ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION October 8, 2003 4:30 – 6:30 PM MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Jo Anne Eggers, Stephen Jensen (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Bill Robertson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Paula Brown, Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk, Keith Woodley Non Voting Members: Marty Main (Consultant) I. CALL TO ORDER AT 4:32 PM II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 1, 2003 minutes approved with three minor amendments. III. PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke. IV. STAFF REPORTS A. Keith Woodley announced that the geohazard report from Hicks and Sitton was due later this week. He also handed out a draft of the project’s Financial Prospectus and Council Communication. Eggers and Brock made minor changes to the draft. Brock asked if the cost of grass seeding and on-going maintenance was included in the budget estimate. Woodley said these items are included as part of the annual operating budget. Brock wondered if the project would include the use of insect repellent. Main said the only potential units would be N and Q where coarse wood material was an issue. Overall, he didn’t see the need for beetle repellent. Jensen asked if Woodley thought the City Council would be happy with the financial prospectus. Woodley thought it was very positive. B. Main reminded the commission that the budget numbers were estimates only, especially project costs. The results of the geological information may change the expected volumes. Other minor changes he needs to make to the report include ongoing defects, sampling error and typos. Main reported on the use of Forest Service roads for removing timber. Forty percent of the volume would need to use the Forest Service helicopter landing and the City does not yet have permission. Also winter weather may restrict use. Woodley will work with representatives from the Forest Service. Jensen wondered if the City and the Forest Service could exchange benefits. Main said yes. With a few exceptions Main marked all marketable snags and included them as part of the volume totals. Main said if the project included removal of every snag, in 5 years time the target for snags would be met. The city must decide whether to remove dead trees within the Barranca Unit and upper Morton Street. Kerwin was concerned about the decay classes. He knew there would be a loss of trees, but thought it harmful to keep removing snags year after year. Motion: Brock moved to retain snags over 26” in diameter. Motion died for lack of second. Betlejewski moved to retain all snags over 20” pending OSHA requirements. Kerwin seconded the motion. Discussion: Main estimated that would mean perhaps several hundred trees. He thought it a simplistic solution and it better to look at each location separately. He recommended retain snags over 26”. Vote: Motion failed unanimously. Brock wondered if there is a table and map available so that the public could evaluate large tree removal. Main would need future direction regarding snags from the commission, but felt comfortable enough to present it to the City Council. Motion and vote: Brock moved to not mark for cutting snags over 26”. Eggers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Main reported that other safety issues include power lines, down wash (Barranca is close to houses and trails). Brock wondered if Main took into account rare plants. V. REVIEW OF PROJECTS PENDING/REQUIRING ACTION – Tabled. VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Timeframe for Watershed Waterline Work – City’s Associate Engineer, Pieter Smeenk, is nearly ready to send out a Request for Proposal for engineering services to relocate the waterline from the dam to town. He estimated the design phase would take place from November to February, permitting in February, and construction from March to April. Construction would take place in the center of the roadbed wherever possible. Brock remarked that some of the marked hazard zones would disappear with the relocation of the waterline. Smeenk thought the old line would be left in place for 10-15 years as a backup. Main mentioned that there might be a conflict with the upcoming restoration project in the area from the swimming hole to the wastewater treatment plant (WTP) gate. Smeenk indicated that the timing of the two sections (the dam to the WTP and the WTP to town) could be reversed to minimize conflicts. B. Restoration Project Draft (10 min) 1. Approval of Status of Winburn Addition – As directed last month Jensen drafted a section for the Restoration Project that would let the public know the status of the evaluation of the Winburn Parcel. Eggers would like some of the terms within the draft changed to descriptive terms rather that value laden terms. Motion and Vote: Kerwin moved to accept the section as amended. Eggers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. Final approval of Proposal – Motion and Vote: Kerwin/Robertson moved accept the City Forest Lands Restoration Project Phase II as amended. Motion passed unanimously. C. Council Presentation October 21st - Woodley said the packet to the Council would include the Council Communication, Financial Prospectus, Main’s tables and the final proposal. The commission agreed. Main, Jensen and Woodley would make up the presentation panel. Betlejewski agreed to be there for support if needed. All the commissioners were encouraged to attend. Slocum will work with Main on presentation maps. Eggers suggested that an overhead was preferable to handouts. D. Schedule Winburn Hikes – Robertson asked when the Winburn parcel would be demonstration marked. Main said tentatively by November 15th. A hike was tentatively scheduled for November 15th from 9-2 PM beginning at the swimming hole. V. OTHER BUSINESS – Slocum announced that the deadline for applications for Commissioner Crosson’s replacement was October 14th. The appointment would be made on or about November 4th. VI. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING A. Next regular meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 2003. VII. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:18 PM