MINUTES FOR THE MEETING

ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION

September 12, 2006 – 5:30 PM

Community Development, 51 Winburn Way

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

Members Absent:                  Joseph Vaile

Staff Present:                          Chris Chambers, Marty Main, Keith Woodley, Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk

Non-Voting Members Present:         None

I.                   CALL TO ORDER: Chair Brock called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM in the Siskiyou Room.

II.                APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lewis/White m/s to approve the minutes of July 11, 2006 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.

III.             PUBLIC FORUM: None

IV.              ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None.

V.                 OLD BUSINESS

A.     AFRCAT / AFR Update – Moved to later in the agenda.

B.     Noxious Vegetation Inventory and Control Plan Update – Chambers reported that he was working to create an inventory map. GIS mapping would include name, species, location and an identification number. He would like to find out how far blackberry extends into the watershed. Scotch broom could be found mostly below 3000 feet. Dalmatian Toadflax was also a potential problem. Starthistle populations were typically limited to the Granite quarry and lower elevation sites so there was still a good chance to manage it. As of now there are no plans for herbicide only hand pulling and digging, but injecting herbicides in a single plant to kill an area had not been ruled out.

Brock asked if the inventory would include private lands. Chambers said Scotch broom would be inventoried.

Grant money for managing noxious vegetation was available from OWEB and FWS. Chambers was hoping some of the inventory work would be done as SOU senior projects at no cost.

Besides management of noxious vegetation, the commission discussed puncture vine and distribution prevention.

C.     Review Winburn Inventory Data and Prescriptions – Moved to later in the agenda.

D.     Continue Discussion on MOU Draft – Woodley gave an account of his meeting with Ashland District Ranger Linda Duffy. Duffy said a change in the MOU would have to be approved in Washington DC. Duffy thought the current MOU was adequate and that naming a specific project would “age” the document. She did not think it is worth the effort.

Brock said the goal of changing the MOU was to allow the city to monitor AFR, give feedback to the Forest Service and to be kept informed with annual reports. If Linda Duffy were to retire, the MOU would still be in effect. He suggested submitting our final draft and seeing what happens. Kerwin suggested putting it back on the agenda for October.

                  A.   AFRCAT / AFR Update –Brock wanted to be assured that the Forest Service did not require anything further from the Commission regarding the Northern Spotted Own model. Main said no further action was needed.

Woodley mentioned to Duffy the Commission’s desire for the Forest Service to do some sample marking in AFR. Duffy said yes, but wanted the marking to be done with ribbon. She thought a lot of marking would have to be done to get a representative sample and perhaps it should wait until after surveys were complete (Spring/Summer 2007). She also said the marking had to be done at the City’s expense. Woodley wondered if the markings were to be used as a public educational tool, would they really be accurate. Main agreed.

Brock reminded the Commission that Vaile had volunteered to come up with a list of problematic areas to mark (e.g. mid elevation areas). No decision was made regarding sample marking.

Main reported that Carl Skinner is conducting a shortened field study of the 300 year fire history in our watershed.

Main also stated that the Forest Service’s abiotic model ended up on being of no use to the AFRCAT to alter prescriptions within the community alternative because of the course grain, bias towards California habitat and the south facing late successional reserve. Again, a follow-up letter to the Forest Service was not needed.

C.  Review Winburn Inventory Data and Prescriptions – Slocum spoke to Maria Harris, Senior Planner and Staff Liaison to the Historic Commission, regarding approaching the Historic Commission to make a recommendation regarding the Winburn Camp. She reported that it is not in the Historic Commission’s purview or area of expertise to make a recommendation. Harris suggested, after a decision is made on how to manage the area, the Commission send them an informational memo. Commission asked Slocum to scan the “Inventory, Historic Documentation, and Assessment of Cultural Resources at Lithia Springs and Winburn Camp” (December, 1987) and post it on the web.

Commission set October 7^th or 21^st as tentative dates for a site visit to the Winburn Parcel. Slocum to confirm the dates with all the Commissioners via email.

At the September meeting the discussion ended at Unit 3. Brock noted that Unit 4 was a very productive and vigorous site with the potential for stand regeneration. Main thought subjectively the stand was not as bad as density numbers would indicate. Brock liked the idea of general light thinning with heavy thinning around some trees. He wondered if more coarse wood was needed. Mistletoe as a problem would depend upon its location within a tree. Unit 4 has two types of landscapes: floodplain versus upland areas.

VI.              NEW BUSINESS  

A.     Discussion of Possible Land Trade with Forest Service – Maymar noted that the 160 acre Winburn Parcel was surrounded by Forest Service land. He wondered if the City should make it a research project or use is as an opportunity to trade it for more beneficial interface land to use for recreation, fire buffer zone, etc.

Brock did not see a benefit to the City as all Forest Service land was already open to recreation. Maymar said lots of money and energy was being used to plan and implement management. The money could be used for something else. Although some people did not trust the Forest Service, he thought they would most likely employ a similar management style.

Brock noted that the City has done a lot of work on Winburn to save trees and had the resources to manage it. The parcel is located close to the creek that can be used to slow a fire. He was not sure the Forest Service would do a good job. The parcel could be used as a resource natural area for experiments and effectiveness monitoring. White added that there was great sentimental and historic attached to the Winburn Parcel. Maymar said the City already had a say in the watershed and more property in the interface would mean an increased fire buffer.

Kerwin said Winburn has been an educational tool for the commission specifically in regards to developing the AFRCA. He did agree with the logic of the idea. Lewis thought having management responsibility for Winburn would minimize any impact on the water treatment plant. Maymar asked the Commission is they would like to study the issue further. The Commission decided to take no further action on this topic.

VII.           OTHER

Brock announced that the monitoring subcommittee would meet again before the next meeting.

VIII.        ADJOURN: 7:32 PM

Richard Brock, Chair

Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk