MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Brock (Chair), Dan Maymar, Diane White, Zach Williams
Members Absent: Anthony Kerwin, Jim Lewis, Joseph Vaile
Staff Present: Marty
Non-Voting Members Present: Cate Hartzell
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM in the Siskiyou Room..
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lewis/White m/s to approve the minutes of September 12, 2006 changing the second to the last sentence in survey question six (Page 3) from “exception” to “example.” Motion passed unanimously. Hartzell noted that the Commission’s desire to revise the MOU with the Forest Service was a great example of the need for the City Council to review all commissions’ annual goals.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: None
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Diane White asked that the “Purchase of Snacks” be placed on the agenda. Commission Chair approved the request.
White / Maymar m/s to have staff provide snacks at each Commission meeting as the meeting time was during the dinner hour. Funds would be taken from the Commission’s budget. Motion passed unanimously.
Pieter Smeenk asked that “Preliminary Siting of the Crowson II Reservoir” be moved to the top of the agenda Brock agreed to the change.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Preliminary Siting of Crowson II Reservoir – Pieter Smeenk, Associate Engineer for the City of
The existing Crowson Reservoir is a 2.2 MG reservoir which is the primary reservoir for the system. An additional reservoir was also being proposed near the existing Crowson Reservoir. The new reservoir is expected to be a prestressed concrete structure with a capacity of 1.50 to 2.0 million gallons (MG). The target elevations should match Crowson Reservoir which has an overflow elevation of 2425’ and ground elevation of 2400’ above sea level. Placement of this reservoir would result in the loss of more and larger trees. The site is still being analyzed to mitigate landslide and water drainage issues.
Smeenk asked if the commission had any comments on the smaller tank. Brock was supportive of the potential for one or two parking spots at the reservoir for hikers and the extra water available in the event of a wild fire. Hartzell noted the need for a culvert under the road to handle water from the draw. White offered the commission’s help in relocating the downed trees and suggested contractors use weed free rock if possible. There were obvious stability concerns and the commission asked Smeenk to follow the strictest regulations possible.
A. AFRCAT / AFR Update – Woodley reported that he,
Hartzell questioned whether, now that the abiotic model is complete, the commission should get additional AFRCAT input on the letter.
Hartzell wondered if the abiotic model was “all or nothing.” Would the results in the Forest Service’s proposed alternative change and would it affect AFRCA? What does HFRA mean in regards to AFRCA? Brock said AFRCA was adaptive, but it left out any wording that would allow the City input into the planning, implementation and monitoring of the project. This was the primary reason the commission wanted to revise the MOU. Hartzell thought language should be added to the letter reiterating the need for reporting protocol.
Hartzell thought the wording of the letter negated blending the two alternatives. The Commission noted that some of the main issues in blending the two alternatives included: the use of DFPZ’s, the prioritizing of treatments and the use of the dichotomous key.
B. Noxious Vegetation Inventory and Control Plan Update – Brock asked about the status of the grant. Woodley would ask Chris Chambers to the next meeting. Smeenk said he was working on landscape standards for future public works projects and felt a noxious weed control plan would be helpful. Hartzell would like to use the plan for cemetery landscaping needs.
C. Review Winburn Inventory Data and Prescriptions –
1. Public Hike Appraisal – Commission members who attended the hike said it was very educational. Three members of the public also attended. White noted that, in general, there was too much vegetation on every PAG; there were two times the recommended fire fuel load based on fuel models by Bergman. She also noted that besides the manmade meadow, there were no low elevation meadows. She recommended reopening the existing manmade meadow to its original ¾ of an acre. Brock noted a 20% canopy closure in most units and suggested more openings.
2. Discuss Unit 7 - Summarizing Unit 7, Brock noted it is not a typical management unit being totally site specific. Management would include possible understory thinning. According to Oregon State Forest Practices, a 50-100’ buffer was required in riparian channels. There will need to be a future discussion on the minimal riparian area versus functional definition of “riparian.” Hartzell wondered if inventorying this unit could be a possible project for students.
The Commission agreed that non commercial work could begin on the Winburn Parcel concurrently with the development of the management plan.
D. Continue Discussion on MOU Draft – Tabled.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Preliminary Siting of Crowson II Reservoir – This item was discussed earlier in the agenda. See discussion above.
B. Commission Charter Review - Tabled
VIII. ADJOURN: 7:35 PM
Richard Brock, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk