Document text
SATURDAY December 20, 2003 - Subscribe - Contact Us Valley&State Backpage O&E Sports Archives Classifieds Faith&Beliefs Obituaries Revels EPA backs minimized expansion By Vickie Aldous Ashland Daily Tidings The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended the U.S. Forest Service select a Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion alternative that allows development only on the east side of the controversial Middle Branch area of Ashland Creek's East Fork. The EPA made the recommendation in a comment submitted this week on the Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzing expansion options. While the comment period on the DEIS closed Oct. 23, the EPA had notified the Forest Service that the comment would be late. The Ashland-based Headwaters environmental group and a coalition of skiers and snowboarders have advocated for an expansion plan similar to the DEIS's Alternative 3, which calls for new ski runs and a chairlift downhill of existing runs - east of the Middle Branch of Ashland Creek's East Fork. "We have a strong preference for Alternative 3," EPA officials said in their comment letter. "Based on information presented in the EIS, we conclude that in the critical area of effects to aquatic resources, including water quality, instream flows, erosion and sedimentation, Alternative 3 would entail less risk of environmental damage in Ashland Creek Basin than with either Alternative 2 or Alternative 6. ... We recommend that the Forest Service select Alternative 3, or a version of it that confines development to the east side of the East Fork drainage." Alternative 2 is a Mt. Ashland Association proposal to build ski runs on both sides of the Middle Branch with a wetlands bridge crossing. The Forest Service's preferred alternative, Alternative 6, makes slight changes to the Mt. Ashland Association proposal in order to reduce environmental impacts. The EPA also favors Alternative 3 because it limits impacts to the McDonald Peak Roadless Area near the ski area, avoids impacts to a regionally rare Englemann spruce grove, provides increased terrain for inexperienced skiers and is more financially feasible than other alternatives even under low visitation scenarios, according to the comment letter. "It's good to see the hard work of the community group is being recognized as offering a valid and perhaps best solution about what we do up on Mount Ashland," said Cindy Deacon Williams, forest watch monitor for Headwaters. According to the EPA, expanding into the Middle Branch could reduce groundwater storage there, resulting in lower flows during the dry season in Ashland Creek, source of Ashland's municipal water supply. Sufficient information is lacking on the amount of water coming from the Middle Branch, EPA officials said in the letter. Ski run construction on steep slopes with unstable soils and a proposed parking lot expansion could increase water run-off and erosion, as well as creek flows during "rain on snow" storms, according to the letter. Rather than expanding the parking lot, the Forest Service should consider directing the Mt. Ashland Association to develop a bus shuttle service from the junction of the ski area access road and Interstate 5, the EPA recommended. The EPA also raised doubts about the Forest Service's predictions of low sedimentation levels from an expansion, noting that recent soil erosion data is lacking and the sedimentation prediction model used by the Forest Service may not be appropriate for conditions at the ski area. Additionally, the Forest Service should provide more information about how Best Management Practices - measures taken during construction to reduce environmental harm - will minimize watershed impacts and ensure an expansion legally complies with the Northwest Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy, according to the letter. Most of the EPA's concerns are about insufficient information in the DEIS, rather than any specific evidence that expansion would harm the watershed, said Jonathan Freedman, an environmental review specialist in the EPA's Pacific Northwest Office in Seattle who reviewed the DEIS. In the letter, the EPA did commend the Forest Service for responding to public comments and making substantial changes to the DEIS compared to a previous DEIS released in 2000. The Forest Service withdrew the 2000 DEIS in part because of EPA concerns that the document did not analyze a full range of expansion alternatives. "They went back and made a lot of changes," Freedman said. "This EIS is much more complete. It's fair to commend the Forest Service for that. In some cases, they've still got some things to resolve." Steve Johnson, leader of the Forest Service team that prepared the DEIS, said he has not reviewed the EPA letter yet and does not have comments at this time. A substantial portion of EPA's comments are requests for clarification of data, said Jeff Hanson, ski area general manager. "Basically, they asked for clarification and data on the studies and data reported in the EIS," he said. "We ask the Forest Service to do their best to evaluate the best available data and to make conclusions based on that data." The Forest Service is not legally required to follow EPA recommendations about the ski area, according to Freedman. "We're a fellow federal agency with some expertise in evaluating projects," he said. "Our concerns should be taken seriously. We're recommending changes to the project. As a statutory matter, they don't have to do those things." The Forest Service expects to release a Final Environmental Impact Statement in the spring that responds to comments on the draft version, followed by a Record of Decision detailing which alternative has been selected. DailyTidings.com Home Page Valley&State | Backpage | O&E | Sports | Archives | Weather | Classifieds Columnists | Faith&Beliefs | Obituaries | Revels | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2003 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Site Search: .:Advertisements:. RESOURCES - Road Cams