SW Idaho Resource Advisory Committee

Minutes

February 15, 2006

 

 

Attendees

SW Idaho RAC Members:  Phil Davis (RAC Chairperson), Lois Van Hoover, Sandra Mitchell, John Gebhards, Tom Glass, Bob Baker, Dale Hanson, Scott Stouder, Randy Harrison

 

Designated Federal Officer:  Doug Gochnour

 

Others:  Andy Brunelle (Legislative Affairs, USFS), Joey Pearson (Recorder)

 

 

Welcome, Meeting Objectives and Agenda Review

 

• Chair, Phil Davis, called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.
• Doug reviewed agenda for today.
• Add Coalition in Reno to today’s meeting agenda.
• Doug apologized for cancellation of the January meeting caused by snow and bad driving conditions. 
• Still waiting for formal approval on replacement for Ed Mansfield (Terry Gestrin). We will work as if this is already done.  There was no objection from the team.  Brad Little is aware of this transition.
• There is a Draft Report from the Sierra Institute.  Copies are available.  It is too late to comment.

 

 

Review and approval of November 29 meeting minutes

 

Randy Harrison motioned to accept minutes as written.

John Gebhards seconded the motion.

Minutes were accepted as written.

 

 

Approval of RAC Expenses

 

Doug Gochnour went over monthly expenses for the last meeting.  Expenses for the November 29, 2005, meeting were $733.70.

 

Randy Harrison motioned to approve

Lois Van Hoover seconded motion

Expenses Approved

 

 

RAC Funding Balance Update

 

RAC reviewed the funding balance update.  Doug met with Mary Beth Knox.  We are within less than 1% difference in amounts.  Thinks her figures are correct.  Balance as of today is $495,352 (based on projects that are approved).  Next month he will be able to give us savings on over-budgeted items.  Some projects are coming in less than projected.

 

 

Project Log Update

 

The team reviewed the Project Log and projects to be presented today. 

 

 

Review of Project Proposals

 

 

Amount Requested = $46,175.00

 

This project was presented at the November 29, 2005 meeting.  It was brought back for more clarification regarding vehicle cost and establishing a consistent rate of pay (State minimum wage $5.15/hr vs. GS-1 @ $7.84/hr).

 

• Doug stated that the Chief’s Office has approved paying YCC enrollees an amount in excess of state minimum wage.  A letter is being processed.
• Larry encouraged RAC to establish wage rate/crew cost for all units.
• They have eliminated vehicle costs ($4,000) from their request. 
• Doug stated that other YCCs are being paid at a GS-1 pay level ($7.84/hr).  The Payette is having a hard time recruiting in places like McCall because the pay is higher there. 
• Larry mentioned they don’t have recruitment issues in Mountain Home.  They always have plenty of applicants for these jobs.
• Baker suggested we stop micro-managing these projects and pay whatever we need to pay to get the project done. 
• Davis said it was decided at the November meeting we wanted to gain consistency between locations for these projects.

 

After some discussion, it was decided RAC would allow District Rangers the flexibility to do what they need to get projects done.  Rate of pay would be decided at a Forest/local level.  Pay in excess of minimum wage if you need to pay more (i.e. Valley County).

 

Mountain Home YCC project will remain at minimum wage ($5.15/hr).  $32,293 is the new amount requested (this takes into account the 7.5%).

 

Bob Baker – Motioned to approve the project at $32,293 (including the 7.5% for benefits)

Sandra Mitchell – Seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $75,500.00

 

This project is brought back to correct discrepancy of showing $22,100 on Table 1 and $18,000 on Page 3.  Also, equipment should be furnished by the Forest Service.

 

This second proposal removes administrative costs.

 

Has RAC funded similar projects over the years?

• RAC funded 3 projects.  (Mark described 3 projects listed)

Why is the cost so high, i.e. $1100/acre? 

• It depends on what type of material is being thinned.  Also because of burn specifications around summer homes or highly traveled corridor of Warm Lake.

Why doesn’t the Forest Service trade work for materials from private interest/company?

• Post and poles are of interest to private individuals.  Timeframes are of importance – the work has to be done early in spring to get work done by June in order to burn by October.  There’s not a great deal of interest for post and poles on the District.  There is little or no interest commercially.  Breaking it down by acres for individuals can be a nightmare to get it done within timeframes.  They also have problems with quality of work – they usually have to go in and clean up a mess afterward.

Would a private contractor cost less and be worth the effort? 

• Have used this in the past and found that private contractors didn’t have enough experience in hand piling (primary issue).  We ended up spending more on burning the piles.

 

Hanson thinks the Forest Service is putting too many restrictions on these small sales. 

Harrison thinks we are going beyond the philosophy of what we’re here for, i.e. micro-managing. 

Lois Van Hoover asked who will do this work. 

• Mulching will be private contractor.  Hand thinning will be Forest Service seasonal workforce.

 

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	3	4	3	4	0	5	5

 

 

Randy Harrison motioned to approve

John Gebhards seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $75,000

(Dana Weigel and Janet Hohle connected via speaker phone.)

 

Funds requested for this project will be used to hire local surveyors to collect necessary topographic survey data necessary to design and assess river restoration projects for long term stability.  The project is a multi-agency coordinated effort to identify and implement river restoration projects in the lower mainstem Little Salmon. The project will assess sediment sources to the river, such as level of contribution from highway road fill, various tributaries, and adjacent private land, and will identify and design river restoration projects that will restore fisheries habitat in the river.  ESA listed fish utilize stream reaches on the forest land as well as on the mainstem river to complete their life cycle. The river and fishery resources provide a large economic benefit to the local communities. 

 

Project will examine river corridor for river restoration strategy.  Will also go for other agencies for funding to do projects to stabilize channels and reduce sediment loading in the Little Salmon basin.

 

• Protection of private property along the river
• Popular recreation and tribal area (fishing/tourist)
• Expands N-S highway system
• Hydrologic stabilization within the channel

 

Sources for other funding for this project include US Bureau of Reclamation, State of Idaho (DEQ, IDWR, SCC, DOT), Trout Unlimited, and a FWS grant.

 

Request is for $75,000 for surveyors to collect topographic data to do conceptual design over the next 2 years.  It does not involve implementation of actual projects.

 

They have received a letter of interest from Idaho County and have forwarded it to Doug.  The project area is also in Adams County (2/3 Idaho County, 1/3 Adams County).  They have not briefed Adams County.  The total cost of this project is about $200,000.

 

This proposal involves pre-analysis and design (engineers), working with landowners to get their agreement, develop alternatives.

 

 

Stouder asked if they had approached the State Highway Dept. for planning. 

• There are two highway districts involved (Boise and Lewiston).  They have been approached but don’t have funds unless it’s tied directly to a project.

Van Hoover asked if all landowner agreements are in place.

• No, they would go in and find willing landowners and work from there. 

Glass asked how much land is private, how much public? 

• There is quite a bit of state & BLM land along the river.  It is probably 40% public (guess).

Baker asked how they fund projects once the study is complete.

• Not with RAC funds.  Implementation will be paid by the 319 process, Salmon Recovery Funding, BPA dollars, Idaho Soil and Conservation District.  They are looking at a 3-year window.  The problem is finding money to do engineering and planning beforehand. 

Van Hoover asked if this is consistent with RAC statute. 

• RAC funds projects that occur or benefit National Forest resources.  This benefits resources (salmon/steelhead).

Stouder asked what kind of projects would come out of this? 

• They are looking at actively eroding sites.  The flood in 1997 severely damaged private property, and diminished fish habitat in the channel.  They are looking at stabilization of these deposits (floodplains, sedimentation, wetlands, side channels, houses were washed out, the river changed its course).

Hanson asked about the Corps of Engineers and their participation.

• They do wetland restoration, floods, etc. but are not very active on this area.  They do not work with design work.

 

Dana explained that Bureau of Reclamation has a group specializing in river restoration (Columbia River Basin).  RAC funding would only be used for local survey engineers.  RAC funds would not be used to pay government employees.  This would be a 2-year survey approach.  There would also be a FWS improvement grant.

 

It appears the application process is not clear to the applicant.  They need some guidance how to do this.  Scott Stouder will contact Dana Weigel and obtain more information regarding this project.  We need a broad picture, a better understanding of what the overall project will do, what it will look like.

 

Bob Baker motioned to postpone the proposal and bring back to another meeting

Scott Stouder seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to table

 

Luncheon Speaker

 

Jack Bell, Nez Perce Tribe, Bio-Control Program made a presentation on how they provide bio-control for noxious weeds on private and public lands.

 

Public Forum

 

Phil Davis asked if anyone from the public wished to comment.  No comments were received.

 

 

Review of Project Proposals (cont.)

 

 

Amount Requested = $15,111.41

 

This project would provide necessary deferred maintenance on non-motorized trails within the Hell’s Canyon Seven Devils Scenic Area and construct a 20 foot, three-stringer foot bridge.  Reduce erosion into Kinney, Allison and Eckels Creeks by improving trail tread, constructing bridges and installing water bars.

 

It also provides directional signs, designates parking areas, and provides maps at each trailhead to help insure user’s safety and better protect the unique desert environment of Hell’s Canyon.

 

The question came up….why use NYC over YCC?  The Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) is more experienced in working with bridge projects than YCC.  Also, YCC tends to be younger, more inexperienced workers.

 

NEPA is complete for this project.

 

John B. feels he will get some state grant money.  Blasting and bridge work is very expensive. 

These trails haven’t been maintained for about 3 years.  If anything, just very light maintenance over 15 years.

 

RAC funds would be used for NYC wages for (2) two weeks in Hells Canyon.

 

This is being presented as a joint funding project.  They would put up signs showing how this project was funded.

 

Lois Van Hoover motioned to go to Part II

Randy Harrison seconded the motion

Unanimous approval

 

Lois then asked what the $1,000 under Indirect Costs is for.  Brant stated this is to cover overhead costs (12.5%), and that none of this goes to pay government salary.  NYC operates as a contractor.

 

Lois Van Hoover motioned to approve project without Part 2

Randy Harrison seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $132,000.00

 

This project is to construct a bridge across Steamboat Creek where FDR #370 crosses the creek, which currently is an open ford.  The objectives of this project are:

 

1. Address concerns about Steamboat Ford negatively affecting water quality and fish habitat conditions in Steamboat Creek
2. Upgrade road infrastructure and general public access to the Steamboat Creek area on National Forest System Road #370 (Steamboat Creek Road)
3. Improve access to the Lucky Ben Mine (located on adjacent private property) where a patented mining claim is under development.

 

The bridge will be a 28-foot treated timber structure with an asphalt surface.  Once the bridge is completed, the ford will be rehabilitated.  Installation would be performed by a private contractor, not Forest Service personnel.  They are asking that 72% of the total cost be funded by RAC.  NEPA is completed for this project.  This is suitable habitat for steelhead.  This bridge is sufficient to handle traffic from mining or logging operations.  It is a low profile bridge, but can effectively handle high water runoff.

 

Part 1 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

 

Tom Glass motioned to move to Part 2

Sandra Mitchell seconded motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
5	4	5	4	4	2	4	5

 

Randy Harrision motioned to approve

Sandra Mitchell seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $15,233.00

 

Paul Rekow reviewed other completed weed treatment projects (funded by RAC).

 

The proposed project is to purchase an 8-wheel ATV and spray equipment, enhancing Boise County Weed Control’s ability to treat noxious weeds on both public and private lands. The proposed ATV would have an 1150 pound load capacity, increasing the capacity to haul water and herbicide mixtures allowing extended time and distance between refills.  The increased capacity is expected to significantly reduce the time and distance traveled required to treat noxious weeds. By maintaining the current workforce and increasing efficiency Boise County Weed Control will be able to treat more acres or miles of trail and decrease the cost per acre of weed treatment.

 

They would be required to obtain special permission to use trails as this machine is too large to qualify as an ATV.  This would apply only to the County, not to the public at large.

 

Bob Baker motioned to move to Part 2

Dale Hanson seconded the motion

Unanimous approval

 

Randy Harrison motioned to approve without Part 2

Scott Stouder seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $80,000 for FY07

 

Brett reviewed Silver Creek Plunge Bridge Replacement project funded last year.

There will be approximately $40,000 of money that was not used for this project and will be returned to RAC fund.

 

This proposal is to replace the East Fork Big Pine Creek Bridge.  Total cost for this bridge on Scott Mountain Road would be about $185,000.  This bridge gets lots of recreation use on the Forest.  The existing bridge is 53 years old.

 

The purpose and need is to maintain existing access, restore load capacity, improve user safety, reduce erosion from the existing roadway, provide stream clearance for flood events, and to reduce future maintenance costs.  Construction will be looking at timber abutments with timber beams going across.  They are not bringing in a crane to this area.

 

Dale Hanson asked what if the road fails between here and the bridge. 

• Don’t know….it would depend on the extent of the damage.

Stouder asked what the old bridge is made out of.

• It is treated timber.  There is moderate rot in all wood parts.  It is difficult to determine the lifespan or load of a bridge when they start showing signs of rot. 

 

John Erickson needs to send a letter off to the County Commissioners.

 

Part 1 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	N

Randy Harrison motioned to move to Part 2

Lois Van Hoover seconded motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
5	5	5	5	4	0	4	5

 

Randy Harrison motioned to approve

Tom Glass seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

Review of Annual RAC Report Draft

Linda Steinhaus, Dave Olson

 

Dave Olson presented a pamphlet/handout that describes:

 

• Who is the RAC?
• What do they do?
• Project funded by RAC
• How to apply for funding

 

These will be available on the Forests/Districts as well as for visits with outside groups.  Everyone gave feedback on the format of this pamphlet.  Minor changes will be made. 

Lois Van Hoover will provide an electronic mailing list for mailing of this pamphlet.

 

 

Update on Re-authorization

 

Many of you have probably heard in the news, or through e-mail traffic that the Presidents Budget submitted to Congress proposes to make available approximately 300,000 acres of national forest land for conveyance as a means to fund the Rural School and Community Self Determination Act. 

 

The Boise National Forest has approximately 7400 acres proposed as part of the national total.  These sites meet the national objective of considering isolated and separate parcels.  Most of our acres are on the Mountain Home Ranger District (south end).

 

The Rural School and Community Self Determination Act (also referred to as the Craig-Wyden Bill), signed into law in Oct, 2000, established a means to help fund rural county school and road programs on a more consistent basis due to the decline in federal revenues from the 25% fund - largely due to the reduction in timber harvest levels.  The funds in the past 6 years have come from appropriated dollars.  The Act also established the Resource Advisory Committees. 

 

If Congress doesn’t reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, it will expire at the end of this year.

 

 

Next RAC meeting

 

There is no RAC conference this year.  The Reno meeting (April 7-9) deals with public lands, socio/economic issues.  Make reservations at the Nugget in Sparks as soon as possible to get the group rate.

 

Next RAC meeting – March 23^rd

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm