SW Idaho
Resource Advisory Committee
Minutes
January 19, 2005
SW Idaho RAC Members/Actings: Phil Davis (Chair),
David Whaley (Vice-Chair), Sandra Mitchell, Lois Hoover, Randy Harrison, Robert
Baker, John McCarthy, Tom Glass, John Cramer, Ed Mansfield, Dale Hanson, John
Gebhards, Scott Stouder and Joe Hinson
Designated Federal Officer: Doug Gochnour
Others: Andy Brunelle (Legislative Affairs, USFS),
Charlie LaRose (Recorder)
v
Chair, Phil Davis called the meeting to order at 10:36 am. He stated there was a quorum for regular business and that Group A was short 1
person. (Joe Hinson arrived later and completed the quorum for all business).
v
DFO Gochnour went through the packets handed out. He stated that
the funding page showed that with up to 20% going to dust abatement, there
would be $140,000 available for dust abatement. He also went over the agenda
for the meeting.
v
Update on National RAC Meeting—Lois Van Hoover is the
representative for the RAC. She stated that several panels are getting
together to talk about what has been working and what has not been working.
They are showing what has been successful in joining together Title II and
Title III projects. There will be a conference call in the first part of
February to discuss the National meeting. The meeting will be in Reno, Nevada
on April 14, 2005. The workshop will take place at John Ascuaga’s Nugget
Hotel. The one-day workshop will begin at 8 am and run until approximately 4 pm. A RAC can use Title II funds to support the travel costs of selected member
attendance.
Bob Baker made a motion to
accept the minutes as written. Randy Harrison seconded the motion. Minutes
were accepted as written.
v
DFO Gochnour went over the Monthly Meeting Expense report for the
last meeting: $227.20 for mileage, $258.01 for lunch, and $30.20 for notices.
He also went over the RAC funding balance update and Project Log update.
Tom Glass moved to accept the
expense report for the last meeting and the budget update. Ed Mansfield
seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Project Log#: 04027
Project Name: Noxious Weed
Virtual Website
Project Sponsor: Idaho
Weed Awareness Campaign
At the last meeting on this
project, the RAC asked for an individual breakdown of how the $100,000 will be
used.
- Materials, including digital
video tape, DVD-ROM, backup and storage $3,000
and web hosting for 2 years
- Variable subcontract services,
including professional writer and
graphic design services
$11,000
- Travel—transportation costs to
various weed project sites thru out the state
for photography/videography and
monitoring over 2-yr period $4,000
- Production services, which
include the following:
-- Research and meetings
$4,800
-- Digital videography
$30,000
-- Website production
$45,800
With a total estimated budget of $100,000
They handed out a complete breakdown and package on the
project.
Dave Olson, Public Affairs Officer for the Boise National
Forest, stated that a television reporter did a story on what the company did
for the Boise National Forest webpage because of how unique, attractive and
user friendly the “Take a Hike” portion was. Every websites with panoramas
have the most “hits”.
Phil Davis stated that the project has now been moved to 05
and 06 and has been reduced from $50,000 to $40,000.
Since they had already done Part I for this project, there
was no action to be taken.
Phil Davis told them to complete Part II and bring it back
to the RAC in February or March.
Project Log#: 05013
Project Name: Joint Weed Control Facility
Project Sponsor: Mike Bottoms, Boise County, Weed
Control Superintendent
This was a modification to update the cost request. Since
approval of this project and funding by the Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory
Committee in 2003, Boise County has awarded a construction contract in November
2004. The contract cost is $125,164 and exceeds the FY03 Title II funding
awarded by $11,164. Boise County requested funding from FY05 Title II funds to
offset the actual contract cost. The total cost of this project was $193,494.
The design is completed and paid for.
Randy Harrison made a motion to
increase the cost request to cover the $11,164. The motion was seconded by Ed
Mansfield and carried unanimously.
Project Log#: 04024
Project Name: Boise Peak Trails
Project Sponsor: Larry Tripp, Mountain Home Ranger
District, Boise National Forest
This was just to change the ending date of the project. DFO
Gochnour stated that the project was approved last year, but Randy did not get
it signed in time to accomplish the work. The district is asking for an
extension of one year to complete the project. Bob Baker stated that the same
conditions for signage would remain.
Randy Harrison made a motion to
accept the extension for one year. Ed Mansfield seconded the motion and the
motion carried.
Luncheon Speaker: Brett Ingles, Boise State
University speaking on the Analysis of the Secure Rural School and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 on National Forest Lands.
The Act is effectively meeting its stated purposes as set
forth by Congress on National Forest lands. Payments have been stabilized,
investments on Federal lands have increased, and cooperative relationships have
improved since passage of the Act.
Purpose one calls for the stabilization of road and school
fund payments to counties from Title I funds. The Act stabilizes payments to
those counties that choose to opt in because a predetermined amount of funding
is available to individual counties on an annual basis.
550 of 717 eligible counties opted
in to the Act when first given the opportunity in FY 2001. An additional 65
eligible counties opted in to the Act in FY2003, bring the total to 615 of 717
eligible counties, or 85.8%. The counties that opted in represent 39 of the 41
states with eligible counties as well as Puerto Rico.
Purpose two calls for additional investments and employment
opportunities on or adjacent to Federal lands from Title II projects. Projects
on Federal lands have increased in both number and funding amount from the
inception of the Act to the present. The Act’s effect on job creation requires
further study.
At least 1,168 Title II projects
have been recommended on or adjacent to National Forest lands by Resource
Advisory Committees during the Act’s first two years.
$88 million has bee placed into
Title II funding during the Act’s first three years, which will all be used
towards investments on or adjacent to National Forest lands. Additionally,
approximately $94 million has been placed into Title III funding, a portion of
which will be used towards investments on or adjacent to National Forest lands
Purpose three of that Act calls for improved cooperative
relationships among the people that use and care for Federal lands. Surveys
and personal interviews suggest that these relationships have improved from the
inception of the Act to the present.
On average, RAC members, Forest
Service officials, and county officials all feel that relationships between and
among these groups have improved as a result of implementation of the Act I
general and creation of Resource Advisory Groups in particular
Interviews and surveys with
individuals involved with Title II and III funding suggest support for renewal
of the Act beyond FY 2006. Brett handed out a Booklet on “Changing the
Funding Structure, An Analysis of the Secure Rural School
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 on National Forest Lands”.
DFO Gochnour will be able to obtain extra copies if needed.
Public Forum: Phil Davis asked if anyone from the
public was there to comment. No comments were received.
Completed Project: 3rd Fork Culvert
Replacement, Emmett Ranger District, Boise National Forest with Melissa Yenko
and Trisha Giambra. They thanked the RAC for there help in making this project
possible.
Two fish passage barrier culverts were replaced with
open-bottom arch culverts. The hydrologic function was restored at two
roadstream crossings. The Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Southwest Idaho RAC were in partnership. U.S. Fish and Wildlife gave a Bull
Trout Recovery Grant for $15,000 to cover contract costs. The RAC gave $70,000
for contract costs and the Forest Service did the field work, engineering design,
NEPA, Section 7 Consultation, and permit acquisition which equaled $8,900 and
contract cost that equaled $54,101.
Construction bids were solicited competitively and two bids
were received. The one selected was A&R Excavation of Mackay, Idaho for
$139,101.80. Local expenditures were Pre-cast Concrete Footings—LAR-KEN,
Incorporated of Boise, Idaho for $44,600. Metal plate arches were from Contech
Construction Products in Boise for $45,080, Rip-Rap stream simulation rock and
roadway aggregate was from a supplier out of Ola, Idaho for $8,000. One local
laborer was hired for one month the help with the project.
Project Log#: 05014
Project Name: Renwyck Creek Culvert Replacement
Project Sponsor: Trisha Giambra and Melissa Yenko,
Emmett Ranger District, Boise National
Forest
This is a watershed restoration and fish habitat restoration
project. The project proposes to replace a culvert that currently serves as a
migratory barrier to bull trout within adjunct bull trout habitat. Renwyck
Creek is a tributary to the Second Fork of Squaw Creek and is located northwest
of Emmett, Idaho. Surveys in 2002 discovered an isolated population of bull
trout in Renwyck Creek above the culvert. Replacement of the existing
corrugated metal culvert would support the recover of the weak population of
bull trout with the creek core area (Southwest Recovery Unit) as identified
within the Draft Recovery Plan for Bull Trout (USFWS 2002). This local
population is one of the only 3 local populations in the creek core area. This
core area is isolated from other core areas in the SW Idaho Recovery Unit by
unsuitable downstream habitat, therefore maintaining and improving connectivity
within the creek core area is a critical component to the success of the
species locally. This project proposes to replace the existing culvert with an
open bottom structure in order to provide fish passage and restore hydrologic
function.
John Gebhards ask if this project was tied to any upcoming
projects for timber sales. The answer was no. Ed Mansfield stated that if the
$15,000 grant was received from U.S. Fish and Wildllife would the $15,000 be
taken off the $55,000 requested from the RAC. The answer was yes.
Phil Davis stated that they had mentioned there were 10 top
priority culvert replacements. He wanted to know if they were all on the Boise
National Forest. The answer was yes.
John McCarthy stated that it might be helpful to see the big
picture, to get a sense of accomplishment of what the forest is trying to do.
Joe Hinson stated that he would like to get a list for the RAC on the
priorities and why they are priorities to the forest. John Erickson, District
Ranger and Emmett and DFO Gochnour stated that they could arrange for an
overall view at a future meeting to show the whole culvert inventory and
replacement program.
Bob Baker asked if anyone had looked at reconturing the
streambeds at the bottom of the culvert instead of doing a replacement.
Trisha Giambra stated that the pipe is also constricting the stream causing it
not to have a proper flow through the pipe. When the stream level drops the
outlet drops. They need to encompass the full stream flow at the bank full
width—so the problem doesn’t continue to happen.
Scot Stouder stated that the fish movement wasn’t looked at when the culverts
were put in. They were constructed for water flow only. He felt that
replacing the culverts to increase fish passage was one of the biggest bangs
for the buck for fish species preservation.
Randy Harrison suggested the project be sent to Part 1
analysis.
Part I evaluation:
|
Matching
Funds
|
Multiple
Benefits
|
Affordable
|
Completed in
One Year or
Annual
Increments
|
Long-term
Benefits
|
Finite
Project
|
Admin
Costs
|
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
N
|
Randy Harrison made a motion to
move on to Part 2 of the evaluation criteria. Ed Mansfield seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Part 2 Evaluation
|
Multiple
Benefits
|
Community
Stability &
Job Opps
|
Cooperative
Relations
|
Benefit/
Cost &
Affordable
|
Project
Quality &
Coord
|
Matching
Funds
|
Urgency
To
Implement
|
Tangible
Outcome
|
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
2.5
|
5
|
Part 2 of the Evaluation Criteria equaled 32.5
Dale Hanson stated that he thought the project was supposed
to go to a local contractor. Melissa Yenko stated that the local contractor
pulled out at the last minute.
Lois Van Hoover said she could agree to the project if they
used a local contractor and the $15,000 (if received from the USFWS grant)
comes off the $55,000 total given by the RAC so that the new total would be
$40,000.
It was stated that the project had been presented and
supported by the Gem County Commissioners, but the district did not have a
letter to that affect.
Randy Harrison made a motion to
fund project 05014. Joe Hinson seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Project Log#: 05012
Project Name: Silver Creek Replacement
Project Sponsor: Wayne Stephens, Owner Silver Creek
Plunge
This project is to replace the current bridge structure that
provides access to the Silver Creek Plunge, Peace Valley Homeowners
Association, and public land managed by the Forest Service across Silver
Creek. The current ridge is constructed with a rail-car superstructure on
concrete abutments. There are inadequate conditions within the structure, the
outriggings and the abutments. Rail-car bridges are expressively prohibited on
roads under Forest Service jurisdiction. The replacement of this bridge with a
structure that meets current standards include safe access to public and
private lands, a long-term solution resulting in less maintenance needs and a
reduction of liability risk.
Phil Davis asked about the statement that the bridge is
under Forest Service jurisdiction. What does that mean?
T. J. Clifford, from Emmett Ranger District, stated that the
bridge is on Forest Service land—but the private land owners originally put in
the bridge. John Erickson stated the bridge does not meet Forest Service
standards for public use to reach the campsites on the other side and that the
Forest Service would own the new bridge.
Bob Baker wanted to know who maintains the road. It was
stated that Wayne Stephens maintains the road from the main road to is
campsites through a special use permit.
Lois Van Hoover stated that the bridge even in option 2,
which states a 20’ bridge, was still not wide enough. She stated that the
Valley County Fire mitigation plan requires bridges to have 20’ of drivable
space and that means the bridge would have to be 24’ wide.
John McCarthy asked what happened to the plan to thin timber
in the area. John Erickson stated that did not happen. That they are going to
try and sell some timber in that area this year, but there will not be any
logging trucks crossing the bridge.
Joe Hinson stated that he would like to see a map of the
location of the roads and private land, etc in the area. He would like to see
the project come back with recalculations on costs with the bridge needing to
be 24’ wide instead of 20’ by the Valley County Mitigation Plan.
Scott Stouder stated that he was still confused about public
access and where that was exactly.
Phil Davis stated that the committee needs more information
and asked if they could get with the Commissioners discuss it with them, get
more answers to the questions asked already and how it affects the economy and
how many people are employed. Get a good map to look at the accesses, etc with
the relationship between cabin owners, plunge and public access, etc. Then
bring the project back in to the RAC with more answers.
Project Log#: 05017 (Part 1 only)
Project Name: Idaho City Park Erosion Control
Project Sponsor: John Roberts, City of Idaho City Parks
& Recreation Commission Chair
This is a road maintenance and watershed restoration
project. This project is to safeguard land health and water quality with
improved erosion and sediment controls and economically benefits the
community. It will benefit the community in the short-term by using local
materials and contractors for the initial improvements and in the long-term by
providing easy access to directly experience and learn about the forest
ecosystems. The park is on BLM land along the Ponderosa Pine Scenic Byway
within an hour’s drive of Idaho’s most populated area and will serve as a model
doorway to the Boise National Forest. It is anticipated that the improved
parking areas and entries will encourage the day traveler to stop and explore
the park, provide equestrians with an easy access area to trailer their horses
to, unload and ride, and provide a site for families to picnic, explore and
learn about the forest around them.
The project includes improving two Highway 21 approaches and
constructing three more under permit from the Idaho Department of Transportation,
applying stable surfacing material to all drivable surfaces within the park,
improving drainage structures to accommodate increased overland flow and
revegetation of any remaining disturbed sites with native and/or low
maintenance plants.
John Cramer asked if there will be any RV sites. The answer
was no because there are already several in the area. Tom Glass asked if the
RV dump would use City of Idaho City sewer and water. The answer was yes.
John Cramer asked if any NEPA was required. It was done for the HUD Grant and
is complete.
Tom Glass made a motion to move
to Part 2. Lois Van Hoover seconded the motion and the motion carried.
Project Log#: 05015
Project Name: South Fork Wildfire Road Improvement
Project Sponsor: Ronn Julian, Cascade Ranger
District, Boise National Forest
This project is to reduce sediment delivery from the
existing road system. The road system provides access to the Paradise Valley
Summer Home Area, access to a telephone and power utility corridor, as well as access
to Trail #4086 and numerous dispersed campsites. This road system crosses
numerous tributaries of the South Fork Salmon River.
This project would include the reshaping of the roadbed,
reshaping of existing drainage structures and areas with drainage problems,
installation of drainage structures, installation of a low water ford, and
placement of crushed aggregate on the Old Knox Road #401, Cabin Creek Road
#467, and the Paradise Valley road #488. This work would be completed using a
private contractor.
Joe Hinson asked if there was a timber sale associated with
the area. Ronn Julian stated there was 5 million board feet, but almost 4 of
it are only accessible by helicopter. John McCarthy stated that there was a
saw log sale associated with it but it didn’t sell.
Phil Davis asked if the road work is done, would the timber sell?
Ronn Julian stated that if the road work was done in two or three months in
summer of 05 it might be offered up again.
John McCarthy stated that Suzanne Rainville, the Deputy
Forest Supervisor said that this was not a high priority area for restoration
on roads. So, why are we looking at this now as a priority?? It looks like
just a way to get a timber sale. Ronn Julian stated that the road is used as
a utility corridor for powerlines and Paradise Valley summer homes. The fire
that burned the area in August 2003 changed the way the Forest Service looks at
the area now.
Phil Davis asked why there was an EIS. Ronn Julian stated
for road improvement, timber sale and the restoration of the watershed. Phil
suggested the project go to Part 1.
Part I evaluation:
|
Matching
Funds
|
Multiple
Benefits
|
Affordable
|
Completed in
One Year or
Annual
Increments
|
Long-term
Benefits
|
Finite
Project
|
Admin
Costs
|
|
N
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y
|
Y under 10%
|
Lois Van Hoover made a motion to move to Part
2. Joe Hinson seconded the
motion.
Scott Stouder stated that he can see the benefit for water
quality, the road is used for a lot of communication lines and homeowners and
the stream foards are definitely important.
Joe Hinson stated that the timber is not attractive to
buyers now because the quality is not very good. So that’s not a big issue.
Phil Davis wanted to know if the timber never sells, what
happens to the road work?
Ronn Julian stated that they are committed to doing the
roadwork. Something else will have to drop of the list and the Forest will
have to get it done somehow.
Bob Baker stated that the road needs to be fixed.
Bob Baker made a motion (the second
one) to move to Part 2. Dale Hanson seconded the motion and the motion
carried.
Part 2 Evaluation
|
Multiple
Benefits
|
Community
Stability &
Job Opps
|
Cooperative
Relations
|
Benefit/
Cost &
Affordable
|
Project
Quality &
Coord
|
Matching
Funds
|
Urgency
To
Implement
|
Tangible
Outcome
|
|
4.5
|
3
|
3
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
Part 2 of the Evaluation Criteria equaled 29.5
John McCarthy stated that his organization appealed the
salvage sale it has economic value and should pay for itself. There are two
alternatives—do nothing or do a timber sale. His organization said it should
have been an alternative restoration project. He stated that he found it
difficult to vote in favor. He feels that he was not given an accurate picture
during the appeal.
Lois Van Hoover stated that no matter what it was before, it
is a restoration project now and the road needs to be fixed.
Lois Van Hoover motioned that
the project be brought to vote to approve funding. Dale Hanson seconded the
motion.
The vote was called for. John McCarthy and Randy Harrison
opposed the project. Phil stated that there was a majority with 3 out of 5 in
each group voting for the project.
John McCarthy wanted to break up into small groups and
discuss the project before tallying the final vote.
Reconvene after small group discussion:
Scott Stouder stated that he was concerned that this project
was not just a pure restoration project and he could see where the utility
company should put money into this project.
Lois Van Hoover stated that regardless of the EIS decision
project—this is a water quality project that needs to be done.
John McCarthy stated that he could not support this project.
Scott Stouder stated that this is not a restoration project,
it is a timber sale project.
Lois Van Hoover stated again that regardless of the utility
lines or the remote possibility of a timber sale—it is a water quality issue.
Phil Davis stated that the County Commissioners supported
this project and that it would have paid for itself, but there is no mill
available any more and now all the timber is helicopter logging. He asked
again, Ronn would you have to restore the roads anyway without a timber sale?
Ronn Julian stated that the Forest has already made the
investment in NEPA, consultation, the design is complete and they still need to
do the work. It has to be done to capture the investment they have put into
the project.
Dale Henson stated that as a former County Commissioner and
there are 4 or 5 involved in this RAC that have supported this RAC to benefit
all the counties in the state of Idaho to improve water quality, etc. This is
a water quality issue. Something has to be done to benefit the streams.
Ronn Julian stated that the utility company had spent money
on restoring the line due to the fire with no profits from that line—they
volunteered and helped during the BAER and helped where they could. He does
not anticipate receiving any funds from them for the road.
Joe Hinson asked Scott why he wouldn’t support the project
when it was clearly stated as a restoration project.
Scott Stouder stated that because question 12 was marked
that there would be merchantable material he could not support the project.
Joe Hinson stated that a 2 or 3 man crew out of Idaho City
to gather house logs is why Ronn had marked question 12 as “yes”.
John McCarthy stated you view it as a restoration watershed
project. I am voting against it because of my organizations history. He said
he felt like the public was getting scammed.
Lois Van Hoover asked to vote one more time.
Scott Stouder stated that he was still confused.
Lois Van Hoover stated that the existing sale in the upper
units benefited by this project was a small house logs project which was just 3
guys out of Idaho City and they might not be able to obtain part of their sale
unless the road was fixed.
Phil Davis called for a revote
by role call. Project 05015 failed due to 3 “no” votes in group B.
v
Decisions made during this meeting:
- To accept the minutes and
financial report as written
- To have Project 04027, Noxious
Weed Virtual Website brought back in for Part 2
consideration
- Increase the cost request on
Project 05013, Joint Weed Control Facility, by $11,164
- To extend Project 04024 by one
year, Boise Peak Trails on Mountain Home Ranger
District
- To fund Project 05014, Renwyck
Culvert Replacement on Emmett Ranger District
- Not to approve Project 05012 at
this time, Silver Creek Bridge on the Emmett Ranger
District, they will come back
with questions and maps
- To approve to move to Part 2 of
Project 05017, Sediment Reduction/Boise Basin
Recreation Area in Idaho City,
they will bring in Part 2 for consideration
- Disapprove Project 05015, SF
Wildfire Salvage Road Improvements for Cascade
Ranger District
Phil Davis stated that the next
meeting would be Wednesday, February 16, 2005. The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
