Document text
Letters: Expansion plan blurs priorities By Jay Lininger Ashland Instead of a fire plan for the Ashland Watershed, the U.S. Forest Service gave us an incendiary plan to expand the industrial playground at the source of our drinking water. The new "preferred alternative" is not a compromise. Its total impact differs from the Mt. Ashland Association's environmentally unconscious proposal by six acres. This is the wrong proposal at the wrong time. It promises to stoke social conflict at the very moment the Forest Service needs community goodwill to proceed with more important wildfire planning. The agency's prioritization of recreational development over protection of public health and safety is scandalous. It's not the first time ski expansion delayed wildfire readiness. Ashland District ranger Linda Duffy told a public meeting on July 19, 2000, that the previous ski area EIS delayed the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, which reduces hazardous fuel in the city's wildland interface, by nine months. On its merits, Alternative 5 (infill) meets the purpose for expansion and avoids serious environmental impacts. Its new chairlift allows less experienced skiers to access easy terrain on the Dream and Caliban trails without riding the Ariel lift to the top of the mountain. The new lift's wind-protected location gives it better operational reliability than Ariel. Clearing a new beginner area east of the Lodge and trail widening can further increase the ski area's offerings by 23 acres. Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 overreach because they slice through the stream zone of the Middle Branch of the East Fork of Ashland Creek. Road construction, excavation and clear-cutting would compact and displace granite soil over large areas. Peak winter stream flows would increase and summer base flows would decrease. Erosion and water pollution would occur. This EIS improves on the last one because it incorporates lots of public input. However, it advances many of the same half-truths as the first statement, particularly regarding impacts to soil and water. For example, it asserts that sediment pollution from the ski area is not a major concern based on a study that lacked pre-disturbance measurements, started 15 years after ski area development, lasted only six years, and did not produce reliable data because sediment dams overflowed or broke every year. The geology of the Middle Branch is not similar to the existing ski area, so using a flawed study and extrapolating its findings to the Middle Branch is not responsible. The City Council must define appropriate priorities for the Forest Service, placing fire planning over recreational development until the former is totally done. Fire management and fuel reduction are far more important to the health and safety of the community and the security of our municipal water supply than playground enlargement. The Council also must define the limits of development, if any exist, for our watershed. The City holds the Special Use Permit for the ski area's operation. Ashland taxpayers are responsible for restoring the watershed to its pre-development condition if the ski area financially collapses for lack of snow, as has occurred three times. 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 -