Woodley reported on the November 28th Forest Service meeting. Main and Borgias were also in attendance. No decisions were made and Duffy did not want to give the impression that the specifics of the discussion would be seen as final decisions.

The Forest Service's abiotic model for Northern Spotted Owls is still not available. Some effects of the Community Alternative cannot be determined until the model is studied.

Hartzell understood the reasoning behind sending representatives of the Commission to meet with representatives of the Forest Service during the drafting of AFRCA and corresponding clarification process, but this pre-FEIS stage is different and should be open to a larger community process. She asked the Forest Commission to insist the Forest Service be more transparent. She thought FACA did not apply and court rulings substantiating that. Hartzell thought the City could appoint a subcommittee to "officially" represent the City.

Eggers agreed. Eggers would like to build trust by all parties disclosing all the difficult issues so everyone knows. She wondered what the main points of differences were in the two alternatives. Main noted that the Forest Service embraced the idea of the AFRCA Fuel Discontinuity Network, but also wanted to add the Defensible Fuel Profile Zones.

Vaile thought that the process as it stood now did not make it a true "community" alternative. Eggers thought at this point in the process, that only AFRCATs be included. Others must go forward as individuals.

Hartzell suggested holding an AFRCAT meeting before the City Council study session in order to discuss opening up the process to others. Commission agreed. An AFRCAT meeting was scheduled for either January 5th or January 9th at 6:30 PM. Main would check his schedule and Brock would furnish Slocum with an agenda.

Monitoring Subcommittee Update - Brock, White and Vaile made up the subcommittee. Brock reported that the group met and decided that the best way to approach a monitoring plan was to decide what we want to know and why, then how, then who. What we want to know is the amount of sediment production, seasonal water quantity (late summer) and sources, potential fire behavior, spotted owls and other late successional forest associated species of animals and plants, retention of large trees, rare plant species, non-native invasive plant species and laminated root rot. George Badura thought a measure of effective ground cover should be added to the list. Vaile noted that the group also discussed how much plot data to collect, that noxious weeds were a problem, and that there is a need for two monitoring plans: one for the lower watershed and one for Winburn. Diane noted that a timetable was also needed.

Main noted that because Ashland's operating space is so different from the Forest Service, the City can be a leader.

Brock said the key questions the subcommittee raised relative to recent activities were:

Brock asked the commission to consider other monitoring questions and email it to the subcommittee. The group will meet again in January.

White noted the importance of building a structured database with backup and a decision on how the data will be inputted.

The Commission tabled further discussion until next meeting. Brock asked the commission to comment further on the goals via email over the next month.

In response to Main's request for a Cultural Resource Inventory on Winburn, Woodley reminded the Commission that Nan Hannon completed one in 1987. Maymar requested a copy.