Minutes from SW Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

April 21, 2004                                                          Boise, Idaho

 

In attendance:

SW Idaho RAC Members/Replacements: Phil Davis (Chairperson), Tom Glass, John Cramer, Bob Baker, Dale Hanson, David Whaley, John Gebhards, Darel Harris, Lois Van Hoover, John McCarthy, Ed Mansfield and Sandra Mitchell

Designated Federal Officer:  Randy Swick

Others:  Nate Helm (Sen. Larry Craig’s office), Jake Ball (Sen. Mike Crapo’s Office), Josh Tewalt (Congressman Butch Otter’s Office), Brett Ingles (BSU-ESPRI), Boyd Hartwig (Payette National Forest), Andy Brunelle (Legislative Affairs, USFS), Tom Hass (Cascade Ranger District), Glenn Blickenstaff (Cascade Ranger District), Deb Murray (Mountain Home Ranger District), Larry Donohoo (Mountain Home Ranger District), Michelle Youngquist (Project Learning Tree), Alexis Collins (Project Learning Tree), ________ Owens (BLM-NIFC, Project Learning Tree).

 

ü      Chairperson Phil Davis called the meeting to order at 10:38 a.m. DFO Randy Swick indicated that a quorum was present for conducting routine business, but not for recommending proposed projects to the Forest Supervisor.

 

ü      Chair Davis announced that Bob Coats had resigned from the RAC. DFO Swick read a resignation letter from Bob, who indicated that he had enjoyed being a part of the RAC. Bob stated in the letter that it was no longer practical for him to remain on the RAC because he was no longer working in the local area.

 

ü      DFO Swick recommended Randy Harrison be moved back to Sub-group A from Sub-group B to fill the vice Coats position.  He had originally been the replacement for Sub-group A, and had not yet served on Sub-group B.  DFO Swick had reviewed this recommendation with Andy Brunelle and Randy Harrison. 

 

ü      A motion to return Randy Harrison to Subgroup A was made by Darel Harris and seconded by Ed Mansfield. The motion passed unanimously.

 

ü      Chair Davis routed a public notice that showed Title III disbursements from Washington County. The information was for general awareness in keeping with the language of the authorizing legislation, and did not require any official action by RAC members.

 

ü      Chair Davis asked for feedback from RAC members who participated in the recent National RAC workshop and NFCSC Conference in Reno. Lois said she found the workshop very beneficial. She said she had the opportunity to discuss with other RAC members a range of issues regarding small diameter material, and enjoyed presentations by Doug Crandall and Frank Gladics at the NFCSC Conference on reauthorization of the Craig-Wyden legislation.  Sandra said the information sharing was very beneficial, and appreciated the question of one participant who posed the question, “but are we creating jobs?”  She found the NFCSC Conference topics less relevant, but appreciated the presentations by Crandall and Gladics.  Tom Glass said he found the workshop short but good.  He enjoyed the NFCSC Conference topic on stewardship contracting, and the presentation by the founder of Evergreen.  But he to found it difficult to find other topics of interest.  Dale Hanson thought it was one of the best NFCSC Conferences he had attended, and particularly enjoyed the presentation by the Governor of Montana.  Lois said there were also discussions about RAC accomplishment reports and their importance in RAC reauthorization by Congress.

 

Chair Davis asked if those who participated felt it would be good to expand the workshop, including an evening meal together.  All agreed.  He felt it was a good Conference.  He worked with the NFCSC Board of Directors on re-authorization strategies.  He also said the Board was still concerned with the issue of decoupling, and maintaining local government involvement in public land management.  Chair Davis asked anyone with ideas for next year’s conference to let him know.

 

DFO Swick outlined the process for claiming reimbursement for authorized travel expenses to the RAC Workshop.

 

ü      Chair Davis noted that with the arrival of John McCarthy, there was now a quorum for recommending proposed projects to the Forest Supervisor. 

 

ü      Chair Phil Davis asked if anyone had corrections or additions to the February 18, 2004 meeting minutes. Darel Harris noted that Randy Harrison’s name was misspelled on pages 11 and 12. DFO Swick noted the correction.

 

A motion to approve the minutes, as corrected, from the February 18, 2004 RAC meeting was made by David Whaley and seconded by Sandra Mitchell.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

ü      DFO Swick provided an update on the Monthly Meeting Expense Report from the February 18, 2004 meeting.  The report included travel and per diem costs for RAC members, and associated meeting expenses.  The February meeting expenses totaled $492.65. 

 

A motion to approve expenditures from the February 18, 2004 RAC meeting was made by David Whaley and seconded by Darel Harris.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

ü      DFO Swick provided a Title II funding balance update.  He said the RAC had approximately $960,000 remaining to allocate for the current fiscal year. 

 

ü      DFO Swick gave an update on the FY’04 project log, including project proposals received since the February 18, 2004 RAC meeting.

 

ü      Chair Davis asked members to review the minutes from the February 18 meeting regarding the use of Title II funds to fund federal agency project administrative support costs (line items d, e, and f on the Form Part 2 Cost Analysis Table).  This issue had been left unresolved. 

David Whaley asked if this issue had been discussed at the National RAC Workshop and NFCSC Conference.  Lois Van Hoover said she had spoken with a few people at the conference.  Some had used Title II funds to fund planning efforts by state agencies. Others told her they had not thought about the issue, and still others indicated that they did not fund planning at all. Bob Baker asked how those who did fund administrative costs had done so?  Lois said they contracted the administrative work.

 

Chair Davis asked if the RAC wanted to make it a hard policy to not fund administrative costs, or to address the issue project by project and advise project sponsors of RAC concerns about administrative costs. Bob Baker suggested the RAC consider not counting dollars associated with line items d, e, and f as matching funds, and evaluate the project accordingly.  Sandra Mitchell was concerned about how persuasive or sincere different proponents might be in presenting their need.  Tom Glass said the RAC needs the flexibility to consider projects on a case by case basis. Darel Harris asked if project sponsors are aware of the RAC project screening process. DFO Swick said that most project sponsors are aware of the process. Ed Mansfield asked if the RAC could afford to “change the rules” on project sponsors.

 

Lois emphasized the administrative costs can be identified, but the work could be contracted out rather than having Federal agency personnel complete the tasks.  Sandra asked how easy that would be to do. DFO Swick said that Federal employees would still have costs associated with preparing and administering contracts. Dale Hanson said that Federal employees are already funded for such work and the RAC should not have to use Title II funds.  DFO Swick said employees are funded by specific budget line items, and RAC projects may not align by budget line item or priority.  John Gebhards explained how his wife, a Forest Service employee, is funded.  John McCarthy said he would discourage but not prohibit using Title II to fund administrative costs for Federal agencies.  He said there may be circumstances where the government can do it more efficiently.  Darel recommended adding a criterion to the Form Part 1 evaluation to consider the amount of Title II funds requested for line items d, e, and f for Federal agency use, and to not count them as a match by the Federal agency. 

 

A motion to remove the tabled discussion on Title II funding of Federal government administrative costs from the February 18 RAC meeting was made by Bob Baker and seconded by David Whaley.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

A motion to include in the Form Part 1 project screening criteria the amount of project administrative costs – items D, E, and F of the cost analysis worksheet – and specify that those items would not be considered matching funds for any federal agency was made by Darel Harris and seconded by Bob Baker.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

ü      Andy Brunelle reviewed RAC member term expirations (October 22, 2004) and offered guidance on how the RAC intended to fill vacancies. He indicated Mark Rey wants to maintain continuity.  So first, an option will be given to current members desiring re-appointment.  Members will be required to fill out another application.  Then if there are vacancies, the agency will solicit other candidates.  RAC members can make recommendations.  Andy will bring applications to the May meeting.

 

ü      Chair Phil Davis initiated the Form Part 1 and Form Part 2 review of projects.  The reviews were conducted in accord with the RAC’s operating guidelines for project proposal screening and evaluation.

 

Project Log #: 04013

Project Name: Boulder Bridge

Project Sponsor: Tom Hass, Cascade Ranger District, Boise National Forest

 

Discussion: Tom provided a PowerPoint presentation on the project. The bridge will reduce riparian area impacts, and potential impacts to ESA listed fish species. Tom noted that the RAC’s earlier concern about funding the Forest Service’s administrative costs had been mitigated because they had obtained additional funds and were modifying their Title II request.  The modification includes shifting the Title II funding requests for line items d, e, and f ($3,000 total) to Column A, thereby reducing the total Title II request on the project to $13,000 for helical pier installation only.  Idaho Dept of Parks and Rec grant funds are paying for the bridge, and the Forest Service will install it. 

 

Dale Hanson asked what type of motorized use is allowed on this trail.  Tom said motorcycle only, no ATV.  The trail is not suited to ATV’s, and no off trail use is permitted.  Dale asked why the bridge was so wide (6’)?  Tom stated it was to accommodate pack stock.  Sandra asked if it is open for snowmobile use in winter.  Tom said yes.  John McCarthy asked if the Boise National Forest had considered closing the area to motorized use thereby reducing need for bridge.  Tom said the Forest had reviewed the route during Forest Planning and determined to retain it for motorized use.   David Whaley asked what the NEPA status was on the project.  Tom said it was pending the completion of ESA consultation.  David asked about the status of the design.  Tom said it was complete except for the contract package.  Bob Baker asked about the bridge’s life-span.  Tom said it was a laminate bridge with a life expectancy of 40-50 years.

 

ü      Lunch: A working lunch was provided.

 

RAC members who had attended the recent field trip to view the proposed Salmon River Road project shared their views of the project and what they had seen. This project is a joint effort with the North Central Idaho RAC.  Lois Van Hoover and John McCarthy were accompanied on the field trip by Mike Cook (Nez Perce NF Forest Engineer), George Enneking (NC Idaho RAC and Idaho County Commissioner), Ihor Meresczak (NC Idaho RAC DFO), John Stroop (Idaho County Road Sup), Ben Hipple (Payette NF Engineer), and Susie Borowicz (NC Idaho RAC).

 

Lois said she had more confidence in the project after having seen it on the ground.  She said the project area would be 7.5 miles in length (Partridge Creek to Vinegar Creek), with a cold mix surface treatment.  Total cost was $920,000. Lois noted that the biggest costs for the project were for the aggregate and for the administrative work.  Her primary concern was the high cost per mile, and the long haul distance of the aggregate.  She asked why a local source couldn’t be used.  John Stroop said local sources were not suitable.

 

John McCarthy said there was both an economic and conservation value to the project. He said the County Road Sup made note of the current high maintenance cost.  John noted the erosion run-off from the road into the river.  He said they were told no NEPA would be required, as the work will stay within the existing road prism. He said project sponsors also don’t expect the road improvement to bring more people to the area. The areas use is limited by number of river permits issued.  John said there was a suggestion to spread the project cost over a three-year period, with both the Southwest Idaho RAC and the North Central Idaho RAC funding approximately $100,000 each for a three-year period.

 

Chair Davis noted that the project would need to be discussed with the Idaho County Commissioners before any decision was made. He said cost was an issue for the project. John McCarthy also noted that the cost analysis done for the project seemed to be fairly loose.  Several other concerns were raised by RAC members. 

 

A motion to not consider the proposed project any further until questions on aggregate costs, administration costs, use levels, and County contribution could be addressed by the North Central Idaho RAC and Idaho County Commissioners was made by David Whaley and seconded by Ed Mansfield.  The questions are to be posed in a letter to the stated entities.  Motion carried unanimously.

 

DFO Swick noted that the project sponsors were not planning to move ahead with the project until next year.

 

ü      Public Forum: Chair Davis asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments or questions.

 

After lunch and the public forum, Chair Davis directed the RAC to proceed to the Form Part 1 evaluation for Project #04013 (Boulder Bridge).  The RAC completed the Form 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	Y

RAC Decision: A motion to advance the project from Form Part 1 to Form Part 2 was made by David Whaley and seconded by Sandra Mitchell.  The motion carried unanimously (12-0).

Chair Davis