| 1. The 1929 Agreement. Agreements between the city and Forest
Service in management of the Ashland Creek Watershed include the 1929 Cooperative
Agreement between the City of Ashland and the Forest Service for the management
of the Ashland Watershed, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) drafted
in 1996, and updated in 1999.
While the 1929 agreement is the seminal instrument in the evolution of the
city's relationship with the Forest Service, the city has no power under
the agreement to require or prevent Forest Service projects or programs within
the watershed. By its terms, the agreement constitutes a requirement by the
Forest Service to meet and confer with the city in certain actions affecting
the watershed:
". . . before entering into any agreement for the cutting of timber or removal
of other forest products from national forest lands within the area, the
officials of the City of Ashland will be consulted and full consideration
will be given to any requirements the City of Ashland may desire to impose
as necessary for the safeguarding of the water supply." (Paragraph 1)
The agreement requires the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict or prevent
activities within the watershed, "so far as he has the legal authority to
do so," that will diminish or pollute the city's water supply. The legal
authority is now controlled to a great extent by the environmental protections
adopted by Congress since the 1929 agreement. Undue reliance on the 1929
agreement to protect the watershed should be avoided, since it can be terminated
upon thirty days' notice. Nevertheless the agreement has guided the relationship
of the governmental entities for several decades and continues to shape the
interaction between them.
2. The 1996 MOU. The 1996 Memorandum of Understanding between the
city and the Forest Service, which was entered into to clarify and update
the 1929 agreement, emphasizes watershed protection through fire suppression
and fuel management programs. This agreement recognizes the various environmental
laws and constraints affecting the watershed that have been adopted or
implemented since the 1929 agreement. By its terms the city has the authority
to:
2.1. ". . . participate in and input into the resource management process
for planning, management review and evaluation any resource activity within
the Ashland Watershed, and
2.2. ". . . with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission to coordinate
resource management issues influencing the Ashland Watershed." (Page 3,
paragraphs 5 and 6, 1996 MOU)
3. Refining the Relationship with the Forest Service.
3.1. Bull Run Model: An example of possible language to incorporate
into a MOU with the Forest Service can be found in the legislation governing
the Bull Run Watershed near Portland:
"The policy set forth . . . shall be attained through the development,
maintenance, and periodic revision of land management plans . . . the development
and revision of land management plans for the unit . . . shall provide for
public participation and shall consult and coordinate with appropriate officials
and advisors of the city, and shall consider such data and research as the
city may collect through its own monitoring systems and scientific efforts,
if any. Such plans shall be prepared by an interdisciplinary team; be embodied
in appropriate written material, including maps and other descriptive documents;
shall contain . . . standards developed . . . after consultation and in
cooperation with the city . . . The Secretary or his representative shall,
upon request, and at least annually, meet with appropriate officials of the
city for the purpose of reviewing planned management programs . . . and assuring
that their respective management and operational activities within the unit
are appropriately coordinated . . ."
3.2. Stewardship Contracting. The city could request, in the event
of termination of the special use permit, that the Mt. Ashland Ski Area be
considered for stewardship contracting. Under this program the Forest Service
is authorized to enter into projects with private persons or other public
or private entities to perform services to achieve land management goals
for the national forests and the public lands that meet local and rural community
needs. The land management goals of a project may include, among other things-
(1) road and trail maintenance or obliteration to restore or maintain water
quality; (2) soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other
resource values; (3) setting of prescribed fires to improve the composition,
structure, condition, and health of stands or to improve wildlife habitat;
(4) removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest stands,
reduce fire hazards, or achieve other land management objectives; (5) watershed
restoration and maintenance; (6) restoration and maintenance of wildlife
and fish habitat; and (7) control of noxious and exotic weeds and reestablishing
native plant species. Many of these goals easily apply to a post-termination
Mt. Ashland Ski Area and such a designation, if achieved, would give the
local community direct imput and control over the activities and uses in
the former ski area. |
