Document text
CLEAR Temp: 90 °F Wind: NW at 10 mph Friday, August 29, 2003 SECTIONS Home Page Local News Sports Business Obituaries Life Opinion - Politics AP News Weather Classified Archives Site Map EXTRA HomeLife Magazine Joy Magazine Tempo A & E RogueValleyAutoFinder RogueValleyHomeFinder Real Estate Showcase Wellness Connection Newspaper in Education Prime Times Outdoor Journal Personals Movie Times TV Times E The People CLASSIFIEDS Find a Car Find a Home Find a Job Find Everything E SOUTHERN OREGON Automotive Communities Entertainment Publications Recreation Calendar ABOUT US FAQ What's New Advertise Home Delivery Classified Ad Employment Contact Us Media Kit Email Story to a Friend August 7, 2003 City staff to study Mount Ashland expansion plans By VICKIE ALDOUS for the Mail Tribune ASHLAND — City staff will scrutinize Mount Ashland Ski Area expansion alternatives to see if an expansion would harm the municipal water supply, be financially risky or increase fire risk in the Ashland watershed. In Tuesday night’s Ashland City Council meeting, council members gave staff a string of questions to research. Councilman John Morrison said Public Works Director Paula Brown should examine possible effects on water quality, Ashland Fire Chief Keith Woodley should look into whether an expanded ski area would lead to more human-caused fires deeper in the watershed and the city attorney’s office should look at liability issues. "Wherever they see a red flag, I want to know about it," Morrison said. Advertisement In response to a 2000 U.S. Forest Service draft environmental impact statement analyzing expansion alternatives, Brown sent a memo to the council that year saying any expansion must be accompanied by "very active erosion control, mitigation, management and revegetation efforts" to avoid water-quality impacts. Late last month, the U.S. Forest Service released a new draft environmental impact statement analyzing six expansion alternatives, including a no-expansion option. The release of that document launched a 60-day comment period that ends Sept. 23. The council, hoping to hold its own public hearing and gather input on the expansion, voted to ask the Forest Service to extend the comment period an additional 30 days. The city of Ashland holds the special use permit for the nonprofit ski area on Forest Service lands at the top of the Ashland watershed, source of the city’s drinking water supply. Many residents urged the council to weigh in on the controversial expansion. Jay Lininger, who has been among the leaders in the fight against the expansion, said the council has a responsibility to comment since the city is liable for any restoration costs. He also noted agreements with the Forest Service dating as far back as 1929 that allow the city to provide input on resource management issues in the watershed. "Don’t underestimate your power in this project," Lininger said. "It’s massive." Pat Acklin, a Mount Ashland Association board member and former council member, told the council she has confidence in the Mount Ashland Association’s expansion proposal — analyzed as Alternative 2 in the draft EIS — as well as the Forest Service’s preferred alternative, Alternative 6. "I hope you’ll agree with the board that either Alternative 2 or Alternative 6 is appropriate," she said. Alternative 6 would add 65 acres of new terrain, two chairlifts and two surface lifts, a tubing area, three buildings and a yurt, 200 additional parking spaces and other facilities. Alternative 2 calls for 71 acres of new ski terrain and similar facilities, although the run and lift routes vary somewhat from Alternative 6. Alternative 6, a modification of the association’s proposal, is intended to reduce effects on water quality, wetlands and riparian reserves, Engelmann spruce and rare plants, according to Forest Service officials. Jeff Hanson, general manager of the ski area, said Mount Ashland Association members would not advocate the expansion if they believed it would damage water quality. He said plans to repair natural and human-caused erosion at the ski area could actually improve water quality. The ski area also has $2 million in assets that would more than pay for the estimated $400,000 cost of restoring the land if the ski area failed, according to Hanson. The chance of failure would decrease if the expansion is allowed, he said. "A key part of our mission is to keep the ski area viable and to protect the city’s interest," he said. Printer Friendly Version Email Story to a Friend Subscribe Archive: Click to Search Mail Tribune Home Local News | Sports | Business | Obituaries | Life Opinion - Politics | AP News | Archives | Site Map E Southern Oregon | Classified Copyright © 1997-2003 Mail Tribune. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions Website Feedback A D V E R T I S E R S SPECIAL SECTIONS Rogue Valley Auto Finder Rogue Valley Job Finder --> Rogue Valley Home Finder Joy Magazine Homelife Magazine Tempo Real Estate Showcase Food for Thought Hike of the Week Wellness Connection Outdoor Journal Moving to Southern Oregon? Volunteer Openings Prime Times