Becket Conservation Commission
May 15, 2008
Approved Minutes
Meeting Opens at 6:37 PM
Commissioners Present: Josh Lombard, Chair; Purr McEwen, Vice Chair; Alice Briggs; Scott Morley; Kathy Vsetecka
Absent: Bud Moylan; Marty Winters
1. Approval and signing of April 17 and April 24, 2008 meetings.
Purr moves to approve the minutes of the both meetings as presented; Scott seconds; unanimous approval.
Josh thanks Mercedes Gallagher for her years of service to the commission.
2. Continued Request for Determination of Applicability: Henry A. Terwedow Jr., 175 Big Bass Lane, Map 413 lot 58 – Creation of a new single family home including septic system and driveway
No rep present – tabled till later
3. Center Pond Preservation and Protection Foundation: Center Pond Weed Treatment under Order of Conditions DEP #102-253
Present: Marc Bellaud of Aquatic Controls; Al Kirchner representing the Center Pond Preservation and Protection Foundation
Public Present: Meredith Babcock, Ginger Connor, Mercedes Gallagher, Douglas Hurley, Michael Marcus, Dave McWilliams, Barbara Roberts, Lydia Rosner, Ann Schrader, Jeff Stanton, Barbara Toomey
Mr. Bellaud says early season survey done May 6th and report was emailed to commission earlier today. Was overcast & windy so visibility from surface was fair at best. Did have bathoscopes and underwater camera. Location of milfoil spotted was marked with GPS. Most of sightings were single plant sightings at this point. Most was old growth on stems remaining from last year. A few areas, particularly along the western shoreline had patches of 5 – 20 plants. Two big areas of dense plant growth in the north center bed (several hundred plants in probably a half acre area) and two large patches on the southeast shoreline. ACT has proposed to the foundation that treatment should be limited to areas discussed during survey as being most difficult to hand pull: North center bed and
potentially western shoreline with entire eastern shoreline left to hand pulling. Did contact Natural Heritage spoke w/Misty Ann Merrill and learned that because Center Pond was not mapped prior to the issuance of the last extension permit the extension permit is valid as is but it does fall under the MESA program. Need a MESA review and have filed a MESA application but have not gotten response yet. He understands that will be considered separately and it will need to be addressed in future filings.
Mr. Kirchner speaks says a lot of hand pulling was done after the fall survey on the west side. He’s done cost estimates. Cost to do center treatment is $3,000 (estimate from ACT). $1,250 to add the western shoreline. Hand pulling gave estimate of 56 hrs ($2,500) He has considerable concern of how accurate this is saying there are logistical problems with doing hand pulling on western shoreline. He points out the GEIR is only a guideline. Regarding safety, he says weeds were right up to the top on the western shoreline and north center last fall. Possible safety issues for water-skiers and tubers. Regarding the issue of herbicides, he refers to the last statement on a handout Mr. Bellaud gave out last time and reads the summary based on 45 yrs of data and assessments. He spoke w/rep at Dept of
Agriculture and was told there is no info on problems caused by Reward®. Cites statistics on Reward® usage in past few years and its planned use in various local lakes too this year.
Ms. Gallagher presents hand pulling plan. Says it’s true that GEIR wasn’t gone by before but went with a similar formula of under or over 5% cover. She doesn’t know that any area meets the GEIR guideline criteria at the moment. Mr. Bellaud thinks the rock and the southeast area both meet it. She points out houses along the lake and points out to those looking at the picture that a yellow dot for one plant is about the size of three to five houses so the perspective can be skewed if viewers are not aware of that. She exhibits a plant which was pulled yesterday and says this would be a large one (about 4’) and shows a small plant about a foot tall. She proposes finishing east side by the end of this month and divers would then be freed up to do west side in June. She proposes volunteer
diver program July Aug Sept when more moderate and mature plants are out of lake then go back to pro divers late fall. She gives a brief history of their pro/volunteer efforts. She is proposing hiring pro divers through June and in fall now. Pro divers pull 300 – 500 plants per dive each. She says last time that they had grown back in many of the treated areas. There will be fragments no matter what you do. She has two concerns regarding treatment. Divers have said they don’t want to go in the water after treatment. Also, treated weeds can’t be composted as hand pulled ones are. She adds diquat gives typically one year control and then it grows back and who will be watching for it?
Purr reads selections from letters received:
Ann Schrader (present) speaks re weed proliferation and LAPA and says growth has gotten ahead of hand pulling and it’s time for other methods.
Michael Markus of Camp Greylock sadly concludes that additional control methods are needed.
William Hoch of Camp Watito supports herbicide treatment.
Doug Hurley says hand pulling is a valued component but need to treat now with herbicide too.
Mike Scorpa questions the criteria used to determine herbicide use and raises concern re NHESP and speaks to funneling effect at outlet and cites toxicity to fish and wildlife and worries that it may endanger non-target plant species.
Olaf Fisher of Kushi Institute urges no chemicals.
Eugenie Formel doesn’t want chemicals in recreation areas.
Amy Perlmutter urges extreme caution with use of chemicals and cites possible development of weed resistance to the chemicals.
Pat Vint opposes proposal for use of chemicals.
Norma Stanton feels the milfoil is a crisis that is beyond the ability of the hand pullers to resolve.
End Letters.
Kathy asks Ms. Gallagher about recommending that the rock area in north center be treated with herbicide. Ms. Gallagher confirms this. They would complete the east side and do the west side then via pontoon boats.
Scott asks Ms. Gallagher if she has a way to get funding. She’s going to be speaking to the foundation’s board in two weeks. There is one potential grant that she would like to use in concert with the foundation. He asks if it could still happen without the funding. She says they need funding to make it happen.
Scott asks Mr. Bellaud if there’s a minimum area required to do treatment and is told an acre and a half in the north center and there are some narrow strips and some other techniques. They generally treat two acre blocks. Scott: What is your expected regrowth? Would you consider it a one year treatment? Mr. Bellaud: In many cases it is but did not see significant regrowth for several years when Center Pond was initially treated. Sometimes you’ll see reduced growth into a second season.
Scott asks the association about a long range plan. Mr. Kirchner says the permit they have requires spring and fall survey and come to the ConCom with a recommendation with what’s appropriate for that particular year so it isn’t a one time shot. Scott says he doesn’t see evident support for the hand pulling. Mr. Kirchner says the foundation contributed $1,500 last year and $1,000 or $1,500 the year before; this is the first year they’ve been presented a proposal by the firm that does this. Scott is puzzled by their willingness to spend $13,000 for chemicals but only $1,500 for hand pulling. Mr. Kirchner says it’s to knock the weeds down for a year to give the divers a chance to catch up. Scott asks Mr. Bellaud if he has experience in integrating the two approaches. Mr. Bellaud
says the proposal being discussed is a good example of how to do that but commission needs to realize it [chemical treatment] hasn’t been done since 2004 but significant increases of the plants have been seen in the pond; he reiterates that he thinks it’s beyond effectively hand pulling the whole lake now.
Alice asks for clarification of pro divers and Ms. Gallagher says the eve of the survey last fall she presented a quote for hand pulling and the foundation gave her group $500 in addition to $1,000 they had given earlier in the year. She says her group is not a “firm” but is a group of divers who have learned to do this and then got hired by another pond. They use “pro” to tell from less trained volunteers. This is the first program of its kind.
Josh says there is a key issue that the MESA permit has not yet arrived so he is not sure if the commission should hold the vote till that permit comes in. He asks the other commissioners if the MESA report is important enough to hold up the vote. [This does not get answered till further on.]
Scott asks Mr. Bellaud about residue left in dead plants. Mr. Bellaud says the diquat compounds bind to the sediment and are deemed to be essentially inactive. It’s an irreversible bond with the sediment and it eventually breaks down very slowly. Scott asks Ms. Gallagher about access to the west side and she says they’ve found the pontoon boats to be the best way to access – the fastest, simplest, easiest. Scott asks re: spring vs. fall surveys and the ability to see concentrations of plants. How accurate is the spring survey to what is actually happening in the lake as to how it will be in the fall? Mr. Bellaud thinks the spring survey is mostly seeing leftover plants from last year and just a limited amount of new growth and adds that this year’s spring survey was done
earlier than usual. Ms. Gallagher agrees but only on the areas that the hand pullers haven’t been since last year’s spring survey.
Purr speaks to her experience at Yokum Pond where there is also a milfoil problem which they have completely controlled with hand pulling. They have spent about $2,500/year for divers. She says one-to-one comparison can not be made because Yokum found theirs earlier. She is not saying never use an herbicide. There are certain conditions where she can see it may be necessary but hand pulling does get out the roots diquat doesn’t. She adds that any gardener knows weeds pulled come back but they get less and less but can eventually be completely cleared out and not recur unless it gets reinfested.
Purr says a reasonable plan sounds like hand pull by end of May or first of June then attack the west shore and then the only area to be treated is in the center north. It is a big area and is in some cases to the surface. That does need to be treated very quickly.
Josh reads from the special conditions from the Order of Conditions dated 2003.
Public:
Mr. Hurley summer resident all his life would like the commission to know that the foundation is well motivated. He gives some history of weed treatment at Center Pond. Safety is a high priority to them. The pond is a very important asset and a part of their lives. He feels the weed is too invasive and too aggressive to control with hand pulling only.
Ms. Conner swims the lake a lot. Weeds are getting thicker the last three years. She thinks the volunteers are fabulous but it also needs to be chemically treated because it’s overgrowing. She talks about the similarity between Yokum and Center. She says it’s tough to decide unless you’re in it all the time.
Ms. Rosner says nobody wants to poison the lake or the landfill or the ground. She says as a Red Cross person it is very dangerous to swim among weeds. She thinks both ways need to be used. .
Ms. Roberts agrees with Ms. Rosner that a two pronged approach is good. She doesn’t want to see “that jewel” become a mess.
Ms. Gallagher responds to Ms. Connor and Ms. Rosner that the weeds they’re likely encountering when swimming across the lake are native weeds and they will not be affected by either method.
Mr. McWilliams has participated in the center pond weed pulling project and initiated one at Greenwater. They’ve been very successful hand pulling. They can see incremental success year by year. He asks Mr. Bellaud when you use diquat is there any restriction or limitation immediately after? Mr. Bellaud says per EPA label for any herbicides registered for aquatic use there is no swimming restriction but they typically recommend closure of the lake one to two days to reduce exposure. There’s no fish restriction but a three day restriction for drinking and five days for irrigation. But those are all dose dependent.
Ms. Babcock is glad to see the willingness to compromise and is thrilled the acreage had dropped for treatment. She doesn’t understand the scope of the funding. She’d like to know what the foundation’s opinion of the weed pulling is. She’s willing to donate a puppet show for a fund raiser. She says it seems that hand pulling hasn’t been enough because it hasn’t been properly funded. She thinks a flyer going out to residents asking them not to use certain fertilizers if they abut the lake would be good. She thinks the idea of having some seminars for people living on the lake would be good.
Ms. Toomey reiterates once you get the larger patch under control if you spent the treatment money to support hand pulling you could better maintain treatment on a yearly basis since chemical treatment does not eradicate the plants. Also getting residents around the pond to become actively involved is a good idea. Milfoil is not rampant throughout the lake. She went with Ms. Gallagher previously and what she saw would be controllable by hand. And she was formerly a biochemical researcher and questions safety of any herbicides.
Mr. Marcus says nothing takes away the weeds. Not hand pulling or diquat. It’s an ongoing project and multiple methods need to be used.
Ms. Schrader serves on the foundation and attends the LAPA seminars. She is encouraged by the tone of this meeting. She thinks Ms. Gallagher has not wanted everyone out there pulling – don’t want a bunch of people pulling unless they’re properly trained. She and her husband are voluntarily replacing they septic system to better protect the lake. She says that Mr. Kirchner is very knowledgeable and keeps residents informed.
Mr. Stanton is the secretary of the Center Pond Preservation and Protection Foundation. They send out a newsletter to lake residents twice a year and last year sent out a request for help and they’ve had additional donations to the weed project as a result.
End Public.
Josh ponders waiting for MESA permit or deciding tonight. He’s concerned that the lack of that permit could potentially screw everything up. He’d be happy to schedule a special meeting for a vote.
Alice says certain conditions have to be met and the report from MESA is one of them so she proposes a special meeting when that permit is in. Purr asks what we expect to get from MESA. Ms. Gallagher says there’s a guidance that says very clearly that NHESP’s input must be considered.
Alice speaks to the special condition in the original permit saying that if we determine there is too much to be hand pulled then we can approve chemical treatment. She says you cannot swim right after herbicide is applied for two days to fourteen days. Mr. Bellaud says there’s no restriction on the EPA label. She talks about EPA registering chemicals that are known carcinogens and because they give an approval doesn’t mean they approve of them. Thirdly she says we live in a chemical society; they are in our air, our water, our soil, our bodies and she can’t imagine why they’d want to add more chemicals. When it comes time to vote she suggests giving the hand pulling people a chance to do it all with hand pulling.
Purr says there is diverse opinion on the commission but we all agree it is truly a solvable issue. Personally she prefers not to ever use herbicides because she knows there are dangers and potential dangers but given that, short term sometimes they have to be used but ultimately hand pulling is a really good longer term strategy but it has to be funded.
Kathy thanks Ms. Gallagher for putting this proposal together because her dream has been that both groups would work together and if she were voting tonight she’d go with what Ms. Gallagher has proposed. She would like to see what MESA says though.
There is discussion of how soon a response will be gotten from MESA. Mr. Bellaud reiterates that since the Order of Conditions was already issued the MESA permit doesn’t need to be waited for. Kathy’s in favor of having a special meeting just for a vote . Mr. Kirchner is concerned that the MESA report could skew the schedule.
Kathy moves to set a special meeting for June 5 at 6:30 for discussion and voting on the Center Pond permit but the meeting will be moved earlier if the MESA permit comes in earlier. Purr seconds. Unanimous.
4. Notice of Intent: Sherwood Greens Road District, Golden Fawn, Long Bow, and Silver Shield Lakes – DEP #102-335
Present: Marc Bellaud of Aquatic Controls; Jeanne Pryor for the SGRD
Public Present: Mercedes Gallagher, Blanche Lennington
Mr. Bellaud presents a summary of the NOI which is a new filing for an ongoing management program. He recaps treatment which has been done to date. They are looking for a maintenance program to control the overgrowth of aquatic vegetation specifically for 2008 are looking for hydro-raking of Long Bow and Silver Shield at specific areas. Silver Shield and Golden Fawn are being proposed for treatment with Sonar® which was not listed in the original NOI in 2005. Harvesting has also been included as a potential management option.
Alice understands that Sonar® is not usually used on noninvasive vegetation. Mr. Bellaud says it’s often used to control plants that are very susceptible to it but is not limited to controlling those species. Primarily water shield and bladderwort in these ponds. Alice asks why Sonar®? Mr. Bellaud says because it’s the one herbicide that they feel will provide the most effective thinning and reduction of those two plants and it has a favorable toxicology report. Alice asks about applying it near drinking water. Mr. Bellaud says wells wouldn’t be affected by this – only if someone was directly taking drinking water from the lake. He says there are even conditions where Sonar® can be applied to a reservoir for drinking water.
Scott asks about concentrations. Mr. Bellaud says max label rate for Sonar® is 150 parts per billion and they’re looking at 20 parts per billion in the lake. They’re not trying to eradicate all plants in the pond. The association wants to get infestation to a manageable level so they can manage it by hand.
Alice asks won’t you have to do it every year? Mr. Bellaud says no because Sonar® is a systemic herbicide and explains how it works. He says usually two three or four sometimes five years or longer is achieved with Sonar®. He thinks good thinning and reduction will be achieved that will last two or three years even with no other treatment.
Alice asks about what happens to dead plants and then to the oxygen level of the lake. Mr. Bellaud says they’re trying to do it early in the season when there is less bulk of vegetation and they would die off at the end of the year anyway. He adds that Sonar® is a very slow acting herbicide so they don’t all die at once.
Alice asks why the whole lake is being done. Mr. Bellaud replies because Sonar® is so soluble that you can’t do a spot treatment. You have to try to keep a very low level of the Sonar® in the water till the plants succumb.
Alice asks why not Triclopyr? Mr. Bellaud: “Well, Triclopyr is . . . we’ve actually talked about that for Center Pond, but that’s a different herbicide – different mode of action. It is systemic like the Sonar®; it will kill the roots but it’s fairly specific for dicot plants so it probably would work on the watershield to a degree but I don’t think it would do much at all on the bladderwort. Even though bladderwort is technically a dicot it has not shown any response to Triclopyr in treatments that have been done with that product in other states where there’s been a lot of monitoring. And there is also with Triclopyr – which we just learned – Triclopyr was registered in Massachusetts in 2005 as an aquatic herbicide – it got it’s
full aquatic label; it had a second formulation come out that was registered late last summer – a granular or pellet formulation – but it has a registration in Mass. but then we asked because we didn’t – it wasn’t clear if it had gone through the zone two evaluation which is the Mass. Office of Research and Standards and it hadn’t. It went through zone two which is use in Interim Wellhead Protection Areas (yes, he does say “zone two” both times here. b) and they decided, you know, it’s a new compound, they don’t want to give it a blanket approval, they’re going to do it site specific. I believe the Sherwood Greens ponds are in Zone Two or Interim Wellhead Protection Areas like Center Pond is. That’s not to say Triclopyr would not be approved but it may be longer to get it approved and I don’t think that it’s the right herbicide to use on these two particular plants.
Purr quotes the lake mgt book confirming what Mark has been saying about slow die off and low toxicity. She says it looks like the really small shallow lakes are exactly what Sonar® is for. Mr. Bellaud says yes and no; it’s also been used on large lakes at low dosage for highly sensitive species like fanwort and Eurasian milfoil.
Purr asks about creating a balance with the native species and will Sonar® kill everything? Mr. Bellaud says no. It doesn’t impact emergents and different species have different tolerance levels. There will be pond wide impact: thinning and reduction of bladderwort and watershield.
Purr asks Ms. Pryor if the road district is in agreement that in future years hand pulling will be used and is told yes, that is their intent. Ms. Pryor cites her hand pulling efforts last year.
Alice asks about using nets to gather it. Ms. Pryor says she tried that.
Alice says she read the history and really understands how Ms. Pryor has struggled but wants to read about fluridone; she cites information from a document she’s brought with her to the meeting. Mr. Bellaud says he appreciates dissenting opinions but that the document Alice is reading has been around a long time and has been refuted numerous times in numerous communities. Alice cites sources. He says they’re proposing to put literally ounces of the product into the entire pond.
Josh asks Mr. Bellaud to forward by email the sources which support his position. Mr. Bellaud says he has but they’re also already in the GEIR and available from the state.
Alice says “registered” does not mean “safe”. Mr. Bellaud cites some of EPA’s criteria for registration.
Ms. Pryor says that on this particular pond theirs is the only house and no one has ever swum in the lake because there are so many weeds. Alice says recreation is not why the commission is here. Purr says having the lake return to a bog is not in the interest of the wildlife or the water resources. Mr. Bellaud points out that these are all manmade lakes [in Sherwood Greens] and those are the type of lakes on which most of his work occurs.
Scott asks about a long term plan. Kathy says there is a lake mgt plan already on file with the commission. He asks if there’s a commitment to hand pulling in it.
Kathy says she’s been down there in the summer and these lakes are in bad shape and job of the commission is to protect the resource area and we’re told by the EPA to use the practical guide to lake management as our guide. She can see why they want to this treatment one time so it can be managed in other ways and to her the proposed plan is highly acceptable.
Alice thinks there is really reason to get a second opinion and would like to ask Terry Eucker.
Alice: I think that there’s really reason to get a second opinion on this and I would like to propose asking Terry Eucker to evaluate the situation as a consultant.
Purr: I’ve got to tell you, I’ve asked Terry about –
Alice: I asked her today if she’d be willing and she said yes.
Kathy: Well yes, she’d be willing if you want to make them [the applicant] pay for it.
Purr: But I asked her if she felt she was an expert on herbicides and on lake management and when to use herbicides, when not to use herbicides and she actually said that she thought that Mercedes was much more of an expert than she was on the topic so I’m not sure . . .I’m just telling what she said to me.
Kathy: Personally I don’t see the need of getting a consultant on this.
Alice: But this is a lot of material to be putting into two small lakes.
Kathy: He’s saying a quart
Alice: Well it’s the toxicity of it
Kathy: I don’t think this is a complex issue. I think it’s one that, with the information we have that the commission can make a decision on, that they don’t need outside consultants but that’s my opinion.
Alice: Well I disagree.
Public:
Ms. Gallagher asks if there are DEP comments. Kathy says yes and they just said to go by the practical guide which does talk about native species that can become so imbalanced that they lead to a nuisance condition.
Ms. Lennington says she thinks it’s totally unreasonable to ask Sherwood Greens to pay for an outside consultant.
Ms. Pryor says they’re a private community and don’t have an association to raise money from. She outlines the history of the community, how the developer abandoned it and the private attempts to maintain the lakes and that they’ve finally gotten the road district changed to a lake and road district. That took two years to pass and was finally just approved two years ago and while that was all going on they couldn’t appropriate money. This is the first year that they’re appropriating enough money for hydro-raking and culvert maintenance and beaver control.
Ms. Gallagher asks about the beach area and have they considered benthic barriers rather than hydro-raking? Ms. Pryor says hydro-raking is to remove phragmites. They also started three winters ago cutting phragmites in the winter and once last July.
Purr reads letters:
David Wood on Golden Fawn testifies to ever increasing nuisance vegetation.
Steven Hovani supports the requests.
Susan Aller supports the NOI.
Carol Truchan votes for both hydro-raking and chemical treatment.
End Letters.
Ms. Gallagher asks about a long term plan – does it address how these things will be handled in the future? Ms. Pryor says intent is to hand pull bladderwort and watershield and they are trying to get something to rake in the areas that are really bad.
Ms. Gallagher clarifies Long Bow was treated two years ago and that is not proposed to be treated now. She thinks Alice is suggesting a world famous consultant could be gotten for $500 and says hydro-raking disturbs everything that’s there. Purr disagrees saying she’d love to have Ken Wagner come in for the commission but feels it’s not appropriate for this specific application. She sees what is being proposed as a classic example of what is outlined in the guide for lake management.
Public closed.
Alice moves that “the commission ask a consultant to review this case and I would suggest Ken Wagner or Terry Eucker”. Scott seconds.
Ms. Pryor says the last time they came before this commission they were told to have a lake management plan and the commission never said anything about the plan – no comments or suggestions and she feels that to have this imposed on them now is very inappropriate.
Vote:
Scott – No
Alice – Yes
Kathy – No
Josh – Yes
Purr – No
Scott moves to approve the NOI for a onetime chemical treatment of Silver Shield Lake and Golden Fawn Lake and a one time hydro-raking of Long Bow and Silver Shield Lakes as proposed with the condition that the lake management plan be updated and presented to the commission this fall with a post-treatment report presented at the same time as the lake management plan. Purr seconds.
Vote:
Scott – Yes
Alice – No
Kathy – Yes
Josh – Yes
Purr – Yes
5. Notice of Intent: Lee Blatt, Buckley Dunton Reservoir – DEP #102-334
A continuance has been requested. Purr moves to continue to June 19th with the applicant’s consent. Scott second. Unanimous.
6. Certificate of Compliance: Two State YMCA, 748 Hamilton Road – DEP #102-285 Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
Site visit was done and Kathy reports all is fine. Kathy moves to issue the C of C. Alice seconds. Unanimous.
7. Certificate of Compliance: Charles Garman
Present: Purr McEwen, Mr. Garman’s wife.
Purr recuses herself from the hearing.
Ms. McEwen asks for a partial C of C and presents a plan for the native gardens that will go along the lake. These can’t be put in till silt fence is taken down. Have allowed rock wall to naturally fall back into the lake and Project Native has made recommendations that will prevent erosion. Alice did site visit and says it’s fine. The only problem is some old cement which is being removed. Alice asks if the erosion control materials can be reused. Ms. McEwen explains plans to do just that.
Kathy moves to issue a partial C of C allowing the removal of the silt fence and straw bales. Scott seconds. Unanimous.
2. Revisited: Continued Request for Determination of Applicability: Henry A. Terwedow Jr., 175 Big Bass Lane, Map 413 lot 58 – Creation of a new single family home including septic system and driveway
Revised plan was not submitted and no representative appeared tonight.
Alice moves to continue to June 19th. Josh seconds. Unanimous.
8. Administrative Business
a. New Enforcement Orders:
o Polacek: Berkshire Engineering is working on this. Purr moves to ratify. Scott seconds. Unanimous.
o Maggi: Kathy presents site plan. Josh reads the E/O. Scott moves to accept. Kathy seconds. Unanimous.
b. Outstanding Enforcement Orders
o Sherman: Purr, Kathy & Alice visited the site and say he did a wonderful job. Kathy moves to rescind. Scott seconds. Unanimous.
o Johnson: Kathy says restoration has been done and it looks great. Purr moves to rescind. Scott seconds. Unanimous.
o Laczak (Long Bow Lane West Circle): Kathy says his father has contacted her but she’s received nothing from him. No Action Taken.
o Sweet: Kathy sent the letter she was requested to and it came back. Alice recuses herself from this issue because she knows the family. Kathy reads from last meeting’s minutes. Purr moves to issue an E/O stating he has to do his plantings by June 25th and the commission will do a site visit prior to the July meeting and will verify that the plants have taken before their October meeting. Scott seconds. Unanimous.
o Andrews—not addressed
o IndyMac—not addressed
o McLaren—not addressed
o Richter—not addressed
o SFNA—not addressed
c. Digital Camera: Scott thinks the commission should have one. Josh respectfully suggests the kind he just bought for $200.
d. Purr asks about appropriating money to get Kenneth Wagner to come in to speak to the commission: Alice sees no reason do this. Purr thinks it’s very important for commissioners to get educated. Scott thinks it’s a great idea.
e. Kathy says Mark Stinson and Karen Hirschberg will do a workshop for some of the road districts. She has seven people who are interested so far – mostly from the Forest.
There being no further business, Purr moves to adjourn; Scott seconds; unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 10:38 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Blanche Lennington, Recorder
_______________________________________________
Josh Lombard, Chair Date
_______________________________________________
Purr McEwen, Vice Chair Date
_______________________________________________
Alice Briggs Date
_______________________________________________
Scott Morley Date
| 
