1. Jamie T. reread the Mission Statement and listed some 'ground rules' that we had discussed in earlier meetings, as a preliminary to project discussions. She also read the agenda for this meeting, which was approved by the group. 2. Minutes of the Jan. 15, 2009 meeting approved. Moved by Jim W, 2nd – Gail F. 3. Tom Linde's Bear Creek Fuel-Break project: 3.1 Spencer presented the latest draft in preparation for application submission on Monday, Feb. 9. (see e-mail memo from Feb. 5 with attachments). 3.2 Nancy R. stated that, due to the nature of the projected activities within LSR stands, it will probably require REO (Regional ) approval at some point. 3.3 Jim M. said that the thinning prescriptions envisioned by the project subcommittee would fit within the prescriptions for LSR management. In addition he commented that the Forest Service should find ways to help this project. 3.4 Discussion of 'thinned fuel break' concept followed: - Gail F. - Where does the concept of 'thinned fuel breaks' apply? - Nancy R. - LSR limits applicable management tools. - Lisa M. - Feasibility Report from 2007 indicates that REO would be needed. - Rico G. - Real fire protection would have to include truck turnarounds and water supply systems for fire-fighting. - Nancy R. - In any case NEPA may preclude 'thinned fuel breaks'. 3.5 Nancy R. - Supports the project, minus the fuel breaks. 3.6 Paul S. - Agrees that the NEPA process will help to define appropriate fuel break design. 3.7 Proposal approved, as written. 3.8 Paul S. will write RAC application this weekend, and it will be submitted on time 3.9 Rick Larsen was asked about a support letter from the R.M. Elk Foundation. 4. Discussion of other fund requests: 4.1 Weed Board - $300K ? 4.2 Sheriff Dept. Work Crew - $200K ? 4.3 Nancy R. - RAC likes road maintenance and fuel-reduction projects, historically. 4.4 Terry T. asked to have his project announced: $40K for work on the 88 system. 4.5 Don't forget 'in-kind' for partner contributions. 5. Cave/Bear Creek Project proposal: 5.1 Jay McL. presented the other subcommittee's proposal: - 2009 – Stand exams for $65K; - 2010 – NEPA documents for $40K. 5.2 John Nakae at Mt. Adams District office estimates 10,000 acres as likely targets. - Lisa M. stated that the full watershed probably needs another 5 – 10 years before further cutting. 5.3 Jim M. stated that the target acres are suitable for both timber sales and stewardship projects. He asked if the 2010 NEPA process can be expanded to include timber sales. - Nancy R. said that the goal is to “get ahead of sales” in the NEPA process. [I take that to mean that NEPA for sales in the area would be included. Let me know if I'm wrong. Spencer] 5.4 Paul S. asked how this project can do the NEPA process for $40K, when the Bear Creek estimate came in at $200K + for less than half the acreage. - Nancy R. - Some restoration work can be done on Categorical Exclusions. - Lisa M. - “Lessons learned” from Pinchot Partners' work, and some of the work can be done by Collaborative Group members. Also, all of the work envisioned is restoration. 5.5 Project application approved. 6. Side issues raised during meeting: 6.1 Jay McL. - MADCG has no “fiscal status”. Some components do, such as GPTF, Skamania County EDC, and Jay's group can be “fiscal agents”. 6.2 Nancy R. questioned who can be a “responsible person” to sign for MADCG. 6.3 Nancy R. stated that contractors involved in our projects will have to meet Forest Service standards. 6.4 Sally N. asked whether this group should endorse the Weed Board's proposal. - Discussion was tentative, since the proposal had not been presented as an agenda item. No decision at this time. - Jim W. was endorsed as a good member for this Collaborative Group, because some projects might exacerbate weed problems. 7. Discussion of a proposal by Gail Bouchard of the Mt. Adams staff for shaded fuel breaks along the 1800 road north of Willard. 7.1 Gail F. described the project proposal: 200 yards on either side of the road, total approximately 94 acres along 9 miles of road. - Probably no commercial timber, except possibly on the north end of the project. - 2009 - $131K for NEPA documents; - 2010 - $650 K for the actual thinning project. - Should this project be sponsored by MADCG or the CWPPs? 7.2 Dave l'H. And Nancy R. both suggested that the thinning might be done in annual increments, rather than all in 2010. 7.3 Jim M. stated that we should support stewardship projects that can balance income with the projects, so that we can be close to self-supporting. - Nancy R. said that part of the purpose of stewardship is to make jobs. 7.4 Group decided that this is not a project for us. 8. RAC process: 8.1 Forest Service review on Feb. 25. 8.2 RAC Committee review on April 20. - Members do not have to recuse for their own projects, though some do. - 3 subcommittees with 5 members each; project needs 3 of 5 from each subcommittee to pass. 9. Our web-site www.adamscollab.com is working. The purpose is for communication and publicity. 9.1 There is a form on the “Contact Us” page for reporting volunteer hours and mileage. Try it out to see if it works; but save the data, in case it does not. 9.2 Spencer paid $210 for 3 years' service. Would like to get repaid at some point. - Jamie said that Sue Ripp had mentioned a $5,000 (maximum) grant for start-up of Collaborative Groups. 10. All members need to track their hours and mileage in all Collaborative Group business, including regular meetings. Spencer is keeping a spreadsheet of this data for use in making in-kind matches for grants. If the form on the web-site does not work, please report by e-mail or at meetings. 11. March meeting has not been set up yet. Doodle forthcoming. 11.1 Agenda will include: - Humaira F. - Meeting and decision-making rules. Jamie T. mentioned “Alsea” 'ground rules' as potential guidelines. - Organizational form for this Collaborative Group. | 
