MINUTES FOR THE MEETING

ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION

January 9, 2007 – 5:30 PM

Community Development, 51 Winburn Way

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Richard Brock (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Jim Lewis, Dan Maymar,

                                                 Joseph Vaile, Diane White, Zach Williams         

Members Absent:                   None

Staff Present:                            Chris Chambers, Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk

Non-Voting Members Present:         Cate Hartzell

I.                   CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM in the Siskiyou Room..

II.                APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lewis/Williams m/s to approve the minutes of December 12, 2006 correcting the spelling of Parks’ employee Jeff McFarland. Motion passed unanimously.  

III.             PUBLIC FORUM: None

IV.              ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Chairperson Brock asked to put “Discussion of Maintenance Needs for Lower Watershed” under “New Business.”  

V.                 OLD BUSINESS

A. AFRCAT / AFR Update – Hartzell noted that the letter finalizing AFRCA had been mailed to Linda Duffy. She asked for clarification on the status of the AFRCA Technical Team. Brock noted that there was still an opportunity for the team to comment on the FEIS and ROD. She hoped the commission and/or AFRCAT would proactively look at any unresolved issues raised during early discussions of the AFR project and come up with a strategy to review the FEIS due in February, 2008.  

Vaile saw AFRCAT as an “assessment” team. He was advocating for the City (Commission) to be part of a “feedback loop” for AFR. He thought AFRCAT’s role should be changed to more of an “implementation” team. Brock suggested placing this issue on the fall agenda.

Hartzell wondered if the City should inventory priority areas now. White noted that the Department of Forestry just began a modeling project called IMAP (Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project). Chambers also thought there was new data available. White said the problem was that there was currently no mechanism for bringing all the data together. Vaile requested that either the Forest Service or the City mark some on-the-ground sample prescriptions during the summer for interested community members to see .

Brock asked the Commission to delay further discussion and asked Slocum to place the issue on the March agenda and add sample prescription marking to the agenda as well.

C. Noxious Vegetation Inventory Update – Chambers reported that the results of the grant will be announced in May.  

D. Winburn Management Plan – Now that the Commission had finished reviewing Main’s recommended prescriptions (A Silvicultural Overview and Analysis of the Winburn Parcel, Main, 2005), Vail thought the Commission should describe how they were going to implement the Winburn management project. Kerwin thought cost was not important; the goal of the Commission is to propose the best management practices available. Kerwin say a more pressing need was to describe the long term desired conditions. Lewis agreed and suggested discussing the desired conditions unit by unit.

Brock recommended merging Main’s 2005 document with the City Forest Lands Restoration Project Phase II and using that as a first draft. Slocum volunteered to do this. Brock also suggested a separate study session to begin discussions. Commission decided on Monday, February 5 from 5:30 PM to 8:30 PM.

E. MOU Revision – In February 2006, former Commissioner Frank Betlejewski drafted a revised MOU. Brock recently spoke to Linda Duffy about the Commissions’ idea of revising the MOU. The AFR project operation had little on-the-ground data and there was a need for a formal process for ongoing input. Duffy thought there was no need to revise the MOU as all previous MOUs were still in effect. She also thought the FEIS was not the appropriate place. She believed  the City’s response to the FEIS would be the best place for the City to outline a monitoring/reporting plan empowering the City to formally take an active role. Duffy said that response would be included in the ROD. Vaile wondered if requiring the Forest Service to file an annual report with the City was feasible. Kerwin thought that unless wording was specifically stated in the monitoring plan, it could not be part of the EIS.

Hartzell suggested inviting the Forest Service come to a Commission meeting to discuss the best way to have the City be a continuing part of AFR. She recommended on-going Commission participation based on either 1) revising the MOU to be a nonspecific adaptive management document; 2) drafting a participatory agreement where the City provides some project funding; or 3) creating a new MOU specific to AFR and include it as part of the ROD if it gets funded.

Chamber would ask Woodley to invite Linda Duffy to a Commission meeting in the near visit.

VI.               NEW BUSINESS  

A.     Proposed Ordinance to Ban Open Burning – see next item.

B.     Proposed AFLC Resolution in Support of Burning in the WUI – Chambers reported that there were new federal standards for levels of particulate matter. The Department of Environmental Quality asked cities to ban open burning. The Fire Department staff drafted an ordinance banning open burning except for the purpose of forest fire fuels reduction only. He asked the Commission if they wanted to write a letter of support for the ordinance. Chambers noted that the only other exception to the ban from the Commission’s viewpoint may be the burning of noxious weeds as transporting some weeds had the potential of spreading their seeds. Commission agreed.

                  White / Kerwin m/s to charge Brock with writing a letter of recommendation including the burning of fuels and noxious weeds as exceptions to the ban on open burning. Motion passed unanimously.

C.     Earth Day 2007 Booth – Brock asked if there was any interest in sponsoring an Earth Day exhibit on Saturday, April 21^st. Vaile volunteered  to make a display and Williams volunteered to man the booth. Hartzell recommended distributing brochures regarding the bears in the interface and the need for bear-proof cans.

D.     Commission Charter Review – Tabled.

E.      2007 Goal Setting – Tabled.

F.      Discussion of Maintenance Needs for Lower Watershed – Tabled.

VII.           ADJOURN: 7:30 PM

Richard Brock, Chair

Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk