Document text
Letters: Mt. Ashland denies request to mediate By Tom Dimitre, Ashland Chairman, Rogue Group Sierra Club One of the ways to solve problems that divide a community is through mediation. The City of Ashland has a mediation program. Small claims court strongly suggests mediation prior to a hearing in front of a judge. Folks going through a divorce are often required to mediate the custody of their children. Mediation works! Why is it then that the Mt. Ashland Association has shunned our offer to mediate the issue of their very controversial, community-dividing proposal to expand the Mt. Ashland Ski Area into the Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek? On October 2nd, we sent a letter to Jeff Hanson, General Manager of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area asking to mediate the issue. The letter stated: "As you know, the Rogue Group Sierra Club has been involved in the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion for over fifteen years. We have been strong advocates for affordable improvements on Mt. Ashland. Over the past few years it has become apparent that the controversy over the expansion, as proposed by the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) has grown exponentially. This week's meeting at the city council chambers highlighted this fact. While MAA board members, ex-MAA board members, MAA employees, chambers of commerce, politicians and a few citizens were advocating for Alternative 2, the public, in general was advocating for something else. The one point that nearly each opponent to Alternative 2 made is that expansion should stay out of the Middle Branch. "The public must have a strong say in how their ski area, their watershed and their public lands are managed. "It is clear to us, and it was reiterated many times last night, that the controversy is tearing the city apart. In the unlikely event that the Forest Service chooses Alternative 2, the MAA will have created an even more divisive community with public outcry, appeals and litigation sure to follow. We don't believe that this necessarily needs to be the case. I can't imagine that MAA would prefer this scenario." Well, I guess we were wrong. The lack of an affirmative response to this offer should make the community wonder why the Mt. Ashland Association doesn't want to attempt a compromise on this important issue. After all, two out of three citizens who spoke to the city council were opposed to expansion in the Middle Branch; 56 of 66 official written comments by citizens to the City Council were opposed; 940 petition signatures were also turned in to the City Council opposing expansion in the Middle Branch. The Rogue Group Sierra Club, other environmental groups and a large majority of the community have moved from a "no expansion" stance on Mt. Ashland to a compromise in the form of Alternative 5 with some money saving modifications; others support Alternative 3. In both cases these folks have compromised and have moved to the center in order to allow some expansion and improvements on the mountain that are affordable, while protecting the fragile and very unique Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek. In contrast, for years now, the Mt. Ashland Association has steadfastly stuck with their proposal for the ski expansion (currently, Alternative 2), stubbornly refusing to compromise for the betterment of the environment, the community and their finances. Yes, they've tweaked their plan, but it still clearcuts 80 football fields of irreplaceable old growth forest; it still clearcuts riparian areas and Engelmann spruce groves; it still ruins over 300 acres of habitat for dozens of rare, old growth species; and it will ruin wetlands and greatly increase sedimentation - all in the City of Ashland's municipal watershed. It's time for the Mt. Ashland Association to move to the center for the sake of the community and the environment; and so the cost for expansion can be reduced to something that is affordable. For instance, by just deleting the Moraine Lodge and parking lot expansion (substituting a shuttle service) from Alternative 5, the MAA would save approximately $1,500,000. This is a community owned ski area; the Mt. Ashland Association operates the ski area for the community; it's time that they listened to the community, mediate, move to the middle as others have already done and do their part to get this issue resolved. Guest forum: Not the right time or place for mediation By Jeff Hanson, General Manager, Mt. Ashland Association This letter was sent October 17 in response to an offer to hold talks with the Rogue Group Sierra Club. It accurately reflects our position on the request to mediate with just their group. Dear Rogue Group Sierra Club Executive Committee, I am writing to you in response to your request for mediation. It doesn't appear that this is a time for mediation on this issue. Let me explain the reasoning behind this position. Mediation is a means of encouraging compromise. As demonstrated several times in the past 20 years in which this process has evolved, Ski Ashland and the Mt. Ashland Association has shown a willingness to compromise and discuss different approaches to Mt. Ashland Ski Area expansion. Examples include: o During the master plan process which culminated in 1991: The first change was from the long term plan (studied since 1972) which combined the "knoll" and "C-6" areas with a common base area, to a consideration of a far smaller option on the south side, which greatly reduced impacts to forests. A second change was to separate the Knoll and C-6 areas with no south side elements to satisfy opponents to the south side development (this change was strongly supported by the RG Sierra Club among others). o During the present site-specific approval process: Significant changes were made in locations and acreages of runs from the 1991 expansion approval to reduce overall impact and avoid sensitive areas. Use of a professional designer to create sustainable recreation compatible with the environment. Detailed research and design by a local environmental firm to provide extensive environmental improvements in the plan for the area of the creek crossing near the proposed base of C-6. Adjustments of lift lines, removals of runs, further adjustments of creek crossings, complete redesign of parking facilities, removal of proposals for composting toilets, and more (based on discussions and input from RG Sierra Club and others). Mediation will not add to the value of the outcome of current efforts, and may in fact, impede them. It has been challenging to arrive at consensus during this process, but there is broad agreement among interested parties that we need to allow the NEPA process to proceed unencumbered. Unlike mediation, this process will allow all interest groups representation. Although we aren't interested in mediation, we do continue to be open to discussion with anyone having concerns about this important issue. The goal of MAA has always been to provide a high quality, safe outdoor recreation experience to the residents of southern Oregon and northern California. It is clear to us from the overwhelming response we have received from supporters not only in Ashland, but in the collective communities in the Rogue Valley as well, that Alternative 2 or 6 offers the best Mt. Ashland expansion proposal to accomplish this goal both economically and environmentally. We believe the citizens of the entire Rogue Valley are solidly in favor of our proposal as researched and analyzed. The effort to find common ground is at work within the current NEPA process. All of the alternatives considered are direct result of much discussion, research and thousands of comments from the public. The Rogue Group Sierra Club among others has played an important role in improving Alternative 2 and 6 in the current DEIS. As a result it has evolved into a better proposal. We appreciate your interest on this important issue. If your organization agrees to pursue discussion on how to improve upon existing proposal under the NEPA process, please contact me so we can make the necessary arrangements. Alternative 3 the only alternative By Tonya Graham, Executive Director, Headwaters Headwaters has been working with ski area users over the past year and a half to create a community alternative that improves the ski area and protects the ecologically sensitive Middle Branch. Alternative 3 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is based on the ideas of this group. The Forest Service's economic analysis has shown it to be the least financially risky. According to the DEIS, "Alternative 3 consistently outperforms Alternative 2 and 6 because it has lower capitalization costs and fairly similar visitation trends." (DEIS IV-289) That is, Alternative 3 will attract and accommodate about the same number of visitors without the financial risk of the two alternatives that pose the greatest environmental threat to the Middle Branch. In contrast to this balanced approach, the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) is asking us to trust them with a financially and ecologically risky expansion. In considering a request such as this, it often is useful to examine the record of the organization in question. We know that MAA inherited a ski area that had been scraped into the landscape long before anyone gave adequate thought to the impacts of such aggressive development on our watershed. As a result, not all of the mountain's current erosion problems are their fault. Fair enough. However, we must ask ourselves, "What has MAA done to reduce the erosion problems they inherited over a decade ago?" Every year, the Forest Service walks through the ski area with MAA employees pointing out what needs to happen in the upcoming year to reduce erosion. MAA then submits an annual operations plan to the Forest Service, which includes a task list for summer work crews. Sounds good so far, doesn�t it? Unfortunately, no one documents whether these activities really do any good. MAA is not collecting data. The Forest Service is not collecting data. And the City of Ashland is not collecting data. Visual inspection alone doesn�t cut it when you are talking about sediment loading in the channels of a municipal watershed. Especially when the "mitigation" activities include practices, such as planting grass plugs, proven to be unsuccessful in preventing sediment delivery to streams from granitic soils on steep slopes. This is a particularly serious issue when the annual walks confirm the continued presence of the erosion legacy and when an aggressive expansion is being pushed that will make the problems worse. So, what are we supposed to believe? The Forest Service wants us to believe that natural erosion in the lush mountain meadows of the Middle Branch produces over 50 times the sediment that is expected to come off hillsides scalped to build ski runs (DEIS pg. III-33). We are supposed to believe that the computer erosion simulation results are accurate when the documentation specifically states that the model is not designed to be used in watersheds, like the Middle Branch, that have permanent stream channels. And, we are supposed to believe the results when the model has been fed data from Idaho that has not been correlated properly to ensure it accurately reflects conditions on Mt. Ashland. Currently, there are no scientifically sound comprehensive monitoring, mitigation, or restoration programs at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Despite the lack of critical scientific information and strategic planning, the Forest Service has helped the MAA identify necessary restoration projects, some of which "are likely related to ongoing ski area operations." (DEIS Appendix D-30) In fact, most of the restoration projects (15 of 24 sites) are related directly to the operation of the existing ski area. These projects should have been proactively started by the MAA years ago. If they had, and if they had good data to back up assertions that they are doing a good job, then maybe our community might feel a little better about entrusting them with the delicate Middle Branch. Instead, we are assured that this time the MAA will do the proper monitoring, restoration and mitigation. This time they will monitor both during construction and into the future. Unfortunately, this time their expansion budget does not include a line item for restoration projects. The users group and Headwaters believe there is a better way. We are asking the Forest Service to make some modifications to Alternative 3 to more completely align it with the community alternative. We believe that with these modifications the alternative charts the way to a better ski area while preserving MAA's financial feasibility, protecting the city's drinking water supply, and caring for the watershed's unique ecological treasures. For more details, visit www.mtalternative.org or www.headwaters.org . LINKS: DAILY TIDINGS: Main | News | Sports | Obituaries | Opinion | Columnists | AP News | Subscribe | Archives | Weather | Classifieds | Contact Us | Privacy REVELS: Main | Calendar | Dining | Movies | T.V. OTHER: Road Cams Copyright 2003 Ashland Daily Tidings 541.482.3456. 1661 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. - Advertisers -