MEMBERS PRESENT: Frank Betlejewski, Richard Brock, Stephen Jensen
(Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Bill Robertson
Members Absent: Jo Anne Eggers, Diane White
Staff Present: Chris Chambers, Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley
Non-Voting Members Present: None
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 6:20 AM in the Siskiyou Room.
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Final Review and Vote on the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) including Chapter 8 - Woodley reported that the Tech Group met until 9:15 PM Friday and some members worked through the weekend. Kerwin noted the group reconciled most of the points of contention except Priority 5. Woodley commented that the decisions of the group were based on minimal data. The document addresses data gaps and the importance of the Tech Group's continued active involvement. There was Tech Group consensus on Priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 and perhaps 12 representing approximately 11,000 acres. After these areas were treated, then the other priorities (e.g., northeast facing slopes and the upper third) could be researched using field trips and modeling.
Robertson asked if treating these 11,000 areas first would accomplish the Forest Service's purpose and need statement. The Tech Group believed so. Jensen added that the plan would assure continued community and Tech Group involvement. Betlejewski noted that Chapter 8 was necessarily vague until the verification of site-specific details.
Jensen asked if the Forest Service's Ashland Fire Resiliency (AFR) plan contained the same amount of detail as Chapter 8. Betlejewski said it was similar. Brock said the Forest Service's proposal generally consisted of a "lighter touch" in both acreage and prescription. The City's proposal called for no cutting in the roadless area, but more activity on south slopes, PAG specific treatment, future sustainability and leaving 3-4 times more down wood.
Commission discussed how to handle disagreements within the document. Disagreements, inside and outside the Tech Group would consist of written comments included in a public comment section located within Chapter 8. It was noted that World Wildlife Fund and Headwaters might drop their endorsement. Brock said the proposal was a great opportunity for the Forest Service, the City and the community to collaborate.
Brock noted areas within the document that contained discrepancies. Kerwin would like to keep Chapter 8 open for minor edits. Commission decided that Main, White and Darren Borgias would comprise the editing committee to clarify, tighten and improve the overall grammar. Any substantive changes would be added to the document after October 1st in future addendums.
MOTION: Kerwin/Betlejewski m/s the draft CWPP (including Chapter 8) with editing as described above and the addition of public comments be recommended to the City Council for their approval.
DISCUSSION: Brock said there could be a potential financial conflict of interest as his business may bid on Forest Service treatment work within the watershed. He would abstain from the vote. Woodley thought no conflict existed but encouraged Brock to contact the City Attorney.
VOTE: Motion passed 4 to 0 with one abstention.
Commission discussed the September 21st City Council presentation. Presenters would include Jensen, Woodley, Borgias and Main. Woodley would introduce the CWPP and suggested handing out the priority table to explain the on-the-ground work. He thought it important to remind the Council that the CWPP was a fluid document.
III. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR / NEXT MEETING
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Wednesday, October 13, 2004.
IV. ADJOURN 7:17 AM
Stephen Jensen, Chair
Nancy Slocum, Clerk