal of the resulting preparation
strategy was to help local communities, businesses, land
managers, and the natural systems we depend upon get
ready for the effects of climate change. INTECRATED CLIMATE I'll EPARATI ON
Following are the integrated recommendations of the
workshop participants:
I. Preparing Communities for Climate
Related Disturbance
With heightened risk of flood and fire already evident, and
increases projected for the coming century, action should
be taken to:
• Move permanent structures out of high risk areas
(floodplains, steep forested canyons) if and when
they are damaged by flood or fire business, and othei industries
• Upgrade and maintain roads and culverts to
accommodate higher severity storm events. culcural traditions.
r,
• rr
-vi 14
II. Preparing the Land for Climate Change III. Preparing for Scarcer and Less Reliable
Impacts Clean Water
The single most important strategy for buffering climate Water is an increasingly scarce commodity
change impacts is.to increase the capability of natural throughout the West.COJJnd management of clean
systems to withstand climate change impacts through drinking water will take on even greater importance
actions such as the following: in a climate changed future and requires the
• Reduce existing stresses: Reduce road densities; following actions:
Climit development of forests,=riparian areas, and • Expand water and energy conservation in
floodplai s contain'invas nevi sevi pecies and"the agricultural, manufacturing, and residential
means by which they are spread; lower fire risks settings
near homes • Research new cropping and farming practices
and flammable l
tree farms- and - that promote efficiencies and reduce
remove barriers ecological impacts
to fish passage r Restore capacity of'land to"'hold"_and
"filter" water' t'hroughfloodplain,wetland,
• Manage forests7 and riparian conservation and beaver
to-retain or-L reintroduction
restore structural
,
-" • Re-examine the water allocation system
and gene ( and groundwater use policies to avoid over-
diversity,
and optimize appropriation
resilience tol By about 2050, average moisture
distuibance,by balance conditions will mimic conditions
proteci ng_older'fon6sts a`nd roadless areas experienced rarely at the height of the
• Manage rivers to restore degraded floodplains most severe historic droughts."
and recover streamside riparian areas to_am ximize ---Hocrling and Cischcid (-oo7)
the land's ability to buffer the effects of'flbo'd ands
drought__F DRINKINC WATER
—--
"...More severe and variable Heather —� it
might mean longer and deeper droughts, t
as well as longer and more severe floods:' r
--Ran Neilson,USFS Pock Northrvest Research Station MAPSS program
V. Preparing for New Governance Challenges
Climate change brings risks on a scale that will strain
local communities and governments unless these
measures are taken:
• incorporate.climate_change preparationinto all?
pcurrent and future public and private plans and
licies
• Reorient management-policies_to f cus
LR. climate change projections rather th"an
ontinuing to manage based on historic
conditions 1
• Evaluate how existing and new policies may
affect climate change readiness across all.regions
of the basin
IV. Preparing for the Risks to Wildlife • Look for opportunities to identify strategies that
Climate change will bring about forced migrations and produce benefits for multiple sectors
extinctions of wildlife and plants in the Rogue Basin. • Expand planning and decision-making to at least
Many of these impacts can be lessened if we take these the Basin scale rather than planning in isolation
actions that reduce climate change risks: at the forest, county, city, or project levels
• Protect older forests roa'dless-areas, and • Reorient research and monitoring efforts to
C_.—
tmlgratory corridors to maintain areas whi-re-1 generate timely information on the speed,
wil( dlife cari live and species can 'migrate 1 trajectory, and consequences of climate change .
• Restore rivers, streams, high elevation st'reamside"
areas; floodplains,tributary)unctions to improve
spawning habitat, allow for fish migration, and - ".,.climate change has immediate
provide cool ---water fob fis� and local impacts - it literally affects
�-
• Manage wildlife populations and habitats to people in their backyards:'
protect genetic and life history diversity
---lone Lubchenco, Undersecretary afCommerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere,and NOAA Administrator(2ooS)
Doppelt, B.,R.Hamilton,C.Deacon Williams,and M.Koopman.2008.Preparing for Climate Change in the Rogue River Basin of Southwest
Oregon:stressors,risks,and recommendations for increasing resilience and resistance in human,built,economic and natural systems.
Ashland,OR.43 pp+appendixes.
Photo credits-Ashley Hegewold(rocks).Page 2:Cindy Deacon Williams(angler). Page 3: Cindy Deacon Williams(grapes and woodland
home),City of Ashland(flood). Back: Ashley Hegewold(coho)
This ClimoteWise project was undertaken to help pave the way for
collaborative efforts • planning
steps that must be taken to meet the challenges of climate change.
For more information about the National Center and the ClimoteWise
program, • • • • •
CITY COUNCIL STUDYSESSION
April 19, 2010
Page I of 4
MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, April 19, 2010
Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin,Navickas, Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger were present.
1. Look Ahead Review
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead.
2. Does Council wish to direct staff to prepare written comments. on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area
Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement?
Ethan Rosenthal an Environmental Planner for David Evans and Associates provided a presentation on the
Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion review of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) in relation to Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL:
NEPA Timeline
• 1998 Mt. Ashland Association proposes expansion
• 2000 Draft EIS circulated, generates considerable public comment
• 2003 Second Draft EIS circulated with added project alternatives
• 2004 Final EIS and Record of Decision issued by Forest Service
• 2005 Legal action ensues
• 2007 Court of Appeals upholds Forest Service on several counts, but failed to properly evaluate
several issues (next slide)
• 2007 Oregon DEQ Issues Bear Creek Watershed TMDL, including Reeder Reservoir Sediment
TMDL
• 2009 Forest Service circulates Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) to address issues identified by
Court of Appeals
Mr. Rosenthal explained the focus was on the Record of Decision (ROD) instead of the 1991 Mt. Ashland
Ski Lodge Master Plan because it was currently out for public review.
Issues Identified by Court of Appeals and Included in DSEIS
• Pacific Fisher—NFMA Claim
o Non compliance with requirements of Rogue River LRMP, does not include a compliant
Biological Evaluation
• Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain-NFMA Claims
• Failure to designate Restricted Riparian (Management Strategy [MS] 26) and Restricted
Watershed (MS 22) terrain
• Failure to evaluate soils standards and guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22
• Riparian Reserves-NFMA Claim
o Failure to designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 (LHZ 2)as Riparian Reserve
• Restricted Watershed Terrain- NFMA Claim
o No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed (MS 22) from Special Use
Permit(SUP) Area
Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain-NFMA Claims
• Failure to designate Restricted Riparian (Management Strategy [MS] 26) and Restricted Watershed
(MS 22)terrain
• Failure to evaluate soils standards and guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 19, 2010
Page 2 of 4
DSEIS Response Highlights
• All perennial streams and wetlands, including 100 foot buffer, were incorporated into Restricted
Riparian (MS 26) (48.8 acres)
• 27.9 acres of MS 26 subject to soil standards, but only 0.83 acres of impact would occur.
• Restricted Watershed (MS 22) designation applied to portions of the SUP within Ashland
Municipal Watershed(approximately 796 acres).
• For MS 22 mineral soil exposure standard is up to 30%, proposed expansion would result in an
estimated 16.5%
Staff further explained the mineral soil exposure standard of up to 30%required exposure not to exceed the
following limits overall,based on the erosion hazard rating of the soil:
• 40%mineral soil exposed on soils that are classed as very slight, slight, low or moderate.
• 30%exposure on high or severe erosion hazard soils.
• 15%exposure on very high or very severe erosion hazard soils.
Riparian Reserves-NFMA Claim
• Failure to designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 (LHZ 2)as Riparian Reserve
DSEIS Response Highlights
• LHZ 2 was mapped and described in FEIS, but not designated as Riparian Reserve
• DSEIS incorporated these areas into Riparian Reserve areas',resulting in:
0 10.08 acre increase in clearing areas
0 0.56 acre increase in grading areas
• Clearing to occur in areas not associated with streams or wetlands
• Grading would occur high on slope, primarily in open dry areas not associated with streams or
wetlands
Mr. Rosenthal confirmed there was an overall 1.6% increase in riparian reserve affected and clarified
clearing activities were not associated with streams and wetlands' specifically regarding LHZ 2 areas.
Grading would occur high on the slope.
Restricted Watershed Terrain- NFMA Claim
• No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed (MS 22) from Special Use Permit
(SUP)Area
DSEIS Response Highlights
• Court of Appeals found that Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to ensure expansion will
comply with Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines
• Through the DSEIS Forest Service acknowledges that MS 22 is not excluded from SUP areas
• Forest Service address the standards and guidelines as applicable in the DSEIS
Issues Identified by Court of Appeals and Included in DSEIS-Summary Conclusion
• DSEIS only addresses issues of 2004 ROD identified by Court of Appeals as deficient
• DSEIS appears to adequately address these issues
• Changes are to management unit designations
• No change to proposed actions described in 2004 ROD
DSEIS and Reeder Reservoir Sediment TMDL Connection
• TMDL sets strict sediment loading capacity, no significant increased delivery to reservoir over that
which would occur naturally.
• TMDL developed with full acknowledgement of MASA expansion project
• TMDL utilizes sediment modeling results from the MASA expansion FEIS
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 19, 2010
• Page 3 of 4
• DSEIS only resulted in change to management unit designation, not project design; therefore, no
need for revised sediment modeling
• Sediment modeling incorporated aspects of soils, slope, land cover, etc., but did not rely on
management units; therefore, again no,need for revised modeling
The Forest Service based the modeling on the actual geography of the location not the map designation.
• TMDL notes need for NPDES 1200-C permit (erosion control permit)prior to MASA construction
• TMDL and WQMP acknowledge proposed design features, mitigation measures , and monitoring
to control erosion and likelihood of no long-term increase in sediment input
Summary
• DSEIS adequately addressed issues identified by Court of Appeals
• No changes to proposed project resulted (just management unit designations)
• Therefore, likely no need to comment on specifics of DSEIS
• However, open comment period provides opportunity for City concerns to be included in the public
record
Comment Recommendations
To foster good communications and successful project implementation:
• Establish coordination committee between Forest Service, City, and Mt. Ashland Assoc. to discuss
project on an on-going basis (e.g. monthly during pre- and post-construction periods, and weekly
during construction)
• City should have opportunity to review and comment on project design plans (e.g. storm water
system design, erosion control plans;grading and clearing plans, etc.)
• City should have opportunity to visit project area during and post-construction
Staff explained the Forest Service declined to address global climate change because there was not
sufficient new data specific to Mt. Ashland Ski Lodge to warrant analysis.
Seek clarification of statements in 2004 ROD that MAA required to post bond to restore SUP area in
event of bankruptcy
• How will original required $200,000 bond amount be increased"proportionally"due to expansion?
• How will original required bond amount be increased to meet current day or future projected costs?
• The City requests bond to be posted prior to Forest Service authorization of expansion project
Council and staff discussed options to track the process for compliance included coordinating with Mt.
Ashland Association and making use of open comment periods. Council debated whether to add language
referencing Mt Ashland Association's economic assessment from 2004 and ask the Forest Service if the
required$200,000 for restoration was sufficient at this time.
Council directed staff to remove the first paragraph on page 6 of the Memorandum Draft Letter from Evans
and Associates to the City regarding the draft letter: "Based on the City's DEIS we believe that the
Forest Service has addressed and rectified the issues addressed by the Court of Appeals noted above,
incorporating the new areas into their proper management units. The City understands that the
analysis work did not result in modifications to the proposed project described in the FEIS, as it was
determined that proposed actions still fell within the management restrictions of the various
management units. Generally speaking, between the FEIS, DSEIS, and supporting documentation, it
appears that considerable effort has gone into analyzing and documenting potential impacts to
watershed resources and outlining the methods with which to address them, particularly at a
planning level of design."
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 19, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Mayor Stromberg left the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Council noted the potential impact TMDL sedimentation standards could have on the expansion, the need
to protect the watershed and the willingness of Forest Service to work with the City without officially going
on the record.
BG Hicks/190 Vista Street/Noted the list from the consultants was powerful but without the City's own
inspection team of specialists there was no way of knowing what was happening. Additionally, everyone's
lives have been affected by the economy and it was unrealistic to think those changes did not extend to the
project.
Council will forward specific language and additional questions to staff.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder