Document text
http://www.omniture.com --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Obituaries Weather Archive Hot Topics Revels Etcetera Backpage O-Zone Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Games - Sudoku Games - Arrange August 12, 2006 Council resolution raises Mt. A concerns By Alan Panebaker Ashland Daily Tidings The proposed Mount Ashland ski area expansion hit another bump in the road this week. The Ashland City Council will consider Tuesday whether to request the U.S. Forest Service and Mount Ashland Association hold off from timber cutting in the expansion area until district and appellate courts make final rulings in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups against Regional Forester Linda Goodman. Judge Owen M. Panner heard oral arguments Monday for the Oregon Natural Resources Council et al. versus Linda Goodman. He is in the process of making a decision, and some Ashland residents are worried the expansion will begin before plaintiffs can appeal if Panner rules against them. "Let's say the judge rules in favor of the Forest Service," Ashland City Councilor David Chapman said. "There's a small window of time where if somebody wanted to they could go in there and cut trees before the plaintiffs file an appeal. All this would do is make a resolution to ask them not to." The City of Ashland holds a special use permit through the U.S. Forest Service, and the Mount Ashland Association operates it on Forest Service land. With the legal proceedings in limbo, some residents fear logging will begin soon. At the same time, the Mount Ashland Association worries the city's adoption of this resolution could hinder its business. The Mount Ashland Association believes the resolution could cut into ticket sales. "The city is potentially interfering with our ability to run our business," said Kim Clark, general manager for the Mount Ashland ski area. After City Administrator Martha Bennett, sent the resolution to the association, Clark and Mount Ashland Association President Bill Little expressed concerns it would interfere with their ability to raise money for the proposed expansion. Environmental groups, the Mount Ashland Association and the Forest Service have been tangled in the judicial process since 2004, when the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Headwaters and the Rogue Group Sierra Club filed suit against Regional Forester Linda Goodman, claiming a final environmental impact statement for the ski area expansion did not properly assess its effects on erosion and habitat for wildlife like the sensitive Pacific Fisher. Environmental activist Eric Navickas filed a separate lawsuit. The proposed expansion area is in the City of Ashland's municipal watershed. Because of a memorandum of understanding with the Forest Service, parties have to consult the city before removing timber in the watershed. The city holds a special use permit and leases it to the ski area, giving them the leverage of input in its operations. Clark said the issue is between the three parties in the lawsuit, and the city should not interfere. The Mount Ashland Association contacted its lawyer about the resolution, but Clark said it is not planning to take legal action against the city. "It's a ploy of possible interference in the judicial process," Clark said. In the ski area summer work plan, which it presents to the Forest Service annually, the Mount Ashland Association stated it would not begin clearing timber in the 71-acre expansion area any sooner than mid-September. The worry for plaintiffs in the case is that the judge will rule near Sept. 15, and timber cutting will begin before they have time to file for an appeal. "Our concern is if the Mount Ashland Association, goes in during that window," said Tom Dimitre, chair of the Rogue Group Sierra Club. Meanwhile, the Mount Ashland Association sent an e-mail to its supporters this week requesting they attend Tuesday's council meeting "to show the Ashland City Council that some who oppose the project are not speaking for the entire community." The anxiety for those on both sides appeared to rise after Monday's oral arguments, and comments to the city council shifted more in favor of the expansion this week, Bennett said. "In the last five days, e-mails in favor of the ski area expansion have started to come in," she said. Staff writer Alan Panebaker can be reached at 482-3456 x 227 or [email protected] . Current Comments: What? It's Clark's position that the city should not represent the interests of its citizens over the city's primary source of water? The proposed request would only ask that the legal process be completed before irreversible damage is done. That's a fair request when so much is at stake. Does the MA Association really want to be represented by such a divisive attitude? It's that attitude that will hurt ticket sales. Perhaps it's the city that should take legal action to assert its legal place. Tom - Ashland - August 12th, 6:32 PM "the city should (not) represent the interests of its citizens" Tens of thousands of us are interested in a world class skiing facility. I hope they represent us in that quest, not the whining minority "before irreversible damage is done" A politician makes a 90 minute ad to support his fledgling career and suddenly we have a town full of global warming experts "that attitude that will hurt ticket sales" What will hurt ticket sales is a lack of parking and new ski terrain Dave - Ashland, OR - August 12th, 11:27 PM Dave, I'm no global warming expert. I rely upon peer-reviewed data from a variety of sources in the scientific community. The conclusions are verifiable and not in dispute. I challenge everyone to go see 'An Inconvenient Truth' and then justify the expansion. At least be honest about it. Proponents want the expansion so they can have more fun on the ski slopes or make more money. It's time we look beyond our own selfish leisure pleasures and make decisions for the health of the planet. Jay - Ashland - August 13th, 6:59 AM I think the expansion is long overdue,I am not a skier but have lived on Mt.Ashland for thirty years ,I ride my bike up there daily in summer.I see snow left only on the ski runs in july,this year august how about what that does for our water supply in the watershead jerry shanafelt - ashland.or - August 13th, 11:13 AM Dave, tsk,tsk..."Tens of thousands of us...". Come on now. Read the current census for the Ashland area, Dave. I'll take good drinking water over any money grubbing, bad environmental scheme, benefiting a small (that's right, Dave)percentage of locals. Anyway, why would you support a scheme designed to line someone's pockets at the expense of good water, just to provide entertainment for people who don't live here? Thomas Walters - Ashland,OR - August 13th, 12:16 PM Dave, sounds like you want a contest to see which will hurt the ticket sales the most, provocations like calling your opponents' expression of concern "whining" and Clark's attempts to intimidate our city council out of acting on the city's interest or your narrow concerns. Ok, let's agree to make the ticket sales have its worst year then... The irreversible damage I referred to aren't just mitigation of global warming, but includes damage to the city water supply and wildlife corridors. Tom - Ashland - August 13th, 5:51 PM Jerry, What an interesting question. I have ski'd these slopes for years from Nov to June, and I observe that the snow sticks and accumulates according to the microclimate. I see snow under tree stands, on open slopes, in protected gulleys. I don't think the snow you see is because of ski slopes. I think it is due to the prevailing wind and north aspect. Currently the most snow is in the out of bounds area, not the ski slopes. I notice that that snow stays where there is shade from trees. Jay - Ashland - August 13th, 9:07 PM Why not put a measure on the ballot and then Ashland residents could vote for or against expansion, for or against watershed protection... Without such I'm not sure we'll know whos the majority or minority. "10,000 of us", in a town of 20,000 still doesnt answer the question. No 'vote'of the people will happen and as such we have to trust in our electeds to reperesent us. Their leanings on this question will likely have implications come November for those whose seats ate contested. joe - ashland - August 14th, 1:38 AM "Put a measure on the ballot?" There was a ballot on the Ashland Daily Tidings page and it was FOR the expansion!!! The ballot mysteriously disappeared when the vote became more and more for the expansion. Go figure! Julie - Ashland - August 14th, 8:37 AM Julie, the poll was pulled because votes against the expansion were not being counted. This was verified by a number of people and the webmaster. The poll is not scientific and is easily manipulated by anyone with access to multiple computers. If you look at the Tidings archives, you'll find that comments to the forest service were evenly divided. Also, many comments have come from people who don't live anywhere near here. Should they determine how our watershed is managed? Jay - Ashland - August 14th, 8:55 AM I find that odd that only the votes "against" the expansion were not counted. So all the other categories were counted? WEIRD! With all the technology we have I find that a little strange! Julie - ashland - August 14th, 9:12 AM In response to Mr. Walters statement that "this is a scheme designed to line someone's pockets", I hope he understands that Mt. Ashland is a non-profit which directs revenue back into infrastructure. Additionally, have we considered that a greater good may arise from the expansion? Consider the potential for increased youth programs exposing children to an alpine environment, children who may never have that opportunity with their parents? This is how my passion for environmental issues began. John - Ashland, Or - August 14th, 9:13 AM The Daily Tidings is a shlock operation. These "surveys" are actually paid advertisements. And they censor my comments even though I never use expletives. Shame on the tidings and shame on these bubble heads with their misguided notions of an expanded ski area. Personally I don't feel like sacrificing ANYTHING so that the idle rich, their trust fund babies, and their overgrown manservants can slide around a little further down the hill before they get lost around bull gap. Thank you. Farquaar - Ashland - August 14th, 9:14 AM In September 2004 the Ashland Public Works Department agreed with the result of the record of decision that stated that "neither the quantity or quality of the watershed in Ashland would be negatively impacted." Where is all your "scientific" proof that the water will be effected? I said SCIENTIFIC not opinion! Julie - Ashland - August 14th, 10:00 AM A ballot would finally determine the opinion of the people of Ashland. Have the issue on the November ballot when the turnout is best, so it's very clear that the result is truly the will of the people. Let's not forget, though, that there are basically 3 views: For the current expansion plan. For a modified expansion that takes the footprint of the expansion out of the watershed of the middle fork. For no expansion. Though I favor no expansion, I would predict a win for a modified plan. Tom - Ashland - August 14th, 12:30 PM This is a Federal issue not a City of Ashland issue. There should be no ballot. I still haven't gotten any response on where your "scientific" proof is. Don't change the subject! Julie - Ashland - August 14th, 1:17 PM I've been up there when there wasn't snow, seeing the erosive effects of the existing runs and the shortcomings of the mitigation efforts. There's a dramatic contrast between where the runs are now and where the new runs are proposed. The new runs would go over the springfields that put out some of the best drinking water (what's that worth?) and would crush structures in the ground through which the water flows in and out, forcing the water to the surface and increasing its erosiveness. Tom - Ashland - August 15th, 1:28 PM Julie, it is most definitely a city issue, it is where your drinking water comes from! The Forest Service abdicated stewardship to the city (the Special Use Permit), since it is the city's watershed. The city abdicated stewardship to the Mt Ashland Association for the grand price of $1 a year, to run a ski resort. Ashlanders are subsidizing the ski resort, and should have a say in how their water source is managed. Ashlanders should demand a ballot to vote on the expansion. No outsiders! Jay - Ashland - August 15th, 2:05 PM Julie, there is ample scientific proof that clearcuts and road building negatively affect water quality and erosion. There is no guarantee that mitigation efforts will be enough. It is a risk you are willing to take, but maybe not all of us. In case you haven't noticed, the earth is warming beyond anything humans have ever seen. We are in uncharted territory and shouldn't gamble with the watershed so a minority can play on the mountain. See An Inconvenient Truth and justify the expansion. Jay - Ashland - August 15th, 2:27 PM I think enough is enough, Mt Ashland has been approved and they have done the work. Law suits will just cost the people of Ashland more money, the expansion has drug on long enough. The Sierra Club tries to stop the expansion of all ski areas , not just this one. I use to be a member as did my father who passed away, we gave them money and are sorry for it. He loved to see his grandchildren up on the ski slopes. They are not rich trust fund kids either, unlike the fellow with the lawsuit. Cindy Cindy ( [email protected] ) - Ashland Or - August 16th, 7:14 AM Thank you to John, who pointed out that Mt. A is a non-profit organization. No one's pockets are getting lined, and the core group of people who work there have been there on an average of 25 years. The place gets in your blood and no one associated with it would ever want to adversely affect the mountain or anything below it. I want my son to be exposed to the beauty of the place, so he may grow up to want to preserve it himself, all while doing something healthy and positive. Sasha - Talent - August 16th, 9:17 AM You want to preserve the mountain by expanding the ski area...and then let your son take care of it. No thanks. where is your logic? Farquaar - Ashland - August 16th, 1:06 PM It seems as though Farquaar skipped right past the part of my comment that focused on the fact that no one is out to destroy anything. Yes, I think the mountain can be preserved at the same time the ski area grows. As my son is only 6, I look forward to being able to show him (on skiis) how to balance the importance of minimally impacting the environment, while having access to it. We're raising him to respect and love it as much as his father does, who has worked on those slopes for 25 years. Sasha - Talent - August 16th, 1:58 PM The US Forest Service wanted people to build and develop more ski areas in California's Sierra Nevada range. They put Mammoth Mountain up for bid. The Forest Svc awarded the permit by default on the condition to start developing the mountain. Don't let MAA kid you, tomorrow, clearcuts, more ski areas and lots of condos. Ashland beware. Not even worrying about our watershed & our town's future, the MAA attorney is making big $$. Our town, our future, our water. Thank you. A-Res - Ashland - August 16th, 2:52 PM The expansion will keep local and tourist dollars in the Ashland area as well as conserving fossil fuels by not exporting beginner and intermediate skiers to areas well outside the Rogue Valley. Scientific studies have proven the impact to the watershed to be minimal. Consider limiting Summer use of the watersheds roads to minimize road siltation and garbage as well as human and animal waste products in the watershed. The sewage treatment plant at the area is underused and adequate for expansion Steve Ankrum - Hornbrook, Ca - August 16th, 9:26 PM "Minimal" impact to the water supply is already too much... and for what? So that my son can ski a little easier?? Most people in the world have NEVER even gone skiing, and they grow up just fine. As a side note, 1 out of 3 people in the world don't have access to clean drinking water. Will we trade one run of fancy for our most valuable asset? I'd rather see a "minimal" impact on the quality of skiing than on the water! COOL FACT: More people in Ashland drink water than ski. Joseph - Talent - August 17th, 11:00 AM A-Res, Which attorney are you talking about? Christina Sauers - Ashland, OR - August 17th, 3:01 PM The reason the MAA attorney is making so much is because MAA has had to keep paying him because environmentalists who are only selectively informed won't stop fighting the expansion. It's one of their tactics. Maybe the figure that MAA will finally get tired of forking over so much $$ that they give up? Too bad...they won't. M - Ashland, OR - August 17th, 4:27 PM Dave writes: "Tens of thousands of us are interested in a world class skiing facility" Ummm, I know I moved away a couple of years ago, but tens of thousands? I didn't know Ashland was so big! Then again, maybe it's all hyperbole (Dave: hi-per-bowl-eee) it means "exaggerate." Anyone who thinks world class snow is going to show up on MT. A, if any shows up at all, is sadly mistaken. Leave her be boys. Put the chainsaws away and put on a pair of boots and take a walk up there and LISTEN. rachel - prescott, az - August 18th, 4:36 PM M - fighting the expansion by the so-called environmentalists is a noble project, unless the MAA attorney is doing this case pro-bono (NOT). Perhaps it is the snow buds/bunnies who can't stop the fight. As a native Ashlander, I cringe at the thought of our beautiful area being overun by Mammothites and 5-20 years from now, no water for our town or peace and quiet on the mountain that we, the deer, owls, & various wildlife and have enjoyed for years. What about the many who love the serenity. A-Res - Ashland, Oregon - August 21st, 2:15 PM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising Inkjet Printers Student Loans Water Filter Helzberg Diamonds Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Copyright © 2006 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.