1.  Sue Ripp – GPNF Partnerships Coordinator.  RAC Title II Funding review:

     1.1 -  Title II is for projects that benefit forest resources on the GPNF.

     1.2 -  15 folks on the Advisory Committee that takes first look at project proposals.     (Committee includes Jay McL.)

     1.3 -  2009 has $1.1 million available.

     1.4 -  Feb. 9 is proposal deadline, but proposal can be somewhat basic with details to     follow.  Details needed in February/March time frame.

     1.5 -  Proposals should be for 2009 and/or 2010, but only 2009 projects will be funded in     this cycle.

     1.6 -  Partnerships and 'grant matches' help to 'sell' your project.  If NEPA process is     complete for subject area/project, this would also help.

     1.7 -  Forest Service controls the money, but Advisory Committee provides some     over-sight.  Projects can be revised during implementation, if conditions require.

     1.8 -  The application for RAC funds is now on the GPNF web-site, but Sue will also     e-mail to our e-mail list.  Her phone # is  360-891-5153.

2.  Erin Black – GPNF @ Mt. Adams District office.

     2.1 -  NEPA documents are required for all projects.  (If provided by consultant, the F.S.     still reviews.)

     2.2 -  Exceptions to this are listed on a hand-out given to attendees.

     2.3 -  Erin can advise us on contract elements.

     2.4 -  Erin's group may have some time available to help with project specifics.  Also, we     may be able to get help from other F.S. Staff.

     2.5 -  Ray T. asked about Recreation Permits that may not be forthcoming due to lack of     a NEPA process.  Can he get funding for the NEPA for this matter.  Sue R. stated that     Title II is for “projects, not programs”.

     2.6 -  Pre-proposal contacts with F.S. are often helpful in making the project 'sellable'.

    2.7 -  Question asked: “Is there a template for applications?”  Answer was the application     form may suffice.

 3.  Tom Linde's Bear Creek Fuel-Break project:

     3.1 Forest Service “Feasibility Report” of Oct. 17, 2007 did not support the fuel-break     portion of the project proposal.

     3.2 Tony C. strongly opposes the fuel-break portion, as presented in the GPNF report.

     3.3 Jay McL. stated that such a large and diverse project might be premature for such a     new organization as ours.

     3.4 Cyndi S. supports the thinning and restoration elements of the proposal.

     3.5 Jamie T. described the proposal as a way to get started with a concrete project.

     3.6 Paul S. supported Jamie's view, plus Cyndi's remarks, as opposed to Jay's concern.      First, the Feasibility Report might provide the “bones” of the NEPA document, since it     involved research and a field trip.  In addition the fuel-break aspect should be discussed     with several experts, as some of us have seen differing opinions on both the fire potential     and the approach to mitigation of fire danger.

     3.7 Norm W. mentioned that Fish & Wildlife had supported Tom's project when it was first     proposed.

     3.8 Gail F. suggested that the fire-prevention aspect might be combined with a WA/DNR     project concerning 'defensible homes' for funding.

     3.9 Jim M. stated that, unless there is some commercially viable element of this project,     funds will be difficult to find.  And, if found, the money will be essentially wasted, because     there will be no product that can generate further funds.

    3.10 Straw-vote taken per attendee:

         3.10.1 Ray T. - give to subcommittee;

         3.10.2 Peggy B. - supports project;

         3.10.3 Gail F. - supports project;

         3.10.4 Jim W. - supports some aspects;

         3.10.5 Carter D. - explore further;

         3.10.6 Lisa M. - prefers other projects;

         3.10.7 Jim M. - waste of time without F.S. authority present;

         3.10.8 Andrew H. - supports project;

         3.10.9 Clyde L. - PUD disagrees with elements of the GPNF Feasibility Report         concerning water temperatures in Bear Creek;

         3.10.10 Ed LaM. - supports project;

         3.10.11 Rick L. - supports project;

         3.10.12 Jim McG. - supports project;

         3.10.13 Terry T. - not sure;

         3.10.14 Jay McL. - lukewarm support;

         3.10.15 Tony C. - supports subcommittee approach;

         3.10.16 Norm W. - supports project;

         3.10.17 Jamie T. - supports project.

    3.11 Bear Creek proposal subcommittee: Paul S., Gail F., Jim M., Tony C., Tom Linde,     and Rick L.

 4.  Discussion of other proposals:

     4.1 Project Development subcommittee: Jay McL., Lisa M., Jim W., Terry T., Norm W.

     4.2 Discussion points:

         4.2.1 Norm W. - use funds to jump-start NEPA process, stand-exams, or other         preliminary stages to help move log sales, restoration projects, etc.

         4.2.2 Terry T. asked if funds could go toward road maintenance, since the F.S. had         already documented the needs and related planning.

 5.  Gail F. talked about “national fire-plan money”.  Could “umbrella” a project involving fire prevention with WA/DNR.  Might be able to get 50-50 matching money. Proposals are due Feb. 6.  Gail has meetings set for Jan. 21 and Jan. 28 to create local committee, which will decide on projects.  Bear Creek project would have to include fuel thinning to qualify for help. (Cook-Underwood road project is likely to be supported.)

     5.1 Sue R. or Erin B. thought that RAC Title II could probably not be matched with other     federal money.

 6.  February meeting set for Feb. 5 @ Underwood C.C.  Jamie will set up.  [Note: meeting has been changed to Friday, Feb. 6.]