Summary of Comments & Recommendations

The following is a list of recommendations taken from the previous reports, which have been summarized for your convenience.

WATER QUALITY & QUANTITY
1. Develop requirements and hire an independent third party Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Team (typically 2-4 persons highly specialized in the specific profession that is being monitored - in this case soils and hydrology). The QA/QC Team should be selected by a community team of 6-9 persons, including members from City Staff, FS, maybe the Ashland Watershed Partnership or the Ashland Watershed Protection Alliance, and potentially others. Once hired, the QA/QC Team should be paid for by MAA, reports to City and FS (and potentially the selection team) and gives direction to MAA and their contractor. The QA/QC Team should be hired prior to construction design completion so that the erosion control, mitigation, restoration / remediation activities can be defined through a specific erosion and sediment control strategy prior to construction bidding. Once a contractor is selected, that contractor must understand the authority of the QA/QC Team and be responsive to their recommendations (should be included in the construction contract documents).

Specific items to be monitored by the QA/QC Team (taken from Paula Brown's September 5th report):

a. Effects of expansion on soils: QA/QC Team should analyze each specific area of construction impact to define the mitigation/restoration activities associated with each soils type.

b. Effects of erosion: The QA/QC Team should provide specific BMP (best management practices) to significantly reduce or control the negative impacts due to erosion. This set of BMPs must be specific to the alternative selected and be fully defined for the soils types.

c. Over-snow timber removal: It is recommended that this be the primary removal method and that if work cannot be completed over snow, then that proposal be submitted to the QA/QC Team for advice and approval.

d. Construction methods to control erosion and sedimentation: Just as standard erosion control strategies are in place, specific BMPs to control sedimentation loading should be included in the erosion and sediment control strategy developed by the QA/QC Team.

e. During construction and after construction completion, the QA/QC Team should define a monitoring strategy to ensure post-construction BMPs are in place to minimize disruption to restoration activities due to storms and snow melt.

f. To meet state and federal requirements, a Stormwater NPDES permit must be provided and that will require an Erosion Control Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan for construction. The QA/QC Team should develop this strategy for the Contractor.

g. To eliminate the potential for petroleum leaks from construction equipment, the QA/QC Team should evaluate the use of vehicle diapers or other petroleum containment practices.

h. The QA/QC Team should evaluate and it is suggested that they recommend no work within the mapped wetlands area. This will affect the construction of the bridge for options 2 or 6, and the QA/QC Team should make specific recommendations for that area of construction. If there is any impact (direct or otherwise), mitigation measures should be defined and directed to fully restore the wetlands.

i. Along with this wetlands area impact, the QA/QC Team may support the recommendation to complete work within the riparian reserve area to be completed as an over-snow operation, or that work be completed toward the end of the dry season (end of summer) to minimize effects.

j. It is my understanding that there is no complete vegetation clearing within the stream reaches. This should be clarified as a part of the construction design and monitored by the QA/QC Team. If there is significant vegetation clearing, then mitigation measures to restore vegetation should be defined and implemented.

k. Although I am surely not a blast expert, it is recommended that the significant use of blasting be discouraged. However, this recommendation is deferred to the QA/QC Team for their analysis and recommendation.

l. The lifts have a straight haul rope and are typically cleared to a width of 40 feet. As clearing can impact erosion, it is recommended that this be as narrow as practical to allow for maintenance and safety.

m. Erosion control methods should include silt fencing and fabric. These are only two of the BMPs available. The QA/QC Team should provide a detailed mitigation plan.

n. There may be areas to add seeding, mulching and re-vegetations to reduce erosion. The QA/QC Team should evaluate those opportunities.

2. The Forest Service and the MAA should be required to monitor creek impacts (erosion and sediment loading primarily) at the 2060 Road at the crossing of the middle fork of the east fork of Ashland Creek.

3. In addition to the second recommendation made in the September 5th analysis (monitor erosion as sediment loading at the 2060 Road), there is one other recommendation that is being identified. This recommendation is not a specific QA/QC Team responsibility so is called out separately. This is a need for assurances from MAA. The MAA must provide assurances to the City and FS that they will take corrective actions as recommended by the QA/QC Team.

FINANCIAL RISK
1. A comment should be submitted to the Forest Service on the DEIS and the EIS should address and quantify the reclamation costs for both the existing ski area and the selected alternative. The Forest Service should require from the city, as the permit holder, written assurance that it has agreed with the ski area operator that sufficient assets exist to cover the quantified reclamation costs.

2. A comment to the DEIS should be made that the EIS specify the reclamation requirements for the ski area.

Other Recommendations (Not part of the DEIS process)

Lease Recommendations:
1. Since the lease between the city and MAA does not address the reclamation costs of the expanded ski area, the lease should be modified to reflect a minimum liquidation value that includes these new costs.

2. The lease does not have a mechanism to reconcile reclamation costs that may exceed the initial estimate of costs because of new information or the imposition of new standards that may increase costs. The lease should be modified to incorporate a reconciliation clause.

3. Reexamine the "Minimum Liquidation Value" formula in the lease, in light of clearer rehabilitation and restoration requirements, to determine whether or not it will provide adequate financial guarantees to meet termination costs.

4. Restrict the use of any assets deemed City property from becoming security for any loans or operations without (a) prior written consent from the City and, (b) an independent asset inventory and valuation for minimum liquidation value to assure reclamation coverage.

Permit Recommendations:
1. Explore with the Forest Service the feasibility to revise the Special Use Permit to include language that more clearly defines what "a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer" would likely entail and provide for periodic updating of this provision to reflect changing standards or regulations.

The Role of the City in the Ashland Watershed under agreements with the Forest Service.
To strengthen the city's role in post-termination uses for the ski area, the city should seek to add language to the existing Memorandum of Understanding to specifically address the ski area. Such language should outline the process that will be pursued after any termination of the ski area special use permit and delineate the role the city will play in determining future uses.