1.  Minutes of the Feb. 6, 2009 meeting approved.  Moved by Peggy B, 2nd – Lisa M.  

2.  Cheryl Mack presented the Sawtooth Huckleberry Restoration project:    

    2.1  Preliminary analysis finished in late February; comment deadline is 3/12/09.    

    2.2  The Forest Service approached the project with intention of treating larger area than     usually attempted.    

    2.3  The stands vary in tree sizes:  Some thinning via saw work, some 'mastication', some     commercial harvest.    

    2.4  Considering 'over-snow' logging to protect shrubs (2 – 3 feet of snow).    

    2.5  Slash: Some pile and burn; Some prescribed burn with under-thinning; Woody     biomass not considered so far, but ....   

    2.6  Area was previously surveyed for artifacts ,and 'machine' work is excluded.     

    2.7  Jim M.: Not good sales potential due to nature of timber in the area;  Over-snow     logging means snow-plowing and problems with recreational users;  Plowing is too     expensive;  'Masticating' work – Jim's experience with one particular machine leads him to     believe that it is too expensive - $500 per acre vs. $150 per acre via hand-work.    

    2.8  Staff estimates that huckleberry bushes need about 20 – 30% shade, so they are     still debating treatment, since leaving big trees causes re-seed issue.  Cheryl's comment:     “Snags would be optimal.”    

    2.9  Yakama Nation supports the project, but does not want direct involvement.    

    2.10  Question about the population served – Cheryl stated that data from the 1960s     indicates that it is potentially large.

    2.11  F.S. used Osbourne pictures from the '30s, plus aerial photographs from the '40s     through the '70s to inform project design.    

    2.12  Forest Service is requesting both Title II and 'Stimulus' Bill funds.  Asking for letter     of support     from MADCG.  Lisa M. asked when is the letter needed.  Answer –  within     this month.  Jim M. moved to write the letter of support; Peggy B. seconded;  Spencer     reminded that Tom L. had already submitted 39 comments on the project, before     the deadline, and our support does not change the fact that there are criticisms to be     addressed.  Jim M's motion approved.  Lisa M. and Spencer both commented that such     projects should be presented earlier and with more information than was available for this     matter.  

3.  Jamie T. reported for Sue Ripp on the status of Title II fund requests for the RAC.    

    3.1  60 requests and over $5 million total with more than $3 million from the F.S.    

    3.2  Some road projects on the list may be withdrawn and applied to 'Stimulus' bill.    

    3.3  RAC meeting at Columbia Gorge Riverside Lodge, Stevenson, April 20 @ 09:00.    

    3.4  Recusal protocol?  Under discussion.    

    3.5  'Stimulus' bill money – no information yet.  

4.  Bear Creek proposal update from Spencer:    

    4.1  Reduced $ request from $500K to $100K; $75,000 in 2009, $25,000 in 2010.    

    4.2  More specificity in project elements vs. funds requested  

5.  Cave/Bear Creek Project proposal update from Jay McL.:    

    5.1   Raised total slightly to $108K.  

6.  Decision-making protocol discussion – information provided by Humaira F.:    

    6.1  Discussion of the Sawtooth Restoration project could be a model, where some level     of Robert's Rules were employed, discussion was 'civil', all sides were presented.  

    6.2  Rules can be simple-majority (win-lose) to 'pure consensus' (time-consuming,     potentially  frustrating).  

    6.3  Humaira's proposal is 'modified consensus' with 5 levels from support to opposition.      If opposition reaches 'over my dead body' level, issue must be taken seriously by other     members.  Attempt to negotiate, as in a jury.  

    6.4  Jay McL. reminded us of a previous hand-out on this subject.  Depending on size     of group, 'non-unanimous consensus' can choose U-1 (Unanimity minus one),  U-2, U-3,     or ...     Rules are: Listen, Discuss, Move Forward.  Jim W. commented that we should not     let 1 or 2 members block group action.   

    6.5  Spencer moved to use Jay's reference model; Jim W. seconded.  Lisa M. added     amendment to cover voter participation (and proxy?): one organization, one vote.              Spencer agreed to amendment.  Jim W. added amendment to review system within 6     months.  Spencer agreed.  Jamie T. tabled the vote to next meeting.  Will send out     reference material for group review and vote then.  

7.  Subcommittee created to suggest additional policies.    

    7.1  Includes Jamie T., Lisa M., and Jay McL.    

    7.2  Rick L. asked that the subcommittee broadcast e-mail their suggestions to the     group,before meetings.  Jamie T. will do this.  

8.  April meeting has not been set up yet.  Another doodle will be forthcoming, after Jamie confers with Nancy Ryke (second Wednesdays will not work).    

    8.1  Agenda may include:  Organizational form for this Collaborative Group.  Begin     discussion of projects that can be started under the 'Categorical Exclusion' rules.      Bob Gavenas and John Nakae may attend in order to inform us about potential CE-sized     projects.  Jim M. said that we need F.S. information on their work plans.   Jamie T. said     that we can try to get Joe Gates to brief us on the 5-year plan.  Norm W. asked why some     national forests have 10-year stewardship plans.  Suggestion to meet with other forest     supervisors.  Recommend large-scale NEPA, as is done on some other forests.   Joanna     G. wants to add Janine Clayton to our e-mail list.  Jamie will do so. 

Attendees:  Jamie Tolfree, Paul Spencer, Peggy Bryan, Humaira Falkenberg, Joanna Grammon, Dave L'Hommedieu, Ed LaMotte, Rick Larson, Tom Linde, Jay McLaughlin, Jim Mickel, Lisa Moscinski, Sally Newell, Bob Sourek, Jim White, Norm Ward, Jim McGrath, John ForsbergGuest:  Cheryl Mack