Background:
The Mount Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is a winter recreation area on Mount Ashland
on Federal FS lands, within the purview of the RR-SNF. The ski area was
constructed in 1963. The City holds a Special Use Permit for the ski area
and leases the operation of the ski area to Mt Ashland Association (MAA).
The City has had a long-standing relationship with the FS, dating back to
the original 1929 agreement. The City's primary concern is the fact that
Mt Ashland serves as the municipal watershed and is the City's primary source
of quality drinking water. Protection of the watershed is paramount for both
the City and the Forest Service. The City has commented on several different
processes regarding the ski area since the decision to expand within the
special use permit area was accepted through the 1991 Master Planning efforts
(including a formal ROD and FEIS).
Most recently, the City Council made formal comments during the latest DEIS
process (September 2003) for the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion.
The formal comment letters (2) are attached and general comments will be
referred to in this document. Additional information regarding changes within
the FEIS and final FS decision are in the Attached Additional Background
section beginning on page 8 of this document.
The ROD documents the decision to expand based on the analysis completed
in the FEIS. The FS fully acknowledges the needs for diverse recreation
facilities and also to take advantage of opportunities to restore and further
maintain the watersheds. The FS decision is based upon a "modified" alternative
2 that uses the majority of the ski runs as shown in alternative 6, yet deleted
run 11 and added run 19 and the glading for run 18G. The final decision map
is attached and maps will be available at the study session. The RR-SNF staff
will be available to discuss the details of the selection process. All of
the documents may be viewed on the web at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siskiyou/planning/mtashland/feis/
As a general review of the comments, the City asked the FS to review the
following six key points. The FS responses to each of these considerations
as defined in the ROD and FEIS follows:
| 1. |
QA/QC Team: Develop the requirements and hire an independent third
party Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC) Team of 2-4 persons highly
specialized in soils and hydrology. … 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. … |
| 2. |
Monitor Creek Impacts / 2060 Road: The FS and MAA should be required
to monitor creek impacts (erosion and sediment loading primarily) at the
2060 Road East Fork at the crossing of the middle fork of the east fork of
Ashland Creek |
| 3. |
Reclamation Costs: The FEIS should address and quantify reclamation
costs for both the existing and selected alternative. The FS 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. |
| 4. |
Fire Risks/Building Materials: The location, design and type of
construction for the additional ski area guest services buildings should
take into consideration the need for fire protection features within these
buildings to prevent the potential for building fires spreading to adjacent
wildland resources. |
| 5. |
Phased Construction / Middle Fork: Consider phased construction
and detailed study in the Middle Fork (specifically comments from Councilor
Kate Jackson); QA/QC Team review and broader review of the water quality,
quantity, forest health, wildlife habitat and landslide hazard impacts within
the Middle Fork of the East Fork of Ashland Creek. |
| 6. |
Community-Based Alternative: Consider a Community-Based Alternative
(per Council Resolution 2003-33, October 22, 2003); the resolution asked
that the Community Alternative based on a Headwaters modified alternative
3 be evaluated as a separate alternative in the FEIS. The resolution did
not intend to be an endorsement of the alternative. |
FS ROD / FEIS Responses:
The FEIS is very detailed in its Response to Comments section (see FEIS-
Volume 3, Appendix A). The FS has specific jurisdiction and responsibilities
within federal regulations to review and implement decisions. There are some
things that the FS can do, others that they cannot do, and other interpretations
that provide the FS with broader options for implementation. The strongest
changes between the DEIS and the FEIS and subsequent requirements identified
in the ROD are those that deal with environmental impacts and show up as
specific mitigation measures and are in the monitoring report. As stated
in the ROD (p. ROD-5), "…all practical means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted." This
is in accordance with federal NEPA guidance, and is the basis for protection
of our watershed.
QA/QC Team: The FS has also stated that it is their obligation and
responsibility to provide all quality control and quality assurance for the
implementation and subsequent effects of the construction related to their
decision. It is their interpretation that they cannot delegate or give that
responsibility to an independent QA/QC Team. The FS further states that they
have the full capabilities on staff to provide the technical review and
inspection of the construction, monitoring and mitigation measures. [for
specific FS comments, see FEIS p. A-43 and p. B-3]
It is staff's interpretation of both the 1929 agreement and successive MOU
and the Northwest Forest Plans that the City has the responsibility to continue
to provide input and direction to the FS to ensure the protection of the
watershed and the City's primary drinking water source. Although the
responsibility of administering the land belongs to the FS, the joint
communication and coordination of the Ashland watershed is paramount to both.
Staff's continuing discussions with the FS are extremely positive and we
look forward to increasing the informal cooperative partnerships to jointly
ensure the protection of the watershed's water quality and quantity. The
City has been able to use the technical skills of the interdisciplinary technical
team for questions regarding long-term bank stabilization at the dam, to
re-establish the gauging stations at the east and west forks of the reservoir,
discuss monitoring protocol at Mt Ashland and other informal discussion relating
to watershed protection. The FS staff welcomes the opportunity for this
continuing relationship.
In addition to the FS' willingness to invite the City to actively participate,
MAA is actively seeking staff review during the design phase and is willing
to have City staff participate as a part of their internal quality control
as they monitor construction activities. MAA acknowledges that the City requires
assurances of water quality/water quantity protection and desires the technical
support from the City through an informal QA/QC effort. MAA intends on hiring
a QA/QC consultant as part of their design and construction process to ensure
they are doing the right things and doing them correctly. Ongoing monitoring
and corrective actions are MAA's responsibility and the City could assist
with observations and recommendations in that effort as well. Many of the
details will be defined as part of the final design and with the required
quality assurance plan and the annual operating plan required of MAA by the
FS.
Monitor Creek Impacts / 2060 Road: The FS agreed that monitoring is
necessary and that MAA has that responsibility with FS oversight. FS agreed
that the monitoring plan could include the 2060 Road (see p. A-44), but did
not specifically require that effort. In September, MAA brought a proposal
to the City to use the USGS (US Geological Survey) for stream/creek monitoring
in seven locations; six sites just outside the SUP boundaries and the final
one at the 2060 Road. The City requested a few additional monitoring parameters
at the existing City/USGS monitoring sites at the east and west forks of
Reeder Reservoir. The proposed monitoring plan allows the City to directly
access these results and will be able to correlate the monitoring data to
future sediment loading from the ski area verses that sediment that typically
is resulting below the ski area that would potentially reach Reeder Reservoir.
Monitoring is discussed extensively in the ROD and FEIS. The Monitoring Plan
is identified in the ROD (ROD - Attachment C) and is completely revised from
the original DEIS. This plan describes the monitoring parameters. Monitoring
will occur at various times throughout the year. The final design and quality
assurance plans will define specific best management practices (BMPs) to
avoid impact. The monitoring plan defines a list of mitigation measures (detailed
in the Mitigation Measures in Attachment ROD-B). State and local agencies
also play an active role in permitting certain activities during and following
construction.
Reclamation Costs: The FS states that a new bond would be developed
prior to implementation for the alternative selected. This would include
the costs of the existing ski area assets and costs of reclamation. (see
p. A-18). The permit holder (the City as the SUP holder - and the City through
agreement passes that to MAA) would be responsible for returning the area
to a condition satisfactory to the FS as the landowner. The ROD (p. ROD-45)
addresses the City-MAA lease that requires that MAA maintain a minimum bond
(in the form of liquid assets), which would be sufficient to meet the statement
in the permit. That amount was set at $200,000 in 1992, but since then has
been adjusted for inflation and will be proportionally adjusted to account
for the increase in development and reclamation in the event of closure.
A detailed Economic Feasibility Analysis for the Ski Area Expansion is included
in FEIS Volume 3 Appendix I.
Fire Risks/Building Materials: The FS acknowledges the building code
requirements for all new buildings/structures. It is further suggested that
the City as the SUP holder, work with MAA in designing fire resistive structures
to the greatest extent possible. It is expected that the Fire Department
(Fire Marshall) would be able to comment on the building designs and make
recommendations prior to design on suggested materials. MAA welcomes this
opportunity to provide a better more fire resistant facility. Additional
information regarding the Ashland Forest Resiliency project is shown in the
FEIS in Volume 3 on pg C-8 and of the construction burn methods in FEIS Volume
1 on pg III-22.
Phased Construction / Middle Fork: Phased construction is addressed
in several areas, but the FS generally left phasing for MAA to define through
the design and construction scoping process (see p. A-43-46). The FS stated
that it is their responsibility to analyze the environmental consequences
of each alternative relative to ground disturbances, not to be prescriptive
of what takes place in an operational sense.
It is staff's further interpretation that the intent of the Council's comment
was to gain additional knowledge of the Middle Fork area to avoid or minimize
construction damage to the surrounding environment, especially the wetlands.
One of the comments was the intent to use the monitoring data to better refine
installation plans. The FS commented that they support the "adaptive management"
concept and in several cases they identify where there may be reasons to
change construction BMPs and mitigation efforts based on monitoring results.
The FS decision includes very specific construction techniques as a result
of the significant public comment regarding environmental effects. The FS
is requiring revised run configurations of 12 and 14 similar to those provided
for in alternative 6 to reduce the impacts of development:
|
• |
reduce the impact to the spruce trees (reduced the cut from 1.8 acres
to 1.0 acres; or 5.5% of the stand instead of 10%) and eliminates cutting
two of the largest trees |
|
• |
reduced direct effect on wetlands (from 0.8 acres to 0.5 acres) |
|
• |
requires lightweight, low ground pressure machine for run clearing (see
details on FEIS p. II-34) |
|
• |
requires the use of an alternate design for the bridge footings (IM-3;
details on FEIS p. II-32) for the wetlands crossing at the base of runs 12
and 14. The bridge footings are made of logs and will support the bridge
decking which can be steel girders with wooden decking. Seasonal large slotted
plastic arch culvert sections would be used above the bridge for the second
creek crossing to allow for skier passage, but not restrict stream flows
or runoff. |
In addition, the FS requires that MAA prepare and submit a phased development
plan (annual operating plan including a Summer Work Plan) for FS approval
prior to development. During recent informal discussions with MAA, they
acknowledge that there will be a portion of the development phases that will
be phased to ensure that they are able to accomplish a quality construction
job that fit within the practical limits of a shortened construction season
on the mountain. Their detailed engineering plans will show the construction
phasing. Detailed mitigation measures are identified in ROD Attachment B.
The mitigation measures along with the Monitoring Plan will define the process.
The City can help to review these processes to ensure water quality and water
quantity protection.
Community-Based Alternative: Council direction requested the FS to analyze
the Community Based alternative as a separate alternative. The analysis of
the Community Alternative submitted by the Headwaters organization and some
additional comments made by the City was fully evaluated and are described
in Appendix D "Actions and Alternatives Considered but Eliminated". Although
the FS did not specifically review the Community Alternative as a "separate"
alternative, each element of the community-based alternative was considered.
The FS considered that many of the elements of the community-based alternative
were similar to Alternative 3. Because of that, a separate or new alternative
was not created for additional review. The elements specified in Council's
comment, "Components of the Community Alternative" were considered. However,
as the FS did not select Alternative 3, many of these elements that could
have been added as modifications to Alternative 3 were considered but rejected.
The majority of the comments to the components of the community alternative
were analyzed in the FEIS on pages A-28 to 45 and Appendix D, D-13-16.
The FS did include the addition of the skiway and helispot at the base of
LC-6 for emergency access. And, as the skiway was included, a gladed run
(R-18G) from Rodgers Way to run R-18 was included as well. Watershed restoration
improvements would be completed before or concurrent with the first year
of construction. |
