1.   Jamie Tolfree, Skamania County Commissioner, recapped the Oct. 30 meeting.  (See Minutes from 10/30/08.)  Agenda for today's meeting introduced.

2.   Discussion of Collaboration Group protocols.  Basic list:

    2.1   Criticize ideas, not person;

    2.2   Focus on agenda items.

        2.2.1  Sally N. suggested that the group 'approve' the agenda to start the meeting.

        2.2.2  Time limits for agenda items.

     2.3   Dave L-H. – end meetings with summary of action items for next meeting.

     2.4   Lisa M. – Clackamas stewardship group has a handbook that might be useful to      us.  Committees do the actual work: e.g., Budget, Project(s).

   2.5   Meeting locations?  Decision to meet at Underwood C. C. mostly.

   2.6   Meeting times?  Group 'voted' for daytime, 15:00 to 17:00 on 2nd Thursdays for    now.  Jamie T. will check on availability of Underwood C. C.  Lisa M. will try to use    “Doodle” to schedule the meeting for potential group members.

   2.7   Lisa M. will also provide Clackamas group's spreadsheet for contacts and for use as    sign-in control sheet.

3.   Discussion of decision-making system:

    3.1   Jamie & ? can send out synopsis of discussion for further comments.

    3.2   Sense of group is that Jamie should keep 'Facilitator' role for near-future.

    3.3   Paul S. appointed Secretary for present.

    3.4   One person, one vote?  One organization, one vote?  Probably both – see below.

        3.4.1  Facilitator will try to develop consensus when possible.

        3.4.2  Voting will be seen as least desirable decision route?

        3.4.3  Humaira F. will summarize decision-making process before, or at, the next         meeting.

     3.5   Regular attendance a vote criterion – e.g., attendance at 2 of last 3 meetings =      voting rights for current meeting.

     3.6   Humaira F. - agenda can categorize between “information” (from anyone to      members), “guidance” (from members to group), and “action” (group decision).

         3.6.1  Facilitator (Jamie) will have substantial authority to characterize items.

     3.7   Individual can self-describe membership category – individual or organization – but      organizations will not be 'allowed' to 'stuff the ballot box'.

     3.8   Organization can meet the voting/attendance criterion via attendance by different      members of their group.  (Designated voter for organization?)

4.   Mission Statement Draft:

    4.1   Remember that the U.S. Forest Service has the legal responsibility for activities on     the National Forest.

        4.1.1  They can give information to groups such as this and can also ask for support         on their plans.

        4.1.2  In addition the F.S. can provide 'reality checks' on the group's ideas.

    4.2  Decision on mission statement is to adopt Ray Thygesen's version with the addition     of a few words.  “The Mt. Adams Collaborative is a community based partnership that     participates in the development, facilitation, and implementation of projects that enhance     economic vitality, forest ecosystem health, and public safety on the Mt. Adams District     and in surrounding communities.”  

    4.3   Base subcommittees on the 3 main points of the mission statement?  Nancy R. and     Lisa M. prefer to combine mission elements in each project.

5.   Discussion of potential projects:

    5.1   Nancy R. - Sawtooth huckleberry fields restoration project (Stewardship).

        5.1.1  Almost through the NEPA process; draft EA due in mid-December.

        5.1.2  Includes thinning and harvest.  Commercial-size logs primarily in Twin Buttes         section.

        5.1.3  Yakama Nation might request F.S. to restore, which could take project away         from our purview.

    5.2   Nancy R. - Review of stand-exam data (watershed context) for “landscape     management”.

        5.2.1  Wildcat project (Mt. St. Helens) has all of G.P. planning money for next year. 

        5.2.2  2010 is earliest for possible look at Cave Bear Creek project.

        5.2.3  Group could identify restoration opportunities with possible funding from         Vegetation Management $ or Wildlife $.

        5.2.4  Nancy may bring the Planning person from her office to the next meet.

[Discussion of grants and other funding sources:  1) Project in Montana which received a 'special appropriation' via the regional Congressional delegation; 2) Stewardship earnings – G.P. keeps such funds; 3) 'watershed' funds for fuel reduction (CWPP information on Skamania County {'Firewise'} and WA DNR web sites).]

    5.3   Hazardous Fuels projects, identified by other sources: e.g., Willard, Bear Creek.

         5.3.1  Tom Linde's Bear Creek Watershed Fuel Break project:

              5.3.1.1  G. P. F. S. has already run a basic analysis.  Paul S. will send e-mail copy               to other participants.

              5.3.1.2  Project includes harvest, thinning, road maintenance, forest diversity, and               habitat restoration.

              5.3.1.3  Assessment was funded; go back for implementation funding?

6.   The majority of attendees agreed tentatively on December 19th at 15:00 for the next meeting at the Underwood Community Center in Underwood, WA.  

    6.1   We will discuss: 

         6.1.1  Meeting protocol continuation;

         6.1.2  Bear Creek Watershed project;

         6.1.3  Funding

              6.1.3.1  'Categorical exclusions' as a funding mechanism and as a means to               expedite project design work;

              6.1.3.2  CWPP;