United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest 

Region - Pacific 

Southwest Region 

March 

2010 

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

Mt. Ashland Ski Area 

Expansion

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District

Klamath National Forest 

Scott River Ranger District 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Responsible Official: Scott D. Conroy

 Forest Supervisor 

 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

For Further Information Donna Mickley; District Ranger 

Contact: Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, or 

Steve Johnson; Project Leader 

Ashland Ranger Station 

 645 Washington Street 

 Ashland, OR 97520; Phone: (541) 552-2900 
OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

18

07

06

31

28

30

11

18

19

27

04

12

01

13

05

19

34

16

27

17

31

08

22

28

15

24

32

23

25

13

09

29

22

16

34

24

14

26

03

21

29

35

36

02

33 35

23

24 20

26

26

14

23 21

36

25

20

30

10

33 35

36

11

25

36 32

13

25

17

12

02

14

01

23

11 12

26

35

01

31

02

30

19

18

07

06

07

06

15

10

22

27

34

Ashland

§ ̈¦5

T.39S.

T.40S.

R.1W. R.1E.

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

Klamath

National

Forest

Mt. Ashland Ski Area

The U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discimination

in all its programs and activities on the base of race, color, national

orgin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal oppotunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Scott River Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Jackson County, Oregon 

March 2010 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Responsible Official: Scott D. Conroy

 Forest Supervisor 

 Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

For Further Information Tim Chesley; Acting District Ranger 

Contact: Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, or 

Steve Johnson; Project Leader 

Ashland Ranger Station 

 645 Washington Street 

 Ashland, OR 97520; Phone: (541) 592-2900 

Abstract:

The Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is an existing winter sports recreation area located within the Siskiyou Mountains in Southern Oregon on National 

Forest System Lands, and is operated under special use authorization issued and administered by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 

Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. A small portion of the ski area is located on the Klamath National Forest. MASA is located about 7 air miles 

south of the City of Ashland, primarily within the Ashland Creek Watershed. The Mt. Ashland Association currently leases the ski area from the City 

of Ashland, holder of the Forest Service Special Use Permit for the MASA. According to its bylaws, Mt. Ashland Association operates the ski area 

for the City of Ashland as “a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon exclusively to provide educational and 

recreational opportunities in Jackson County, Oregon, to members of the general public. 

In September 2004, the Forest Service issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) expansion, selecting Alternative 2 

with some modifications adopted from Alternative 6. The Forest Service received twenty-eight notices of appeal to the ROD. In December 2004, 

the Forest Service denied all administrative appeals to the ROD. In January 2005, Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) filed suit against the 

Forest Service and Regional Forester Linda Goodman seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the MASA expansion project 

violated both the NEPA and the NFMA. On February 9, 2007, after considering cross-motions for summary judgment, a United States District Court 

entered summary judgment against ONRC. ONRC filed a timely notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon review, the Ninth 

Circuit remanded the case to the district court and instructed it to promptly enjoin the MASA expansion project contemplated in the 2004 ROD until 

the Forest Service corrected the NFMA and NEPA violations found in Opinion CV-05-03004-PA. 

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) in response to the September 24, 2007 Opinion 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to 

properly evaluate the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific fisher; in violation of both the NEPA and the NFMA and that it violated 

the NFMA by failing to appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain. 

The purpose and need for this supplement is to analyze and correct specific violations identified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which will 

allow a determination on whether and to what extent analysis of supplemental information might alter the decision to allow ski area expansion. This 

action is needed to address the appropriateness of the previous decision and to be responsive to the Court of Appeals Opinion and district court 

injunction. 

This DSEIS document is designed to supplement the existing 2004 FEIS document by adding information and analysis to Chapter III (Affected 

Environment) and Chapter IV (Environmental Consequence) to address matters identified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In some cases (as 

noted), it will replace certain sections of these FEIS chapters. This supplemental process will then allow the latest and most complete information 

and analysis to include the 2004 FEIS concurrent and integrated with the 2009 supplemental information and analysis. 
Comments: 

This DSEIS is made available for a 45-day Comment Period, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.10). The 

Forest Service will accept written, electronic and oral comments beginning on the day following date of publication of the notice of availability (NOA) 

in the Federal Register. This day is scheduled to be March 26, 2010. The Forest Service will respond to substantive comments received in an 

appendix to the Final EIS. Send comments to: 

Scott Conroy, Forest Supervisor: 

C/O Steven R Johnson, Project Lead 

 Ashland Ranger Station 

 645 Washington St. 

 Ashland, OR 97520-1402 

 FAX: (541) 552-2922 

Email responses to: comments-pacificnorthwest-rogueriver-siskiyou@fs.fed.us 

Important Notice: 

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public 

record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; 

however, those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to object to the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Part 215. 

Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27 (d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, 

confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the DSEIS. This will enable the Forest Service to 

analyze and respond to the comments at one time, and to use information acquired in the preparation of the Final SEIS, thus avoiding undue delay 

in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so 

that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer’s position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 

553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the DEIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the Final EIS 

may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 

490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the DSEIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the 

merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). 
i

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA EXPANSION 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 

A. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... I-1

1. Expansion History under the NEPA ..................................................................... I-2 

2. Litigation History ................................................................................................... I-3

3. Evaluation of New Information and/or Changed Conditions ............................. I-4 

B. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND DEFICIENT ........................................... I-4 

1. Pacific Fisher - NFMA Claims ............................................................................... I-4 

2. Pacific Fisher - NEPA Claims ............................................................................... I-5 

3. Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims ........... I-5 

4. Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim ......................................................................... I-6 

5. Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claim ...................................................... I-6 

C. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND SUFFICIENT ......................................... I-6 

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS SUPPLEMENT ..................................................... I-7 

1. What This Supplement Does ................................................................................ I-8 

2. What This Supplement Does Not Include ........................................................... I-8 

E. DECISION TO BE MADE ............................................................................................. I-8 

F. OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS SUPPLEMENT INCLUDES ........................................... I-9 

CHAPTER II - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 

A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... II-1 

B. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - PACIFIC FISHER .............................................. II-1 

1. Pacific Fisher - NFMA Claims ............................................................................... II-1 

a. No Compliant Biological Evaluation .............................................................. II-1 

b. Insufficient Biological Evaluation Process and Habitat Analysis ............... II-2 

SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION – PACIFIC FISHER ...................... II-3 

Pacific Fisher Biology ........................................................................................ II-3 

Pacific Fisher Habitat Needs ............................................................................... II-6 

Pacific Fisher Listing Status ............................................................................... II-8 

Effects from Ski Area Expansion.......................................................................... II-13 

2. Pacific Fisher - NEPA Claims ............................................................................... II-16 

a. Impacts to Corridor Not Disclosed ................................................................ II-16 

b. Cumulative Effects from Other Projects Not Considered ............................ II-19 
ii

3. Determinations - Pacific Fisher ............................................................................ II-25 

a. Sensitive Species Determination ................................................................... II-25 

b. Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................... II-26 

C. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - RIPARIAN RESERVES 

AND RESTRICTED WATERSHED TERRAIN ............................................................. II-27 

1. Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims ........... II-27 

a. Failure to Designate Restricted Riparian (MS 26) 

& Restricted Watershed (MS 22) ................................................................... II-27 

RESTRICTED RIPARIAN (MS 26) ....................................................................... II-27 

RESTRICTED WATERSHED (MS 22) .................................................................. II-28 

b. Failure to Evaluate Soils Standards and Guidelines: MS 26 & MS 22 ........ II-29 

SOILS STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES for MS 26 and MS 22 ............................. II-30 

Standards and Guidelines – SOILS: LRMP page 4-307 for MS 26 ........................ II-31 

Standards and Guidelines – SOILS: LRMP page 4-272 for MS 22 ........................ II-32 

2. Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim ......................................................................... II-33 

a. Failure to Designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve ......... II-33 

LHZ 2 as RIPARIAN RESERVE ........................................................................... II-34 

RIPARIAN RESERVE LAND COVER CONDITIONS ............................................. II-34 

SUPPLEMENTAL LAND ALLOCATIONS ............................................................ II-36 

3. Determinations - Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed Terrain ......... II-36 

a. Restricted Riparian (MS 26) ............................................................................ II-36 

b. Restricted Watershed (MS 22) ........................................................................ II-37 

c. Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve ............................................. II-37 

CHAPTER III - REFERENCES 

CHAPTER IV - LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

CHAPTER V - LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHOM COPIES OF 

THE STATEMENT ARE SENT

APPENDIX 

Appendix A New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations 
iii

LIST OF TABLES 

CHAPTER I NONE 

CHAPTER II 

Table SEIS II-1. Soil Erosion Potential from Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) ............................................. II-30 

Table SEIS II-2. Revised Riparian Reserve Land Cover Conditions – Site Scale Analysis Area ............. II-38 

LIST OF FIGURES 

CHAPTER I NONE 

CHAPTER II 

Figure SEIS II-1. Local Population Area ....................................................................................................... II-10 

Figure SEIS II-2. Current Condition of Fisher Habitat Within the Local Population Area ........................ II-12 

Figure SEIS II-3. Fisher Habitat Effects ........................................................................................................ II-14 

Figure SEIS II-4. Potential Fisher Dispersal - Current Condition ............................................................... II-15 

Figure SEIS II-5. Traffic Effects ..................................................................................................................... II-18 

Figure SEIS II-6. Foreseeable Federal Projects within the Fisher Local Population Area ....................... II-24 

Figure SEIS II-7. Management Strategy 26 within Special Use Permit Area and Site Scale .................... II-28 

Figure SEIS II-8. Ashland Municipal Watershed within Special Use Permit Area .................................... II-29 

Figure SEIS II-9. Riparian Reserve including LHZ 2 (not previously included) at Site Scale .................. II-34 

Figure SEIS II-10. Summary of Riparian Reserve Land Cover Conditions, Site Scale Analysis Area .... II-35 

Figure SEIS II-11. Supplemental Land Allocations ..................................................................................... II-36 
iv

This page left intentionally blank
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 1 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(DSEIS) in response to a September 24, 2007 Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

concerning Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. 

This DSEIS is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508; 

36 CFR 220). This DSEIS documents analysis and supplemental information designed to correct 

specific violations identified by the Court of Appeals for a ski area expansion decision made on 

September 13, 2004. The Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

in August 2004. This DSEIS analysis supplements, is tiered to, and incorporates by reference the 

Administrative Record and Supplemental Administrative Record for the 2004 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and its Record of Decision (ROD) for Mt. Ashland Ski 

Area Expansion. 

A. BACKGROUND 

The Mt. Ashland Ski Area (MASA) is an existing winter sports recreation area located within the 

Siskiyou Mountains in Southern Oregon on National Forest System Lands, and is operated under 

special use authorization issued and administered by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 

Siskiyou Mountains (formerly Ashland) Ranger District. A small portion of the ski area is 

located on the Klamath National Forest. MASA is located about 7 air miles south of the City of 

Ashland, primarily within the Ashland Creek Watershed. The Mt. Ashland Association currently 

leases the ski area from the City of Ashland, holder of the Forest Service Special Use Permit for 

the MASA. According to its bylaws, Mt. Ashland Association operates the ski area for the City 

of Ashland as “a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon 

exclusively to provide educational and recreational opportunities in Jackson County, Oregon, to 

members of the general public.” 

Construction of the present ski area commenced in 1963; the area opened in 1964. During its 

first three decades, the ski area was operated by a succession of private, for-profit companies, for 

whom it proved a financial disappointment. In 1992, the private operator decided to close the ski 

area. Plans were drawn up to dismantle the chair lifts and other improvements (Mt. Ashland Ski 

Area Restoration EA--AR1

 4784-4837). The City of Ashland then interceded, acquiring the 

Special Use Permit and facilities (AR 4921-43). The City leased the ski area, for a nominal sum, 

to the Mt. Ashland Association (MAA), a non-profit entity established for the purpose of 

operating the ski area (AR 4862-4920). 

All analysis documented in the 2004 FEIS and ROD assumes and includes the area within the 

1991 expanded Special Use Permit Area at the corrected figure of 960 acres. This includes 888 

acres on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and 72 acres on the Klamath National Forest. 

 

1

 Administrative Record 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 2 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

The current operational ski area occupies about 287 acres. The currently existing ski area 

development consists of a day lodge, a ski rental shop building, ancillary structures, four 

chairlifts, and approximately 125 acres of ski runs. A parking lot for approximately 550-600 

vehicles is located south of the lodge along Forest Road 20. The legal location description for all 

actions associated with the 2004 ROD is T. 40 S., R. 1 E., within portions of sections 15, 16, 17, 

20, 21, and 22, W.M., Jackson County, Oregon. 

1. Expansion History under the NEPA 

Expanding the Mt. Ashland ski area is not a new idea. Various plans have been proposed over 

the past 40 years. In 1991, the Forest Service approved expansion of the ski area in concept. 

Mount Ashland Ski Area Master Plan Record of Decision ("1991 Master Plan", AR 4404-23; see 

also AR 4131-4403 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for 1991 Master Plan). Additional 

environmental analysis was planned to consider the details, such as the precise location of each 

component and the construction design (AR 4411). 

The City's lessee, MAA, submitted a new expansion proposal in 1998. A draft environmental 

impact statement (EIS) was circulated in January 2000 (AR 12569-13208). It generated 

considerable public comment, in part because the only two action alternatives evaluated were 

perceived as too similar (AR 19354- 62, 22130-32). A new draft EIS was circulated in 2003 

(AR 22140-23222). 

The Forest Service has studied the proposal and its impact for years via the Environmental 

Impact Statement process and considered thousands of pages of public comment. The Forest 

Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2004. In the FEIS, the Forest 

Service studied six alternatives (SAR 191-311). It discussed the affected environment and 

environmental consequences in depth. The Forest Service analyzed, for example, issues of 

climate, avalanche and natural hazards, minerals and seismic conditions, soil processes including 

erosion and sedimentation, watershed resources, water quality, aquatic conservation, air quality, 

landscape ecology, current vegetation conditions, outstanding or unusual plant communities, and 

wildlife species (SAR 108-16, 315-521, 528-703). 

The Forest Service issued a Record of Decision and approved a "Modified Alternative 2" in 

September 2004 (SAR 1-97). Alternative 2 and Alternative 6 are the only two expansion 

alternatives relevant to this DSEIS and were the only alternatives considered by the Court of 

Appeals2. Alternative 2 contemplates the MAA constructing two new chair-lifts and two new 

surface lifts, clearing seventy-one acres for new ski runs, and clearing four additional acres for 

lift corridors and staging areas, primarily within the western half of the Special Use Permit area. 

The proposed ski run development would require the removal of approximately sixty-eight acres 

of trees, which would generate 1,822 board feet of commercial grade timber. Additionally under 

Alternative 2, watershed restoration projects would be implemented, including structural storm 

water control and non-structural controls, such as the controlled placement of woody material. 

Alternative 6, which is a variant of Alternative 2, envisioned limiting the environmental 

consequences of expansion in the Middle Fork area by requiring MAA to use a lightweight, low 

ground pressure machine to clear ski runs and lift runs. 

The Forest Service received twenty-eight notices of appeal to the ROD (AR 28574). In 

December 2004, the Regional Forester denied all administrative appeals (36 CFR 215) to the 

ROD. 

 

2

 Court of Appeals Opinion at 13057. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 3 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

2. Litigation History 

In January 2005, Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Sierra Club and Headwaters 

(collectively ONRC) filed suit in federal district court against the Forest Service and Regional 

Forester Linda Goodman seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the MASA 

expansion project violated both the NEPA and the NFMA. Specifically, ONRC contended that 

the Forest Service failed: (1) to ensure the viability of the Pacific fisher, a sensitive species; (2) 

to adequately consider and disclose the direct and cumulative impacts on the Pacific fisher; (3) to 

analyze whether the expansion will comply with wetlands laws; (4) to adhere to Rogue River 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) standards 

and guidelines for protecting watersheds and riparian areas; (5) to disclose a potentially high rate 

of error in the model that it used to estimate sediment impacts on the municipal watershed; and 

(6) to adequately disclose cumulative water quality impact by utilizing a computer model 

without disclosing its flaws, rather than cataloging and analyzing specific projects. 

On February 9, 2007, after considering cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court 

entered summary judgment against ONRC. The court found that the Forest Service’s disclosure 

of potential erosion and water quality impacts in the FEIS complied with the NEPA, and that the 

Forest Service did not violate the NEPA3

 or the NFMA4 by failing to discuss compliance with 

applicable laws governing wetlands in the FEIS. It also found the Forest Service’s failure to 

classify Land Hazard Zone 2 terrain as Riparian Reserve was harmless and concluded that the 

proposed expansion satisfied the principal Rogue River LRMP and NWFP requirements for land 

designated Restricted Watershed and Riparian Reserve. Lastly, the district court held that 

ONRC’s allegations regarding the Pacific fisher “mostly rely on extra-record materials that I 

have stricken, and events that post-date final approval of the ROD.” 

ONRC filed a timely notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the district court’s 

judgment. The Court of Appeals granted a stay of the district court’s judgment for the duration 

of the appeal. On September 4, 2007 the Court of Appeals issued its ruling (CV-05-03004-PA), 

upholding the Forest Service on several counts, yet finding that the agency “failed to properly 

evaluate the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific Fisher” and failed “to 

appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain, as required by the 

Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.” (Opinion at 13055-13056) 

 

3

 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates that covered governmental entities take a “hard look” 

at the environmental consequences of certain proposed actions. The NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an 

EIS for “major Federal actions significantly affecting” the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An EIS is a 

thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts that “provide[s] full and fair discussion of significant 

environmental impacts and . . . inform[s] decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1 

4

 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) imposes constraints on the Forest Service’s management of 

national forests. Procedurally, it requires the Forest Service to develop a land and resource management plan, also 

referred to as a “forest plan,” for each forest it manages. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a). The NFMA also requires that a forest 

plan “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities,” id. § 1604(g)(3)(B), and that “[f]ish and wildlife 

habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species 

in the planning area,” 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 (2000). Any action taken by the Forest Service in a managed forest must 

comply with the NFMA and must also be consistent with the governing forest plan. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 4 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

3. Evaluation of New Information and/or Changed Conditions 

Forest Service policy for implementing regulations under the NEPA outlines a procedure for 

review of actions that are awaiting implementation when new information or changes occur and 

should be considered for correction, supplementation, or revision; Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.15, section 18. If new information or changed circumstances relating to the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action or decision come to the attention of the responsible 

or deciding official after a decision has been made and prior to implementation, the official must 

review the information carefully to determine its importance. If, after an interdisciplinary review 

and consideration of new information within the context of the overall project or decision, the 

Responsible Official determines that a correction, supplement, or revision to an environmental 

document is not necessary, implementation should continue and the results of the 

interdisciplinary review is to be documented in the project file (FSH 1909.15, section 18.1). 

On July 2, 2007, the Forest Service documented an evaluation of new information and changed 

circumstances for potential relevance to the September 2004 decision. A number of items 

evaluated there had been raised by Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) at that time. 

Some of those same issues were raised again on September 5, 2008 by Tom Dimitre, Chair of the 

Rogue Group of the Sierra Club. On September 22, 2009, the Forest Service documented an 

additional evaluation of claims of new information and changed circumstances for potential 

relevance to the September 2004 decision. These evaluations are contained in Appendix A to the 

DSEIS and are incorporated by reference. 

The relevant information evaluated by the agency or claims submitted as noted above in these 

evaluations did not present a substantially different picture of the environmental consequences of 

the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project from what was already presented and considered in 

the 2004 FEIS. On February 2, 2010, the Forest Supervisor filed a letter to the record 

documenting that these evaluations did not identify any claims of new information or changed 

circumstances that would warrant preparation of a correction, supplement, or revision to the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mt Ashland Ski Area Expansion, as documented 

in August 2004 (FSH 1909.15, section 18.1). This letter also confirmed that the Forest 

Supervisor decided to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address 

matters identified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

B. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND DEFICIENT 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to properly evaluate the impact of the 

proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific fisher, in violation of both the NEPA and the NFMA, 

and that it violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and 

Restricted Watershed terrain. 

1. Pacific Fisher - NFMA Claims 

No Compliant Biological Evaluation 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service’s evaluation of the Pacific fisher in the 

MASA expansion area does not comply with the requirements of the Rogue River LRMP, does 

not include a compliant Biological Evaluation5

 for the Pacific fisher and, therefore, violates the 

NFMA. 

 

5

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service did not update or amend its 1999 Biological 

Evaluation for terrestrial species (Opinion at 13062). 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 5 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Inappropriate Use of Habitat as a Proxy for Population Viability 

The Court of Appeals found that species viability may be met by estimating and preserving 

habitat “only where both the Forest Service’s knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat 

is necessary to support the species and the Forest Service’s method for measuring the existing 

amount of that habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate.” Therefore the Forest Service’s use 

of habitat as a proxy for population viability violated the NFMA. 

Biological Evaluation Process for Habitat Analysis Insufficient 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service had insufficient data and knowledge 

regarding (1) the population of the Pacific fisher, and (2) the quantity and quality of habitat 

preferred by the Pacific fisher to justify using habitat as a proxy for population. Therefore the 

Forest Service’s habitat analysis was insufficient to satisfy the demands of the Rogue River 

LRMP Biological Evaluation process, and is in violation of the NFMA. 

2. Pacific Fisher - NEPA Claims 

Impacts to Corridor Not Disclosed 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NEPA when it failed to disclose 

the potential impact of displacing the fisher and damaging habitat in the corridor linking the 

Klamath-Siskiyou region and the Southern Cascades. 

Cumulative Effects from Other Projects Not Considered 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NEPA when it failed to discuss 

the cumulative effects on the Pacific fisher from future projects in the vicinity of the MASA 

expansion area, including the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, the Ashland Watershed 

Protection Project, and the Mt. Ashland Late-successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels 

Reduction Project (on the south side of Mt. Ashland on the Klamath National Forest). 

3. Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims 

Failure to Designate Restricted Riparian (MS 26) and Restricted Watershed (MS 22) 

The Court of Appeals found that Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately 

designate “Riparian Reserves” and “Restricted Watershed” terrain as required by the Rogue 

River LRMP and the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). 

The rules governing the Forest Service’s designation and management of Riparian Reserves and 

watersheds are complex and overlapping. The principal source of these rules is the NWFP itself, 

and, derivatively, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) adopted pursuant to the NWFP. 

Accordingly, the Forest Service must also comply with the Rogue River LRMP’s more 

restrictive standards and guidelines for lands designated Restricted Riparian, Management 

Strategy 26 (MS 26) and for lands designated Restricted Watershed, Management Strategy 22 

(MS 22). These standards and guidelines include the protection of all terrain within 100 feet 

horizontal distance of perennial streams, wetlands and associated riparian vegetation (Restricted 

Riparian MS 26), and all acres “designated as suitable for Municipal Supply Watershed” 

(Restricted Watershed6

 MS 22). 

 

6

 The Court of Appeals Opinion at 13068 stated “Restricted Riparian MS 22”; in this SEIS, this reference is taken to 

mean Restricted Watershed, the accurate title of land allocation MS 22. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 6 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Failure to Evaluate Soils Standards and Guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to ensure that 

the expansion will comply with the Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines. The Rogue 

River LRMP includes specific soil disturbance standards and guidelines and requires compliance 

for management activities for areas designated as Restricted Riparian (MS 26), and Restricted 

Watershed (MS 22) terrain. 

4. Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim 

Failure to Designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to designate the Landslide Hazard 

Zone 2 (LHZ) land as Riparian Reserve and this failure results in violations of the Rogue River 

LRMP, the NWFP (and ACS), and the NFMA, because a proper designation as Riparian Reserve 

would compel specific management practices to ensure that the terrain is appropriately protected. 

5. Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claim 

No Forest Plan Amendment to Exclude Restricted Watershed (MS 22) from SUP Area 

The Court of Appeals found no explanation in the record that would resolve the conflict between 

the 2004 FEIS statement that the 1994 NWFP “amended” existing Rogue River LRMP 

designations to “Administratively Withdrawn (Special Management)” and that “this allocation is 

complimentary to the Developed Recreation Rogue River LRMP allocation.” Because there is 

no amendment to the Rogue River LRMP in the record permitting the contemplated change to 

the Watershed, the Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing 

to ensure that the expansion will comply with the Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines. 

C. WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND SUFFICIENT 

New Developed Recreation Site 

The Court of Appeals found that Forest Service did not violate the Rogue River LRMP and the 

NFMA by authorizing development facilities in currently undeveloped riparian habitat in the 

Middle Fork. ONRC had argued that the Rogue River LRMP explicitly prohibits “new 

developed recreation sites” on Restricted Riparian.7

 The Court of Appeals agreed that since ski 

area construction began in 1963, the project is not a “new” recreation site but the expansion of an 

existing site, and that the restriction does not apply. 

In addition to being fully supported by the Restricted Riparian language of the Rogue River 

LRMP, this conclusion is also fully consistent with treatment of this issue in the Restricted 

Watershed terrain portion of the Rogue River LRMP. In the standards and guidelines for 

Restricted Watershed MS 22, the Rogue River LRMP provides that “[n]ew developed recreation 

sites will not be constructed. Expansion of existing recreation sites will be analyzed in project 

environmental analysis.” The Court of Appeals found that while the second sentence does not 

appear in the standard and guidelines for Riparian Reserve MS 26, the two treatments are 

consistent and there is no reason to treat them differently. 

 

7

 The Court of Appeals Opinion at 13072 stated “Riparian Reserves”; in this SEIS, this reference is taken to mean 

“Restricted Riparian (MS 26) where at standard and guideline 8, page 4-299, it explicitly states “Prohibit new 

developed recreation sites.” The standard and guidelines associated with NWFP Riparian Reserve contains no such 

stipulation. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 7 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

The Court of Appeals therefore holds that the term “new” is intended to have a uniform meaning 

throughout the Rogue River LRMP and that the prohibition therein of new developed recreation 

sites in Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed does not apply to the MASA expansion. 

Compliance with State of Oregon Wetland Laws and Regulations 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service did not violate NEPA requirement and that 

the 2004 FEIS discusses or analyzes all federal, state and local laws, which include Oregon state 

wetland laws and regulations. The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service included in 

the FEIS a discussion of whether the proposed expansion would violate federal and state laws, 

and explicitly noted that state and local agencies would have regulatory responsibilities for many 

activities and actions in the expansion project. Although the FEIS does not specifically address 

Oregon’s unique regulatory program for wetlands, the FEIS is clear that state approval is a 

condition of the project. 

Disclosure of Limitations of Water Erosion Prediction Project Model 

The Court of Appeals found that that the Forest Service’s FEIS adequately disclosed the 

shortcomings in the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) models used to estimate sediment 

impacts on the municipal watershed and, therefore, complied with NEPA. The NEPA does not 

require the reviewing court to “decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific 

methodology available; rather the question is whether the FEIS adequately disclosed the model’s 

potential weakness. In Appendix H to the FEIS, the Forest Service outlined several limitations 

of the WEPP model: its failure to account for the higher erosion rates that typically occur during 

the first two years after disturbance; the fact that its components are reasonably effective on the 

agricultural rangelands for which the WEPP model was designed, but that it has limitations when 

applied to forest lands; and the fact that no watershed template is currently available. 

Use of Equivalent Roadless Area Model for Cumulative Watershed Impacts 

The Court of Appeals found that that the Forest Service did not violate the NEPA by using the 

Equivalent Roadless Area (ERA)8

 model to analyze the cumulative watershed impact of the 

MASA expansion. The Court of Appeals noted that the Forest Service relied upon the ERA 

model, to address cumulative watershed effects. The ERA model simulates the current condition 

of the terrain in the watershed which reflects the impact of past projects, and the FEIS describes 

the ERA methodology and the results of the analysis in detail. The Court of Appeals did not 

question the methodology, but “deferred instead to the agency’s expertise in developing the 

model,” an analysis that “consider[s] cumulative watershed effects and provide[s] a significant 

amount of quantified and detailed information” satisfies the NEPA. 

D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS SUPPLEMENT 

The purpose and need for this supplement is to analyze and correct specific violations identified 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which will allow a determination on whether and to what 

extent analysis of supplemental information might alter the decision to allow ski area expansion. 

This action is needed to address the appropriateness of the previous decision and to be 

responsive to the Court of Appeals Opinion and district court injunction. 

 

8

 Court of Appeals Opinion at 13074 stated “Equivalent Roadless Area” in referencing the ERA model. In this 

SEIS, this reference is taken to mean Equivalent Roaded Area (see FEIS IV-94). 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 8 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

1. What This Supplement Does 

This DSEIS document is designed to supplement the existing 2004 FEIS document by adding 

information and analysis to Chapter III (Affected Environment) and Chapter IV (Environmental 

Consequence) to address matters identified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In some cases 

(as noted), it will replace certain sections of these FEIS chapters. Because the decision made in 

September 2004 approved a “Modified Alternative 2”, Alternative 2 and Alternative 6 are the 

only two expansion alternatives relevant to this DSEIS and were the only alternatives considered 

by the Court of Appeals. 

This supplemental process will then allow the latest and most complete information and analysis 

to include the 2004 FEIS concurrent and integrated with this 2009 supplemental information and 

analysis for the 2004 decision. As previously noted, this SEIS tiers to the existing 2004 FEIS. 

This NEPA strategy is designed primarily to analyze and correct specific violations identified by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

2. What This Supplement Does Not Include 

For this process, it is equally important to understand what this supplemental document does not 

include. For this process, there is no “Proposed Action”. The action being processed under the 

requirements of NEPA is to follow appropriate procedures, including public notification, about 

the intent to prepare a Supplemental EIS. There is no proposal to change the proposed action 

that triggered the Draft and Final EIS for Ski Area Expansion. This supplement will allow 

review of the appropriateness of the previous decision. 

For this process, there is no “Scoping”. Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there is no formal scoping 

period for this action. Appropriate procedures under NEPA require a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare a Supplemental EIS; this notice was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2010. 

The Supplemental EIS process is being guided by the Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

For this process, there are no “issues”. Concurrently, there are no alternatives being proposed or 

analyzed. All analysis and documentation will focus on the deficiencies identified by the Court 

of Appeals. 

E. DECISION FRAMEWORK 

The Forest Service Responsible Official will use the results of this supplemental analysis to 

determine if and how the violations identified by the Ninth Circuit will affect the 2004 decision. 

The Forest Service will decide whether to withdraw the 2004 decision, or issue a new or 

supplemental decision. If a new or supplemental decision is issued following preparation of the 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, that decision will be subject to appeal in 

accordance with 36 CFR 215. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 9 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

F. OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS SUPPLEMENT INCLUDES 

This section of the DSEIS highlights what this supplement includes and what and how it will be 

addressed in DSEIS Chapter II. 

Pacific Fisher - NFMA Claims 

This DSEIS will explain how the 1999 Biological Evaluation was updated and incorporated into 

the 2004 FEIS. It will supplement the current conditions for the fisher population in and around 

Mt. Ashland and will identify current amount and types of habitat. It will present a summary of 

the latest research on the Pacific fisher species biology and habitat requirements. This will allow 

use of habitat as a proxy for population viability. The effects on fisher species and habitat from 

ski area expansion will be disclosed. The supplemental sections will include all steps of the 

Biological Evaluation process required by the LRMP, for the Pacific fisher. 

Pacific Fisher - NEPA Claims 

This DSEIS will supplement the disclosure of impacts to the corridor linking the KlamathSiskiyou region and the Southern Cascades, from ski area expansion. It will supplement the 

analysis for cumulative effects on the Pacific fisher from future projects in the vicinity of the 

MASA expansion area, including the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, the Ashland Watershed 

Protection Project, and the Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. 

Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims 

This DSEIS will identify appropriate areas and analyze the effects of expansion against the 

standards and guidelines for Restricted Riparian (MS 26) and Restricted Watershed (MS 22). 

The supplement will present effects in regard to specific soils standards and guidelines for these 

allocations. 

Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim 

This DSEIS will include Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as part of the Riparian Reserve, and analyze 

and disclose the land cover effects of expansion against revised Riparian Reserves. 
Draft Supplemental EIS I - 10 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

This page left intentionally blank
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 1 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

CHAPTER II - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

A. INTRODUCTION 

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(DSEIS) in response to a September 24, 2007 Opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

concerning Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. This DSEIS documents analysis and supplemental 

information designed to correct specific violations identified by the Court of Appeals for a ski 

area expansion decision made on September 13, 2004. The Forest Service issued a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in August 2004. 

This DSEIS document is designed to supplement the existing 2004 FEIS document by adding 

information and analysis to Chapter III (Affected Environment) and Chapter IV (Environmental 

Consequence) to address matters identified by the Court of Appeals. In some cases (as noted), it 

will replace certain sections of these 2004 FEIS chapters. Because the decision made in 

September 2004 approved a “Modified Alternative 2”, Alternative 2 and Alternative 6 are the 

only two expansion alternatives relevant to this DSEIS. 

B. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - PACIFIC FISHER 

1. Pacific Fisher - NFMA Claims 

This section of the DSEIS will explain how the 1999 Biological Evaluation was updated and 

incorporated into the 2004 FEIS. It will supplement the current conditions for the fisher 

population in and around Mt. Ashland and will identify current amount and types of habitat. It 

will present a summary of the latest research on the Pacific fisher species biology and habitat 

requirements. This will allow use of habitat as a proxy for population viability. The effects on 

fisher species and habitat from ski area expansion will be disclosed. The supplemental sections 

will include all steps of the Biological Evaluation process required by the LRMP, for the Pacific 

fisher. 

a. No Compliant Biological Evaluation 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service’s evaluation of the Pacific fisher in the 

MASA expansion area does not comply with the requirements of the Rogue River LRMP, does 

not include a compliant Biological Evaluation for the Pacific fisher and, therefore, violates the 

NFMA. 

Supplemental Information 

The 2003 Draft EIS was designed as a complete replacement for the previous (2000) Draft EIS. 

In the 2000 Draft EIS, a Biological Evaluation document (dated August 1999) for terrestrial 

wildlife was contained as Appendix E. In the 2003 Draft EIS, the Biological Evaluation 

processes and documentation were designed to be included within the body of the EIS, and not 

contained as “stand alone” documents. The 2004 Final EIS strategy for all biological resources 

was designed to continue that process; for example, see FEIS page III-105 for Sensitive Plants 

which states: “A Biological Evaluation process was conducted for Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive (TES) Plant species; all information and findings are included within this Final EIS.” 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 2 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Also see FEIS page IV-124; “A Biological Evaluation (BE) process was conducted for this 

project and is described herein.” For Aquatic Resources, page IV-172 states; “A Biological 

Evaluation process was conducted for species and habitat listed under the Endangered Species 

Act and Magnuson Stevens Act; all information and findings are included within this Final EIS.” 

This Supplemental EIS will clarify the 2004 Final EIS strategy for terrestrial wildlife. The 

following shaded text replaces the first two paragraphs on page IV-145 for Section D, subsection 

10, and 10a, 2004 FEIS Chapter IV: 

10. Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife Species 

Activities associated with proposed ski area expansion may affect several species of terrestrial 

wildlife listed as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (PETS) under the Endangered 

Species Act or Forest Service Regional directives. Effects to other terrestrial species are also 

discussed in this Section. 

a. Summary of Effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species (PETS) 

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(1973 et seq.) and Forest 

Service Policy (FSM 2672.2) a Biological Evaluation (BE) process was conducted for this 

project and is described herein for PETS wildlife species. All information and findings are 

included within this Final EIS. Lists for the RRNF, Pacific Northwest Region (R6), and the 

KNF, Pacific Southwest Region (R5) were reviewed in regard to potential effects on any of these 

species by actions within the Special Use Permit area and larger Analysis Area associated with 

ski area expansion on Mt. Ashland. Pre-field and reconnaissance results are discussed and 

summarized in Chapter III (see Table III-28). 

b. Insufficient Biological Evaluation Process and Habitat Analysis 

Background 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service had insufficient data and knowledge 

regarding (1) the population of the Pacific fisher, and (2) the quantity and quality of habitat 

preferred by the Pacific fisher to justify using habitat as a proxy for population. Therefore the 

Forest Service’s habitat analysis was insufficient to satisfy the demands of the Rogue River 

LRMP Biological Evaluation process, and is in violation of the NFMA. 

The Court of Appeals found that species viability may be met by estimating and preserving 

habitat “only where both the Forest Service’s knowledge of what quality and quantity of habitat 

is necessary to support the species and the Forest Service’s method for measuring the existing 

amount of that habitat are reasonably reliable and accurate.” Therefore the Forest Service’s 

analysis process for use of habitat as a proxy for population viability was improper and violated 

the NFMA. 

Biological Evaluation Direction from LRMP 

As stated in the RRNF Land and Resource Management Plan: 

LRMP MS 4: page 4-55 

LRMP MS 22: page 4-266 

LRMP MS 26: page 4-300 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 3 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Biological evaluations (FSM 2672.2) shall be prepared for each project authorized, funded or conducted on 

the Forest. The biological evaluation shall be used to determine the possible effects the proposed activity will 

have on listed and PETS species. The biological evaluation consists of five steps: 

(a) Pre-field review of existing information; 

(b) Field reconnaissance of the project area; 

(c) Determination of whether local populations of listed and PETS species will be affected by a project; 

(d) Analysis of the significance of project effects on local and total populations of listed and PETS species; 

(e) When step four (d) cannot be completed due to lack of information, a biological or botanical investigation 

is conducted to gather the information needed to complete step four (d). 

Supplemental Information 

The following supplemental sections to the 2004 FEIS will include all steps of the Biological 

Evaluation process required by the LRMP, for the Pacific fisher. 

SUPPLEMENTAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION – PACIFIC FISHER 

Biological Evaluation Step (a): Pre-field review of existing information 

The following shaded supplemental text replaces FEIS pages III-131 for the Pacific fisher. 

Supplemental information is based on additional Pacific fisher analysis conducted for the Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area Expansion and Ashland Forest Resiliency. 

The effects analysis process was conducted by the Forest Wildlife Biologist (David Clayton) and 

the District Biologist for the High Cascades Ranger District (Jeff von Kienast), the most 

experienced mammal biologists on the Forest. They first completed an extensive review of all 

Pacific fisher scientific literature. They then interviewed all local and regional carnivore and 

fisher experts as well as those currently conducting research on fisher in the Pacific Northwest. 

The entire analysis process and documentation was then peer reviewed by two researchers 

considered to be fisher experts, William Zielinski, Research Ecologist of the Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, and Keith Aubry, researcher with the Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. Their comments were then incorporated into the final analysis and 

documentation. 

Pacific Fisher Biology 

Description

Pacific fisher: Martes pennanti

The rarely encountered Pacific fisher is in the family 

Mustelidae, the largest member of the genus Martes. 

The only other North American member of the genus 

Martes is the American marten (M. americana). 

Fishers are medium-sized carnivores with a general 

weasel shape but lacking the extreme elongation of the 

weasels. The fisher has a long body with short legs and a long bushy tail. Their tail constitutes 

about one third total body length. Their faces are triangular with muzzles less pointed than those 

of foxes. The fisher’s ears are wide and rounded. Fishers are digitigrades with five toes on each 

large, well-furred paw. Claws are sharp, curved, and semi-retractable but not sheathed. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 4 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

The fisher is light brown to dark blackish brown with the face, neck, and shoulders sometimes 

being slightly gray. The chest and underside often has irregular white patches. At 6.6 to 13.2 

pounds, male fishers weigh about twice as much as females (3.3 to 5.5 lbs). Males range in 

length from 35 to 47 inches while females range from 29 to 37 in long. Fishers are estimated to 

live up to 10 years (Powell 1993). 

Range And Distribution

According to literature reviews, the fisher occurs from southern Yukon and southwestern 

Northwest Territories southeast through British Columbia and possibly extreme southeastern 

Alaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, southern Quebec, and New Brunswick to 

Nova Scotia. Its distribution extends south through several forested areas of the northeastern 

United States including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, northern New York, Pennsylvania, 

western Massachusetts, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and northern Wisconsin and 

Minnesota. There is also a population in West Virginia. In the western United States, fisher 

populations are known to occur in western Montana, the Idaho panhandle, the southern Sierra 

Nevada of California, the Klamath and Siskiyou mountains of northwestern California and 

extreme southwestern Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon. The 

fisher may be extirpated from Washington (Meyer 2007). However, there has been a recent 

fisher reintroduction effort in the Olympic Peninsula in 2007 and 2008 (Happe et al. 2008). 

The geographic distribution of fishers in the Pacific Coast states has been greatly reduced in 

extent from pre-settlement conditions. Prior to extensive European settlement, the fisher 

occupied most coniferous forest habitats in Washington, Oregon, and California (Aubry and 

Lewis 2003). Persistence of fishers in Washington is questionable. Lewis and Stinson (1998) 

reported that the fisher is very rare in Washington. Extensive surveys by the Washington Dept. 

of Fish and Wildlife and the US Forest Service have failed to locate a fisher population, or 

confirm the presence of a fisher in areas where recent reports are concentrated (Lewis and 

Stinson 1998). 

One telemetry study and several surveys conducted by various agencies and individuals have 

documented fishers in the southern Oregon Cascades and Siskiyou Mountains (Aubry et al. 

1997, Slauson and Zielinski 2001, Aubry and Raley 2006, E. Weir 2003, Aubry et al. 2005, 

Farber and Criss 2006). The presence of fishers in California is well-documented (Zielinski et 

al. 1995, Farber and Franklin 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). 

Reproduction

Fishers exhibit intrasexual territoriality, where individuals defend a home range against members 

of the same sex, but there is considerable overlap between sexes. These territories are 

maintained year-round except at times during the breeding season when males may trespass on 

each other’s territories while they search for receptive females (Powell 1993). 

In Oregon, the breeding season begins in early February when adult males became more active 

and start to make longer distance movements. Males sometimes moved well beyond their nonbreeding season home ranges, presumably to find reproductive females (Aubry et al. 2004). 

Mating occurs shortly after parturition, although the fertilized eggs do not implant for 

approximately 10 months. Active pregnancy typically begins in February and lasts until March 

or early April, when fishers give birth to an average of 2 to 3 kits (Meyer 2007). In southwestern 

Oregon, adult females gave birth to kits from about 17 March to 5 April, and the natal denning 

period lasted until late-May or the beginning of June (Aubry and Raley 2006).
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 5 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Home Range, Movement, and Dispersal

The size of fisher home ranges varies both regionally and by habitat condition, although male 

home ranges are generally larger than those of females. Home range size for fishers is likely 

related to the availability of resources, including abundance and diversity of prey and suitable 

habitats for den and rest sites. Male home range sizes may also be influenced by the availability 

of females. 

Mean home range sizes of males in the southern Cascades of Oregon was 147 km2 during the 

breeding season and 62 km2 during the non-breeding season compared to female home ranges of 

25 km2 (Aubry and Raley 2006). Male home ranges near the north coast of California averaged 

58 km2 compared to 15 km2 for females (Zielinski et al. 2004). 

Seasonal movements are generally related to the breeding period for males. In southwest 

Oregon, male home ranges were twice as large during the breeding season compared to the nonbreeding season (Aubry and Raley 2006). One adult male who resided on the east slope of the 

Cascade Range during the non-breeding season traveled approximately 30 km across the 

Cascade crest to the west slope during 3 successive breeding seasons (Aubry et al. 2004). Aubry 

and Raley (2006) used fixed-wing aircraft to monitor two adult males during the breeding season 

and reported that a 3 year old male occupied a 226 km2 area, and a 6 year old male occupied a 

100 km2 area. The younger male made excursions far to the south of his non-breeding season 

home range, and the older male moved primarily within his non-breeding home range with some 

excursions beyond his usual activity area. 

During the denning season, females on the Hoopa Reservation used an average of 3.1 dens per 

season and moved kits a cumulative average distance of 871 m with a range of 85-2,228 m. 

Dens were located an average of 414 m apart. Despite the distance between den structures, dens 

used each year were located within a small, concentrated area of each females home range 

(Mathews 2006). In southwestern Oregon, when females moved their kits from the natal den, 

subsequent use of maternal dens was variable. Females that only had 1 kit were relatively 

mobile and few maternal dens were found. In contrast, when females had ≥2 kits, maternal dens 

were found regularly and at least some of the dens were used for >2 weeks (Aubry and Raley 

2006). 

At 2-3 months of age, juveniles begin foraging for themselves, though they remain on their 

mother’s home range until they disperse at 6-12 months of age (Powell 1993). Riparian 

corridors (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994) and forested saddles between major drainages (Buck 

1983) may provide important dispersal habitat or landscape linkages for fishers. 

Reported dispersal distances for fishers vary. In a study in Maine, dispersal distances ranged 

from 4 to 19 km, and there was no significant difference in dispersal distances between males 

and females (Arthur et al. 1993). The authors believed that these dispersal distances were short 

compared to the size of an adult home range, and probably resulted from the study population 

being trapped, creating many unoccupied home ranges. However, these dispersal distances are 

not greatly different from those reported in Oregon and California. In the southern Oregon 

Cascades, Aubry and Raley (2006) documented 7 juvenile dispersals (4 females, 3 males). By 

approximately the end of May, most 1-year-old fishers had settled into the area where they 

eventually established a home range. Males dispersed an average of 29 km, mean dispersal 

distance of females was 6 km. Two of the 4 females did not disperse from their natal areas; these 

females appeared to establish home ranges adjacent to and slightly overlapping their mother’s 

home range (Aubry and Raley 2006). 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 6 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

On the Hoopa Reservation in northern California, 1 female dispersed 1-2 km from her natal den 

and set up a home range. Another female moved up to 10 km from her natal den and was 

apparently moving toward her mother’s home range when she died. One male dispersed 3-4 km 

from his natal den and set up a home range. There has been high turnover in female fishers in 

recent years on the Hoopa Reservation, suggesting that there are a high percentage of vacant 

home ranges that could be occupied by dispersing individuals (M. Higley 2007, pers. comm.). 

Fisher Diets

Powell (1993) reported that the primary prey of fishers throughout most of their range is 

snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). Although the fisher 

is reported to be a specialist in late-seral, mixed conifer-hardwood forests, recent analysis of the 

diet of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada portray an opportunistic predator with a diverse diet. 

Zielinski et al. (1999) characterized fisher diet by analyzing 201 fisher scats and found that 

mammals were the most frequent food item. Reptiles (20.4%) and insects (55.7%) were also 

major components in the diet (Zielinski et al. 1999). 

In southwest Oregon Aubry and Raley (2006) analyzed 303 scats from 11 female and 84 scats 

from 8 male fishers. Food items from 5 major taxa groups were identified; Mammalia (female 

85%, male 76%), Aves (female 28%, male 27%), Reptilia (females 7%, males 5%), Insecta 

(females 25%, males 27%), and Planta (females 14%, males 13%). Their results suggested that 

female fishers were capturing smaller-bodied prey more frequently than larger-bodied prey, and 

males were capturing larger-bodied prey more frequently. Aubry and Raley (2006) also found 

evidence that males, but not females were preying upon porcupines. These findings suggest that 

fishers, at least in the western states, are a generalist predator. 

Pacific Fisher Habitat Needs 

The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in western North America (Buskirk 

and Powell 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting habitats. 

The varied diet of fishers suggests they may forage in a variety of habitats. 

Fishers use landscapes at different spatial scales for different behaviors and activities (Powell 

1994, R. Weir and Harestad 2003). For example, fishers may establish their home ranges at the 

landscape scale, forage at the patch scale, and select habitat for resting or denning at the patch 

scale as well as at a finer scale of habitat characteristics of elements within a patch (Powell 1994, 

Powell and Zielinski 1994, R. Weir and Harestad 2003). 

Rest Structures

Several studies have shown that fishers appear to be highly selective of resting structures. In 

California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that resting structures were in the largest diameter trees 

available. Average diameter breast height (dbh) for live conifers was 117 cm for live conifers, 

120 cm dbh for conifer snags, and 69 cm dbh for hardwoods. On the Hoopa Valley, and ShastaTrinity study areas, Yeager (2005) determined that rest trees used by fisher had a substantially 

larger dbh than the average dbh of the four largest trees on the rest site plots. In the Hoopa 

Valley, the rest tree was one of the four largest trees on 91 percent of the rest site plots measured, 

and was the single, largest tree on 46 percent of the rest site plots. In southwest Oregon, Aubry 

and Raley (2006) reported that the average diameter of live trees used by females for resting was 

slightly greater than those used by males: 88 cm dbh versus 64 cm dbh. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 7 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that fishers select rest sites with substantially higher 

canopy closure immediately adjacent to the rest site (93.4%) when compared to random sites 

(88.8%). Yeager (2005) reported that on the Hoopa Valley study area, 86.8% of all rest sites had 

more than 50% canopy cover and 59.7% had greater than 75% canopy cover. At Shasta-Trinity 

97.6% of all rest sites had more than 50% canopy cover and 87.5% had greater than 75% canopy 

cover. In southwest Oregon, fishers selected rest sites with canopy closure greater than 80% 

(Aubry and Raley 2006). 

In the southern Oregon Cascades, Aubry and Raley (2006) located and typed 641 different 

resting structures. Fourteen percent of the rest structures were reused by the same animal on 

more than 1 occasion, and 3%were used by another radio-collared fisher at some time during the 

study. Both male and female fishers primarily used live trees for resting. Use of logs and cull 

piles by females and males was similar. Females used a greater proportion of snags for resting 

than males. Both male and female fishers used mistletoe brooms in live trees more than any 

other micro-site (females 31%, males 21%). Mistletoe brooms in live trees were suspected rest 

sites for an additional 44% of live trees used by females, and 33%of live trees used by males. 

Rodent nests were used in 24% of the trees used by male fishers. 

Cavities in both conifers and hardwoods are used by fishers for resting. However, to create 

suitable rest cavities, trees must be old enough to have suffered the type of stresses that create 

infection courts for heartrot fungi, and large enough to form cavities large enough to be used by 

fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004). Large trees also provide platform-type resting structures such as 

mistletoe brooms, clumped branches that support rodent nests, or rust brooms that can support 

the weight of fishers. Once these large trees die and fall, they become the type of log that fishers 

have been known to use as rest sites. Removal of understory and mid-story canopies around 

large structures may also reduce the effectiveness of the structure as a secure rest site because 

they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Under- and mid-story canopies probably also 

provide some protection for female and juvenile fishers from predation or harassment by large 

raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands. 

Den Structures

As with resting structures, both conifers and hardwoods provide habitat for fisher dens. Yeager 

(2005) categorized 18 fisher dens in the Hoopa and Shasta-Trinity study sites. Sixteen were 

located in hardwoods, and 2 in conifers. Of these 18 dens, all but 3 were located in live trees. 

On both study areas, black oaks were used in 50% of all dens categorized. Other species used 

were tanoak, white oak, canyon live oak, chinquapin, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. 

In southwestern Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) located 13 natal and 18 maternal dens. For 

natal dens, fishers used both live trees and snags with openings that accessed hollows created by 

heartwood decay. The most commonly used tree species were incense cedar, true fir, and 

western white pine. Douglas-fir, incense cedar and true firs were used as maternal dens. 

Structures used for maternal dens were more variable than those used for natal dens, and 

included cavities in the bole or butt of large live trees and snags, and large hollow logs (Aubry 

and Raley 2006). Natal den trees need to be large enough to accommodate a cavity capable of 

containing an adult female fisher and multiple kits (Aubry and Raley 2006). In the southern 

Cascades of Oregon, the average dbh and height of live trees used for natal dens was 92 cm and 

40 m respectively. The average dbh and height of snags used for natal dens was 89 cm and 26 m 

respectively (Aubry and Raley 2006).
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 8 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Foraging Habitat

Based on their diverse diet, fishers appear to be a generalist predator that is opportunistic in its 

foraging strategies (Aubry and Raley 2006, Zielinski and Duncan 2004, Aubry et al. 2002, 

Zielinski et al. 1999, Powell 1993). There is some indication of seasonal variation in the fisher’s 

diet (Zielinski et al. 1999) which is likely linked to seasonal abundance of prey and forage 

species. While fishers require structures provided by older aged or residual stands for denning 

and resting, they appear to use a broad array of stand conditions for foraging. 

R. Weir and Harestad (2003) found that fishers exhibited selectivity for stands and patches with 

high volumes of coarse woody material (CWM) and specific closures of high and low shrub 

layers. However, they hypothesize that an overly complex forest floor may affect the hunting 

success of fishers by reducing the likelihood of capturing prey. Fishers avoided stands with 

>80% closure of the low shrub layer. Jones and Garton (1994) found that fishers did not use 

non-forested sites while resting or hunting, but did use pole-sapling forests for hunting 

substantially more than for resting. The inclusion of berries in the fisher’s diet suggests that they 

do forage, at least occasionally or seasonally, in forest gaps or along edges of forested stands 

where many fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs are found. 

Pacific Fisher Listing Status 

The Pacific fisher was petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and several 

other environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service found Pacific fisher to be a distinct population segment (DPS) and gave a 

“warranted but precluded” decision to the petition, designating the West Coast DPS a Federal 

Candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Other rankings include: USDA 

Forest Service, Region 6 – Sensitive, Region 5 - Sensitive; USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon – Sensitive, California - Sensitive; Oregon State Sensitive – Critical species, California 

State – Species of Special Concern. The Natural Heritage Program ranks this species as Globally 

demonstrably widespread (G5), Oregon State (S2) imperiled because of rarity or other factors, 

and ORNHIC List 2. 

Biological Evaluation Step (b): Field reconnaissance of the affected area 

The following shaded supplemental text replaces FEIS pages III-132 for the Pacific fisher. 

Supplemental information is based on the latest information and history of surveys, and local 

knowledge. 

During the winter of 2001/2002, a biology student associated with Southern Oregon University 

(Eugene Weir1) located and photographed an adult Pacific fisher using carnivore bait stations 

which were placed to protocol in the MASA Special Use Permit area. Fisher were repeatedly 

photographed between February – late April 2002, at a site in proposed Run 12. Mr. Weir’s 

findings at that time were an elevation record for the species in the Siskiyou Mountains. In 

2003, Mr. Weir found evidence of fisher in the Special Use Permit area during snow track 

surveys and he also documented fisher in the adjacent Neil Creek drainage. 

 

1

 Eugene Weir worked as a fisheries technician conducting field inventory work for the Forest Service, Ashland 

Ranger District under volunteer and small service agreements during the summer of 2000 and 2001, while attending 

Southern Oregon University. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 9 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Snow conditions in the Siskiyou Mountains are typically of higher density, likely due to lower 

elevations, precipitation patterns, and wide temperature differences. This may account for why 

fisher are able use habitats at higher elevations than in other parts of their range where deep, 

powdery snow limits their use of higher elevations. 

In addition, during the winter of 2001/2002 (late December to late April), a second Southern 

Oregon University student (Brian Schroeder) also conducted a photo point study of fisher 

activity, on the western side of the Applegate River drainage. He had six fixed camera sets out at 

one time, and used the cameras at 10 different sites. In December 2001, he recorded one visit by 

a fisher to a site near the southern tip of Applegate Lake at an elevation of 2,200 feet. At a site 

near Browntown, he recorded 31 visits by a fisher in January 2002, at an elevation of 3,400 feet. 

Fishers have been documented in the Ashland Watershed (E. Weir 2003), and adjacent areas 

(Was 1995, Schroeder 2001, Stevens, unpublished data, Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 

2006). These documented observations suggest Pacific fisher are in the Siskiyou Mountains, and 

specifically the MASA Special Use Permit area. 

Two recent surveys that have incorporated hair snaring and subsequent DNA analysis as a 

component have identified fishers near the Ashland Watershed as members of the indigenous 

population (Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 2005). There have also been documented 

records of fisher in the Applegate river watershed within the Kinney Creek drainage and recently 

(June 2009) for the Brush Creek area on FS Road 1010. Another recent report of fisher was a 

few miles north of Grayback Mountain on BLM lands (S. Niemela, ODFW June 2009). 

Biological Investigation 

Because there is incomplete and a lack of precise information on local and total populations of 

Pacific fisher and the effects of ski area expansion, a biological investigation was conducted to 

gather and predict the significance of effects (LRMP biological evaluation step 4 [d]). This 

investigation includes a prediction of the local and total populations, and an investigation of 

effects based on habitat analysis using satellite imagery (habitat as proxy for population data and 

knowledge); see next steps. 

Biological Evaluation Step (c): Determination of whether local populations of 

Pacific fisher will be affected by MASA Expansion 

The 2004 FEIS (page IV-152), concluded that “All Action Alternatives would likely have some 

effect on fisher use of the areas where new ski runs would be built.” This was based on the fact 

that fisher were located within the Special Use Permit area and within runs that would be cleared 

for ski area expansion. This supplemental biological investigation includes a prediction of the 

local and total populations, and a prediction of effects based on habitat analysis using satellite 

imagery (use of habitat as proxy for population data and knowledge). 

The following shaded supplemental text replaces FEIS pages IV-152, IV-153 for the Pacific 

fisher. Supplemental information is based on the supplemental biological investigation. 

Populations

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that fishers in the Cascade Range and all areas 

west, to the coast in Oregon and Washington; and in California, the North Coast from 

Mendocino County north to Oregon, east across the Klamath Mountains, across the southern 

Cascade Range and south through the Sierra Nevada as the West Coast Distinct Population 

Segment (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 10 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to be 

genetically isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2004). This is considered to be due to the 

presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak 

savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5. Based on DNA analyses, individuals in the 

southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-introduced from British 

Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (Drew et al. 2003). Animals in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon are 

genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous 

(Wisely et al. 2004, Farber and Franklin 2005). 

This fisher biological investigation defines the local population area as those individuals 

residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and on Federal lands 

within 5 km of the LSR boundary, except on the eastern edge, where Interstate 5 defines the edge 

of the fisher local population area (see Figure SEIS II-1) due to its potential to act as a barrier to 

movement and dispersal (see also cumulative effects). This buffer is derived from reported 

dispersal distances for female fishers in California and Oregon in the scientific literature and 

personal communications with researchers which have conducted fisher studies in southern 

Oregon and northern California. 

Figure SEIS II-1. Local Population Area 

§ ̈¦5

I

Klamath National Forest

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

036 1.5 Miles

Fisher Local Population Area Ashland

Mt Ashland 

Ski Area Expansion
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 11 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

This fisher biological investigation defines the total population as all individuals residing in the 

Klamath-Siskiyou and California Coast Regions. Fishers in these 2 areas have been shown to be 

closely related through genetic analyses (Wisely et al. 2004). Fishers in the southern Oregon 

Cascade Range are introduced and not considered to be part of the total population. Estimates of 

fisher population size are based on 1) the cumulative mean home range size of female fishers (10 

km2) reported in 7 studies in northern California, and 2) generally, fisher home range sizes 

increase in size from south to north (S. Yeager, unpublished data). Female dispersal distances 

are analyzed because dispersal distances for juvenile male fishers are widely variable, are likely 

influenced by intra-specific competition with resident males, and males in some populations 

have been shown to have non-breeding season home ranges separate from the general population 

(Aubry and Raley 2006). 

Because the local population being analyzed is at the northern extreme of the California 

population, female fisher home ranges are expected to vary from 10-20 km2 in size, and male 

home ranges to vary from 25-45 km2 in size. The local population area defined is 653 km2. This 

equates to approximately 33-65 female home ranges and 15-26 male home ranges within the 

local population area. Assuming the habitat is fully occupied by both male and female fishers, 

there is no overlap of territories within sexes, and there is complete overlap between sexes, the 

local population estimate is 48-91 resident fishers. This is likely a liberal estimate of 

population size because generally, not all suitable habitat within an extant population’s range is 

occupied. Carlos Carroll estimated the entire northern California-southwestern Oregon 

(total) fisher population as 1,000-2,000 individuals (Center for Biological Diversity 2000). 

Biological Evaluation Step (d): Analysis of the significance of project effects on 

local and total populations of Pacific fisher 

This supplemental biological investigation includes a prediction of effects on the local and total 

populations based on habitat analysis using satellite imagery (use of habitat as proxy for 

population data and knowledge). The following shaded supplemental text replaces FEIS pages 

IV-152, IV-153 for the Pacific fisher. This supplemental information describes the direct and 

indirect effects on Pacific fisher based on the supplemental biological investigation.

Baseline Habitat Conditions

Habitat data for fisher analyses was derived from Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages. This analysis is based on satellite imagery. The use of satellite imagery allows large 

areas to be assessed on a consistent basis and is considered the “best available” data that maps 

and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the analysis areas regardless of 

ownership. Other vegetation maps either stopped at the National Forest boundary or consisted of 

interpreted data (assumptions of conditions made from aerial photos). 

Satellite imagery utilized for this fisher biological investigation was developed by Geographic 

Resource Solutions in 1994 in conjunction with the Applegate Adaptive Management Area, 

designated under the Northwest Forest Plan. The area covered by this imagery includes the area 

within the local population area. An accuracy assessment for this imagery was performed in the 

Applegate Watershed (immediately west of the Ashland Watershed) and determined the imagery 

to be 86+% accurate (Hill 1996). When used at the landscape scales, local Forest Service 

experience has shown the reliability of the imagery to be relatively high (Boucher pers. obs. 

2005). 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 12 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Accuracy for satellite imagery utilized for this biological investigation is assumed to be 80+%. It 

is important to note some limitations in terms of the satellite imagery used for this analysis. The 

imagery was classified over a large area and as such, individual pixels of data may not exactly 

match on the ground. Though, when viewed at the landscape scale, the imagery presents a 

consistent “snapshot” which is useful for planning and analysis. 

For the purpose of this biological investigation, fisher denning/resting habitat is defined as 

coniferous forest with ≥60% overstory canopy closure and a quadratic mean of ≥24”dbh. 

Fisher dispersal/foraging habitat is defined as coniferous forest (sapling/pole or larger) 

with ≥60% canopy closure. 

Based on these assumptions, as derived from satellite imagery, within the local population area 

there are 161,349 acres of habitat considered suitable for fisher (denning/resting and 

dispersal/foraging). National Forest System lands comprise 105,402 acres of the local 

population area (Figure SEIS II-2). 

Figure SEIS II-2. Current Condition of Fisher Habitat Within the Local Population Area 

Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion

Pacific Fisher Analysis
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 13 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

There are 50,386 acres within the local population area that do not have overstory canopy (trees) 

with ≥60% canopy closure. However, some of these areas do have shrub or sapling pole habitats 

that provide approximately 60% canopy closure and fishers may use them for traveling and 

foraging. 

As previously stated, for the purpose of analyzing effects on fisher populations resulting from the 

MASA expansion, this fisher biological investigation defines the local population area as those 

individuals residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and on 

Federal lands within 5 km of the LSR boundary, except on the eastern edge, where Interstate 5 

defines the edge of the fisher local population area (see Figure SEIS II-2) due to its potential to 

act as a barrier to movement and dispersal. This buffer is derived from reported dispersal 

distances for female fishers in California and Oregon in the scientific literature and personal 

communications with researchers which have conducted fisher studies in southern Oregon and 

northern California. 

Effects from Ski Area Expansion 

Effects Related to Direct Habitat Removal

The [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project would remove 44 acres of 

denning/resting habitat (coniferous forest with ≥60% overstory canopy closure and a quadratic 

mean of ≥24”dbh) and an additional 17 acres of dispersal/foraging habitat for fishers (coniferous 

forest - sapling/pole or larger) with ≥60% canopy closure: see SEIS Figure II-3). Specifically, 

removal of habitat describes management activities which would reduce canopy closure to below 

a level which fishers would be expected to continue to use the affected habitat at the patch scale. 

Additionally, removal of these habitats would reduce or eliminate coarse wood, snags, microsite 

conditions, and structural complexity. Where denning/resting or dispersal/foraging habitat is 

removed, it is unlikely that fisher would continue to use the site. At the site scale for example, 

the area where a fisher was photographed in proposed Run 12, fisher would be unlikely to use 

that site after the project is implemented; canopy cover would be reduced to below minimum 

guidelines, coarse wood, snags, micro site conditions, and structural complexity would be lost. 

For fisher at the proposed project scale, the total area impacted by the [decision for] the Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area Expansion project is considered to be 220 acres because Runs 12, 15, 18 and 

Surface Lift 15 fragment this area from the remaining habitats within the local population area 

due to removal of trees. Implementation of this project would create openings that average 125 

ft. wide on the proposed ski runs, which are likely to create barriers to fisher movement. 

Therefore, the entire 220 acres is unlikely to function as fisher habitat or be included in an 

individual’s home range. 

Within this 220-acre area, approximately 66 acres are currently non-habitat (non-forest or <40% 

canopy closure), 66 acres are foraging habitat (coniferous forest (sapling/pole or larger) with 

≥60% canopy closure), and 88 acres are resting/denning habitat (coniferous forest with ≥60% 

overstory canopy closure and ≥24”dbh). 

The [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project therefore is likely to remove 

suitable denning/resting and dispersal/forage habitat from within the home range of up to 1 

female fisher and 1 male fisher causing these animals to avoid the entire 220 acre expansion 

impact area. Effects to the fisher would include loss of potential denning and forage areas, as 

well as human disturbance from the proposed activity.
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 14 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Figure SEIS II-3. Fisher Habitat Effects

Klamath National Forest

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

National Forest Boundary

Special Use Permit Area

Alternative 2 Modified 

Fisher Habitat

Dispersal/Foraging Habitat

Denning/Resting Habitat

Existing Ski Area

I

Effects Related to Dispersal Opportunities

Currently, forested areas east and west of the Mt. Ashland summit provide opportunities for 

movement and dispersal of fishers while it is likely that dispersal opportunities are somewhat 

limited near the summit of Mt. Ashland due to a lack of suitable dispersal habitat generally due 

to much of this area being naturally in a non-forested condition. Implementation of the [decision 

for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project is not expected to prevent movement and 

dispersal of fishers within the local or total population area because the summit of Mt. Ashland is 

already a natural opening and is not likely providing connectivity for fishers traveling north and 

south due to their avoidance of non-forested habitats. 

Currently, emigration, immigration, and movement by fishers north to south likely occurs within 

forested areas both east and west of the Special Use Permit area (see Figure SEIS II-2), and these 

habitats would remain untreated for the foreseeable future. In addition, due to the potential for 

fragmentation and disturbance resulting from the expansion, it is unlikely that fisher would use 

the 220 acre impact area associated with the expansion area. 

The local population area has been defined and, for this analysis, is considered to occur at the 

landscape scale. After implementation of ski area expansion, remaining habitats would continue 

to allow fishers to emigrate and immigrate from north to south to interact with and exchange 

genetic material with animals in northern California (Figure SEIS II-4). The area surrounding 

the summit of Mt. Ashland is a natural opening and fishers tend to avoid non-forested areas. 

However, there are opportunities both immediately east and west of the summit for fishers to 

move and disperse through forested habitats. 

Run 12 

Run 18 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 15 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Figure SEIS II-4. Potential Fisher Dispersal - Current Condition 

§ ̈¦5

Klamath National Forest

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

012 0.5

Miles I

National Forest Boundary

Special Use Permit Area

Fisher Habitat

Dispersal/Foraging Habitat

Denning/Resting Habitat

Potential Migration Route

Ashland

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Effects Related to Disturbance

Impacts to fisher from human activities are not well documented. However, it can be expected 

that fishers, as with most wild animals, would exhibit aversive reactions to direct human contact 

or unnaturally loud noises. It can also be expected that avoidance reactions to human-caused 

disturbance would be elevated for females in dens or accompanied by young kits. Aubry and 

Raley (2006) identified the seasonal activity patterns for fishers in the southern Oregon 

Cascades. Females give birth in late March and generally move kits from the natal den to 

maternal dens at about 8-10 weeks. Near the end of July when kits are approximately 4 months 

old, they are more mobile and begin to travel with their mothers. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 16 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Activities associated with ski area expansion implementation such as felling, skidding, hauling, 

piling of fuels, and burning are likely to have the greatest adverse effects on reproductive 

females during the denning and early kit rearing periods. There could also be indirect effects 

from disturbance over the long-term because, if implemented, the ski runs and lifts and 

associated human activities would likely cause fisher to avoid the area entirely, thereby removing 

the ability for fisher to use the expansion impact area for the foreseeable future. There would be 

no foreseeable additional effects to fisher from disturbance in the summer months as no 

increased use of the proposed expansion area is expected or authorized. 

Effects to Large Snags

Reduction of large snags can also reduce the availability of fisher den sites. Aubry and Raley 

(2006) found that large snags were used for both natal and maternal den sites in southern 

Oregon. Snag retention within the expansion impact area and within the proposed runs 

themselves is unlikely due to implementation and human safety concerns; there would likely be 

minimal snag retention within the expansion impact area. This would potentially remove habitat 

for denning or resting for fisher within the cleared run and lift areas but not the entire Special 

Use Permit area itself. 

Effects to Coarse Woody Material

Down logs are important for fishers and their prey. Construction of the runs and lifts would 

remove most large wood from within those areas for the foreseeable future, thereby reducing 

denning/resting and forage opportunities for fisher. 

Effects on Prey Species

Effects on prey species from ski area expansion are variable. Because fishers are known to prey 

upon a wide variety of small mammal species, it is difficult to quantify how expansion activities 

may affect their prey base. Small mammals occupy a wide variety of habitat types; some species 

are considered to be associated with late-successional or closed canopy habitats, while others are 

generally associated with early successional habitats. Other species are considered habitat 

generalists. The effects on small mammal populations are dependent on numerous factors 

which include amount of remaining canopy closure, coarse woody material (CWM), shrub and 

forb layers, and fungi. Regardless of species, it is likely that small mammal populations would 

be reduced within the expansion impact area given that the habitats described above would be 

reduced. 

2. Pacific Fisher - NEPA Claims 

This section of the DSEIS will supplement the disclosure of impacts to the corridor linking the 

Klamath-Siskiyou region and the Southern Cascades, from ski area expansion. It will 

supplement the analysis for cumulative effects on the Pacific fisher from future projects in the 

vicinity of the MASA expansion area, including Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Ashland 

Watershed Protection Project, and the Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction 

Project, as well as other projects with potential for cumulative effects. 

a. Impacts to Corridor Not Disclosed 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NEPA when it failed to disclose 

the potential impact of displacing the fisher and damaging habitat in the corridor linking the 

Klamath-Siskiyou region and the Southern Cascades. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 17 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Supplemental Information 

The 2004 FEIS discussed effects of terrestrial wildlife habitat (primarily late-successional 

forests) in an Other Issue titled “Effect on terrestrial Wildlife Habitat” (FEIS page IV-144). 

Effects to connectivity (fragmentation) from ski area expansion were discussed in the 2004 FEIS 

at page IV-144, in a subsection of cumulative effects. This discussion primarily focused on the 

north-south corridors along the Siskiyou Crest. Supplemental information derived from the 

biological investigation described above, found that currently, forested areas east and west of the 

Mt. Ashland proposed expansion area provide opportunities for movement and dispersal of 

fishers while it is likely that dispersal opportunities for forest associated species are limited near 

the summit of Mt. Ashland due to a lack of suitable dispersal habitat generally due to much of 

this area being high elevation and naturally in a non-forested condition. 

The local population area has been defined and, for this supplemental analysis, is considered to 

occur at the landscape scale. After implementation of ski area expansion, remaining habitats 

would continue to allow fishers to emigrate and immigrate from north to south to interact with 

and exchange genetic material with animals in northern California (Figure SEIS II-3). The area 

surrounding the summit of Mt. Ashland is a natural high elevation opening and fishers tend to 

avoid non-forested areas. However, there are opportunities both immediately east and west of 

the proposed expansion area for fishers to continue to move and disperse through forested 

habitats. 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NEPA when it failed to disclose 

the potential impact of displacing the fisher and damaging habitat in the corridor linking the 

Klamath-Siskiyou region and the Southern Cascades. This corridor would represent an east-west 

link, which would include crossing the Interstate 5 corridor. 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS pages IV-152, IV-153 for the Pacific 

fisher. This supplemental information describes the situation regarding the Klamath-Siskiyou 

region and the Southern Cascades (east-west) Interstate 5 corridor and the effects of traffic on 

Pacific fisher based on the supplemental biological investigation. 

Interstate 5

Traffic has a considerable effect on population and community dynamics through the disruption 

and fragmentation of habitat and traffic mortality (van Langevelde and Jaarsma 2004). There are 

at least 4 adverse effects of traffic on animals; 1) destruction or alteration of habitat due to 

construction, 2) disturbance of habitat along the road or railway (noise, vibrations, car visibility, 

etc.), 3) barriers created by the road or railway (increased resistance for movements), and 4) 

barriers by traffic (collision risk during crossing) van Langevelde and Jaarsma (1997). 

Generally, as traffic volume increases, mortality increases roughly proportionally until the 

intimidation factor causes animals to cease attempting to cross, whereupon mortality decreases 

with an associated increase in the barrier effect (Jacobson 2007) (see Figure SEIS II-5).
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 18 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Figure SEIS II-5. Traffic Effects 

At low traffic intensity (<2,500) the small proportion of fauna casualties and animals repelled 

causes limited impact on the proportion of animals successfully crossing a road barrier. At 

medium traffic intensity (2,500-10,000) casualties are high, the numbers of animals repelled by 

the infrastructure increased and the proportion of successful crossings decreased, At high traffic 

intensity (>10,000) a large proportion of animals are repelled and despite a lower proportion of 

fauna causalities there is only a small proportion of successful crossings (graph by Andreas 

Seiler, unpublished). 

Aubry and Raley (2006) described seasonal activity patterns of fishers in the southern Oregon 

Cascade Range. Their observations showed that fisher activity increases during the months of 

February thru April. During this period, males become more active and start to move beyond 

their non-breeding home ranges and juveniles begin to disperse. Average Daily Traffic on 

Interstate 5, 3 miles south of Ashland, OR, ranges from 13,000 – 16,000 vehicles/day between 

February and April (www.oregon.gov/ODOT). This presents a formidable challenge, if not a 

complete barrier, to movement across the Interstate for nearly all cursorial species including 

fishers. Fishers have been documented 2 miles west of Interstate 5 near the Siskiyou Summit (J. 

Stephens, pers. comm.). There is a potential for fishers to cross I-5 at 3 underpasses south of the 

town of Ashland. 

Micro-satellite DNA evidence indicates that fishers in the Siskiyou Mountains and those in the 

southern Cascades are distinct populations and are genetically isolated from each other (Aubry et 

al. 2004). Jeff Stephens of the Medford BLM obtained photographic evidence of fishers on the 

Dead Indian Memorial Plateau, east of Interstate 5 in 2006. The RRSNF conducted hair-snaring 

surveys in this area in early 2008 in an attempt to obtain DNA to identify which population the 

fisher(s) are from. Fishers were not detected. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 19 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

As discussed in the biological investigation, the local population area was defined as those 

individuals residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve (LSR), and on 

Federal lands within 5 km of the LSR boundary, except on the eastern edge, where Interstate 5 

defines the edge of the fisher local population area (see Figure SEIS II-2) due to its potential to 

act as a barrier to movement and dispersal. Therefore, based on the biological investigation, the 

potential for displacing the fisher from damaging habitat in the corridor linking the KlamathSiskiyou region and the Southern Cascades is not influenced by the [decision for] the Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area Expansion project; it continues to be influenced by the existing barrier created 

by human infrastructure and traffic utilizing Interstate Highway 5. 

b. Cumulative Effects from Other Projects Not Considered 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NEPA when it failed to discuss 

the cumulative effects on the Pacific fisher from future projects in the vicinity of the MASA 

expansion area, including the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, the Ashland Watershed 

Protection Project, and the Mt. Ashland Late-successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels 

Reduction Project (on the south side of Mt. Ashland on the Klamath National Forest). 

The Court of Appeals stated at 13066-13067; “We cannot excuse the Forest Service from the 

NEPA requirement to include an adequate cumulative impact analysis in the 2004 FEIS. Two 

future projects, the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project (a logging project2

), and the Ashland 

Watershed Protection Project (a habitat restoration and fuel reduction project3

), are scheduled to 

occur in the vicinity of the proposed MASA expansion. Though the Forest Service generally 

addressed the impact of these projects elsewhere in the FEIS, it failed to discuss in detail their 

impact upon the fisher as part of the cumulative impact analysis required by NEPA.” 

The Court of Appeals Opinion at 13065-13066 also found that the Forest Service’s 2004 FEIS 

violates the NEPA because it fails to adequately discuss the impact on the Pacific fisher of two 

future projects: (1) the construction of nine miles of new logging roads within three miles of the 

project area, which will require the cutting of approximately 4,250 acres on the south side of 

Mount Ashland4 and (2) a habitat restoration and fuel hazard reduction treatments, which include 

controlled fires. 

 

2

 Ashland Forest Resiliency is a project designed under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. The 

stated purpose and need for action is “...urgent reduction of the potential for large-scale, high-severity wildland 

fire in the Upper Bear Analysis Area. The Purpose of the action is to protect Values At Risk, reduce hazardous 

fuels, reduce crown fire potential, and obtain conditions that are more resilient to wildland fires.” 

3

 The purpose and need for the Ashland Watershed Protection project was essentially the same as Ashland Forest 

Resiliency. It preceded the HFRA project, partially occurs with the same area but did not propose treatments on a 

landscape scale, as does Ashland Forest Resiliency. 

4

 This reference is to the Mt. Ashland Late-successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project 

(on the south side of Mt. Ashland on the Klamath National Forest). 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 20 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Supplemental Information 

The 2004 FEIS considered and discussed cumulative effects on terrestrial PETS species 

beginning at page IV-150. The potential effects of the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, 

and Ashland Forest Resiliency were discussed there. The Mt. Ashland Late-successional 

Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project (on the south side of Mt. Ashland on 

the Klamath National Forest) was not included in the 2004 cumulative effects analysis. This 

project was in the initial planning stages at the time of the FEIS and ROD and the extent of 

potential habitat modifications was unknown at that time because no proposed action had been 

identified5. 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS pages IV-150 for the Pacific fisher. 

This supplemental information is based on the latest (2010) situation and is discussed in detail as 

part of the cumulative impact analysis for Pacific Fisher. 

Ashland Watershed Protection Project

A Record of Decision was signed in May 2001 for the Ashland Watershed Protection Project 

(AWPP). The current situation for Ashland Forest Resiliency suggests that only the manual 

treatments under AWPP will be enacted, and that mechanical treatments will be incorporated 

into Ashland Forest Resiliency. This will result in less cumulative effects (because of the lack of 

cumulative treatments) than was assumed in the 2004 FEIS for ski area expansion. None of the 

manual treatments will remove or degrade late-successional habitat. 

Ashland Forest Resiliency

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest completed a Final EIS (September 2008) for Ashland 

Forest Resiliency (AFR). The Objection Process under 36 CFR 218 was conducted for this 

project and a Record of Decision selecting the Preferred Alternative was issued in October 2009. 

In the Final EIS for Ashland Forest Resiliency, the Forest Service developed and analyzed an 

additional Action Alternative, designed and identified as the Preferred Alternative. This 

alternative was developed from the results of analysis of the two Action Alternatives analyzed in 

detail in the Draft EIS, further collaboration with the City of Ashland and their representatives, 

and the extensive comments received on the Draft EIS during the Comment Period. 

Regarding AWPP (see above), under collaborative discussions, the Forest Service and City 

agreed that the Forest Service should plan the entire landscape based on its current condition at 

the time of implementation of Ashland Forest Resiliency, and not defer treatments until after 

AWPP treatments are completed. 

The Preferred Alternative was designed to include the most effective and efficient treatment 

methodologies, in the most strategic locations. The Preferred Alternative identifies 

approximately 7,600 acres of treatment, which is less than the Proposed Action (8,150 acres). 

Actions associated with Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) would occur within the Neil Creek and 

Ashland Creek watersheds; analysis for both projects concluded that there would be no risk for 

adverse cumulative effects to these watersheds from these actions. 

 

5

 Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those federal or non-federal activities not yet undertaken, for which 

there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposal. Identification of Forest Service actions are described in 

§220.4(a)(1). 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 21 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

As is the case for ski area expansion, habitat data for fisher analyses was derived from 

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. For the purpose of this analysis, fisher 

denning/resting habitat was also defined as coniferous forest greater than 60% canopy closure 

and greater than 24 inch diameter trees. Fisher dispersal and foraging habitat is coniferous forest 

(sapling/pole or larger) greater than 60% canopy closure. In addition, for the purpose of 

analyzing effects to fisher populations as a result of the proposed project, the local population 

was defined as those individuals residing within the entire Mt. Ashland Late-Successional 

Reserve plus Federal lands within 5 kilometers of the LSR, except on the eastern edge, where 

Interstate 5 defines the edge of the fisher analysis area due to its potential to act as a barrier to 

movement and dispersal. 

Effects to fisher from the Preferred Alternative are as follows: in stands where treatments reduce 

overall canopy closure to approximately 60%, opportunities for fishers to locate suitable areas 

for den and rest sites within the stand may be reduced. However, due to variation in canopy 

closure at a fine-scale within a stand after treatment, and mitigation measures provided for fisher 

throughout the project areas, clumps of large trees with canopy closures greater than 80% would 

still remain within the stand. Therefore, stands that are reduced to approximately 60% canopy 

closure overall would retain patches of trees and snags that provide den and rest sites for fisher. 

In stands where treatments reduce overall canopy closure to between 40% and 60%, 

opportunities for fishers to locate suitable areas for den and rest sites within the stand become 

more limited. Mitigation measures for fisher require retaining a minimum of one 1⁄2-1 acre 

untreated patch per 40 acre block of the largest diameter trees, snags, and coarse woody material 

where the overstory canopy closure is greater than 80%. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in the loss of some large trees which may reduce resting 

and denning opportunities for fishers. Research has shown that fishers use the largest trees 

available for both natal and maternal dens and rest sites (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yaeger 2005). 

Treatments from the Preferred Alternative are designed to retain the largest trees. It is estimated 

that a maximum of 0-3 trees/acre greater 24 inches in diameter and 0-13 trees/acre 17-24 inches 

in diameter would be cut. 

Surface fuel treatments, particularly underburning, pile burning, and the associated smoke could 

have adverse effects to fishers during the denning period. In southwest Oregon, the denning 

period is from approximately late March when females give birth to late July when juveniles are 

more mobile and able to travel with their mothers (Aubry and Raley 2006). 

Effects of smoke production on denning fishers and their young have not been described. 

However, it is assumed that heavy smoke concentrations could cause females to move their kits 

or could cause mortality in the young through excessive smoke inhalation or destruction of the 

den structure by the fire. Because burning restrictions would be required within 1⁄4 mile of nine 

spotted owl nest sites, this would provide benefits for denning fishers in these areas. In addition, 

efforts would be made to reduce impacts to the 1⁄2-1 acre untreated patches during underburning 

operations. 

The Ashland Forest Resiliency project would reduce fisher habitat (≥60% canopy closure) by 

1,292 acres. These acres are widely dispersed across 7,600 acres. Late-successional habitats on 

south and west facing slopes in the Ashland Research Natural Area and northernmost portions of 

the project area would be most affected due to reduction of canopy closure and fuels projects. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 22 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Within these areas, there may be some shifting or expansion of fisher home ranges from 

reductions in habitat quality. This could potentially influence 2-3 female home ranges and 1-2 

male home ranges. This approximates 5-10% of the estimated local population, and 0.25-0.5% 

of the estimated total population. 

Mt. Ashland Late-successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project 

The Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project was in the initial 

planning stages and the extent of potential habitat modifications was unknown at the time of Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area expansion ROD (2004) because no proposed action had been identified. 

This project was proposed by the Klamath National Forest, Oak Knoll Ranger District. The 

Notice of Intent (NOI) for a forthcoming EIS was published on October 7, 2005 Vol. 70, 

Number 194. No new road construction was identified in the NOI and the acreage stated was 

5,013 acres. This Klamath NF project is almost entirely within previously managed stands less 

than 80-90 years of age which are not be considered suitable habitat for fisher and therefore 

should have little to no cumulative effect to the fisher. 

The May 2008 Record of Decision for this project includes 0.2-0.3 mile of temporary road 

within 3 miles of the expansion area. As temporary roads, road density would not be 

permanently increased, and the project would actually decrease existing road density via road 

decommissioning. The Mt. Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS 

included consideration and calculation for ski area expansion actions conditionally authorized by 

the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF at Mt. Ashland. 

Based on the 2008 Record of Decision, the Klamath National Forest will enact thinning and fuel 

reduction treatments in the southern portion of the Mt. Ashland LSR. Treatments are designed to 

promote the development of late-successional habitat and reduce the potential of standreplacement fire. Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat 

will not remove important structural components of late-successional habitat such as largediameter trees, snags, and coarse woody material. Trees infected with mistletoe may be 

removed; however silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this habitat 

component will remain well distributed across the landscape. Silvicultural prescriptions have 

also been designed to retain 60 percent canopy cover in suitable spotted owl habitat. 

Prescriptions for underburning have been designed to imitate low-intensity fire, thus, 

underburning is not expected to significantly impact the amount and distribution of large snags 

and coarse woody material. 

Other fuel reduction treatments such as hand piling and burning of fuels and mastication will 

retain Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment recommendations for snags and 

coarse woody material. Because the structural elements of late-successional habitat will be 

retained, thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and fuels 

reduction treatments are not expected to remove late-successional habitat. 

Because the only proposed silvicultural prescription is thinning, stands will be thinned to a 

variable density including 15 percent of each stand to remain un-thinned, an average of 60 

percent canopy closure will be retained in true fir stands and the lower half of north and east 

facing slopes, an average of 40 to 60 percent canopy closure will be retained on south and west 

facing slopes, and 60 percent canopy cover will be retained on all other aspects.
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 23 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Thinning prescriptions are designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat and 

will not create large openings or significantly reduce forest cover and will retain a high level of 

habitat connectivity. Additionally, actions within one site potential tree of riparian reserves are 

limited to pre-commercial thinning which is not expected to affect the connectivity function of 

these areas. 

Under the 2008 decision, thinning to create the Siskiyou Gap Defensible Fuel Profile Zone 

(DFPZ) will downgrade approximately 4 acres of late-successional habitat in stand 339 by 

reducing canopy cover to 40 percent. While thinning in DFPZs may remove discrete structural 

components of late-successional habitat outside of stand 339, silvicultural prescriptions have 

been designed to retain late-successional habitat where it occurs within DFPZs, ensuring that 

these activities will not remove any additional late-successional habitat. Additionally, the 

removal of large snags or groups of snags within DFPZs will be limited to situations where they 

pose a hazard to operations. 

In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have substantial benefits 

to late-successional species by increasing the amount and distribution of late-successional habitat 

and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire 

stand condition. Forest Vegetation Simulation (FVS) modeling indicates that 50 years post 

thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase to between 24 and 27” and 14 

to 15 trees per acre >30” would be expected. More large stems per acre would also increase 

recruitment of large snags and coarse woody material. Stands with this type of structural 

complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. The fuels extension of FVS 

modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire 

potential and maintain a surface fire type and substantially reduce predicted stand mortality in 

the event of a fire start. These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale 

fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This 

type of pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be 

consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would 

likely benefit late-successional species by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the 

landscape. 

Between 0.2 to 0.3 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in late-successional habitat. 

Because construction of temporary roads would remove large diameter trees and create 

approximately a thirty foot gap in the canopy, it is expected that this activity would remove 

between 0.7 and 1.1 acres of late-successional habitat. To ensure that impacts to latesuccessional habitat are minimized, all trees >24” that need to be felled during temporary road 

construction will be left on site. One landing is proposed to be constructed in late-successional 

habitat, resulting in the removal of 0.5 acre of late-successional habitat. 

Road-related activities, including maintenance, closures, and decommissioning are not expected 

to remove any important structural components of habitat. Combined, thinning to create the 

Siskiyou Gap DFPZ and construction of temporary roads and landings would be expected to 

remove between 0.7 and 5.5 acres or 0.05 to 0.43 percent of the extant late-successional habitat 

in the Project area. Proposed actions are not expected to affect habitat connectivity. 

The Ashland Watershed Protection Project, Ashland Forest Resiliency, and the Mt. Ashland 

Late-successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project, as well as the Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area expansion are shown in the context of the Fisher local population are on figure 

SEIS II-6.
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 24 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Figure SEIS II-6. Foreseeable Federal Projects within the Fisher Local Population Area 

§ ̈¦5

I

Klamath National Forest

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

036 1.5

Miles

Fisher Local Population Area Ashland

Mt Ashland 

Ski Area Expansion

Mt. Ashland LSR 

Habitat Restoration 

and Fuels Reduction Project

Ashland 

Forest 

Resiliency

Wagner Gap Timber Sale 

An additional project, the Wagner Gap Timber Sale thinned (in 2009) 417 acres of overly dense 

young stands located on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. Based on canopy reductions 

associated the Wagner Gap sale, fisher would not likely continue to use approximately 324 acres 

of affected stands. This would result in a short term reduction of fisher habitat within the local 

population area and could affect up to one female and one male fisher.
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 25 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Private Timber lands 

There are approximately 5,700 acres of privately owned lands within the local fisher population 

area, some of that is industrial timber lands that are subject to frequent harvest. The amount of 

late-successional habitat on private land is unknown, though it is likely to be relatively low. 

Under the harvest regimes usually carried out in the Rogue Valley and surrounding area, the 

typical rotation age is 40 to 60 years. 

The Forest assumes that these past management practices will continue and reduce the amount of 

late-successional habitat on non-federal lands over time. Harvest activities on state and private 

lands can be expected to impact late-successional species located within adjacent federal lands 

by removing and fragmenting habitat. 

3. Determinations - Pacific Fisher 

The supplemental analysis documented in this DSEIS has explained how the 1999 Biological 

Evaluation was updated and incorporated into the 2004 FEIS. This DSEIS has supplemented the 

current conditions for the fisher population in and around Mt. Ashland and identified current 

amount and types of habitat. It presents a summary of the latest research on the Pacific fisher 

species biology and habitat requirements. This is designed to allow use of habitat as a proxy for 

population viability. The effects on fisher species and habitat from ski area expansion are 

disclosed. The supplemental sections include all steps of the Biological Evaluation process 

required by the LRMP, for the Pacific fisher. This DSEIS has supplemented the disclosure of 

impacts to the corridor linking the Klamath-Siskiyou region and the Southern Cascades, from ski 

area expansion. It has supplemented the analysis for cumulative effects on the Pacific fisher 

from future projects in the vicinity of the MASA expansion area, for impacts to the local fisher 

population area. 

a. Sensitive Species Determination 

Table IV-24, at page IV-146 of the 2004 FEIS documented a determination of effect for the 

Pacific fisher as “MIIH” (defined in the table footnote as) “May impact individuals or habitat, 

but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss viability to the 

population or species.” This determination was applicable to both Alternative 2 and 6, as 

analyzed in the 2004 FEIS. 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS pages IV-152 for the Pacific fisher: 

The 2010 supplemental analysis found that the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area 

Expansion project would remove 44 acres of denning/resting habitat and an additional 17 acres 

of dispersal/foraging habitat for fishers. Within these areas, there may be some shifting or 

expansion of fisher home ranges resulting from reductions in habitat quality. This could 

potentially influence 1 female home range and 1 male home range. This approximates 1% of the 

estimated local population, and 0.25-0.5% of the estimated total population. 

The total area impacted by the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project is 

considered to be 220 acres because Runs 12, 15, 18 and Surface Lift 15 fragment this area from 

the remaining habitats within the local population area due to removal of trees. Therefore, the 

entire 220 acres is unlikely to function as fisher habitat or be included in an individual’s home 

range. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 26 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Due to reductions in the extent of denning/resting and dispersal/foraging habitat for fisher within 

the local population area, as a Forest Service Sensitive species, the Mt. Ashland Ski Area 

Expansion project is “MIIH - May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss viability to the population or 

species.” The [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion would not likely result in a 

loss of viability within the local population area nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of 

species viability range wide” for Pacific fisher. 

For the selected alternative in the 2004 ROD, supplemental analysis has identified a more precise 

prediction of impacts, including a slightly refined (increased) extent of habitat change. However, 

this supplemental analysis identifies an identical finding to that predicted in the 2004 FEIS, for 

which the 2004 ROD was based, for the Pacific fisher, as a Forest Service Sensitive species. 

b. Cumulative Effects 

Cumulatively, all the past, current, and foreseeable future projects could impact a small portion 

of the fisher within the local population. Federal actions could reduce resting and denning 

habitat by up to 1,620 acres from both Klamath NF (4 acres) and Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 

(1,616 acres) projects. Past activities on non-federal lands have likely reduced habitat for fisher 

on up to 5,700 acres within the local population area. 

The loss of up to approximately 7,320 acres of habitat within the local population area could 

impact up to 11 female and 6 male fisher; potentially impacting up to 39-19 percent of the local 

fisher population and up to 1.7-0.8 percent of the entire fisher population NW California and SW 

Oregon (see page II-11 for population size estimates). Ski area expansion would potentially 

cause some loss of forage and denning/resting habitat and cause some shifting of home ranges. 

The project biologists estimate that these animals would not likely be precluded or reduced 

within the local population; they would merely avoid those areas without habitat, 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 27 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

C. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - RIPARIAN RESERVES AND 

RESTRICTED WATERSHED TERRAIN 

1. Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed Terrain - NFMA Claims 

This Section of the DSEIS for analysis purposes will identify portions of the Special Use Permit 

area as Restricted Riparian (MS 26), and Restricted Watershed (MS 22) and analyze the effects 

of expansion against applicable (soils) standards and guidelines. 

a. Failure to Designate Restricted Riparian (MS 26) and Restricted Watershed (MS 22) 

The Court of Appeals found that Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to appropriately 

designate “Riparian Reserves” and “Restricted Watershed” terrain as required by the Rogue 

River LRMP and the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). 

The rules governing the Forest Service’s designation and management of Riparian Reserves and 

watersheds are complex and overlapping. The Court of Appeals noted that the principal source 

of these rules is the NWFP itself, and, derivatively, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

adopted pursuant to the NWFP. Accordingly, the Forest Service must also comply with the 

Rogue River LRMP’s more restrictive standards and guidelines for lands designated Restricted 

Riparian, Management Strategy 26 (MS 26) and for lands designated Restricted Watershed, 

Management Strategy 22 (MS 22)6

. 

Supplemental Information 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS Chapter III, Sections 8 and 9 (pages 

III-44 through 70, for Watershed Resources and Water Quality. 

RESTRICTED RIPARIAN (MS 26) 

Portions of the Special Use Permit area for analysis purposes are considered to be allocated to 

Restricted Riparian (MS 26). According to DESCRIPTION (LRMP page 4-298): 

 “This strategy can be applied only to those acres designated as suitable for riparian habitat. This area 

 includes all perennial streams, Class I, II and III in the Forest Service classification system and their 

 associated riparian habitat. 

 Areas managed for restricted riparian include lakes and perennial streams and wetlands, and at a 

 minimum, land within 100 feet horizontal distance from them or the riparian vegetation associated 

 with them. Geographical boundaries of these areas are determined by on-site characteristics of soil 

 and vegetation.” 

The following supplemental information will map all perennial streams within the Special Use 

Permit Area as Restricted Riparian (MS 26). Perennial streams are based on the actual on-theground inventory conducted by SE Group in 2002, and documented in the Wetland and Stream 

Survey, contained in the 2004 FEIS as Appendix E. According to the LRMP, lands within 100 

feet horizontal distance from perennial stream and wetlands define the area that will be evaluated 

for the appropriate standards and guidelines for MS 26. 

 

6

 Court of Appeals Opinion at 13068 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 28 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Based on this supplemental analysis, the following figure (Figure SEIS II-7) shows MS 26 areas 

within the Special Use Permit area, and at the Site Scale Analysis Area7: 

Figure SEIS II-7. Management Strategy 26 within Special Use Permit Area and Site Scale 

Special Use Permit Boundary

Perennial Streams

MS 26 Areas - Within Site Scale

Based on supplemental analysis, there is a total of 48.8 acres of Restricted Riparian (MS 26) 

terrain within the Site Scale Analysis Area; 27.9 acres of this are within the Special Use Permit 

area. 

The area of MS 26 impacted by the 2004 Decision for ski area expansion involves Run 12, 

Lower Wetlands Bridge Construction, at one location (blue arrow). The width of Restricted 

Riparian at this crossing (perpendicular to stream course) is projected at 300 total feet; the width 

of the proposed ski run at this location is 120 feet. This equates to 0.83 acres of action within 

MS 26. The disturbance from this action will be discussed further in this supplemental analysis 

(page II-39, 40). 

Supplemental Information 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS Chapter III, Sections 8 and 9 (pages 

III-44 through 70, for Watershed Resources and Water Quality. 

RESTRICTED WATERSHED (MS 22) 

Portions of the Special Use Permit area for analysis purposes are considered to be allocated to 

Watershed (MS 22). According to DESCRIPTION (LRMP page 4-265): 

 “This strategy can be applied only to those acres designated as suitable for Municipal Supply 

 Watersheds. These areas are Medford, Ashland and Talent watersheds.”

 

7

 The Site Scale Analysis Area includes the entire MASA Special Use Permit area and additional, adjacent area 

outside of the SUP area. This additional area was included to provide the basis of analysis of watershed conditions 

that may be affected by proposed expansion activities (see more complete definition of analysis area scales at FEIS 

page III-40). 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 29 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

As described and shown at FEIS Chapter III, page III-42, 43 (and included here), approximately 

796 acres of the Special Use Permit area are within the Upper Ashland Creek watershed. This 

area is within the Ashland Municipal Watershed and subject to standards and guidelines for MS 

22: 

Figure SEIS II-8. Ashland Municipal Watershed within Special Use Permit Area

Site Scale and Watershed Scale Analysis Areas (from 2004 FEIS page III-43) 

b. Failure to Evaluate Soils Standards and Guidelines for MS 26 and MS 22 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service violated the NFMA by failing to demonstrate 

compliance with the Rogue River LRMP standards and guidelines. The Rogue River LRMP 

includes specific soils disturbance standards and guidelines and requires compliance for 

management activities in areas designated as Restricted Riparian (MS 26), and Restricted 

Watershed (MS 22) terrain. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 30 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Supplemental Information 

The LRMP directs the use of the Soil Resource Inventory for designing and evaluating projects. 

As documented in the 2004 FEIS (page IV-18), soils within the Special Use Permit area occur on 

eight landtype units. These units correspond to mapping done for the Soil Resource Inventory 

for the Rogue River National Forest (Badura and Jahn 1977) but at a more detailed scale based 

on recent (2002) site-specific field surveys. Landtypes are mapping units of a land classification 

system used in mountainous terrain. They are a product of the interaction between soils, 

geology, landforms, vegetation and climate. Soils are discussed in relationship to the landtypes 

where they occur (FEIS Table III-7). 

These revised landtypes are portrayed on FEIS Map III-4. FEIS Table III-7 describes inherent 

physical properties, and displays the acreage within each landtype, for the Site Scale Analysis 

Area. This table did not include soil erosion potential as extracted from the Soil Resource 

Inventory because specially designed and more restrictive thresholds for soils, erosion and site 

productivity were designed for ski area expansion activities, as documented in the 2004 Record 

of Decision, Attachment C, Monitoring Plan (see pages C-16 through 19). 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS Chapter III, Sections 5 and 6 (pages 

III-18 through 32, for Soil Processes: Erosion and Sedimentation, and specifically for soils 

standards and guidelines for Restricted Riparian and Restricted Watershed: 

SOILS STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES for MS 26 and MS 22

The following table portrays the soil erosion potential rating from the Soil Resource Inventory, 

Table of Erosion and Hydrologic Interpretations, page 117-119), for the revised landtypes within 

the Special Use Permit Area. 

Table SEIS II-1. Soil Erosion Potential from Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) 

SRI 

Landtype 

SRI Soil Erosion 

Potential 

 52 Slight 

 80 Moderate – severe 

 80a Severe 

 83 Slight 

 93 Not applicable 

 94 Variable 

 95a Variable 

 95b Variable 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements the 2004 FEIS, Chapter III and IV, Section 

C, 3 and 5; it provides the text from the soils standards and guidelines (bold) for Restricted 

Riparian (MS 26) and Restricted Watershed (MS 22) and presents compliance information for 

impacts associated with the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project: 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 31 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Standards and Guidelines – SOILS: LRMP page 4-307 for MS 26 

1. Address the potential for detrimental soil displacement, compaction, puddling, severe burning, 

mass wasting and surface soil erosion in project environmental analysis. 

For ski area expansion, the potential for detrimental soil displacement, compaction, puddling, 

severe burning, mass wasting and surface soil erosion are addressed in FEIS Chapter III and IV, 

Section C, 5. 

2. Alternative management practices will be developed or mitigating measures planned and 

implemented when activities are likely to result in detrimental displacement, compaction, mass 

wasting or erosion. 

For ski area expansion, specially designed mitigation measures for displacement, compaction, 

mass wasting or erosion are presented in FEIS, Chapter II, Section 8, a, b, c. 

3. No more than 10 percent of an activity area should be compacted, puddled or displaced upon 

completion of project (not including permanent roads or landings). No more than 20 percent 

of the area should be displaced or compacted under circumstances resulting from previous 

management practices, including roads and landings. Permanent recreation facilities or other 

permanent facilities are exempt. 

For the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project regarding MS 26, the “activity 

area” is assumed to be the area of impact for run clearing (0.83 acres; see SEIS Page II-28 and 

Figure SEIS II-11). Clearing for ski area expansion would not compact, puddle or displace more 

than 10 percent of this activity area because of mitigation measures including the use of low 

ground pressure construction equipment. The specially designed thresholds for activities within 

wetlands is 1% (see 2004 Table ROD C-3; Soils and Site Productivity Thresholds, page C-17). 

There is no previous management in this area from roads or landings; the 20 percent standard 

would not apply. Note that the ski area is considered a permanent recreation facility and could 

therefore be considered exempt from this portion of the standard and guideline. 

4. Landslide hazard evaluation will be used to assess potential mass wasting risk by the project. 

The Rogue River National Forest landslide, slope stability and hazard rating maps will be used 

to determine need for detailed slope stability mapping. 

Evaluation for ski area expansion utilized the Forest’s Landslide Zonation And Risk Evaluation 

(LAZARE) technique as documented at FEIS Chapter III and IV, Section C, 3. 

5. Design management activities to retain effective ground cover. The mineral soil exposure 

should not exceed the following limits overall, based on the erosion hazard rating of the soil 

type, as defined in the Rogue River National Forest Soil Resource Inventory: 

(a) Twenty percent mineral soil exposed on soils classed as very slight, slight, low or moderate 

erosion hazard soils. 

(b) Ten percent exposure on high or severe erosion hazard soils. 

(c) Seven percent exposure on very high or very severe erosion hazard soils. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 32 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

As noted above, the area of impact for run clearing within MS 26 is 0.83 acres. The [decision 

for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion would occur within Landtype 52. The standard for MS 

26 within Landtype 52 is twenty percent. The mineral soil exposure from ski area expansion is 

projected as 0.06 acre within this 0.83 acre area within MS 26, or 7.2 %.

Ski area expansion activities were designed to retain effective ground cover (FEIS Chapter II). 

As noted above, the specially designed thresholds for maximum bare soil from ski run 

construction is 10% (see Table ROD C-3. Soils and Site Productivity Thresholds, page C-17) 

6. Rehabilitate adversely impacted sites. 

The decision for ski area expansion includes several restoration projects, as documented in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section F, 7. 

Standards and Guidelines – SOILS: LRMP page 4-272 for MS 22 

1. Address the potential for detrimental soil displacement, compaction, puddling, severe burning, 

mass wasting and surface soil erosion in project environmental analysis. 

For ski area expansion, the potential for detrimental soil displacement, compaction, puddling, 

severe burning, mass wasting and surface soil erosion are addressed in FEIS Chapter III and IV, 

Section C, 5. 

2. Alternative management practices will be developed or mitigating measures planned and 

implemented when activities are likely to result in detrimental displacement, compaction, mass 

wasting or erosion. 

For ski area expansion, specially designed mitigation measures for displacement, compaction, 

mass wasting or erosion are presented in FEIS, Chapter II, Section 8, a, b, c. 

3. Prohibit more than 10 percent of an activity area to be compacted, puddled or displaced upon 

completion of project. A maximum of 20 percent can be displaced or compacted under 

circumstances resulting from previous management practices and/or unique topographic 

conditions. This 20 percent includes roads and landings built into roads. Permanent 

recreation facilities and other permanent facilities that operate on a seasonal basis are exempt. 

For the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project regarding MS 22, the “activity 

area” is assumed to be the total area of impact for run and lift clearing for ski area expansion 

within the Upper Ashland Creek watershed. FEIS Table IV-7 predicted the impact for all 

affected watersheds to be 20% for Alternative 2; 15% for Alternative 6. The 2004 Record of 

Decision disclosed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5% for Modified 

Alternative 2 (the decision). This figure includes some construction within previously impacted 

areas such as the Arrival Services Building, Skier Plaza, and road reconstruction in the Comer 

Chairlift area (within Ashland Creek watershed). 

Effects from compaction, puddling or displacement are minimized because of mitigation 

measures including the use of low ground pressure construction equipment. There is some 

previous management (clearing for ski runs and lifts) in this area. The flatter portions of the 

ridge between the Klamath and Rogue River watersheds can be considered a unique topographic 

condition, therefore allowing detrimental conditions to approach 20%. Note that the ski area is 

considered a permanent recreation facility, operates on a seasonal basis and could be considered 

exempt from this portion of the standard and guideline. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 33 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

4. Landslide hazard evaluation will be used to assess potential mass wasting risk by the 

 project. The Rogue River National Forest landslide, slope stability and hazard rating maps 

 will be used to determine need for detailed slope stability mapping. 

Evaluation for ski area expansion utilized the Forest’s Landslide Zonation And Risk Evaluation 

(LAZARE) technique as documented at FEIS Chapter III and IV, Section C, 3. 

5. Design management activities to retain effective ground cover. The mineral soil exposure 

should not exceed the following limits overall, based on the erosion hazard rating of the soil 

type, as defined in the Rogue River National Forest Soil Resource Inventory: 

(a) Forty percent mineral soil exposed on soils classed as very slight, slight, low or moderate 

erosion hazard soils. 

(b) Thirty percent exposure on high or severe erosion hazard soils. 

(c) Fifteen percent exposure on very high or very severe erosion hazard soils. 

The [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project occurs within several landtypes; 

the majority of clearing activities occur within Landtype 80, considered the most restrictive, 

which has a standard of thirty percent. FEIS Table IV-7 predicted the impact for all affected 

watersheds to be 20% for Alternative 2; 15% for Alternative 6. The 2004 Record of Decision 

disclosed an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5% for Modified Alternative 2 (the 

decision). This figure includes some construction within previously impacted areas such as the 

Arrival Services Building, Skier Plaza, and road reconstruction in the Comer Chairlift area 

(within Ashland Creek watershed). 

6. Rehabilitate adversely impacted sites. 

The decision for ski area expansion includes several restoration projects, as documented in FEIS 

Chapter II, Section F, 7. 

2. Riparian Reserves - NFMA Claim 

a. Failure to Designate Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve 

The Court of Appeals found that the Forest Service failed to designate the Landslide Hazard 

Zone 2 (LHZ) land as Riparian Reserve and results in violations of the Rogue River LRMP, the 

NWFP (and ACS), and the NFMA. For analysis purposes, this section of the DSEIS will include 

Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as part of the Riparian Reserve, and analyze and disclose the land 

cover effects of expansion against revised Riparian Reserves. 

Supplemental Information 

The 2004 FEIS displays Landslide Hazard Zonation at MAP III-3, page III-16. A summary of 

the acreage within the four Landslide Hazard Zones, within the Site Scale Analysis Area was 

presented at FEIS page III-15. 

The Court of Appeals found that Landslide Hazard Zone 2 should be included within the 

Riparian Reserve allocations as associated with the Northwest Forest Plan. The following 

shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS Chapter III and IV, Section 3 (pages III-12 through 

17, and IV-10 through 20, for Geologic Slope Stability, and FEIS Chapter III and IV, Section 10, 

pages III-76 through 86, and IV-98 through 107 for Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 34 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

LHZ 2 as RIPARIAN RESERVE 

The following figure (SEIS II-9) portrays revised Riparian Reserve delineation based on 

inclusion of Landslide Hazard Zone 2. At the Site Scale Analysis Area, this equates to an 

increase of 145.13 acres (from 333.34 to 478.47). This is an approximate 44% increase over the 

2004 FEIS. Note that the total acres of LHZ 2 as discussed in the 2004 FEIS do not all directly 

add to the Riparian Reserve; this is because some of the LHZ 2 acres were already included in 

the Riparian Reserve. 

Figure SEIS II-9. Riparian Reserve including LHZ 2 (not previously included) at Site Scale 

National Forest Boundary

Site Scale Analysis Area

Special Use Permit Boundary

Riparian Reserve 

Riparian Reserve 2009 Addition

F

Supplemental Information 

Riparian Reserves are established as a component of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 

designed primarily to restore and maintain the health of aquatic systems and their dependent 

species. Riparian Reserves also help to maintain riparian structures and functions and conserve 

habitat for organisms dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upland areas. The 

width of the Riparian Reserves for wetlands and streams on the RRNF and the KNF in the Site 

Scale Analysis Area was determined based on the rationale presented in FEIS Table III-19. 

The following shaded supplemental text supplements FEIS Chapter III and IV, Section 10, pages 

III-76 through 86, and IV-98 through 107 for Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

RIPARIAN RESERVE LAND COVER CONDITIONS 

The current (revised) areas of Riparian Reserves within the Site Scale Analysis Area, with 

inclusion of LHZ 2 lands not previously included, are summarized in Table SEIS II-2, as well as 

the degree to which (revised) Riparian Reserves are changed under the [decision for] the Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area Expansion project.
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 35 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Table SEIS II-2. Revised Riparian Reserve Land Cover Conditions – Site Scale Analysis Area 

Parameter 

Current 

Condition 

2004 FEIS 

2004 

Decision 

(Modified 

Alternative 2) 

Effects From 

Modified 

Alternative 2 -

Revised 2009 

for inclusion 

of LHZ 2 

 Acres of Riparian Reserves (acres) 333.34 478.47 

 Proposed Clearing in Riparian Reserves (acres) 0.0 4.74 14.82 

 Proposed Grading in Riparian Reserves (acres) 0.0 1.24 1.80 

 Land Cover within Riparian Reserves: 

 Forested Cover (acres) 218.67 213.55 363.76 

 Percent change in Forested Cover 0.0 -2.3% -3.9% 

As can be seen from the table above, inclusion of LHZ 2 not previously included into the 

Riparian Reserve, amounts to a 1.6% additional change, over the conditions as documented in 

the 2004 FEIS. These revised conditions are shown on the following supplemental figure, Figure 

SEIS II-10: 

Figure SEIS II-10. Summary of Riparian Reserve Land Cover Conditions, Site Scale Analysis Area 

National Forest Boundary

Site Scale Analysis Area

Special Use Permit Boundary

Riparian Reserve 

Grading Within Riparian Reserve

Clearing Within Riparian Reserve

Alternative 2 - Modified

Existing Ski Terrain F

Supplemental Information 

As noted above, this SEIS has identified for analysis purposes, several land allocation changes 

based on the Court of Appeals Opinion. The following shaded supplemental text supplements 

FEIS Chapter I and replaces the 2004 FEIS MAP I-3 (page I-20): 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 36 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Riparian Reserve (KNF & RRNF)

Klamath National Forest LRMP

Late-Successional Rserve (KNF)

Admistratively Withdrawn - Special Management (KNF)

Matrix - Scenic Emphasis (KNF)

Rogue River National Forest LRMP

Administratively Withdrawn - Developed Recreation (RRNF)

Late-Successional Reserve - Restricted Watershed (RRNF)

Late-Successional Reserve (RRNF)

Restricted Riparian (RRNF)

Special Use Permit Boundary

Site Scale Analysis Area

National Forest Boundary

F

SUPPLEMENTAL LAND ALLOCATIONS 

The following includes the addition of Restricted Riparian (MS 26) and Landslide Hazard Zone 

2 to the Riparian Reserves. Note that the Upper Ashland Watershed portion of the Special use 

Permit area is also considered to be Restricted Watershed (MS 22), but is not included in this 

figure. 

Figure SEIS II-11. Supplemental Land Allocations

3. Determinations - Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed Terrain 

The supplemental analysis documented in this DSEIS has analyzed portions of the Special Use 

Permit area as Restricted Riparian (MS 26), and Restricted Watershed (MS 22) and has analyzed 

the effects of expansion against applicable (soils) standards and guidelines. This DSEIS has 

analyzed Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as part of the Riparian Reserve, and analyzed and disclosed 

the land cover effects of expansion against revised Riparian Reserves. 

a. Restricted Riparian (MS 26) 

Based on supplemental analysis, there is a total of 48.8 acres of Restricted Riparian (MS 26)

terrain within the Site Scale Analysis Area; 27.9 acres of this are within the Special Use Permit 

area subject to applicable (soils) standards and guidelines. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 37 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

For the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project regarding MS 26, the “activity 

area” is assumed to be the area of impact for run clearing (0.83 acres). Clearing for ski area 

expansion would not compact, puddle or displace more than 10 percent of this activity area 

because of mitigation measures including the use of low ground pressure construction 

equipment. This less than one acre area is a wetland meadow. The specially designed threshold 

for activities within wetlands is 1% (see 2004 Table ROD C-3: Soils and Site Productivity 

Thresholds, page C-17). 

The ski area expansion decision would occur within Landtype 52. The standard for MS 26 

within Landtype 52 is twenty percent. The mineral soil exposure from ski area expansion is 

projected as 0.06 acre within this 0.83 acre area within MS 26, or 7.2%. Ski area expansion 

activities were designed to retain effective ground cover (FEIS Chapter II). The specially 

designed thresholds for maximum bare soil from ski run construction is 10% (see 2004 Table 

ROD C-3; Soils and Site Productivity Thresholds, page C-17) 

b. Restricted Watershed (MS 22) 

Based on supplemental analysis, there are approximately 796 acres of the Special Use Permit 

area are within the Upper Ashland Creek watershed. This area is within the Ashland Municipal 

Watershed and subject to (soils) standards and guidelines for Restricted Watershed (MS 22). 

For the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project regarding MS 22, the “activity 

area” is assumed to be the total area of impact for run and lift clearing for ski area expansion 

within the Upper Ashland Creek watershed. Effects from compaction, puddling or displacement 

are minimized because of mitigation measures including the use of low ground pressure 

construction equipment. The 2004 Record of Decision disclosed and supplemental analysis 

confirms an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5% for Modified Alternative 2 (the 

decision). This figure includes some construction within previously impacted areas, therefore 

allowing detrimental conditions to approach 20%. 

For MS 22, the ski area expansion decision would occur within several landtypes; the majority of 

clearing activities occur within Landtype 80, considered the most restrictive, which has a mineral 

soil exposure standard of thirty percent. The 2004 Record of Decision disclosed and 

supplemental analysis confirms an estimated percent of detrimental conditions at 16.5% for 

Modified Alternative 2 (the decision). 

c. Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve 

The supplemental analysis documented in this DSEIS has determined a revised Riparian Reserve 

delineation based on inclusion of Landslide Hazard Zone 2. At the Site Scale Analysis Area, this 

equates to an increase of 145.13 acres (from 333.34 to 478.47). This is an approximate 44% 

increase over the 2004 FEIS. Note that the total acres of LHZ 2 as discussed in the 2004 FEIS 

do not all directly add to the Riparian Reserve; this is because some of the LHZ 2 acres were 

already included in the Riparian Reserve. 
Draft Supplemental EIS II - 38 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Based on inclusion of Landslide Hazard Zone 2 as Riparian Reserve, supplemental analysis has 

determined that the [decision for] the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion project would affect an 

additional 10.08 acres with proposed clearing (Figure SEIS II-10). As seen in FEIS MAP III-3, 

this clearing would occur primarily within upper portions of LHZ 2, not associated with streams 

or wetlands. Much of this area is non- or sparsely forested (see Figure SEIS II-3). 

Supplemental analysis determined an additional 0.56 acres of grading within Riparian Reserve; 

as seen in Figure SEIS II-14, this grading is near the top of the proposed C-6 Lift, relatively high 

on the slope and primarily in open dry areas and not associated with streams or wetlands. 

Overall, inclusion of LHZ 2 not previously included into the Riparian Reserve amounts to a 

1.6% additional change, over the conditions as documented in the 2004 FEIS. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 1 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

CHAPTER III - REFERENCES

Arthur, S.M., T.F. Paragi, and W.B. Krohn. 1993. Dispersal of juvenile fishers in Maine. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 57(4):868-874. 

Aubry, K.B. and C. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the 

southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service. Olympia Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory. Olympia, WA. 

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 

(1):79-90. 

Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of 

fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 

Aubry, K.B., F.E. Wahl, J. von Kienast, T.J. Catton, and S.G. Armentrout. 1997. Use of remote 

video cameras for detecting forest carnivores and in radio-telemetry studies of fishers. In: 

Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, (Eds.), Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, 

and Management. Provincial Museum of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 350-361. 

Aubry, K.B., J. von Kienast, and D. Clayton. 2005. Remote camera surveys and non-invasive 

genetic sampling of fishers in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon. Final report. USDA 

Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District. 

Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2004. Zoogeography, spacing 

patterns, and dispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data. 

Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, 55:1-416. 

Boucher, D. 2005 Personal communication regarding accuracy of satellite imagery. 

Buck, S.G., C. Mullis, and A.S. Mossman. 1983. Corral Bottom-Hayfork Bally fisher study: 

Final report. Humboldt State University, USDA Forest Service, Arcata, California, USA. 

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: 

Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296. 

Center for Biological Diversity. 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as and 

endangered species in its west coast range. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, 

USA. 

Czech, B. and P.R. Krausman. 2001. The Endangered Species Act; History, Conservation, 

Biology and Public Policy. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 2 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf, and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. 

Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. 

Molecular Ecology 8, 1351-1362. 

Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west fork 

of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior Northern California. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Yreka Field Office. Yreka, California. 

Farber, S. and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) 

in the eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber Products Company. 

Timberlands Office. Yreka, California. 

Gitzen, R.A., S.D. West, C.C. Maguire, T. Manning, and C.B. Halpern. 2007. Response of 

terrestrial small mammals to varying amounts and patterns of green-tree retention in Pacific

Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and Management 25:142-155. 

Happe Patti, Jeff Lewis, and Kurt Jenkins. 2008. Olympic Fisher Reintroduction Update. 6 

March 2008. Olympic National Park, National Park Service 

Hart, M.M., J.P. Copeland, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Mapping wolverine habitat in the 

northern Rockies using a GIS. A poster presented at the Wildlife Society’s 4th Annual 

Conference. Snowmass Village, CO. 

Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management in the western United 

States: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. Version 1.2. USDA Forest 

Service Northern Region and Interagency Forest Carnivore Working Group. 

Hicks, Bill and Dan Sitton. 1998. “Landslide Mapping on the Rogue River National Forest” in 

Environmental Groundwater and Engineering Geology: Applications from Oregon. Scott Burns, 

editor. Association of Engineering Geologists. Star Publishing Company. Belmont, California. 

Higley, J.M. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Hoopa Valley Tribe. Hoopa, CA. Personal 

communications. 

Higley, J.M., and S. Matthews. 2006. Cemographic rates and denning ecology of female Pacific 

fishers (Martes pennanti) in northwestern California: Preliminary report October 2004-July 

2006. Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa. 

Hill, Timothy B. 2004. Forest Biometrics From Space, Lead Remote Sensing / GIS Analyst 

Geographic Resource Solutions. 1125 16th Street, Suite 213. Arcata, CA 95521 

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301. 

Jacobson, S.L. 2007. Traffic volume effects to wildlife on the Lava Butte US 97 construction 

project. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 3 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Jones, J .L. and E. O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central 

Idaho. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, 

and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387. 

Lewis, J.C., and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington, USA. 

Magoun, A.J., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320. 

Manning, J.A. and W.D. Edge. 2008. Small mammal responses to fine woody debris and forest 

fuel reduction in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:625-632. 

Marshall, D.B. 1989. Status of the wolverine in Oregon. Unpublished report. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 

Mathews, S. 2006. Hoopa Valley Pacific fisher ecology and conservation project; August 2006 

update. Hoopa Tribal Forestry. Hoopa, CA. 

Meyer, R. 2007. Martes pennanti. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2007, December 11]. 

Niemela, S. 2009. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; personal communication. 

Powell, R.A. 1977. Hunting behavior, ecological en-ergetics and predator-prey community 

stability of the fisher (Martes pennanti). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Ph.D. thesis. 132 

pp. 

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota Press. 

Powell, R.A. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in 

winter. Journal of Mammology 75 (2):349-356. 

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher: Pages 38-73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, and W.J. Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: 

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experimental Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 

Schemp, P.F., and M. White. 1997. The Status of Six Furbearer Populations in the Mountains 

of Northern California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, 

California. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 4 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Schroeder, B. 2001. Winter carnivore visitations to bait stations in the Applegate River Basin: 

target species, fisher (Martes pennanti). Unpublished report. Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forest. Applegate Ranger District. 

Sitton, D. 2000. Relation of Hazard Zone 1 to Riparian Reserves. USDA Forest Service, 

Geologist. 

Slauson, K. and W.J. Zielinski. 2001. Distribution and habitat ecology of American martens 

and Pacific fishers in southwestern Oregon. Unpublished Progress Report I, July 1 – November 

15, 2001. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Department of Forest 

Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 17p. 

Steven, J. 2009. Personal communication regarding fisher sighting. 

Thomas, J.W., E.D., Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. April 1990. A 

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: A report of the Interagency Scientific 

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI 

Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 427 pp. 

Truex, R.L., W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett, and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A metaanalysis of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in 

California. Draft report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California, USA. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. Includes standards and guidelines for 

management of late-successional – old-growth dependent species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. US Government Printing Office, Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Rogue River/South Coast Biological 

Assessment and Biological Opinion. 2003. FY 04-08 for activities that may affect listed species 

in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford BLM and the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Regional Forester’s sensitive species list 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Final EIS for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. Siskiyou 

Mountains Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Final Biological Assessment for Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, and Sensitive Wildlife Species that May be Affected by the Mount Ashland Latesuccessional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. Oak Knoll Ranger 

District, Klamath National Forest. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 5 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook. Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15. Washington, D.C. July. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Record of Decision for Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. 2003 Upper Bear Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision - 

Ashland Watershed Protection Project. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, Oregon. January. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Biological Assessment. 

Medford, Oregon. August 28. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Yreka, California. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Forest Plan White Paper Number 36: Width Determination – 

Riparian Reserves. Rogue River National Forest. Medford, Oregon. May 3. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991a. Record of Decision –Mt. Ashland Ski Area. Rogue River 

National Forest. Medford, Oregon. July. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991b. Final Environmental Impact Statement – Mt. Ashland Ski Area. 

Rogue River National Forest. Medford, Oregon. July. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. The Mt. Ashland Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Rogue 

River National Forest. Ashland Ranger District. Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Bear Watershed Analysis. Rogue River National Forest. Ashland 

Ranger District. Ashland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Rogue River National Forest, Land and Resource Management 

Plan. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest Region. Medford, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Soil Resource Inventory for the Rogue River National Forest. 

Badura, George J. and Philip N. Jahn. Medford, Oregon. June. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-

month finding for petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher 

(Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 6 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

van Langevelde, F. and C.F. Jaarsma. 1997. Habitat fragmentation, the role of minor rural roads 

and their traversability. In: Kanters, K.J., Piepers, A. and Hendriks-Heersma, D. (eds), Habitat 

fragmentation and infrastructure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Habitat 

Fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering. Maastricht/The Hague, 

Netherlands, pp. 171-182. 

van Langevelde, F. and C.F. Jaarsma. 2004. Using traffic flow theory to model traffic mortality 

in mammals. Landscape Ecology. 19:895-907. 

van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. 

In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II. Assessments and 

Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Davis. Centers for Water 

and Wildland Resources, pp. 1155–1165 

Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California 

Press. Berkeley, CA. 

Was, N.W. 1995. Furbearer study. A joint study conducted for the Applegate and Ashland 

Ranger Districts. Rogue River National Forest. Supervisors Office. Medford, Oregon. 

Weir, E. 2003. Ashland and Applegate Ranger District forest carnivore survey; summary of 

results for photographic bait station and snow tracking surveys conducted on the Ashland and 

Applegate Ranger Districts of the Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rogue 

River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR. 

Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in southcentral British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(1):73-82. 

Weir, R.D., and F.B. Corbould. 2008. Ecology of fishers in sub-boreal forests of north-central 

British Columbia. Peace Williston fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Final Report No 

315, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada. 

Wisely, S.M, S.W. Buskirk, G.A. Russell, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic 

diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral 

metapopulation. Journal of Mammology 85(4):640-648. 

www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/tsm/trendspage.shtml#2007_Monthly_Trends 

Yeager, J.S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. 

Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA. 

Yeager, J.S. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka, CA. Personal 

communication. 

Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens 

(Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammology, 85(3). 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 7 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

Zielinski, W.J., and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey 

methods for their detection. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. 

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truax, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. 

Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of 

Mammology, 80(3):961-971. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting 

habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3); 475-492. 

Zielinski, W.J., T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of fisher (Martes 

pennanti) in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-112. 

Zielinski, William J., R.L. Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, R.H. Barrett, and 

T.J. O'Shea. 2004. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 

85(4): 649-657. 
Draft Supplemental EIS III - 8 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

This page left intentionally blank
Draft Supplemental EIS IV - 1 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

CHAPTER IV - LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

This Draft Supplemental EIS document was prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rogue 

River–Siskiyou National Forest. A Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) provided 

technical review of research and analysis. The following coordinators and resource specialists 

participated in the overall preparation of the Draft Supplemental EIS. 

A. FOREST SERVICE CONTRIBUTORS 

The following Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest personnel (including contractors and 

former employees) provided leadership and input for this Draft Supplemental EIS. 

Responsibilities included conducting the supplemental environmental analysis process, 

organization of information and documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

CONTRIBUTOR EDUCATION & EXPERIENCE CONTRIBUTION 

Linda Duffy 

Forest Timber, Silviculture, 

Minerals and Planning Staff 

Officer

BS Applied Behavioral Science; 31 years FS; 12 

years as District Ranger on Siskiyou Mountains 

(formerly Ashland) Ranger District. 

Overall management of NEPA process 

and documentation. 

Steve Johnson

Recreation Specialist, 

Siskiyou Mountains Ranger 

District 

BA English; graduate work in American Literature. 

24 years. FS; 17 years Snow Ranger/Permit 

Administrator/Winter Sports specialist 

Interdisciplinary Team Leader and 

Project Coordinator. 

Don Boucher 

Resource Planner and 

Analyst, Siskiyou Mountains 

Ranger District 

Undergraduate studies Forestry and Engineering. 

28 years FS; in FS planning, NEPA documentation 

and Geographic Information Systems. 

Analysis of Pacific fisher effects; 

mapping and consequence analysis for 

land allocations, and analysis for 

compliance with standards and 

guidelines. 

Ken Grigsby

NEPA Contractor 

BA Biology. 33 years in FS environmental planning, 

NEPA review, analysis and documentation (former 

Forest Planner, retired 2009). 

Writer/Editor; overall document 

compilation, NEPA strategy and Forest 

Plan interpretation. 

David Clayton 

Forest Biologist, 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest

BS Biology. 13 years as FS Wildlife Biologist. 4 

years with USFWS. 

Pacific fisher analysis and 

documentation, including scientific 

literature review. 

Jeff von Kienast 

Wildlife Biologist, 

High Cascades Ranger 

District

BS Fish and Wildlife; MS Wildlife. 18 years as 

Forest Service Wildlife Biologist. 

Pacific fisher analysis and 

documentation, including scientific 

literature review 

Dave Steinfeld 

Soil Scientist, FS Regional 

Office 

BS Soil Science; post-graduate studies in geology. 

13 years as FS soil scientist and 21 years at J. 

Herbert Stone Nursery 

Analysis and documentation of soil 

processes including erosion, 

sedimentation, and standard and 

guideline compliance. 

Peter Jones 

Geotechnical Engineer, 

FS Regional Office

BS Geology and MS Geological Engineering. 26 

years primarily as geologist. Cert. Engineering 

Geologist, OR; Reg. Professional Geologist, OR. 

Analysis of slope stability and LHZ 2. 
Draft Supplemental EIS IV - 2 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

This page left intentionally blank
Draft Supplemental EIS V - 1 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

CHAPTER V - LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 

TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT 

This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) has been prepared, circulated 

and filed in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as the draft and final statement (40 CFR 

1502.9(c)). Copies of the DSEIS have been distributed to the following organizations and 

government agencies in the form of a hard copy, compact disc, or have been notified that the 

document is available on the Internet. Those individuals specifically requesting a copy of the 

DSEIS have also been mailed a hard copy or compact disc. 

Copies of the DSEIS are available for review at the following locations: 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District 

Medford Interagency Office Ashland Ranger Station 

3040 Biddle Road 645 Washington St. 

Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520 

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of 

APHIS PPD/EAD 

Forest Service, National Forest Supervisor’s Offices (SO) and Ranger Districts (RD) 

 Klamath SO 

 Happy Camp RD 

 Fremont-Winema SO 

Forest Service, Regional Office (Region 5) 

Forest Service, Regional Office (Region 6) 

Forest Service, Washington Office 

National Agricultural Library 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Commerce, U.S. Department of 

 National Marine Fisheries Service 

 Habitat Conservation Division 

Defense, U.S. Department of 

 Army Corps of Engineers 

Environmental Protection Agency 

 Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section 

 Region 10, EIS Review Coordinator 
Draft Supplemental EIS V - 2 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

U. S. Coast Guard 

 Environmental Management 

Interior, U.S. Department of the 

Bureau of Land Management 

Medford district Office 

 Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

STATE AGENCIES

State of Oregon 

 Department of Environmental Quality 

 Department of Fish and Wildlife 

 Department of Forestry 

 Governor’s Natural Resources Office 

 Water Resources Department 

NATIVE AMERICANS

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon 

Hoopa Valley Tribe 

Karuk Tribe of California 

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation 

Yurok Tribe 

ELECTED OFFICIALS

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (Oregon) 

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) 

U.S. Representative Greg Walden (Oregon) 

COUNTY

Jackson County Administrator 

Jackson County Board of Commissioners 

CITY

City of Ashland 

City of Medford 

City of Yreka 
Draft Supplemental EIS V - 3 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

LIBRARIES

Jackson County, Ashland 

Jackson County, Medford 

Siskiyou County, Yreka 

Southern Oregon University 

ORGANIZATIONS

Ashland Chamber of Commerce 

Grants Pass/Josephine Chamber of Commerce 

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

Mt. Ashland Association 

National Ski Areas Association 

Northwest Ecosystem Defense Center 

Oregon Wild 

 Portland 

 Eugene 

Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association 

Sierra Club 

 Rogue Group 

National Center for Conservation Science and Policy 

Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition 

Soda Mountain Wilderness Council 

Southern Oregon Nordic Club 

Wild Wilderness 

OTHERS

Ashland’s Daily Tidings 

Medford’s Mail Tribune 

Siskiyou Daily News 
Draft Supplemental EIS V - 4 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

This page left intentionally blank
APPENDIX A 

New Information and Changed Circumstances 

Evaluation 
This page left intentionally blank

i

This page left intentionally blank
Page 1 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

September 22, 2009 

Additional evaluation of information to determine whether there are 

substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant 

to environmental concerns and having a bearing on the authorized decision or 

its impacts. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On July 2, 2007, the Forest Service documented an evaluation of new information and changed 

circumstances for potential relevance to the September 2004 decision. A number of items evaluated there 

had been raised by the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) at that time. Some of those same 

issues were raised again on September 5, 2008 by Tom Dimitre, Chair of the Rogue Group of the Sierra 

Club. This document will not repeat the evaluation of 2007 for those items. The 2007 evaluation stands 

as adequate consideration for those matters concerning the 2004 decision. 

Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund (ONRC), Sierra Club, and the National Center for Conservation 

Science and Policy (formerly known as Headwaters), brought suit under NEPA and NFMA challenging 

the FEIS and the approval of the expansion on multiple grounds. The district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of the Forest Service. ONRC appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On 

September 4, 2007 the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling, upholding the US Forest Service on a number of 

counts, yet finding that the agency “failed to properly evaluate the impact of the proposed MASA 

expansion on the Pacific Fisher” and failed “to appropriately designate Riparian Reserves and Restricted 

Watershed terrain, as required by the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan.” 

II. PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest will complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) to address those matters found inadequate by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Opinion. The purpose of this additional new information and changed circumstances review is to 

identify other matters that may be relevant to the 2004 Record of Decision that would appropriately need 

to be addressed in the SEIS at the same time. 

Forest Service policy for implementing regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

outlines a procedure for review of actions that are awaiting implementation when new information or 

changes occur and should be considered for correction, supplementation, or revision (FSH 1909.15, 

section 18). 

Forest Service policy is to review new information received after a decision has been made. If new 

information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a proposed action or 

decision come to the attention of the responsible or deciding official after a decision has been made and 

prior to implementation, the official must review the information carefully to determine its importance 

(FSH 1909.15, section 18.1). If, after an interdisciplinary review and consideration of new information 

within the context of the overall project or decision, the Responsible Official determines that a correction, 

supplement, or revision to an environmental document is not necessary, implementation should continue 

and the results of the interdisciplinary review is to be documented in the project file (FSH 1909.15, 

section 18.1). 
Page 2 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

III. METHODOLOGY 

To begin this additional review, a survey of Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest resource specialists 

was conducted to elicit information they had concerning new information, research, or changed 

conditions that warrant consideration here. Additionally, District Ranger Linda Duffy sent emails to 

environmental organizations who have been active in this project in the past, soliciting their views 

concerning new information or changed circumstances worthy of review. As discussed above, some of 

the matters addressed in the 2007 review were raised again by these organizations and will not be 

repeated here. Other comments merit evaluation and are included in the list below. 

The claims for new information and/or changed conditions was evaluated by a core team of project 

coordinators and interdisciplinary team leadership for the EIS and project development, including Steve 

Johnson (IDT Leader, Project Coordinator and Recreation Specialist), Don Boucher (Environmental 

Coordinator and Lead EIS Analyst), and Rob Shull (Forest Ecosystems Staff Officer). 

As was done for the July 2007 review, interdisciplinary evaluation was done on each item or claim to 

determine whether it was sufficient (complete and accurate) to warrant consideration. If sufficient, the 

information was then evaluated to determine whether it was new, meaning it had not been considered in 

preparation of the MASA FEIS. The information was determined not to be new if it was directly 

addressed by text in the FEIS. If the information was determined to be new, it was then evaluated as to 

whether it was relevant to the project and the decision made for ski area expansion at MASA (i.e., if it 

has a bearing on decisions for actions and effects of ski area expansion). If the information was 

determined to be new and relevant, it was to be further evaluated to determine if it was significantly 

different from the information that was presented in the FEIS, i.e., is the new information significant? 

IV. EVALUATION OF NEW INFORMATION OR CHANGED 

CIRCUMSTANCES 

A. New information or changed circumstances identified by the Forest Service since the 

July 2007 review

As discussed above, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found NEPA documentation deficiencies in the 

evaluation of the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific Fisher, and in the designation 

of Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain. Since a SEIS will be conducted to address 

these matters, a preliminary review of them in this document is unnecessary, and is not included here. 

1. Ashland Forest Resiliency Project 

The Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest recently completed (September 2008) a Final 

EIS for Ashland Forest Resiliency Project. The Objection Process under 36 CFR 218 was conducted for 

this project and a Record of Decision is expected soon. The evaluation here will assume a decision 

adopting the Forest Service Preferred Alternative. In the Final EIS for Ashland Forest Resiliency, the 

Forest Service developed and analyzed an additional Action Alternative, designed and identified as the 

Preferred Alternative. This alternative was developed from the results of analysis of the two Action 

Alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS, further collaboration with the City of Ashland and their 

representatives, and the extensive comments received on the Draft EIS during the Comment Period. The 

Preferred Alternative was designed to include the most effective and efficient treatment methodologies, in 

the most strategic locations. The Preferred Alternative identifies approximately 7,600 acres of treatment, 

which is less than the Proposed Action (8,150 acres) for which was assumed in the cumulative effects 

analysis in the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS. 
Page 3 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

This situation is sufficient because it is an accurate assessment of current conditions. It does not represent 

new information as the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project was contemplated and considered as 

foreseeable in the analysis for Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion. Actions associated with Ashland Forest 

Resiliency would occur within the Neil Creek and Ashland Creek watersheds; analysis for both projects 

concluded that there would be no risk for adverse cumulative effects to these watersheds from these 

actions. Environmental analysis as documented for the ski area expansion project remains adequate and 

there is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

2. Latest Roadless Rule Situation and Court Rulings 

In the July 2, 2007 new information review, the Forest Service evaluated the (then recent) reinstatement 

of the 2001 Roadless Rule by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Evaluation 

concluded that decisions regarding roadless area conservation since the 2004 Ski Area ROD was signed 

were primarily concerned with State’s involvement in planning and designating actions within 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). These previous roadless decisions would not have changed the 

authorized actions at Mt. Ashland. That court ruling removed these provisions and reinstated the 2001 

Rule. 

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contains specific exemptions for ski areas. This ski area 

expansion decision qualifies for exemption, as discussed in FEIS I-25. Because the timber harvest 

resulting from ski expansion activities is incidental to the construction of new ski runs or ski lifts, and ski 

area development is not prohibited in this area under the RRNF LRMP, MASA Expansion meets the 

exemption criteria in FSM 1925 .04a, 2, (2), b (cutting, sale, or removal of timber incidental to the 

implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited under the LRMP). Therefore, 

delegation of authority to approve or disapprove timber harvest associated with this proposed expansion 

project (within a roadless area) remained unchanged by the roadless interim directive. 

Since 2007, there have been numerous changes in policy and court orders affecting activities in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. Following the order reinstating the Roadless Rule, the project was reviewed 

to determine whether it could go forward. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming issued an 

injunction on August 12, 2008, finding the Roadless Rule to be invalid and enjoined the Roadless Rule 

nationwide. This situation puts the courts in conflict, with the Ninth Circuit that previously ruled that the 

Roadless Rule was illegally repealed, setting aside the State Petitions Rules, and reinstating the Roadless 

Rule nationwide. 

On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was elected President, establishing a new administration. On May 

1, 2009, the Obama Administration requested more time to respond to the Roadless Rule situation. On 

May 28, 2009, USDA Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack reserved final decision authority over certain forest 

management and road construction projects in inventoried roadless areas. The Secretary’s Memorandum 

1042-154 was intended to assure the careful evaluation of actions in inventoried roadless areas while long 

term roadless policy is developed and relevant court cases move forward. 

To Reiterate: 

The Mt. Ashland ski Area Expansion is partially within the McDonald Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. 

The Forest Service (Forest Supervisor Scott Conroy) issued a Record of Decision for expansion activities 

in September 2004. Ski Area Expansion does not involve the construction/reconstruction of roads within 

the Roadless Area. It does involve the cutting of trees, administrative sale and removal of timber 

incidental to the implementation of an existing special use authorization (Ski Permit Area). 

On August 3, 2009, the Forest Service received re-delegation of authority from the Secretary to authorize: 

“b) Approval of any timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas incidental to the 

implementation of an existing special use authorization. Road construction/reconstruction is not 

authorized through this re-delegation without further project-specific review. The local line officer is 

delegated authority to make these decisions." 
Page 4 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

This latest situation regarding IRAs is sufficient because it is accurate to warrant consideration. It is new

because these court rulings, change in administration and Forest Service policy in fact, have occurred 

after the ski area expansion ROD was issued. This situation is relevant because the ski area expansion is 

partially within an Inventoried Roadless Area, for which policy and directives are applicable. 

Since ski area expansion was essentially and effectively planned and analyzed under the 2001 Roadless 

Rule, it is consistent and compliant with that rule (if it were to exist). Ski area expansion was designed to 

be sensitive to roadless area conservation (if the Roadless Rule does not exist) and the effects on roadless 

character were analyzed in the FEIS. Therefore this situation is not significantly different from the 

situation that was presented in the FEIS. The environmental analysis as documented remains adequate, 

this situation is not significant to the decision already made, and there is nothing that a supplemental EIS 

could inform regarding the effect on roadless character. 

The concern for Inventoried Roadless Areas remains primarily a social-political issue, with the relevant 

concern at this time being the appropriate review of decisions and compliance with law and policy. The 

position of the Forest is that a ski area expansion decision has already been made, does not involve road 

construction or reconstruction, and that the approval of timber cutting, sale, or removal is incidental to the 

implementation of a ski area expansion decision under an existing special use authorization. The 

authority to enact ski area expansion implementation activities remain with the Forest Supervisor. 

As discussed above, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found NEPA documentation deficiencies in the 

evaluation of the impact of the proposed MASA expansion on the Pacific fisher, and in the designation of 

Riparian Reserves and Restricted Watershed terrain. As noted in the 2007 evaluation, a potential concern 

with ski expansion is the effect to connectivity corridors (i.e., links) along the Siskiyou Crest. Most of the 

Special Use Permit area is not currently a core area, but may provide some linkage to core areas such as 

those contained in the McDonald Peak IRA. Since a SEIS will be conducted to address the Pacific 

Fisher, this concern will be addressed there, as applicable. 

Pending the results of the Supplemental EIS, it is at this time uncertain if a new Record of Decision 

would be issued to the Final Supplemental EIS and the existing FEIS, or if a determination will be made 

that the existing Record of Decision stands as adequate, based on the existing FEIS and the Final 

Supplemental EIS. That situation will include Forest Service Regional Office, Washington Office, Office 

of General Council and USDA Secretary review as necessary. 

3. Situation regarding Survey and Manage 

At this time, the Forest Service is aware that the March 22, 2004 ROD for the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines is under litigation. This litigation may result in the removal of this decision 

and may result in a requirement that projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl be 

subject to the survey and management direction in the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines 

for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards 

and Guidelines (USFS et al. 2001)(2001 ROD). 

This latest situation regarding Survey and Manage is sufficient because it is accurate to warrant 

consideration. It is new because court rulings and Forest Service policy in fact may change, with this 

change occurring after the ski area expansion ROD was issued. This situation is relevant because the ski 

area expansion is within within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest Forest Plan). 

Ski area expansion was essentially and effectively planned and analyzed under the 2001 ROD for Survey 

and Manage, and is consistent and compliant with that decision (if it were to be directed by the courts). 

Ski area expansion as documented in the 2004 FEIS discussed relevant species, their existence and 

habitat, as excerpted below from the 2004 FEIS pages IV-153-154: 
Page 5 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

“d. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects on Other Terrestrial Species

Under the March 22, 2004 ROD for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or 

Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines, none of the species that were 

covered by the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure standards and guidelines are listed as Threatened or 

Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, nor are any proposed for listing. All of the Survey and 

Manage species were evaluated for inclusion in the agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. 

This Section further discusses terrestrial wildlife species that were previously Survey and Manage species that 

are now not listed as Forest Service Sensitive. Also discussed are other terrestrial wildlife species of interest 

that may or may not be present in the SUP area. 

Bats 

Under Alternative 1, No-Action, there would be no change to bat habitat. The continued use of the existing 

ski area would not result in any adverse effects to bat habitat. 

Under all Action Alternatives, potential bat roost habitat in the form of snags exists within the SUP area, 

primarily on ridge tops and near edge habitat. Proposed Run 12 construction (Alternatives 2 and 6) could 

affect these species by removing roost habitat from the ridge top: other run construction may also affect 

potential roost habitat. In addition, if this roost habitat is felled when the species are present within the 

roosts, it is likely that the individuals would not survive. To mitigate for this potential loss of suitable habitat 

for these species, hard snags that are not immediate hazards to safety on this ridge would be retained. 

This project was analyzed for potential adverse cumulative effects along with other past, current, proposed, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Proposed underburning associated with the Ashland Watershed 

Protection Project and Ashland Forest Resiliency could also affect bats by reducing potential snag roosts 

within the watershed, particularly along ridge tops. 

In the post fire suppression era (since early 1900s), snag habitat along ridges has increased to high levels in 

the Ashland Watershed due to lack of stand maintenance from historical low intensity wildfires. This 

increase in snag density has benefited bats by increasing roost habitat. Many ridge tops within the Ashland 

Watershed would remain untreated by the proposed ski expansion, the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, 

or Ashland Forest Resiliency. 

Great Gray Owl

See Sensitive species section. 

Mollusks

The SUP area does not contain habitat for the mollusk species on the Ashland ranger district for which preproject surveys were required (Version 3.0 protocol, February 2003) Monadenia chacena). Therefore, there 

would be no effects to this species from the ski area expansion proposal. 

Red Tree Vole 

Surveys for red tree vole are triggered on Federal lands below 5,500 feet in elevation, because the red tree 

vole in not generally known to occur above this elevation (Version 2.1 protocol, October 2002). The SUP 

area is above 5,500 feet in elevation, and therefore surveys for the red tree vole are not required. Surveys 

were accomplished in 2000 (under previous protocols) and no red tree voles were found. No effect to the red 

tree vole is expected from this proposed project. There are no cumulative effects because the SUP area is 

outside the defined range for the species.” 

Therefore the current situation is not substantially different from the situation that was presented in the 

2004 FEIS. The environmental analysis as documented remains adequate, this situation is not significant

to the decision already made, and there is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform regarding the 

effects on Survey and Manage species. 
Page 6 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

B. New information or changed circumstances claims raised by Tom Dimitre, Chair of the 

Rogue Group of the Sierra Club 

The following claims were raised on September 5, 2008 by Tom Dimitre, Chair of the Rogue Group of 

the Sierra Club. As noted, on July 2, 2007, the Forest Service documented an evaluation of new 

information and changed circumstances for potential relevance to the September 2004 decision. A 

number of items evaluated there had been raised by the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) at 

that time. Some of those same issues were raised again and may warrant further discussion because of 

further change or further need for clarification. If no further discussion is needed regarding certain 

claims, this document will not repeat the evaluation of 2007 for those items. 

1. The ODEQ has issued new TMDLs for Ashland Creek. It is our understanding that there 

can be no new, additional sediment placed into Ashland Creek. 

The 2007 changed circumstances review discussed this claim as “DEQ states that it will be setting a 

TMDL for the currently impaired watershed”, and was discussed in section IV, A, 1 of that evaluation. 

This claim is based on the fact that TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) have actually been issued at 

this time. This information has been categorized as new since the 2004 decision. 

The TMDL discussed here was approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency on October 2, 

2007 and is now being implemented. It deals with the violation of three water quality parameters: 

bacteria, temperature and sedimentation. In the sedimentation TMDL, the pollutant is sediments that 

enter Ashland Creek and are deposited into Reeder Reservoir located above the City of Ashland. The 

sources for these additional sediments were identified as forest management, and road construction and 

maintenance practices that may destabilize slopes and increase the velocity of runoff. Excessive levels of 

sediment may result in impaired salmonid habitat or spawning. 

The claim that raised this TMDL discussion as new information characterizes compliance as though 

“there can be no new, additional sediment placed into Ashland Creek.” The language in the TMDL, 

however, states that there is to be “no significant increased delivery of sediment to Reeder Reservoir over 

that which would occur naturally.” The difference is two fold, whereas the claim stated there is to be “no 

additional sediment,” the actual rule states “no significant increased delivery”. Also, the claim 

characterized the sediment delivery point to be Ashland Creek, whereas the actual rule cites Reeder 

Reservoir. This claim is therefore not accurate, but is considered sufficient for further evaluation. 

To summarize, the new information is that the State of Oregon has issued a new TMDL limitation on 

sediment in the Ashland watershed that prohibits significant increased delivery of sediment into Reeder 

reservoir. The relevance of this information is that the ski area expansion would be new construction, and 

construction was specifically mentioned in the TMDL rule as a potential source of increased sediment. 

Since the information is new and relevant, the remaining question concerns whether or not the 

information is significant, i.e., whether the information is different than what was presented in the FEIS. 

This information is not significant because the ruling itself is based on the analysis included in the FEIS, 

and thus does not contradict what is there, nor assume impacts that were not already analyzed and 

disclosed. Clear evidence of this is found in DEQ’s response to public comments it received when 

considering the TMDL decision. On page 21 in the “Bear Creek Watershed TMDL – Response to Public 

Comments July, 2007” the following response is provided to a comment that cited the Mt. Ashland 

Expansion as an example of a construction project that should not be allowed under this TMDL: 
Page 7 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

“The TMDL has been revised to include an actual erosion loading target for the Upper Watershed. 

In the revised section, soil erosion is used as the surrogate for sedimentation with volumes expressed 

as a total load per day of soil for the watershed. It should be acknowledged however that erosion and 

resulting sedimentation is typically episodic in nature with the majority of movement occurring in a 

short period of time (Bestcha, 1978 reference added). For implementation, ODEQ believes it is more 

practical to assess the impact of load reductions on an annual or even 10 year basis (ODEQ, 2007 

Tenmile Lakes TMDL). 

For the Ashland watershed, considerable research has been undertaken over the last 30 years to 

determine natural erosion rates and there continues to be considerable debate over the accuracy of 

this work (Ashland & Montgomery 1980, USFS 2004). The TMDL uses the most recent estimates, the 

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model developed as part of the Mt Ashland Ski Area 

Expansion FEIS July 2004 (USFS, 2004), to determine background erosion rates under natural 

conditions. The model is the most recent iteration in a long evolution of erosion models and is the 

best model currently available to describe conditions found in mountainous terrain (page 18, USFS 

ROD, 2004). The model takes into account both the soil erodibility and slope stability indices to 

determine natural background rates. Using the model output as per TMDL Appendix C of the FEIS it 

is determined that the soil erodibility index is 2, an estimated 0.041 – 0.55 cubic yards per decade 

and the slope stability index is 2 at an estimated 1.0 and 2.0 cubic yards per acre per decade (USFS, 

2004). Given the size of the Upper Ashland Creek watershed (12,698 acres) and using the lower 

estimate in each range as a margin of safety, the annual load is 1,320 cubic yards or 3.62 cubic yards 

total per day for the watershed. 

Although taking place on federal lands and subject to the National Environmental Policies Act 

(NEPA), the Mt. Ashland expansion project will be required to obtain a 1200-C construction erosion 

control permit to ensure that erosion control practices are implemented and that the potential 

impacts from construction are kept to an absolute minimum.” 

It is clear therefore, that though the decision on the TMDL is new and relevant, it is not significant 

because it does not reveal impacts or implementation consequences that were not already displayed in the 

EIS. There is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

2. MAA states that it plans to replace the double chair Windsor lift with a triple chair lift 

which is not analyzed in the EIS or ROD 

First and foremost, this plan has not been formally advanced to the Forest Service, and follow-up with 

Mt. Ashland Association reveals that this internal consideration of theirs was dropped. Thus the 

information is not sufficient for consideration. 

Secondly, a replacement of an existing facility, with a newer version or upgrade of the same facility 

within the same environmental footprint, does not create environmental impacts that warrant assessment 

in an environmental impact statement. Such re-construction is generally categorically excluded from 

documentation in an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. If this 

information had been sufficient and new, it would not be relevant to the decision on ski area expansion 

since it does not introduce new environmental impacts not already accepted in the current operation and 

thus considered in the 2004 decision. There is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

3. The following information is cited that some believe speaks to Mt. Ashland Association’s 

financial capability to achieve what is planned in this expansion effort: 

“The EIS states that the MAA will fundraise all of the money for the proposed expansion. 

It has been shown in the last year that MAA does not have the ability to raise the amount 

of money that will be necessary to build any part of the proposed expansion.” 
Page 8 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

“It has also been shown, through MAA financial statements that their financial situation 

has deteriorated significantly over the past two years - to such an extent that they were in 

danger of not opening in 2007/08 and 2008/09.” 

“New prices for season and weekend passes” 

“The impact of the failing economy on skier visitation” 

Parallel comments were suggested for consideration in the changed circumstances review conducted in 

2007. Questions were raised at that time, as they are here, that certain circumstances speak to a financial 

risk of the Mt. Ashland Association not being financially able to complete what is being committed to in 

the 2004 decision. The answer provided in 2007 citing the position of the Forest Service regarding 

financial feasibility as discussed in FEIS Appendix B, is relevant now as well, and is repeated here: 

“The financial ability of the MAA to finance an expanded ski area (if authorized) is not within the 

purview of the Forest Service. The Forest Service is processing a request under Special Use Permit 

provisions for an expanded ski area; the ability of the MAA (as a non-profit corporation) to finance 

proposed improvements is not an issue that is germane to Federal analysis under NEPA. Although 

irrelevant, the prudence of this corporation has been demonstrated through many years of compliance 

with the terms of the Special Use Permit, including payments to the Government for permitted use, 

under national policy and provisions of law. Further, as provided under law, the MAA has 

contributed substantial funding held in Collection Agreements available to the Forest Service for 

analysis and planning under NEPA for ski area expansion. 

The recent and current financial status of the MAA is not within the purview of the Forest Service, 

and is not germane to the NEPA analysis process being conducted for expansion at Mt. Ashland. 

Proposals being analyzed in detail include provisions for staging of the implementation, over periods 

of up to 10 or more years. If ski area expansion were to be authorized, each stage of implementation 

would be reviewed and authorized annually (or more often) by the Forest Service, dependant on the 

needs (and presumably financial ability) and request of MAA at that particular time. The Forest 

Service cannot require that financial capital to implement the entire authorized action be solvent at the 

time of initial development, or at any stage.” (FEIS Appx B-6-7). 

Based on the discussion cited above, the information concerning Mt. Ashland Association’s financial 

capabilities is not sufficient to warrant consideration in relation to relevancy and significance to the 2004 

decision. 

4. The impact of global warming on the current and future operations of the ski area 

The National Center for Conservation Science and Policy provided a paper that had been published in the 

Journal of Hydrometeorology in October 2006 titled “Mapping “At Risk” snow in the Pacific Northwest 

by Anne W. Nolin and Christopher Daly. This paper presents the modeling results of possible effects of 

global warming on current snow-dominated winter precipitation regimes. A map is presented that 

predicts “at risk” snow zones concentrated in the Cascades and the Olympic Mountains of the Pacific 

Northwest and ski areas in these mountains are listed and compared according to their risks of a 

significant increase in the relative frequency of warm winters. 

The director of the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy stated in their submission letter 

that “even a slight, consistent decrease in snowpack will have a significant impact on the ski area’s 

economic viability and may very well have ecological impacts related to peak spring flows interacting 

with the highly erosive soils in the area”. 
Page 9 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

For the purposes of this evaluation of new information, the focus will be on the paper and what is 

supported there. The consequences postulated by the director here are considered to be opinions of the 

Center, not those drawn by the authors of the paper. No data is submitted to substantiate the Center’s 

speculation that a slight decrease in consistent snow pack will have significant impact on economic 

viability of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. As such, the conclusions presented by The National Center for 

Conservation Science and Policy are not sufficient for consideration. The same holds for their 

speculation regarding ecological impacts. The information isn’t sufficient for meaningful evaluation. 

It is, however, reasonable that decrease in snow pack could have an effect, but supporting information is 

lacking that a slight increase in temperature leads to significant impact. Snow fall is not currently an 

economic challenge to Mt. Ashland. The current economic challenges to Mt. Ashland Ski Area come 

from an inadequate mix of skier terrain, which is addressed as the purpose and need in the expansion EIS. 

Economic risk for this hill is currently not associated with weather conditions or risk of inadequate snow, 

and a slight decrease in snow cover is not believed sufficient to push Mt. Ashland over an economic 

brink. 

To address the relevance of the Nolin and Daly paper, the interdisciplinary team considered whether this 

information contained more detail than that already considered and displayed in the FEIS. The Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area Expansion FEIS addressed climate change on pages III-8 through III-9, and IV-5 

through IV-6. Snow fall was mentioned as a factor in economic viability assessments on page IV-268, 

but not carried into models of economic viability for lack of sufficient data or reliability of predictions as 

discussed on pages III-8-9. 

Nolin and Daly cite numerous data sources concluding that the Pacific Northwest experienced a warming 

of winter temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century. The FEIS had already discussed this trend on 

page III-8. The paper goes on to present modeling results indicating a possibility that the Cascades could 

see an increase in rain-dominated winters from what is experienced currently. The EIS includes an 

analysis by Associate Professor Gregory Jones of Southern Oregon University comparing (testing) such 

model results against actual temperatures recorded in Southern Oregon (pages III8 and III-9), concluding 

that such models overestimate the actual rise in temperatures by 1.5 o C. The Nolan and Daly paper 

conducts no such test, nor presents data that indicate its modeled results are any more accurate than those 

tested by Associate Professor Jones. As such, the interdisciplinary team concluded that the Nolan and 

Daly paper provided no additional information not already more thoroughly evaluated in the FEIS. 

Though the climate and modeling information is not new, the paper does display a comparison of ski 

areas in the northwest with varying modeled risks of warmer winters. From this information it is 

instructive to see how Mt. Ashland might rank if the scenarios modeled come to pass. From the 

information in the model, it is clear that Mt. Ashland is one likely to survive longer than most. The paper 

presented here shows that Mt. Ashland has the highest base area of all ski areas displayed. Accordingly, 

the data show that it is the 5th (out of 19 ski areas) of those with the lowest modeled relative frequency (4 

out of ten winters) of likely having winters with a mean December, January, and February temperature 

exceeding -2 degrees Celsius (28.4 degrees Fahrenheit). That is to say, it is among the top five least 

likely to have winters averaging over 28.4 degrees F. Less than one out of ten winters was modeled for 

Mt. Ashland to have average winter temperatures above 32 degrees F (freezing point). 

In summary, Mt. Ashland appears to be more likely than most northwest ski areas to survive longer under 

a global warming scenario. If the agency were to make global-warming policy decisions that would 

affect permitting decisions of local ski areas, the Mt. Ashland location might likely be one favored over 

others for continued investment. Indeed, its economic challenges to date are neither snow nor weather 

related. Mt. Ashland’s economic challenges come from an inadequate mix of terrain, which is the focus 

of their permit application for expansion and the whole purpose of the FEIS. 
Page 10 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion- New Information Review September 22, 2009 

In conclusion, this paper does not present climate information that is new as discussed above, nor does it 

provide functional or economic viability information significantly different, e.g., contravening, from that 

in the 2004 FEIS supporting the decision to expand as provided in the Record of Decision. There is 

nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

V. CONCLUSIONS 

As noted, the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest will complete a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) to address those matters found inadequate by the Ninth Circuit Court opinion. Since a 

SEIS will be conducted to address these matters, a preliminary review of them is not included here. 

The relevant information evaluated by the agency or claims submitted by Tom Dimitre, Chair of the 

Rogue Group of the Sierra Club in this additional evaluation do not present a substantially different 

picture of the environmental consequences of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project from what was 

already presented and considered in the FEIS. 
Page 1 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion 

July 2, 2007 

Evaluation of information to determine whether there are substantial changes 

in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or there 

are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 

concerns and having a bearing on the authorized decision or its impacts. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Mt. Ashland Ski Area is situated on National Forest land at the crest of the Siskiyou Mountains, just 

north of the California-Oregon border and about 7 air miles from the City of Ashland. The Forest Service 

has issued a Special Use Permit ("SUP") authorizing operation of the ski area. Construction of the 

present ski area commenced in 1963; the area opened in 1964. 

During its first three decades, the ski area was operated by a succession of private, for-profit companies, 

for whom it proved a financial disappointment. In 1992, the private operator decided to close the ski area. 

Plans were drawn up to dismantle the chair lifts and other improvements (Mt. Ashland Ski Area 

Restoration EA--AR 4784-4837). The City of Ashland then interceded, acquiring the Special Use Permit 

and facilities (AR 4921-43). The City leased the ski area, for a nominal sum, to Mt. Ashland Association 

(MAA), a non-profit entity established for the purpose of operating the ski area (AR 4862-4920). 

The ski area currently occupies about 287 acres. It includes a day lodge, ski rental shop, four chairlifts, 

and approximately 123 acres of ski runs. Expanding the Mt. Ashland ski area is not a new idea. Various 

plans have been proposed over the past 40 years. 

In 1991, the Forest Service approved expansion of the ski area in concept. Mount Ashland Ski Area 

Master Plan Record of Decision ("1991 Master Plan"), AR 4404-23. See also AR 4131-4403 (Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 1991 Master Plan). Additional environmental analysis was planned 

to consider the details, such as the precise location of each component and the construction design. AR 

4411. 

The City's lessee, MAA, submitted a new expansion proposal in 1998. A draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) was circulated in January 2000 (AR 12569-13208). It generated considerable public 

comment, in part because the only two action alternatives evaluated were perceived as too similar (AR 

19354- 62, 22130-32). A new draft EIS was circulated in 2003 (AR 22140-23222). 

The Forest Service has studied the proposal and its impact for years via the Environmental Impact 

Statement process and considered thousands of pages of public comment. The Forest Service issued a 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in 2004. In the FEIS, the Forest Service studied six 

alternatives (SAR 191-311). It discussed the affected environment and environmental consequences in 

depth. The Forest Service analyzed, for example, issues of climate, avalanche and natural hazards, 

minerals and seismic conditions, soil processes including erosion and sedimentation, watershed resources, 

water quality, aquatic conservation, air quality, landscape ecology, current vegetation conditions, 

outstanding or unusual plant communities, and wildlife species (SAR 108-16,315-521,528-703). 

The Forest Service ultimately issued a Record of Decision and approved a "Modified Alternative 2." in 

September 2004 (SAR 1-97). Twenty-eight notices of appeal were filed (AR 28574). All administrative 

appeals were denied in December 2004. 
Page 2 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

Oregon Natural Resources Council Fund (ONRC), Sierra Club, and the National Center for Conservation 

Science and Policy (formerly known as Headwaters), brought suit under NEPA and NFMA challenging 

the FEIS and the approval of the expansion on multiple grounds. The district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of the Forest Service. ONRC has appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At 

this time, there has been no action to implement expansion activities. 

II. ONRC’S REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EIS 

In a letter dated February 4, 2007, plaintiffs (ONRC) raised seven points they suggest constitute new 

information requiring preparation of a Supplemental EIS (SEIS), per 40 CFR § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). On May 

31, 2007, they added to their arguments via email noting “the recent overturning of the 2004 version of 

the ACS rules.” On June 11, 2007, they added to their SEIS arguments “the recent court-ordered 

reinstatement of the Clinton-era roadless rule.” On June 18, 2007, they noted additional evidence 

supporting the need for an SEIS due to the draft EIS for the Mount Ashland LSR Fuels Reduction Project 

(Klamath National Forest, Region 5). 

Forest Service policy for implementing regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

outlines a procedure for review of actions that are awaiting implementation when new information or 

changes occur and should be considered for correction, supplementation, or revision (FSH 1909.15, 

section 18). 

Forest Service policy is to review new information received after a decision has been made. If new 

information or changed circumstances relating to the environmental impacts of a proposed action or 

decision come to the attention of the responsible or deciding official after a decision has been made and 

prior to implementation, the official must review the information carefully to determine its importance 

(FSH 1909.15, section 18.1). If, after an interdisciplinary review and consideration of new information 

within the context of the overall project or decision, the Responsible Official determines that a correction, 

supplement, or revision to an environmental document is not necessary, implementation should continue 

and the results of the interdisciplinary review is to be documented in the project file (FSH 1909.15, 

section 18.1). 

III. METHODOLOGY 

The claims for new information and/or changed conditions was evaluated by the core project coordinators 

and interdisciplinary team leadership for the EIS and project development, including Steve Johnson (IDT 

Leader, Project Coordinator and Recreation Specialist), Ken Grigsby (Forest Planner, NEPA Specialist 

and EIS Managing Editor), and Don Boucher (Environmental Coordinator and Lead EIS Analyst). 

Interdisciplinary evaluation was done on each claim to determine whether it was sufficient (complete and 

accurate) to warrant consideration. If sufficient, the information was then evaluated to determine whether 

it was new, meaning it had not been considered in preparation of the MASA FEIS. The information was 

determined not to be new if it was directly addressed by text in the FEIS. 

If the information was determined to be new, it was then evaluated as to whether it was relevant to the 

project and the decision made for ski area expansion at MASA (i.e., if it has a bearing on decisions for 

actions and effects of ski area expansion). If the information was determined to be new and relevant, it 

was further evaluated to determine if it was significantly different from the information that was 

presented in the FEIS, i.e., is the new information significant? 
Page 3 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

IV. EVALUATION OF ONRC’S NEW INFORMATION CLAIMS 

A. The following numbered items correspond to ONRC’s February 4, 2007 letter from 

Marianne Dugan regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS 

1. DEQ states that it will be setting a TMDL for the currently impaired watershed. 

This claim is not specific as to what constitutes new information or why it is relevant. It is an accurate 

statement. According to the FEIS, “Reeder Reservoir is currently listed as a water quality limited (WQL) 

waterbody for sedimentation under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. As a tributary, Upper 

Ashland Creek is considered impaired, although it is not listed. Because Reeder Reservoir is listed, a 

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required by the ODEQ to provide a strategy for reducing 

sedimentation to acceptable background levels. In coordination with the Forest Service and the BLM, 

ODEQ is currently developing a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address the 303(d) listed 

non-point sources of pollution for the entire fifth-field Bear Creek Watershed. Completion of this plan is 

the responsibility of ODEQ and is now anticipated to be completed in 2005 (ODEQ website).” (FEIS III73). 

“Reeder Reservoir is currently listed as a water quality limited waterbody for sedimentation under Section 

303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act.” (FEIS IV-91). 

The entire Bear Creek Watershed WQMP and TMDLs has gone through a formal public comment period, 

having ended on March 9, 2007. ODEQ is finalizing their plan and will submit to EPA for approval. 

Following approval by EPA, TMDLs will be communicated to all affected parties. 

This claim is not new, having been discussed in the FEIS. A forthcoming WQMP was anticipated. 

Having a finalized WQMP is not a requirement of the ski area expansion decision. The FEIS analysis and 

ROD for expansion will not conflict with the forthcoming WQMP. It will not conflict because no adverse 

impacts to water quality are predicted (FEIS III-73 and IV-90-93). This situation is not significantly 

different than that analyzed in the FEIS. Without a conflict, there is no information that a supplemental 

EIS could inform. 

2. Army Corps has state dit (sic) will be delineating wetlands in order to issue either a 

nationwide permit or individual permit for fill of wetlands prior to the project moving forward. 

The need for permitting under the Clean Water Act was discussed in the FEIS. This claim is not specific 

as to what constitutes new information or why it is relevant. It is an accurate statement, and is discussed 

in the FEIS: 

“The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would provide the regulatory authority necessary to 

evaluate the Action Alternatives under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Proposed Action and 

alternatives evaluated in the Final EIS have been developed with the objective of placing no dredged 

or fill material in jurisdictional wetlands or other Waters of the United States. As such, no Corps 

permit would be required, provided that the approved project can proceed with no placement of fill 

into jurisdictional streams or wetlands. 

In the event that minor discharges of dredged or fill material would be required, these activities would 

be designed to meet the requirements of the new and/or modified nationwide permits (e.g., 

Nationwide Permit #18 - Minor Discharges or Nationwide Permit #42 - Recreational Facilities). 

Similarly, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) would provide the water quality 

certification for such a permit action under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This certification 

could include additional permit conditions.” (FEIS I-44) 
Page 4 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

This claim is not new, having been discussed in the FEIS. Forthcoming permitting by the Corp is part of 

project implementation under the ski area expansion decision. The situation regarding permitting is not 

significantly different that that analyzed in the FEIS analysis and ROD for expansion. There is nothing 

that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

3. MAA now states that it plans to build an “interim lodge,” which was not included in the 

EIS as part of proposed project. The plan appears to be to build an 8,000 sq ft lodge and then 

to rebuild or expand it later. Even if this is just a “Ticket Building” or “Arrival Services 

Building,” there is nothing in the FEIS or ROD that states that there would be any interim 

building and no analysis of the impacts of the interim building. 

The Forest Service has not received a formal proposal from MAA or the City of Ashland and the 

statement above is unclear (base lodge or moraine lodge location). Therefore this claim is not sufficient. 

The following excerpt from the FEIS discusses options for interim buildings and minor changes: 

“Comment #60: Combine Arrival Services and Ticket Buildings into one structure (2504) 

Combine the Arrival Services and Ticket Buildings into one structure for utility efficiency and 

less intrusion upon the environment. (D03-920, page 2) 

Response: Under the action alternatives, exact locations and function of each building(s) would be 

determined at implementation. Utility efficiency, visual concerns, guest flow, and other factors 

would determine if these two buildings could be combined into one structure. Based on public 

comment, the FEIS will analyze increased and expanded building footprints between the Base Lodge 

and Rental Shop (including expansion of the Base Lodge) for the purpose of disclosing environmental 

consequences under NEPA.” (FEIS Appx A-24-25) 

The following excerpt from the ROD discusses minor changes: 

“Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource management 

and protection objectives. Minor adjustments to ski runs, facilities, and infrastructure elements may 

be needed during final design for resource protection, to improve operational feasibility, and to better 

meet the intent of my decision. Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential 

impacts to require any additional specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws. 

Notable changes will be documented through implementation monitoring and made available to the 

public.” (ROD-46) 

This claim does not represent new information, nor is it sufficiently complete for meaningful assessment. 

The potential for building changes was discussed in the FEIS and ROD, and assessment of significance 

concerning existing NEPA documentation cannot be conducted until formal and detailed requests for 

specific changes are submitted by the permittee for consideration. Forthcoming actual proposals were 

discussed in the FEIS analysis and the ROD recognized this flexibility. This type of minor adjustment 

does not represent significant effects that were not foreseen or analyzed. There is nothing that a 

supplemental EIS could inform. 

4. MAA now states that it will be renovating the existing lodge (Clark supp. Decl. At 3), 

another project that is not included in the expansion EIS. 

This claim is not specific as to what constitutes new information or why it is relevant (not sufficient). 

Assuming that “renovation” means not expanding the current footprint, then there is no change from the 

current condition, no additional environmental effect, and therefore no need for NEPA analysis at all. 

MAA “renovates” the existing lodge almost every summer (e.g., widening stairways, remodeling food 

service area, etc.). These renovations are annually approved in the Summer Operating Plan. 
Page 5 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

Additionally, an expanded footprint for the current base lodge was analyzed under other Action 

Alternatives in the FEIS (Alternatives 3 and 6), but was not selected in the ROD. 

This claim (a proposal to remodel an existing building) is not new, having been discussed in the FEIS, nor 

would it be significant since the FEIS analysis and ROD for expansion would not conflict with such a 

proposal, if it were forthcoming. Without a conflict, there is nothing that a supplemental EIS could 

inform. 

5. Significantly increased cost of the project, dramatically changing the economic cost-benefit 

analysis; and the related issue of the use of borrowed funds versus fundraising (both of these 

issues were discussed in detail in the more recent filings with the court). 

This claim is not specific as to what constitutes new information or why it is relevant (not sufficient). The 

use of borrowed funds and fundraising was discussed in the FEIS (not new information). The position of 

the Forest Service regarding financial feasibility is discussed in FEIS Appendix B, which is quoted below. 

“1) The financial ability of the MAA to finance an expanded ski area (if authorized) is not within the 

purview of the Forest Service. The Forest Service is processing a request under Special Use Permit 

provisions for an expanded ski area; the ability of the MAA (as a non-profit corporation) to finance 

proposed improvements is not an issue that is germane to Federal analysis under NEPA. Although 

irrelevant, the prudence of this corporation has been demonstrated through many years of compliance 

with the terms of the Special Use Permit, including payments to the Government for permitted use, 

under national policy and provisions of law. Further, as provided under law, the MAA has 

contributed substantial funding held in Collection Agreements available to the Forest Service for 

analysis and planning under NEPA for ski area expansion. 

2) The recent and current financial status of the MAA is not within the purview of the Forest Service, 

and is not germane to the NEPA analysis process being conducted for expansion at Mt. Ashland. 

Proposals being analyzed in detail include provisions for staging of the implementation, over periods 

of up to 10 or more years. If ski area expansion were to be authorized, each stage of implementation 

would be reviewed and authorized annually (or more often) by the Forest Service, dependant on the 

needs (and presumably financial ability) and request of MAA at that particular time. The Forest 

Service cannot require that financial capital to implement the entire authorized action be solvent at the 

time of initial development, or at any stage.” (FEIS Appx B-6-7). 

The FEIS analysis and ROD for expansion are not based on precise or current economic figures, only 

relative figures. As explained in FEIS Appx. A: 

The financial analysis includes/incorporates the cost of debt to service the loan. It assumes that the 

ski area would take on debt to finance the first phase of improvements and begin fundraising at the 

same time to finance Phase 2 and 3 improvements. Furthermore, the analysis incorporates a 

“discount rate” to account for a variety of factors associated with financial risks and costs, including 

the borrowing rate for debt incurred in Phase 1, and the risks associated with undertaking 

improvements, the potential for poor snow years, changing economic conditions and other factors. 

This analysis is conservative for the following reasons: 

 The Ski Area has stated that it plans to fund improvements in all phases through fundraising 

or retained earnings, rather than through a loan. This would substantially reduce the cost of 

improvements and increase overall net revenues. 

 The analysis incorporates a relatively high discount rate (20%). Use of a lower discount rate 

would make the analysis more financially favorable. 
Page 6 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

 The analysis assumes a gradual growth in skier visits, rather than an early spike associated 

completion of improvements, which is probably more likely to occur. Use of the discount 

rate reduces the value of longer term growth in comparison to shorter term growth, making 

this assumption about gradual growth conservative. 

 The analysis includes low, medium, and high visitation growth scenarios to account for 

potential variations in snowfall (e.g., several bad snow years in a row), overall economic 

conditions and other factors.” 

This situation is not significantly different from that analyzed in the FEIS. There is nothing that a 

supplemental EIS could inform. 

6. Failure to meet purpose and need due to changing the phasing of Lift 15 (as discussed in 

recent briefing). MAA now plans to include construction of Lift 15 in Phase 2 instead of 

Phase 1. Purpose and Need #1 states that MAA intends to “develop additional Novice to 

Intermediate level skiing and snowboarding terrain.” (Page I-9). Without Lift 15, no novice 

or low intermediate skiers would be able to access the C-6 lift and the Middle Branch, because 

they would have to take Ariel up to the top of the mountain and then ski down upper 

intermediate terrain in order to access C-6. There is language in the FEIS indicating that 

Phase 2 and 3 may never be built. 

The Forest Service has not received a formal proposal regarding implementation and phasing plans from 

MAA or the City of Ashland and the statements above are unclear. Therefore this claim is not sufficient. 

Additionally, this claim does not appear to be accurate since Intermediate skiers could access C-6 via the 

Windsor Lift. They would not have to take Ariel. The Forest Service position on phasing is described 

below from Chapter II of the FEIS: 

“A detailed listing of implementation phasing by alternative is not included in this Chapter of the 

FEIS; it is now discussed in the financial analysis appendix (FEIS Appendix I). This was done 

because scenarios for phasing are for analysis only. The primary use for scheduling and phasing is in 

predicting financial and economic consequences; phasing in these exact scenarios is not necessarily 

being proposed, would not be prescribed by the Forest Service (except for watershed restoration), and 

would be the responsibility of and at the discretion of the proponent if an expansion alternative were 

selected. 

Actual implementation progression, timing of the individual projects, interim project ‘steps’, and 

determination of necessity for individual projects within the alternatives would be dependent upon an 

ongoing analysis of the priority for each project or group of associated authorized projects (by MAA) 

and the availability of construction capital. It is possible that some projects would be moved to later 

phases, or not implemented at all after further analysis or experience. Overall completion under any 

expansion alternative may take ten or more years. 

For purposes of analysis, the phasing documented in Appendix I assumes that both mitigation and 

monitoring are ongoing, and that environmental systems are functioning as stated in this Final EIS. 

The actual approval of projects on an annual basis would hinge upon review by the Forest Service or 

appropriate specialists, and approval by the authorized officer, commensurate with the success of 

Mitigation Measures as determined by monitoring (see Monitoring, above).” (FEIS II-111-112). 

This claim is not sufficient for assessment since no such proposal has been submitted; it is not accurate, 

since C-6 is accessible via the Windsor lift; and it is not new since phasing was discussed in the FEIS. 

The FEIS analysis and ROD for expansion would not conflict with this proposal, if it were forthcoming. 

Without a conflict, there is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 
Page 7 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

7. Replacement of Ariel lift (as discussed in recent briefing). The Clark supplemental 

declaration (at 3) states that MAA expects to move ahead with this in the next few years. 

This proposal has not been submitted to the Forest Service and is not considered a reasonably foreseeable 

action. It is therefore not sufficient to the consideration of a supplemental EIS. If, and when it is 

proposed, the Forest Service will analyze the proposal. Replacement of Ariel was analyzed in the FEIS 

under Alternative 5. This is not new information, nor is it accurate. There is nothing that a supplemental 

EIS could inform. 

B. The following numbered item corresponds to Marianne Dugan’s May 31, 2007 email 

regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS 

1. We are adding to our arguments the recent overturning of the 2004 version of the ACS 

rules. The FEIS (pages I-21 and III-76-77) (especially the last paragraph, right before section 

"a" on page III-77) makes clear that your client relied on the 2004 version of the ACS rule 

(now overturned). Compare the 2000 DEIS, which relied on the prior ACS rule, and therefore 

discussed local and fifth field watershed scale analysis. In contrast, the 2004 FEIS declines to 

discuss local scale ACS compliance. 

This claim is sufficient because the stated ruling of the court is accurate. It is new because the court 

ruling in fact, occurred after the ski area expansion ROD was issued. The Forest Service does not find it 

to be relevant, simply because the court removed the 2004 ACS decision. As noted in the claim, this 

project was analyzed under both interpretations of the ACS (the 1994 version in the draft EIS and the 

2004 version in the final EIS). It would not have been appropriate for the ski expansion decision to rely 

on the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan ACS interpretation, while a 2004 ROD had authorized clarification of 

the language in the 1994 plan to amend wording about the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

It is not an accurate claim that the ski area expansion 2004 FEIS does not discuss local scale ACS 

compliance. An in-depth discussion of scales of analysis is found at FEIS III-42 & 43. Effects are 

actually analyzed at three scales; the Special Use Permit Area (960 acres), the Site Scale (i.e., local scale; 

1,065 acres), and the Watershed Scale (four separate affected watersheds, not equivalent to fifth-field, 

actually smaller). 

As far as compliance with the 1994 ROD for the Northwest Forest Plan regarding ACS consistency, the 

FEIS clearly documents a description and analysis of the current condition for each affected fifth-field 

watershed at multiple and smaller scales, a description and analysis of the range of natural variability, and 

the analysis documents how the project will maintain the existing condition or will move (i.e., restore) 

conditions toward the range of natural variability. 

The Forest Service finds no difference in the consequences for this project, regardless of which ACS 

interpretation is utilized (not relevant). All actions were analyzed in the context of the Watershed Scale, 

all of which have existing Watershed Analyses, which was used to inform the decision. All actions are 

compliant with all applicable ACS components and standards and guidelines, including those for Riparian 

Reserves (FEIS IV-98 through 107). 

While the 2004 FEIS and ROD did not specifically label the nine ACS Objectives in the documents, they 

did discuss and analyze fully the elements and components of each one. Consistency with the nine 

objectives is discussed and referenced below: 

ACS Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and 

communities are uniquely adapted. 
Page 8 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

Hydrologic function—ROD page 20 

Wetlands— ROD page 21 

Riparian Reserve function— ROD page 23 

Riparian Reserve standards & guidelines— ROD page 43 

ACS Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 

Cumulative effects— ROD page 25 

ACS Objective 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including 

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Vegetation/woody material— ROD page 19 

ACS Objective 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, 

physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and 

migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. 

Water quality— ROD page 23 

ACS Objective 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, 

storage, and transport. 

Soils/site productivity— ROD page 18 

ACS Objective 6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, 

aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. 

Hydrologic function— ROD page 20 

Flow— ROD page 22 

Objective 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. 

Hydrologic function— ROD page 20 

Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in Riparian Reserves and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical 

complexity and stability. 

Land cover conditions— ROD page 23 

Riparian Reserve function— ROD page 23 

Engelmann spruce— ROD page 27 

Late-successional ecosystems— ROD page 31 
Page 9 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

ACS Objective 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. 

Land cover conditions— ROD page 23 

Riparian Reserve function— ROD page 23 

Engelmann spruce— ROD page 27 

Late-successional ecosystems— ROD page 31 

While new information, there is no additional analysis that a supplemental EIS could inform. An overall 

(ultimate) conclusion associated with the existing analysis and decision could be made that none of the 

impacts associated with the ski area expansion decision, either directly, indirectly, individually or 

cumulatively, will prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy, nor the nine ACS Objectives, at 

the site, watershed or landscape scales. Therefore, this new information is not significant. 

Further, in accordance with the latest (11 June 2007) ACS decision (Case No: C04-1299RSM), there are 

no projects including Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion that used the 2004 rule, that have been enjoined. 

C. The following numbered item corresponds to Marianne Dugan’s June 11, 2007 email 

regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS 

1. We are adding to our SEIS arguments the recent court-ordered reinstatement of the 

Clinton-era roadless rule. The Forest Service itself noted that: "The main concern with 

MASA is the effect to connectivity corridors (i.e., links) along the Siskiyou Crest. Most of the 

Special Use Permit area is not currently a core area, but may provide some linkage to core 

areas such as those contained in the McDonald Peak IRA [Inventoried Roadless Area]." SAR 

864. 

This claim is sufficient because the stated ruling of the court is accurate. It is new because the court 

ruling in fact, occurred after the ski area expansion ROD was issued. The Forest Service does not find it 

to be relevant because the ski area expansion was essentially and effectively planned and analyzed under 

the referenced (current) roadless rule. 

Decisions regarding roadless area conservation since the 2004 Ski Area ROD was signed were primarily 

concerned with State’s involvement in planning and designating actions within inventoried roadless areas. 

These previous roadless decisions would not have changed the authorized actions at Mt. Ashland. The 

latest court ruling removed these provisions and reinstated the 2001 Rule. 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contains a specific exemption for ski areas. This ski area 

expansion decision qualifies for exemption, as discussed in FEIS I-25: 

“In a March 20, 2002 letter to the Regional Forester from the Acting Forest Supervisor for the Rogue 

River National Forest, the situation was outlined in regard to the MASA Expansion proposal. 

Approximately 298 acres of the SUP area is within the McDonald Peak IRA and ski area expansion 

would occur within this roadless area under several of the alternatives being considered in detail 

(including the Proposed Action). Vegetation clearing for ski runs and lifts that include removal of 

trees of commercial value would be required to implement these alternatives. Construction and/or 

reconstruction of maintenance roads are also being considered, however no road activities are 

proposed within the IRA. 

The 2001 interim directive reserved to the Chief of the Forest Service, the decision authority for 

timber harvest projects in IRAs unless the project met one of the exception situations specified in the 

interim directive. Effective July 16, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 42648), this Interim Directive 

(ID) was reinstated, with two changes, the direction previously issued in ID No. 1920-2001-1 to 

implement the Chief’s 1250/1920 letter of June 7, 2001, regarding Delegation of Authority/Interim 

Protection of Roadless Areas.
Page 10 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

Because the timber harvest resulting from ski expansion activities is incidental to the construction of 

new ski runs or ski lifts, and ski area development is not prohibited in this area under the RRNF 

LRMP, MASA Expansion meets the exemption criteria in FSM 1925 .04a, 2, (2), b (cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber incidental to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited 

under the LRMP). Therefore, delegation of authority to approve or disapprove timber harvest 

associated with this proposed expansion project (within a roadless area) remained unchanged by the 

most recent roadless interim directive. 

The Regional Forester concurred with the Forest Supervisor recommendation and determination in a 

May 8, 2002 letter that the authority and responsibility to approve process steps and sign decision 

documents related to the MASA Expansion would remain with the Forest Supervisor of the RR-SNF. 

The McDonald Peak IRA is located entirely on lands administered by the RR-SNF.” 

This situation has been recently reviewed with the Regional Office and remains as planned and decided in 

2004. Ski area expansion meets exemption criteria for: cutting, sale, or removal of timber incidental to 

the implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited under the LRMP (FEIS pages III174 & 5). 

Since this information is procedurally new only and the authorized exemption for ski area expansion 

remains, this information is not significant and there is nothing that a supplemental EIS could inform. 

D. The following numbered item corresponds to Marianne Dugan’s June 18, 2007 email 

regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS 

1. Regarding the recent DEIS regarding the Mount Ashland LSR fuels reduction project. 

That project proposes seven new road miles within three miles of the expansion area. The 

documentation in the DEIS supports my client’s concern that the existing (and planned) road 

density in this area is already significant and is likely to have a significant cumulative effect 

on the environment when combined with the proposed ski area expansion. 

The Mount Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project was in the initial planning 

stages and the extent of potential habitat modifications was unknown at the time of Mt. Ashland Ski Area 

expansion signing because no proposed action had been identified. Cumulative effects analyses for Mt. 

Ashland Ski Area expansion did not include this Klamath project (Beaver Creek Watershed) as there was 

no agency proposed action at the time of the ROD. The extent of the proposal was not known at the time 

of analysis and decision for ski area expansion and was therefore not reasonably foreseeable. 

This project is proposed by the Klamath National Forest, Oak Knoll Ranger District. The Rogue RiverSiskiyou NF became aware of this project in late 2004. The NOI was published on October 7, 2005 Vol 

70, Number 194 (over one year after the ROD for ski area expansion). No new road construction was 

identified in the NOI and the acreage stated was 5,013 acres. 

The Plaintiffs assert that activities on adjacent Klamath NF lands to the south are not considered. 

However, the Klamath NF project is almost entirely within previously managed stands less than 80 - 90 

years of age which should not be considered suitable habitat for late-successional habitat dependent 

species and therefore should have little to no cumulative effect to these species. 

The proposal as documented in the recent draft EIS is new information. The claim from ONRC is not 

accurate. This new project would not include 7 new road miles within 3 miles of the expansion area. 

This project is contained within the Beaver Creek Watershed, for which only restoration is planned under 

the expansion project. Forest Service analysis of the draft EIS information indicates that only about 0.2 

mile of temporary road is proposed within 3 miles of the expansion area. 
Page 11 - Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion – New Information Review July 2, 2007 

The Mount Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project draft EIS utilizes Equivalent 

Roaded Area (ERA) modeling for cumulative effects (as did ski area expansion) and determined no 

significant threat for adverse cumulative effects. As temporary roads, road density would not be 

permanently increased, and the project would actually decrease existing road density via road 

decommissioning. The Mount Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project draft EIS 

includes consideration and calculation for ski area expansion actions authorized at Mt. Ashland. There is 

no potential for significant cumulative effects resulting from this new project. There is nothing that a 

supplemental EIS could inform. 

V. CONCLUSIONS 

The information submitted by ONRC does not present a substantially different picture of the 

environmental consequences of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project from what was already 

presented and considered in the FEIS. None of the information submitted by ONRC shows that the 

actions authorized for ski area expansion will affect the quality of the human environment in a significant 

manner or to a significant extent not already considered in the FEIS. 

Most of the information evaluated was determined not to be new because it was, in some fashion, 

considered in the FEIS. Two items reviewed were found to be not relevant (e.g., 1994 ACS interpretation 

vs. 2004 now removed, and current roadless area direction). One item was found to be new and relevant 

(Klamath NF Mount Ashland LSR Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project) but without 

significance to the decision already made. 

The authors of this evaluation conclude that none of the information submitted by ONRC shows that the 

effects of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project are significantly different from what was described 

in the 2004 Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Project FEIS. 

◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊ ◊◊
i

This page left intentionally blank