Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAirport Packet February 2021 AIRPORT COMMISSION AGENDA Virtual Zoom Meeting February 2 , 202 1 9:30 AM CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 AM 1. ROLL CALL – MEETING RECORDED 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. Commissioners B. Public Forum 1. Public Forum Comments to be submitted in writing by 10am February 1st, 2021 to Shannon.burruss@ashland.or.us 2. Comments on agenda items to be submitted in writing by 10am February 1st, 2021 to Shannon.burruss@ashland.or.us 3. If you are interested in watching the meeting via zoom please contact Shannon.burruss@ashland.or.us by 10am February 1st,2021. Interested parties will be sent a zoom link and admitted into the meeting on mute with no video. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM January 5, 2021 MEETING 4. OLD BUSINESS: A. Airport Community Solar Project B. Action Item List: a. Airport Entrance Landscaping b. Commission Member Vacancies c. Airport Maintenance Plan d. Flight Path Trees e. Airport Emergency Preparedness 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Airport Property Signage B. Airport Day C. Airport: Good Neighbor Items 6. FBO REPORT(S): A. Attached 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 2, 2021 9:30 AM Call Shannon at 541 488-5587 if you will be unable to attend! In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Ashland Airport Commission 2019 Name Title Telephone Mailing Address Email Address Term George Schoen Jeff Dahle Commission Member Commission Vice Chair 415-298-4516 775-843-0996 610 Ashland St. 348 Pearl St. George.schoen@sbcglobal.net 2023 jrdahle@gmail.com 2022 Daniel Palomino Commission Member 541-488-1964 2020 Jasmine Ave. Dpal71@gmail.com 2023 Patricia Herdklotz Commission Member 541-552-0592 384 Clinton St. revpatt@jeffnet.org 2022 Bernard Spera Commission Member 541-488-7461 260 Skycrest Dr. SpBRN3@aol.com 2021 David Wolske Commission Chair 541-482-3233 1390 Frank Hill Rd. david@davidwolske.com 2021 Jerry Campbell Commission Member 760-583-9873 124 Alida St. jerry@jlcampbell.net 2023 Open Commission Member Open Open Open.com Andrew Vandenberg Commission Member 509-703-3591 2029 Grey Eagle Dr. andrew@skinneraviation.com 2021 Rich Rosenthal Council Liaison None 20 E. Main Street rich@council.ashland.or.us 2020 Bob Skinner Fixed Base Operator 403 Dead Indian Memorial Rd. bob@skinneraviation.com Staff Support Scott Fleury Deputy Public Works Director 541-488-5347 20 E. Main Street scott.fleury@ashland.or.us Kaylea Kathol Project Manager 541-552-2419 20 E. Main Street kaylea.kathol@ashland.or.us Chance Metcalf Project Manager 541-552-2448 20 E. Main Street chance.metcalf@ashland.or.us Shannon Burruss Permit Technician 541-552-2428 20 E. Main Street shannon.burruss@ashland.or.us Ashland Airport Commission MINUTES January 5th 2021 Ashland Airport Commission Jan. 5th, 2021 Page 1 of 3 These minutes are pending approval by this Committee CALL TO ORDER @9:00am Roll Call: Meeting Recorded Members Present: Patricia Herdklotz, Bernard Spera, Andrew Vandenberg, Jeff Dahle, David Wolske, Daniel Palomino, George Schoen, Jerry Campbell FBO Present: Bob Skinner Members Absent: Council Member Present: Staff Present: Chance Metcalf, Kaylea Kathol, Shannon Burruss Guests: None 1. Information Items- A. Commissioners: None B. Public Forum: None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 12.1.20 Spera moves to approve minutes, Herdklotz seconds All ayes, motion carries. 3. Old Business A. Action Item List- a. Airport Entrance Landscaping- Kathol reports that the solicitation was released last month, there will be a mandatory pre-bid meeting and bids will be due at the end of the month. b. Commission Member Vacancies- Metcalf reports that Jerry Campbell has been officially appointed and is present today, filling one vacancy, leaving one remaining. Commission welcomes Campbell. c. Airport Maintenance Plan- Metcalf updates that the work group has met and Kathol has developed a list of wants regarding regular maintenance around the Airport and time frames, the list was sent to Administration and is in discussion with the Parks department. Metcalf states he’s optimistic about adopting a new contract through the Parks department. d. Flight Path Trees- Metcalf states there is a surveyor under contract, weather has been a factor and Metcalf states the surveyor is scheduled for March/April 2021. Once survey is complete Commission will decide which direction it wants to take regarding this project. Wolske iterates he’d like to see the current trees removed and replaced with trees that do not grow so tall and don’t require as much attention. Commission discusses reasons for the survey, including the limitations and process that must be followed in a riparian zone. Metcalf states he will ask legal for their stance, and options for areas outside of the riparian zone in relation to private and City owned property. Skinner brings up the possibility of the Fresh Water Trust helping in this project as they restore riparian areas. Kathol states that there are no current plans for the Fresh Water Trust to do any restoration of Neil or Emigrant Creek near the Airport, the reason being that they do compliance grade opportunities, and these creeks are not part of any of these current projects. Wolske wonders if they would still want to do a survey and make recommendations regarding the trees and what could be used as replacement. Skinner states they may have already done a similar survey previously. e. Airport Emergency Preparedness- Wolske requested this topic be added to the Action Ashland Airport Commission MINUTES January 5th 2021 Ashland Airport Commission Jan. 5th, 2021 Page 2 of 3 These minutes are pending approval by this Committee Item list in order to anticipate catastrophic events that would require the airport to continue to operate on its own resources. Wolske brings up the topic of a generator that will provide electricity to the essential functions of the Airport. Skinner is asked for his input, he states that Metcalf and Kathol have previously researched generators for the Airport. He also mentions that a project like this would require preliminary research, and wonders if it could fall into an AIG grant. Metcalf reminds Commission about the Community Solar Project he brought to the Commission last meeting which could negate the need for the Airport to install generators, he states that a presentation should be presented at the next meeting on this subject. Wolske ask for a work group to put together needs and priorities around emergency preparedness. Skinner, Campbell, Herdklotz and Dahle will start working towards gathering this information. 4. New Business A. Airport Good Neighbor Items- Palomino states that he witnesses quite a lot of people on the airport, walking around people’s planes that are parked. Skinner mentions that there have been many examples of such things, in the past rules have been made and signs have been posted to keep people out of dangerous areas. Issues are still occurring however. Dahle requests a discussion of signs and placement be added to agenda. Metcalf asks that Commission take a look at current signs and see what they’d like added vs what is there currently. Skinner states he’ll do a survey of current signs and what they say. Skinner reports that not much is going on through the FBO. There has been some correspondence with the City regarding drone operations from neighboring properties and the City is currently handling that. There has been limited operations as the FBO office is closed due to COVID-19, maintenance is still operating. AFN cable installation is in the process, once bored under the taxiway the project should be completed. A new drain extension behind the FBO is being worked on that should alleviate the water creating damage on the roadway. Palomino mentions that the work trucks are ruining the grass in the area that they are parking, Metcalf states he will check in to it promptly. Wolske asks about the new hangar, Metcalf states it is moving forward and he will bring an update as information becomes available. Commission discusses possibility of Airport Day 2021. Metcalf states that at this point it’s unlikely to happen this year due to COVID-19 but will add it as an agenda item for further discussion. 5. FBO Reports- Attached. 6. Announcements- None. NEXT MEETING DATE: 02/02/21 ADJOURNMENT: 10:30am Respectfully submitted, Ashland Airport Commission MINUTES January 5th 2021 Ashland Airport Commission Jan. 5th, 2021 Page 3 of 3 These minutes are pending approval by this Committee Shannon Burruss Public Works Administration (Full Meeting Video Available by Request) 10/30/2020 ​2021 ASC-City Solar Project Two electrically & ownership independent 200kW AC Airport-hanger rooftop-systems A proposed City of Ashland & Ashland Solar Co-op Community Partnership PRO BONO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BY SES NARRATIVE This Community Solar proposal is one piece of Ashland Solar Cooperative’s (ASC) bigger 2021-2022 solar development plan. Other pieces include arrays at SOU, the Ashland School District, local businesses/nonprofits and other City properties. The time is ripe for accelerating Ashland’s transition to renewable energy, and ASC has a plan to help make it happen. Clean, local solar power strengthens our City’s distribution grid, adds energy ​ ​security and resilience, provides healthy economic development and significant regional GHG reductions. These two City airport projects are proposed for 2021 development. ​The Ashland Solar Co-op will build, operate and maintain the systems for the full 25-​ ​year rooftop lease, or enable local LLCs to do so. The projects include engineering, permitting, structural roof upgrades, inverters, production meters and a ​ ​Tier-1 PV solar system, all at no cost to the City.​ ​Credits for the power produced will be allocated through the City’s Virtual Net Meter (VNM) program and ​ ​be equitably allocated to City residents via ASC. The proposed ​projects would have a capacity of 400 kW, over five times larger than the 76 kW total at Rogue Valley International Airport. This Ashland Solar Coop Project would enable over 100 Ashland households to support local solar. When completed these projects would be twice the size of the largest upcoming project in Ashland, as the Oak Street Tank and Steel rooftop project has a Capacity of 200 kW. By partnering in these projects ​Ashland would establish itself as a leader in the Great Energy Transition, while providing healthy economic & community development, strengthening our ​electric infrastructure and helping​ ​pave the path to a sustainable city-energy future. PROJECTS ACCOUNTING Ashland City 2021 Community Solar Prepared by SES for the City and ASC January 2021 HANGER ROOFTOP PROJECTS Model View The 3 Hangers on the City Airport Master Plan Ashland City 2021 Community Solar Prepared by SES for the City and ASC January, 2021 ADDENDA​- WHY COMMUNITY SOLAR? The Time is Ripe for ​Solarizing Ashland ●Excellent Solar Resource and City-owned Electric Distribution Grid ●Generous Federal Tax Credits/ Grant opportunities ●Lowest Cost/ Highest efficiency Components available now ●Community readiness for local empowerment and clean-energy jobs ●Increasing Risks to our existing Electric Transmission Grid The Value of ​Community Solar ●Clean, Locally-produced Solar Electricity for the City ●Improved Electric Infrastructure, Resiliency and Security ●Empowered Community, Healthy Projects, Clean-jobs ●Can leverage Federal Dollars to minimize Local end-costs ●Helps our City reach its Climate and Energy Action Plan Goals. ●Available to all citizens regardless of home-ownership or financial status The Ambitious ASC ​2021-2022 Plan ●Develop ​Host Sites ​where the Community Solar power systems can be installed. Secure sites with 25-year leases. ●Engage ​Tax-Equity Investors and/or local investors ​to finance the projects leveraging Federal Tax Credits, Depreciation & Grants ●Organize ​Subscribers ​to purchase the solar credits. Citizens and businesses in the Ashland service area qualify Ashland City 2021 Community Solar Prepared by SES for the City and ASC January, 2021 FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Project: Ashland Airport Two Rooftop systems Model placing PV panels on the 3 hangers just North of the entrance road. Place panels on all roof surfaces to provide maximum flexibility in the future. Site configuration: Ashland Airport Existing and Preferred Thresholds Analysis conducted by Jim Hartman (jimhartmancc@gmail.com) at 00:50 on 27 Jan, 2021. U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence The following table summarizes the policy adherence of the glare analysis based on the 2013 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Interim Policy 78 FR 63276. This policy requires the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property: • No "yellow" glare (potential for after-image) for any flight path from threshold to 2 miles • No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height. • Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below) ForgeSolar does not represent or speak officially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only. COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable 2-mile flight path(s) PASS Flight path receptor(s) do not receive yellow glare ATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24729 SITE CONFIGURATION PV Array(s) Analysis Parameters DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Time interval: 1 min Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 m Eye focal length: 0.017 m Sun subtended angle: 9.3 mrad Site Config ID: 48606.8666 Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 190.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188175 -122.655888 1893.49 14.25 1907.74 2 42.188133 -122.655895 1893.66 13.00 1906.66 3 42.187993 -122.654744 1899.14 13.00 1912.14 4 42.188033 -122.654733 1900.06 14.25 1914.31 Name: PV array 10 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 190.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188838 -122.655826 1893.06 17.00 1910.07 2 42.188768 -122.655841 1893.13 15.00 1908.13 3 42.188627 -122.654697 1902.35 15.00 1917.35 4 42.188696 -122.654681 1903.65 17.00 1920.65 Name: PV array 11 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 10.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188768 -122.654665 1904.35 15.00 1919.35 2 42.188702 -122.654681 1903.65 17.00 1920.65 3 42.188844 -122.655826 1893.06 17.00 1910.07 4 42.188911 -122.655809 1892.24 15.00 1907.24 Name: PV array 2 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 10.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188080 -122.654723 1900.13 13.00 1913.13 2 42.188041 -122.654731 1900.19 14.25 1914.44 3 42.188183 -122.655885 1893.43 14.25 1907.69 4 42.188221 -122.655875 1894.04 13.00 1907.04 Name: PV array 4 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 280.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188555 -122.656041 1890.54 24.00 1914.54 2 42.188542 -122.655943 1891.42 26.50 1917.92 3 42.188453 -122.655962 1891.22 26.50 1917.72 4 42.188465 -122.656062 1890.27 24.00 1914.27 Name: PV array 5 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 100.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188528 -122.655828 1892.39 24.00 1916.39 2 42.188439 -122.655847 1892.34 24.00 1916.34 3 42.188452 -122.655954 1891.32 26.50 1917.82 4 42.188541 -122.655935 1891.42 26.50 1917.92 Name: PV array 7 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 190.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass without AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188481 -122.655817 1892.84 14.25 1907.09 2 42.188436 -122.655829 1892.57 13.00 1905.57 3 42.188296 -122.654681 1900.16 13.00 1913.16 4 42.188337 -122.654672 1900.62 14.25 1914.87 Flight Path Receptor(s) Name: PV array 9 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 4.0° Orientation: 10.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 42.188343 -122.654672 1900.62 14.25 1914.87 2 42.188383 -122.654662 1900.44 13.00 1913.44 3 42.188524 -122.655805 1892.74 13.00 1905.74 4 42.188486 -122.655817 1892.83 14.25 1907.08 Name: FP 1 Description: Threshold height: 50 ft Direction: 320.7° Glide slope: 3.0° Pilot view restricted? Yes Vertical view: 30.0° Azimuthal view: 50.0° Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) Threshold 42.186840 -122.656934 1882.66 50.00 1932.66 Two-mile 42.164469 -122.632185 2098.50 387.61 2486.11 GLARE ANALYSIS RESULTS Summary of Glare PV Array Name Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy (°) (°) min min kWh PV array 1 4.0 190.0 0 0 - PV array 10 4.0 190.0 0 0 - PV array 11 4.0 10.0 0 0 - PV array 2 4.0 10.0 0 0 - PV array 4 4.0 280.0 0 0 - PV array 5 4.0 100.0 0 0 - PV array 7 4.0 190.0 0 0 - PV array 9 4.0 10.0 0 0 - Total annual glare received by each receptor Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Name: FP 2 Description: Threshold height: 50 ft Direction: 320.7° Glide slope: 3.0° Pilot view restricted? Yes Vertical view: 30.0° Azimuthal view: 50.0° Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft)Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) Threshold 42.186929 -122.657026 1882.37 50.00 1932.37 Two-mile 42.164556 -122.632283 2097.73 388.10 2485.83 Results for: PV array 1 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 10 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 11 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 2 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 4 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 5 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 7 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV array 9 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) FP 1 0 0 FP 2 0 0 Flight Path: FP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Flight Path: FP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Assumptions 2016-2019 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and geographic obstructions. Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ. The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. CITY OF ASHLAND Page 1 of 2 20 East Main Street Tel: 541-488-6002 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541-488-5311 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 800-735-2900 Memo TO: Chance Metcalf FROM: Kaylea Kathol DATE: 1/25/21 RE: Tree encroachment of runway approach – trimming vs. tree removal & replanting City staff and the Airport Commission have been discussing the recuring problem of cottonwoods along Neil Creek that encroach on the runway approach. Periodically, cottonwoods need to be topped to maintain compliance with FAA rules governing approach safety. In recent years, topping activities seem to be needed more frequently. Because tree topping is an expensive but necessary maintenance item, the Commission has suggested that the City would be better off removing the offending cottonwoods and replacing them with a lower-growing species (riparian restoration). Staff has experience conducting tree topping and riparian restoration, and generally does not agree that riparian restoration is the best alternative for this situation. Riparian restoration includes multiple dependencies and uncontrollable factors, whereas topping is straightforward without few risk factors that could “sink” the project. Staff believes that the best option is to continue topping cottonwoods down to a height that is substantially lower than the FAA’s minimum requirements. The table below provides a high-level comparison of the two options. The row labeled “complexity /risk factors” includes that risk factors that the City has considered in its decision not to attempt riparian restoration. CITY OF ASHLAND Page 2 of 2 20 East Main Street Tel: 541-488-6002 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541-488-5311 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 800-735-2900 Tree Topping/Tree Trimming Cottonwood Removal & Replacement Type of Project Maintenance. Intermediate procurement (<$100,000). Possible Capital Improvement. Possible competitive sealed-bid procurement (>$100,000). Prevailing wage will likely apply. Measure of success Cottonwoods do not encroach on runway approach for the next [XX] years Cottonwoods are removed and successfully replaced with a native species that will never encroach on runway approach Likelihood of success High Moderate* Frequency Every 3 to 10 years (growth depends on weather, water availability, etc) Once, if executed successfully Duration 4-6 months 3-5 years Cost High, total cost likely around $30k - $60k, inc. survey Very High, total cost estimate not available without a specialist’s estimate Complexity / Risk Factors Low • Contingent upon landowner approval • Requires survey and staking prior to implementation • Can be difficult (but not impossible) to verify height of trimmed trees • Requires significant clean-up High • Contingent on landowner participation • Will require written agreement and maintenance access lease/easement with landowners • A site plan and planting plan will need to be developed by a riparian specialist • Tree removal is a given, but blackberry removal must also occur to avoid failure – glyphosate is the only reliable method to permanently remove blackberry. * Some landowners may not agree to glyphosate use. • Erosion control must be established and maintained until ground cover has established • An irrigation system will be necessary, and a water source must be found and secured. Water source may involve negotiation of a water rights lease, if possible, or an agreement to reimburse landowner for domestic water. May require landowner to be diligent about irrigating. • Maintenance, including replacement of dead plantings and continued treatment of resprouting blackberries will need to occur for 2 to 3 years after initial planting. *One of the elements that makes cottonwood removal and restoration so risky is the presence of Himalayan blackberries. If the City does not adequately treat the blackberries, they will choke out new plantings and cause project failure. Currently blackberry growth is limited by the shade of the cottonwoods, but if blackberries are exposed to a sunny, cottonwood-free streambank, they will overtake the entire riparian area and kill the new plantings. While this will certainly accomplish the objective of keeping trees out of the runway approach, it is unacceptable for the City to leave landowners in this situation. In addition to the ecological damage wrought by blackberries, they are also highly combustible and present a real fire danger, as evidenced by the Almeda Fire. We may end up doing this project twice if we fail to control the blackberries the first time.