SW Idaho Resource Advisory Committee

Minutes

March 23, 2006

 

 

Attendees

SW Idaho RAC Members:  Phil Davis (RAC Chairperson), Lois Van Hoover, Terry Gestrin, Sandra Mitchell, John Cramer, John Gebhards, Tom Glass, Dale Hanson, Scott Stouder, David Whaley, John McCarthy, Joe Hinson

 

Designated Federal Officer:  Doug Gochnour

 

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

 

 

Welcome, Meeting Objectives and Agenda Review

 

• Chair, Phil Davis, called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m.
• Doug reviewed agenda for today.
• Talk about summer field trip – possibly Warm Lake/Deadwood area?

 

 

Review and approval of February 15 meeting minutes

 

Dale Hanson motioned to accept minutes as written

Dave Whaley seconded the motion

Minutes were accepted as written

 

 

Approval of RAC Expenses

 

Nobody sent in a voucher for mileage for last month’s meeting.  Doug has the forms if you need one.

 

 

RAC Funding Balance Update

 

Mary Beth Knox confirmed a current balance of $252,000 for FY2006, plus carryover of $701,000 from FY2005.  There is no authority from OMB to spend carryover yet. 

 

Dave Whaley motioned to approve

Lois Van Hoover seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

Project Log Update

 

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

 

 

Review of Project Proposals

 

 

Amount Requested = $55,000.00

 

Project Description: This is a continuation of last month’s presentation (via conference call).  Funds requested 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.

(See minutes from February 15 meeting)

 

This is a request for land survey for “pre-design” work for this project.  They would perform these surveys in 2006 and 2007.

 

Have you presented to Adams County commissioners?

• Yes, they recently made a presentation to Adams County and should have a letter of recommendation from them anytime.  Watershed Advisory Group (WAG) will convene to look at the proposal.  Once TMDL is approved, they will develop an implementation plan.  They should have that within the next week.

 

There was discussion about whether this project meets the intent of RAC.  Doug has discussed this project with the Acting Forest Supervisor on the Payette NF, and he is fine with the project.  These funds are to be spent on projects that benefit forest system resources, i.e. salmon and steelhead.  This project meets that need.

 

Questions were asked about the Idaho Transportation Department.  What do they have in mind for this area and how could their actions affect this project?

• That is why they are coordinating with everyone.  DOT is a big player in what happens in that river corridor.  They are working closely with them.  They ensure this project is protected over the long term.  Now is the time to work with DOT on implementation of projects that are 5-10 years out.  This is preliminary model survey work.  This is in the developmental stage.  This is an interface to bring all other things together.

 

This river corridor is a complex area, involving State, Federal, DOT, private, and public land.  This complexity is what has created the problem that exists today.  RAC could jumpstart this project/process.  Somebody needs to get a handle on how to manage this stretch of river.  Riggins’ economy depends on fishing to survive.

 

Why are we just now hearing about this?  It’s almost 10 years since the post-flood 1997 work. What is the guarantee we are going to have cooperation now?

• Most of that was emergency post-flood restoration work.  This project actually goes directly to the problem and addresses it.

 

RAC would pay for one part of pre-design.  There would be more stages of pre-design.  What says others will come if we do this?

• We currently have the funding from BOR, and are waiting to hear from FWS.  Pre-design is critical to getting grant/construction money.  This process is a domino effect.

 

We would like to see more documentation of where the dominoes fall.  Would like to see other agencies say they are behind this before we commit any money.  Something like a project cost analysis – where are all the dollars coming from?

• There are so many authorities in this corridor.  This is part of the problem.  They all know this project needs to happen, but no one agency can do it all.  Everyone has only their jurisdiction.

 

$50,000 approved BOR

$80,000 requested from FWS

$30,000 DEQ, IDWR, SCC, DOT combined

 

Why does the BOR have any interest in this project?  They don’t usually do this type of thing. 

• This is not part of the ESA program.  It is coming out of a program for State and Tribal agencies.  For BOR, this is an endangered species recovery (technical assistance) process for the Columbia River system.  They have approved $50,000 for this project.

 

All you want is survey money?

• Correct

 

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	N	Y	Y	N

 

Tom Glass motioned to move to Part 2

Sandra Mitchell seconded motion

Unanimous decision to move to Part 2

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
3	4.5	5	5	4	5	5	5

 

John Gebhards motioned to approve

David Whaley seconded the motion

Joe Hinson votes NO

Lois Van Hoover votes NO 

 

Dale Hanson – If we could get other players involved openly, upfront, then he would approve.  It’s hard to approve a study that nobody else will consider.  Completing this project is contingent upon other funding.

David Whaley – Give them an opportunity to bring the project back with a commitment from others for funding.  He wants to table this until RAC sees other agency commitments. 

 

Obtain documented funding support from other state and federal agencies that they will use this survey information provided by RAC funds, and then the project will go forward.

 

Scott Stouder– Motion to table until they go to other agencies and obtain documented funding support for the project.  RAC funding is fairly assured if they can provide.

David Whaley – Second motion to table

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

Lunch

 

Phil attended a meeting in Washington D.C. with Mark Rey and counties regarding re-authorization of Craig-Wyden legislation.  New mandatory funding has to be offset by new money, hence, the proposal to possibly sell off Forest Service/BLM land.  These Forest Service tracts of land have usually been traded off to other agencies and then sold by them.  Valley County schools and highway district will see a large loss if this funding goes away.  Selling public lands is not a popular option.  The government needs to come up with money somehow to fund schools, roads, etc. in these rural areas.

 

The message from Mark Rey was, “There needs to be a new source of funds.”  This is what brought them to suggesting a land sale.  Whether that will happen or not is still undecided.

 

 

Public Forum

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $6,960.00 (multi-fiscal year funding)

 

Project Description:  Funds are requested for the Council Learning Center (CLC), a non-profit organization, and the Council Chamber of Commerce, in partnership, to update and maintain computer equipment and internet access at the Council Community Visitor Center to facilitate dissemination of information on National Forest recreational and educational opportunities, and provide reliable internet access and telecommunication equipment (fax, copiers, printers, computer terminals) to forest visitors and community residents.

 

It is a cooperative effort between the:

Council Learning Center

Council Chamber of Commerce

Payette National Forest

US Dept of Labor (SCSP employment)

 

Regarding the photo printer?  What about paper? 

• They receive this money through donations.

 

Do you envision new equipment being more senior friendly?  Are there problems with actual operations?

• Their biggest problem is people bring in CDs and could bring in a virus, or lock up the computer.  This upgrade would allow people to do things such as use digital cameras, etc.  This center also provides classes for people to use computer equipment.

 

How is this project a benefit to the forest resource?

• This benefits the forest recreational visitor as a forest resource.  They are better educated about what is on the National Forest.

 

This sounds more like something for an Idaho Travel Council grant.  Have you checked with them?

• They have applied for other grants.  This is the third group they have applied to.

 

This project provides environmental, Forest information to travelers coming through Council.  It is a strong partnership with the City of Council, Council Learning Center, and Department of Labor to keep this Visitor Center operating.   The Forest Service owns and maintains the building.

 

David Whaley motioned to skip Parts 1 and 2 and approve

Dale Hanson seconded the motion to approve

Sandra Mitchell questioned if the project fits the RAC mission.

Scott Stouder reminded everyone this is the community and the Forest Service working together.

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $179,005.00

 

Project Description:  Project is to pave 3.65 miles beginning at approximately mm 17.5 on Harris Creek Road and continuing to just past mm 3 on Centerville Road.  The county has continued to work at upgrading and paving Harris Creek and Centerville Roads as money is available.  To date approximately 8 miles have been paved.  This is a heavily traveled roadway that lies within or serves the Boise National Forest.  They have received seven letters of support for this project.

 

Traffic is comprised of logging, school bus, local traffic, snowmobiles, and commuters to and from Boise.  It is the only road from Horseshoe Bend to Idaho City and Garden Valley.  Project includes Placerville junction and goes toward Horseshoe Bend and toward Centerville.

 

Have you applied for forest highway funds? 

• Yes.  It is very low priority on their list of projects.

 

This sounds like county road maintenance.  Where do you draw the line on projects that are another’s responsibility?  Who is responsible for maintenance of this road?

• Boise County

 

Do we know how much money Boise County has allocated to this road?

• Doug has some info on this.  Pertains to multi county, county and state projects.

 

There is concern that if we start approving pavement projects, we will have many of them applied for.  Do we know what the “per mile” maintenance cost is, i.e. what is asphalt vs. pavement cost?  If this paving isn’t kept up, if the maintenance is stopped, the road would be worse off than before the paving in the long run.

• This section has been prepared for paving, it has not been finished.  Speed is already there, the traffic is already there.  The traffic is increased now to the point where dust abatement is failing.

 

The team was reminded about county dust abatement projects in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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/N	Y	Y	Y	N

 

Tom Glass motioned to move to Part 2

David Whaley 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
4	3	5	3	5	5	4	5

 

Tom Glass motioned to approve

Dale Hanson seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $40,000.00

 

Project Description:  Pave the road from Highway 21 to Boise County Collection Site (solid waste depository).  Adjacent to the collection site is a day-use recreation site with two trout ponds.  The ponds are a popular fishing attraction, which are regularly stocked with fish by Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

 

This proposal involves laying down an aggregate base and paving the road with asphalt.  A seal coat will be applied to the asphalt.  The road lies next to the South Fork Payette River.

 

Paving the road would:

• Improve vehicle access by eliminating ruts, potholes and washboards
• Reduce road surface erosion and sediment transport to the fishing ponds and the South Fork Payette River.
• Improve existing infrastructure and reduce annual road maintenance
• Reduce dust at the fishing ponds

 

Cost share – Boise County will contribute $40,000 matching funds.  Project would be completed in less than a week (August 2006).  Boise County would do the work.  Gravel would be purchased from a source in Garden Valley.

 

This seems terribly expensive for paving.  Has anyone approached Idaho Department of Fish and Game since traffic is also to the trout ponds?

• They have not been approached.

 

The high cost has to do with trucking materials from Garden Valley.

 

Is there a maintenance agreement on this road?

• Boise County is responsible for maintenance.  Forest Service also performs maintenance.

 

What is the current road width?

• Road width with not be less than what it is now.

 

How much traffic does this stretch of road get?

• Depends on what day it is, i.e. garbage day?  In the summer, there is more traffic because of the fish ponds and more visitors to the area.

 

What about the gravel pit further on up the road on NF land.

• The gravel pit is not serviceable now.  There is no permit for that area at this time.

 

What about moving the collection site?  Is this a problem?

• The current location is a good location for a collection site (it is under a 20-year permit).  They can’t imagine getting closer to the river with a collection site.  It is a Wild & Scenic River corridor.  There is lots of dust (dust abatement), year-round use (potholes), use at fishing ponds has caused problems.

 

Is turnaround area of the parking lot included?

• No

 

Do we have a letter from County Commissioners?

• No – Boise County is part of the funding for the project.

 

Seems IDF&G should participate.  Is there a road to subdivision coming into it?

• Yes.

 

 

 

 

John McCarthy motioned to approve

Sandra Mitchell seconded the motion

David Whaley – No

 

Part 1 Evaluation

Matching   Funds	Multiple Benefits	Affordable	Completed in One Year or    Annual Increments	Long-term  Benefits	Finite Project	Admin  Costs
Y	Y/N	N	Y	Y	Y	N

 

Joe Hinson motioned to move to Part 2

Sandra Mitchell seconds motion

Unanimous decision to move to Part 2

 

Part 2 Evaluation

Multiple Benefits	Community Stability & Job Opps	Cooperative   Relations	Benefit/ Cost & Affordable	Project Quality & Coord	Matching Funds	Urgency To Implement	Tangible Outcome
2	2	5	2	3	5	4	5

 

John McCarthy motioned to approve

Sandra Mitchell seconded the motion

Whaley – No

Motion to break out into small groups for discussion

 

VOTES:

Gebhards – no

Hanson – no

Davis – no

Gestrin – no

Cramer – no

Glass – no

McCarthy – yes

Stouder – no

Hinson – no

Van Hoover – no

Mitchell – yes

Whaley – no

 

DECISION:  Project funding request for $40,000 denied

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount Requested = $13,850.00

 

Project Description: The purpose of Little Ophir Timber Marking Project is to decrease the wildfire hazard by reducing surface and ladder fuels in the dense stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer adjacent to the communities of Placerville, Centerville, and Pioneerville.  These communities were identified in the Boise County Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan and the Federal Register as Wildland Urban Interface communities.

 

The goal of this is to accomplish part of the sale preparation work by contracting out the marking of the commercial timber area.  NEPA is completed and was signed on 3/6/06.  The objective is to meet a portion of the Boise National Forest FY06 timber sale program goal.  The Forest Service has no funds/personnel to complete this project

 

Why don’t you have contractor remove trees as well?

• This is for just the marking crew to obtain an estimate of volume coming out before the sale is offered.

 

Are these sales all within the WUI?

• Yes

 

Why isn’t the Healthy Forest Restoration Act paying for this?

• The Act doesn’t come with money.  We did not get the money in our budget to get it done this year.  This is not a stewardship project.

 

Has the Board of Commissioners approved? 

• It’s not necessary for County Commissioners to prioritize projects.

 

Are the surrounding lands already treated?

• It is in the beginning stages.

 

Is this uniform timber, i.e. plantation?  Why can’t we sample mark?

• The Forest Service does not have the personnel to get this done.

 

It is suggested the project amends wording, i.e. include words about “WUI protection”, instead of “meeting timber projection”.  There were no objections to an amendment.  Also, would like to look into having the marking crew do the actual cutting.

 

Joe Hinson motioned to move approve

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

 

 

 

Amount Requested:  $3,750.00

 

Project description:  This project is for the control and mapping of invasive species on forest trails with the use of horses and horse packed spray equipment.  Approximately 175 miles of forest trails and adjacent lands will be covered.  Trails will be surveyed and treated and will include approximately 50’ (within sight) on either side of the trail.  In addition, meadows and open areas will be surveyed and treated as necessary.

 

Monitoring will be implemented by GPS mapping of existing, and in later years, new invasive species colonies.  Maps will be created showing approximate acreage, species and locations of weed colonies.

 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is paying $3,750, RAC $3,750 and FS pays $3,750. 

 

This work will be contracted.  Elmore County will be sending a letter of recommendation.

 

The first sentence of project description states “Invasive species first enter roadless areas through human activity such as hiking and motorcycling.”  Please change wording to reflect that weeds enter through other activities also, not just “human activity”.

 

David Whaley motioned to approve

Lois Van Hoover seconded the motion

Unanimous decision to approve

 

 

Next RAC meeting

 

Don’t forget the meeting in Reno, NV on April 7

Next RAC meeting will be here Thursday, April 20

 

Meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm