***Monday, June 3, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals.

Blue Sky Broadcasting News Reporter Mike Brown and county resident Marty Martinez were in attendance of the meetings off and on throughout the day.

9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Road Foreman Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. A written report was provided.

Discussion was held regarding the Ruby Creek Bridge #2 Supplemental Agreement. The agreement was forwarded to County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull for review.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the Supplemental Agreement for Ruby Creek Bridge #2 upon review and approval by the county civil attorney. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Discussion was held regarding the Plato Drive/Tobe Way Project. Mr. Morris stated that there was one line in the bid documents that the county civil attorney wants changed.

Commissioner Cossairt asked about the status of the McArthur Lake Road.

Mr. Morris stated that hauling the milling machine for the Meadow Creek/Moyie River Road is quite expensive and there needs to be an independent contractor agreement. Clerk Poston stated that Road & Bridge needs to coordinate with County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull for the Independent Contractor Agreement. Road & Bridge is going to have the grindings milled which will help get the crown on the road and then the road will be chip sealed.

Discussion was held regarding Ruby Creek Bridge #1. That project may be started today, according to Mr. Morris.

Mr. Morris reported that the Sheriff’s Office is going to put on an all- terrain vehicle (ATV) safety class and they would like to use Moyie Gravel Pit # 2. Commissioners and the Road & Bridge Department have no problem with the Sheriff’s Office using the gravel pit for that purpose.

Road & Bridge is putting gravel on Madson Road and will install one more pipe and then chip seal the road.

Mr. Morris reported that Atkins Canyon may be paved this week according to HMH Engineering.

Mr. Morris left the meeting at 9:18 a.m.

Chairman Dinning stated that Commissioners received an email from Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee stating that a few years back there was an Alzheimer's support group that would meet once a month at Panhandle Health. During the one hour meeting time, the Restorium agreed to provide adult daycare for anyone who had the need at no charge. The support group is starting up again and the Alzheimer's Association wanted to know if the Restorium would once again offer this service. Ms. Magee stated in her email that rules and regulations would be the same as if the client were paying. Commissioners responded via email to Ms. Magee giving their approval to provide the service.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Certificate of Residency for Avery Pluid. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Phil Allegretti called to inquire whom he should send the bill to for mosquito control at the landfill. Commissioners stated that the bill should go to the Solid Waste Department.

Chairman Dinning stated that Union Pacific Railroad is putting in a new road by Twin Bridges and the Commissioners have to hold a public hearing regarding the road. That project will have to go out to bid.

Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the minutes of May 28, 2019. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull participated in the meeting via telephone. Regarding the need for a public hearing for the new road the Union Pacific Railroad is putting in, Attorney Hull is going to send the Commissioners’ Clerk the code sections that apply.

Road & Bridge has sent Attorney Hull the Supplemental Agreement for Ruby Creek Bridge # 2. Attorney Hull stated that he is okay with that agreement.

Discussion was held regarding the Plato Drive/Tobe Way bid document. The document does not mention the width, according to Attorney Hull, so they have to add to the first page of the invitation to bid that the width has to be in accordance with the plan. Attorney Hull stated that as soon as that gets changed then he is good with it. Attorney Hull informed Commissioners that he sent that modification to HMH Engineering and Road & Bridge.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to authorize Commissioners to sign and approve the bid documents for the Plato Drive/Tobe Way construction project, Key # M19003, once the county civil attorney approves the modifications. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning asked if Attorney Hull received the update on the bid documents for the Airport. Attorney Hull said he has not. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners will get the update to him.

Chairman Dining informed Attorney Hull that tomorrow sometime between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. there is an executive session with Attorney Erika Malmen regarding the Bog Creek issue and then at 10:30 a.m., Commissioners meet with the Forest Service regarding the same.

The phone call with Attorney Hull ended at 9:40 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve and issue an Idaho Liquor Catering Permit to Eichardt’s Inc., for the purpose of catering an event hosted by Mountain Mafia Entertainment to be held June 7, 2019 through June 9, 2019. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Dinning informed Commissioners that he signed the Idaho Department of Lands Temple-Deer II Project Reimbursement Request Form #4 and the Idaho Department of Lands South Boundary Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Request Form #7. There was a previous motion to allow the Chairman to sign all such requests for funds.

Commissioner Kirby moved to ratify Chairman Dinning’s signing the Idaho Department of Lands Temple-Deer II Project Reimbursement Request Form #4 and the Idaho Department of Lands South Boundary Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project Request Form #7. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Kirby moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the Boundary County Airport Improvement Grant, AIP 016, Application and Sponsor Certifications once the county civil attorney approves it. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Commissioners attended to administrative duties.

10:00 a.m., Solid Waste Department Superintendent Claine Skeen and Assistant Superintendent Eric Owen joined the meeting to give the department report.

Mr. Skeen submitted the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspection report to Commissioners. Pictures were taken and added to the report, according to Mr. Skeen. Mr. Skeen stated that the Solid Waste Department had a meeting with Paul Klatt from J-U-B Engineering to go over the inspection report. Mr. Skeen stated that on the physical inspection regarding the daily cover, DEQ did not like that there was a little garbage left over in the staging area at the end of the day as it does not meet DEQ regulations. Mr. Skeen proposed closing the landfill at 5:00 p.m. to the public so there is no garbage left in the staging area at the end of the day. Chairman Dining asked if mesh can be thrown over the garbage in the staging area and Mr. Skeen said no. Kootenai County closes to the public an hour before closing time, according to Mr. Skeen. Mr. Skeen said the last hour the public would not be allowed in so the landfill will close at 5:00 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. even though the landfill crew is still there in order to get the garbage out of the staging area and covered by the end of the workday. Chairman Dinning asked how many people it takes to take care of the garbage in the staging area. Mr. Skeen said it takes one to two people. Mr. Owen said there has to be a cut off. Chairman Dinning asked if there is a way to modify the internal schedule so there would be an extra half hour at the end of the day to take care of that. Mr. Skeen said it will take an hour. Chairman Dinning said we are providing a service to the public and he asked if there is any way to do what we want to accomplish by adjusting schedules. Mr. Owen said that there are a limited number of personnel so he cannot see that being a possibility. Mr. Skeen said you can pay employees overtime to take care of it, but that is an extra expense. The landfill is open currently from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Cossairt asked how busy it is between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Owen said it depends on the season. Chairman Dinning asked if there is much volume between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Mr. Skeen said that there are routes and roll offs to take care of. Mr. Owen said the way we used to operate cannot be done any longer. Mr. Skeen said that is the one thing in the whole inspection that DEQ is really focused on. Once there is a Posi-Shell system, DEQ will allow the Solid Waste Department to overspray the leftover garbage and take care of it the next day.

Mr. Skeen said there is also a section in the inspection report regarding the updated annual financial operating record. The Solid Waste Department needs to provide proof that it is budgeted. Clerk Poston said it is in the annual county audit. The operation plan and post-closure plan are needed as far as what the future is for the landfill.

Chairman Dinning stated that he thinks the report is a pretty good report.

The Posi-Shell system is being taken out of the operating plan. There has to be a pilot program with DEQ to show them that the Posi-Shell system will work at the Boundary County landfill. There will be some information coming to lease the equipment for at least the pilot program. So that option is out there, according to Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen reported that J-U-B Engineers will be sending the documentation for the operations plan to Commissioners.

Chairman Dinning informed Mr. Skeen that Phil Allegretti will be sending a bill to the Solid Waste Department for mosquito control chemicals used at the landfill.

Discussion was held regarding tire revenue, the metal pile, and the woodpile. Regarding the woodpile, we may have to go out to bid, according to Mr. Skeen. Solid Waste started analyzing sorting and will track from June this year to June next year. In a year’s time they will see if it is better to grind and haul to the waste energy plant or not.

10:26 a.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)b, to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:30 a.m. No action was taken.

Mr. Skeen and Mr. Owen left the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Assessor Dave Ryals, Treasurer Sue Larson, and Matt Hodges from Computer Arts met with Commissioners to discuss a network backup system for the courthouse. Assessor Ryals said that the Courthouse computer backup system is failing so he asked Mr. Hodges to look into options. Mr. Hodges said with a Barracuda backup system, the information backs up to an on-site device and then writes the new data to the network in the cloud which is a second backup. Treasurer Larson asked if the data backs up daily to the cloud. Mr. Hodges said it does and it will hold data for about three weeks. It also will not back up the same file. It only backs up the changes. In a virus scenario if your backup unit is corrupted, the Barracuda will send clean data which is what you get with the cloud. Chairman Dinning asked if the cloud could be corrupted if we do not know we have a virus for a couple of weeks. Mr. Hodges said that is possible. Assessor Ryals stated that the same thing could happen with the system we have now. If we did not use the cloud, you will have a backup locally inside the devise which could get corrupted. If we did not hook up to the cloud, the county could not get the information back. Assessor Ryals said it is sad the county has to go to the cloud, but it is becoming a reality.

Treasurer Larson said Benewah County had viruses that gave them fits for months and even the restore did not get all of their information back. This system would have prevented that with the cloud. If you had two devises and alternate backup to each and you get a virus on one, you can go back to the other backup device. It is safer to have two systems unplugging the network to the one not getting backed up to keep a virus from coming through. Chairman Dinning stated in that scenario, if you do not know the virus is there and you back up to the other system, the virus is now on both. Mr. Hodges said that the virus the county got the last time did not attach to the server data. It is the Benewah County scenario that encrypts all files that is the dangerous one. The Barracuda system would be the only system that would save the county. Assessor Ryals said he agrees. Assessor Ryals stated that the county could also acquire external hard drives for a reasonable price so a backup could be done by various departments and kept in a vault or off site. The other systems limit how far back you can go to retrieve data. Assessor Ryals stated that an external hard drive would work for some departments, but it would not work for daily changes in the Treasurer’s office or recording office. You can make individual back up folders, according to Mr. Hodges.

Those present agreed that the county should have one drive to back up and one for the Barracuda system which backs up to the cloud. $8,000.00 is the estimated cost with a $2,500.00 recurring cost each year. Clerk Poston said funds are available in the DATA Budget for that. Mr. Hodges said he likes that scenario. Treasurer Larson said she would still like to get her own external hard drives and take one to the bank to store. Mr. Hodges said the Treasurer could make a copy to her own device which would also back up to the Barracuda system and the local server.

Discussion was held regarding technology changes and keeping up with it. Assessor Ryals recommended also using the external hard drives in addition to the back up and the Barracuda system. Clerk Poston asked about the time frame of getting the system installed. Mr. Hodges said it will be a couple of weeks to get the devices. There will be some time involved in setting up the NAS window backup system.

Commissioner Kirby moved to approve the quote from Computer Arts for the Barracuda system and the purchase of a NAS system as presented at a cost of approximately $8,100.00 and with the understanding of a recurring fee of $2,500.00 annually to come out of the DATA Budget. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Hodges said there is a three-year instant replacement of the new NAS device and after three years, they will send the newest model and the new model will have the latest hard drive. That is built in to stay current with technology, according to Mr. Hodges. There will be a new backup system every three years.

Mr. Hodges left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Assessor Ryals informed those present that the postage meter is something else he wanted to discuss. There is not a problem with the current meter. Solicitors contacted the county about getting a new machine. We are leasing the machine so Assessor Ryals stated that his question is why can’t the county get a new machine for the same money we are leasing the old one? Assessor Ryals stated that they are willing to come up with a demonstration model. Clerk Poston said we are budgeted for the postage machine.

Assessor Ryals and Treasurer Larson left the meeting at 11:03 a.m.

11:03 a.m., Courthouse Maintenance John Buckley joined the meeting to provide a department report. Chairman Dinning asked if Mr. Buckley will speak with Maria’s Cleaning Service regarding a new contract. Mr. Buckley said Maria’s Cleaning Service was going to send him something and he will follow up on it. Chairman Dinning asked if the cleaning service is doing an adequate job. Mr. Buckley stated that he believes they are.

Mr. Buckley reported that the seal coat and striping were done at the Armory. Mr. Buckley will do some work on the picnic tables and reported that he needs to get the landscape around the courthouse trees done. Cleaning the windows is on the list as is pressure washing and painting the courthouse. Mr. Buckley said that someone looked at it and is to submit a cost. Mr. Buckley said he and Tom Joyce pressure washed the Sheriff’s Office building last year, but it was not painted. New bark around the trees at the courthouse and cleaning all air conditioning units needs to be done. The maple trees at the courthouse will be trimmed. The appraiser’s bathroom is being worked on. The back door needs reframed and the boiler needs to be torn down and cleaned. Avista will look at the boiler after the boiler repairs. There is an outside window in the entryway that needs cleaned, as there are bugs between the windowpanes. The changing table was installed in the main floor courthouse women’s restroom. Window gaskets need repaired and ductwork for the Sheriff’s office needs done, according to Mr. Buckley.

The Sheriff’s Office roof was discussed. The man looking at it is a consultant, not a contractor, which Mr. Buckley thought he was a contractor so there is no one qualified who wants to take care of the Sheriff’s roof. Both the Sheriff’s Office and the Courthouse roofs need cleaned off, according to Mr. Buckley.

Sidewalk replacement quotes have been submitted. There is also a quote for turning the carport off the appraiser’s building into a storage area and that cost will be put into next year’s budget.

There is $22,000.00 budgeted for painting the courthouse. Clerk Poston stated that if budgeted building improvements are not done this year, the funds have to be carried forward into next year.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to accept the quote from Down to Earth Works for sidewalk demolition and restoring grade in the amount of $3,632.50 and from BR Concrete, Inc. for $5,170.72 for the sidewalk concrete with the understanding that each business must provide proof of worker’s compensation coverage. Commissioner Kirby second. Motion passed unanimously. $8,803.22 is the total cost.

Mr. Buckley stated that windows and siding at the Extension Office need work. Clerk Poston suggested that Mr. Buckley check with the City of Bonners Ferry to see if they have any grants available for window replacement. Mr. Buckley said he got a quote from Bonners Ferry Glass on replacing the windows, but does not remember the amount of the quote. Clerk Poston reminded those present that the building is going to be remodeled. Chairman Dinning informed Mr. Buckley that the doors need to have panic bars for safety reasons.

Discussion was held regarding the upcoming surplus property auction. The auction will be held in August, according to Mr. Buckley. A notice will be sent out to all departments to get items ready for surplus, a list of surplus items then needs to be given to the departments to see if they want anything on the list and then the auction will be advertised in the newspaper.

Mr. Buckley showed Commissioners proposed signs for the boat launch areas regarding use.

Mr. Buckley left the meeting at 11:29 a.m.

Mat and Valerie Surprenant, E.L. Automation, and Economic Development Council Director Dennis Weed joined the meeting at 11:30 a.m.

11:30 a.m., Economic Development Council (EDC) Director Dennis Weed met with Commissioners to give an update on EDC projects. Discussion was held regarding the sewer project and costs. Mr. Weed said he will go over the same thing with the Moyie Springs City Council. Mr. Weed suggested that the county write an invoice to the City of Moyie Springs that will be paid upon the sale of bonds. What will be left for the county to pay is around $17,000.00, but Mr. Weed needs to look into that because it is probably actually less. There are some things going on through the Department of Environmental Quality that will save money. The United States Department of Agriculture is looking into what they will do in addition to the Army Corp of Engineers and if it becomes a regional sewer system, there will be even more savings, according to Mr. Weed. The Moyie Springs project will start next year sometime, but Mr. Weed does not know the date of the bond yet. Right now they are just looking at ways they can lower costs.

Mr. Weed said that he has not heard anything more from Verizon on cell phone reception issues. Mr. Weed said he will call them. Chairman Dinning inquired how cell phone service is working up towards Canada now. Mr. Weed said he does not know. Cow Creek area was reporting problems and someone around Three Mile was having a problem.

Mr. Weed left the meeting.

Clerk Poston inquired if Commissioners had seen a list of outstanding bills from the landfill lately. Commissioners said no, but they would have the Commissioners’ Clerk ask for one.

11:48 a.m., Mat and Valerie Surprenant, E. L. Automation, left the meeting.

Commissioners recessed for lunch at 12:00 noon.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals.

1:30 p.m., Boundary Ambulance Service Chief Jeff Lindsey and Nancy Russell, Boundary Ambulance Service Board Chairman, joined the meeting.

Commissioner Kirby moved to recess as the Boundary County Board of Commissioners and to convene as the Boundary County Ambulance Service District Governing Board. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

This is a posted special meeting to discuss a facility for ambulance services.

Chief Lindsey said that he has a drawing and is going to try to get it scanned in and sent to Commissioners. It is hard to copy due to the watermark. Chairman Dinning asked Chief Lindsey if the utilities were marked and Chief Lindsey indicated they were. Chief Lindsey said they wanted space out front of the building so they located the proposed building even with the armory which leaves room for an apron. Chairman Dinning stated that Commissioners need an estimate of cost and a project engineer for the armory remodel, the new ambulance facility and the remodel of the Extension Building. Clerk Poston asked if Commissioners heard back from Shoshone County Commissioner Mike Fitzgerald. Chairman Dinning said yes. Commissioner Cossairt asked what they came up with for size of a new ambulance building. Chief Lindsey explained the layout and said he could not recall the size. There would be 15 or 20 feet between the Armory building and the new ambulance building. Clerk Poston said there may not be enough room due to the location of the water. Chief Lindsey asked if they can build over the top of the water. Chairman Dinning said no. Mr. Linsey reported that the ambulance service is looking at building a station in Ponderay. Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are gone next week, but will meet with Boundary Ambulance Service on June 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

1:39 p.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to adjourn as the Boundary County Ambulance Service District Governing Board and to reconvene as the Board of Boundary County Commissioners. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Chief Lindsey and Ms. Russell left the meeting.

Commissioners attended to administrative duties.

Gary Pflueger contacted Commissioners via email inquiring if there would be any room at the Armory for an alternative school. Commissioners stated that the Armory is being converted for other uses.

Commissioners received a grant match request letter from Selkirks-Pend Oreille Transit Authority, (SPOT). Commissioners agreed that Commissioners are not going to increase the amount Boundary County gives for grant match and will budget the same as last year for the SPOT bus.

2:20 p.m., Discussion was held regarding remodeling plans for the armory building.

Commissioners placed a call to Longwell + Trapp Architects to inform them that the county has three separate building projects and are needing architectural services. An engineer will return Commissioners call at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and Commissioners will continue this discussion until then. Commissioners are looking at remodeling the Armory, a new ambulance facility and the Extension Building remodel.

Chairman Dinning received a phone call from Erik Omar, Union Pacific Railroad, who is in charge of the road project at Twin Bridges.

3:00 p.m., Kennon McClintock with The Nature Conservancy met with Commissioners to discuss matters regarding the Forest Legacy Program and conservation easements.

Mr. McClintock submitted a copy of Idaho’s Forest Products Industry annual report from last year to Commissioners. Mr. McClintock said the report comes from the University of Idaho and shows how important the timber industry is to Idaho, and especially to Boundary County. Mr. McClintock stated that there has to be land to grow trees. 80% of logs come off private ground and that in turn feeds the mills, according to Mr. McClintock.

Mr. McClintock stated that the Forest Legacy Program is run by the Idaho Department of Lands in Idaho and it is a national program that is competitive between the states. Idaho Department of Lands is the administrator and holds the leases. Funding comes through the Farm Bill from the Land & Water Conservation Fund. They pay 75% of the appraised value for the easements. Conservation easements allow for all traditional uses such as agriculture, forestry, livestock, cottage industries, rentals and gravel pits. Landowners continue to own the land. Conservation Easements limit commercial development, subdivisions and most mining activities. Homes, shops, barns, and outbuildings are allowed on the property. Property taxes and yield taxes do not change. Conservation easements are perpetual. These are U. S. Government rules. Public use is sometimes included.

Mr. McClintock reported that last year they were working on the Dawson Ridge project. About 6,300 acres were applied for last year. Only a little more than half of it got funded. The remaining half of the land in the Dawson Ridge project was moved to the application for this year. The full amount is not always funded. The lands left are rolled over into the project for this year as well as McArthur Lake parcels that are owned by Molpus and Hancock. Cooks Lake and Corner Lake are involved in that because they felt those lands were at risk for subdividing and development. This year almost 5,100 acres are being put in the application for Forest Legacy.

Chairman Dinning asked how many acres are in Forest Legacy in Boundary County including those put in last year. Mr. McClintock stated that there are about 30,000 acres right now. Chairman Dinning stated that is probably 18% to 20%. There is 208,000 acres of private ground, according to Mr. McClintock. Chairman Dinning asked when is enough enough. Chairman Dinning stated that it does affect us tax wise when Idaho Department of Lands comes in and picks up the land. Chairman Dinning stated that it will cost us about $38,000.00 this year in lost tax. Mr. McClintock stated that Idaho Department of Lands has purchased about 9,000 acres in Boundary County and they paid a fortune for the land. Chairman Dinning stated that they have to pay appraised price. Mr. McClintock stated that the State has sold land in Priest Lake and other areas and the State has to spend that money within a couple of years. Molpus retains five years in logs on property they sell to the State. Mr. McClintock said that there was 50,000 acres in industrial forestland and now there is about 31,000 acres in industrial forestland. The mill requires 132,000 acres in managed land to keep the mills going. Mr. McClintock said you have to have the land and the trees growing so it benefits the county to have that wood going to our mills. They will be at 38,000 acres if they close on the Dawson Ridge project. Mr. McClintock stated that people like living next to the easements and it increases the value of their land. If you get 40,000 acres of well-managed land that is all you can do to support the local mills, according to Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock stated that we need the mills and they run on private logs.

Mr. McClintock spoke about mass timber. You can build 18 story buildings with wood. They are using wood to make pre-fabricated buildings up to 18 stories tall. There is a pre-fab building business going in in Spokane Valley, according to Mr. McClintock.

Control of public access is seasonal on the Forest Legacy lands. Chairman Dinning asked if there is the ability to limit access. Mr. McClintock said seasonally they do.

Commissioner Cossairt inquired about funding. Last year funding was $7 million and this one is about half of that, according to Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock said he can see one more project after this on the east side of the county.

Mr. McClintock left the meeting at 3:26 p.m.

3:30 p.m., Bob Howard, Bonner County Emergency Services, and Mike Meier, former Boundary County Emergency Services, along with Jay Baker with the Idaho Office of Emergency Management met with Commissioners to discuss interim emergency services for Boundary County since Mr. Meier has retired. Andrew O’Neel with Paradise Valley Fire and Undersheriff Rich Stephens were also present.

Commissioners presented Mike Meier with a certificate of appreciation for his services to Boundary County.

Mr. Meier said he does not want to lose the ground they have gained and Bob Howard has agreed to step in and cover until we get someone on board. There could also possibly be a joint powers agreement with Bonner County if Commissioners want to consider that down the road. Mr. Howard said he has covered for Mr. Meier in the past for vacations, etc. If there are no emergency services personnel, the responsibility falls to the Sheriff. Mr. Baker stated that state statute requires that there is someone named for emergency management, but in the interim that can be the Sheriff. All grant requirements are met at this point, according to Mr. Baker. Commissioners have to identify someone to take care of the grant reporting and it is basically a clerical function. Mr. Baker stated that there are a couple of counties in the state that are working towards a joint emergency manager. Chairman Dinning asked what efficiencies come out of that type of arrangement. Mr. Baker said he cannot point to anything. Mr. Meier said for the short-term, that is acceptable because you bring that working knowledge to the table. Mr. Baker said that the potential for conflict could be a problem if you have two emergencies going on in each county at the same time. Even in the short-term the county would need to enter into an agreement, according to Chairman Dinning. Mr. Howard said there is actually a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that allows emergency managers to work in all ten northern counties. The mutual aid agreement is with no compensation, according to Mr. Baker.

How would it function if rather than a full-blown person here, they would be like a junior to oversee that position, asked Chairman Dinning. Mr. Baker asked if the county is thinking of hiring someone until a new emergency manager can be trained. Mr. Baker said that could work.

Chairman Dinning said Commissioners are gone next week, but is there anything that needs to be done today. Commissioners asked that Mr. Howard be given access to the armory building and to the computer. With the old MOU in place, the county is covered. Mr. Howard stated that he will document things separately for each county. Mr. Baker said at some point very soon, the Commissioners do need to name an emergency manager as per statute. Reports for the end of June are due by the end of July so those need to be done. Access to the Facebook page has already been given to Mr. Howard, according to Mr. Meier. Commissioners authorized Mr. Howard to access the county web page. Mr. Meier said he will forward any emails to Mr. Howard. Mr. Howard will be doing emergency management and public information officer duties for the time being.

Commissioner Cossairt asked if other counties have separate emergency manager and public information officers. Mr. Howard said other counties have emergency management doing their own public information and others do public information for other departments.

The meeting regarding emergency management ended at 3:51 p.m. Commissioner Kirby left the meeting.

Discussion was held regarding the emergency management/public information officer position or positions.

4:35 p.m., There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

***Tuesday, June 4, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Walt Kirby, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals.

Discussion was held regarding remodeling plans for the armory building. Yesterday, Commissioners placed a call to Longwell + Trapp Architects to inform them that the county has three separate building projects and are in need of architectural services. Longwell + Trapp engineer Cory Trapp returned that call at 9:03 a.m. Chairman Dinning stated that the county is looking at remodeling the Armory and the Extension Building and having new ambulance facility built and need an estimate of cost. The county will also need a project person. Mr. Trapp will schedule a time to come up and walk through those buildings with Commissioners and review the proposed ambulance facility plans. Mr. Trapp will be here Friday at 1:00 p.m. to do the walk through. Chairman Dinning stated that the gymnasium part at the Armory will be converted to offices and an ambulance building will go in next to the Armory with the current ambulance facility located behind the courthouse to be converted into offices.

The phone call with Mr. Trapp ended at 9:08 a.m.

Commissioners attended to administrative duties.

9:41 a.m., Erika Malmen, Boundary County legal counsel, and Kevin Greenleaf, Boundary County environmental consultant, joined the meeting.

9:41 a.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)f, to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 10:25 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Commissioners attended and participated in the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service meeting at the Extension Office where objections were being reviewed by the Forest Service regarding the Bog Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision.

Present were Chairman Dan Dinning; Commissioner Walt Kirby; Commissioner Wally Cossairt; Deputy Clerk Nancy Ryals; Erika Malmen, Boundary County legal counsel; Kevin Greenleaf, Boundary County environmental consultant; Mike Brown, Blue Sky Radio News; Boundary County resident Gary Regehr; Rick Petrey, Matt Turner and Shelly Lubin with the United States Border Patrol; John Petrilla with United States Customs and Border Protection; Rhonda Vogl, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Kootenai Valley Resource Initiation; Sid Smith with Senator Jim Risch’s Office; Karen Roetter with Senator Mike Crapo’s Office; Tim Kastning with Representative Russ Fulcher’s Office; Jeanne Higgins, Kim Pierson, and Kevin Knauth with the United States Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forest; United States Forest Service Objections Review Officer Dan Dallas and Objections Assistant Olga Troxell; and via telephone, Carol Kriebs with Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

Dan Dallas stated that he is the reviewing official for the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Dallas informed those present that he is the Acting Regional Forester for the northern region based out of Missoula. Mr. Dallas stated that he has been involved with this since day one. The purpose of this meeting is to see if the Forest Service can resolve some of the objections before the final decision is made. To see if there is something that can be done to allay people’s concerns. If there is something that can be done that is still inside the analysis that can be included in the final decision-making, the Forest Service is very interested in doing that. The regulations have changed so it is no longer an appeal that is filed, but rather an objection. The purpose is to try to accommodate as much as possible before the final decision. Instead of appearing in an adversarial relationship, the Forest Service makes an effort to try to align things to meet people’s needs the best they can, however sometimes you cannot, according to Mr. Dallas. You can usually find a way to stay inside the analysis that was done and be able to resolve issues, but some are still not resolvable, according to Mr. Dallas. The purpose of this hearing is to come together and talk about objections.

Chairman Dinning informed those present that because there is a quorum, Commissioners have to take minutes and are taping this meeting for ease.

Olga Troxell, Objections Assistant for the United States Forest Service, explained the process. It is a pre-decisional objection process to try to get to a resolution before the decision instead of after. So it is the final administrative step in the process. There was a 45-day review period which ended on April 1st. Usually there is a 30-day period before the reviewing officer issues the decision, but the regulation allows an extension. To be able to meet with objectors, Mr. Dallas chose to extend the review period for 30 more days and Mr. Dallas’ response is due June 15th. Ten objections were received on this project.

Those present introduced themselves.

Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor for the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, said she would be issuing the final decision for the Forest Service on this project.

Mr. Dallas spoke about the reviewing panel that was made up of Forest Service employees, but they are from other units and are totally unfamiliar with this, according to Mr. Dallas. It is a rigorous review. Mr. Dallas said that what he needs to know is if there is an error or omission or failure to follow law, regulation and policy. There is no use exposing it to a larger public process if a mistake has been made, according to Mr. Dallas, and the finding was the analysis is sound. Mr. Dallas said Boundary County’s issues or concerns with the draft decision that was made is open for consideration.

Erika Malmen, counsel for Boundary County, said that Boundary County was very explicit in our objection as to what would solve our objection. There are probably other options that would solve our objection as well that maybe the Forest Service has thought of or what came up in the interdisciplinary team, the team that the Forest Service convened internally to review the objections for compliance with law, policy, and regulations. Ms. Malmen said that we can start perhaps by talking about Modified Alternative 4, which we think is obviously within the scope of alternatives that have already been evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We know that is important to the Forest Service so they do not have to redo the process so perhaps the Forest Service can give us their thoughts on Modified Alternative 4 given, Ms. Malmen thinks, some of the recent conversations the Forest Service has had with Fish & Wildlife Service in particular.

Mr. Dallas stated that one of the county’s issues is the selected alternative does not provide unrestricted east-west access to the inholding property owners. Mr. Dallas read out loud Boundary County’s proposed resolution in Boundary County’s letter of response: “Boundary County suggests that any selected alternative be modified to allow the inholding property owners to obtain a special use permit providing unrestricted east-west access to their property over Blue Joe Creek Road consistent with their historical use. Not only is this modification consistent with the ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act) access requirements, but it would have less impacts on the grizzly bears and their habitat than the selected alternative as currently modified.”

Mr. Dallas said that in their objection letter, the county agrees with the purpose and need for this project up front.

The first issue cited by Boundary County was that the selected alternative did not provide any public access over Forest Service Roads 1009 and 1013. The county’s proposed resolution to that issue: “Boundary County ultimately supports Alternative 4 as the most balanced of the alternatives, because it meets border security needs, public health and safety priorities of the county, as well as meeting the route density and core habitat requirements of the grizzly bear under the Recovery Plan. However, Boundary County would also support the adoption of Alternative 4 Modified. Alternative 4 Modified yields more core habitat than the selected alternative that takes into account community interests and multiple Forest Plan directives, while still improving grizzly habitat and complying with the Access Amendment standards.”

Forest Supervisor Jeanne Higgins thanked the Commissioners for their objection letter and possible resolutions to resolve the concerns. Before they issued the draft decision, the Forest Service had informal discussions with U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service regarding what was required for the grizzly bear in order not to have a jeopardy opinion from Fish & Wildlife Service, according to Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins stated that ultimately her responsibility is to insure that she does not jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear. So in those informal consultations the discussion was such that even though all of the alternatives met the Access Amendment standards such as total road density, open motorized route density and core habitat, core habitat with several of the alternatives was of concern to Fish & Wildlife Service. In the previous commission meeting, the associate field supervisor and field supervisor explained some of their rationale why opening up the east-west route in total would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the bear and how that might impact core habitat, according to Ms. Higgins. So after that meeting and after the initial issuance of the draft decision, the Forest Service submitted a biological assessment to Fish & Wildlife Service based on that informal conversation with Fish & Wildlife Service. Fish & Wildlife Service did some further analysis and further consultation with other experts in the Fish & Wildlife Service agency and indicated that their initial assessment of the potential impacts and the best option for the bear, which was described in Ms. Higgins’ draft decision, which was alternative 3 modified, was likely not going to be the best for the bear after all. Upon further consultation, they felt it would be less impact to the bear if access to private land did not come through Bog Creek, but in fact came east to west from Bonners Ferry to Blue Joe Creek because that is a pattern that has been established and the bear has gotten used to. So as a result they can support that unlimited access to the private lands from east to west to Blue Joe Creek itself along the route that they have used since the border has been closed, which is through the 1009 road. That was one point. Ms. Higgins stated that the other relates to public access which concerns the first issue listed by the county. They took a harder look at public access. The draft decision itself would not change for public access so there would be no change from the most recent use. However, certainly Alternative 4 and Alternative 4 Modified would have allowed public use beyond what has been available probably in the last at least 15 years if not longer, Ms. Higgins was unsure of the time frame, but said certainly since the border has been closed. Ms. Higgins stated that the question was on the table about can we grant some public access and what would that look like. Within the context of what the Forest Service had analyzed in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), they said they believed that some form of seasonal access on the 1009 road was something they could support and they felt that would not jeopardize the continued existence of the bear. Their suggestion was that we could have seasonal access, consistent with Alternative 4 Modified, and the time period was from July 15th to August 15th. The 2454 road basically is open to the border and the road is closed to public access at the 1009 road. The access that they believe would be acceptable is from that junction all the way into Silver Creek which is at the junction of the 2253 road, basically at the intersection of Silver Creek, so that is about five miles of the 1009 road. Some of those present looked at a map to make sure they understood where it is and what it looks like. Ms. Higgins stated that there are some other components related to the grazing permittee’s access at Grass Creek, but his continued access into Grass Creek was included in the draft decision. As far as public access goes, that would be between July 15th and August 15th and that is a time period when the bears are not emerging from their dens or trying to put on weight to support their cubs and not the time period when hunting season is occurring in the fall said Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins said that is the feedback U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service gave to the Forest Service, that they could support a change in the Forest Service’s action and allow some additional public access.

Mr. Dallas stated that he does not think it gives all of the 1009 road, but it gives Silver Creek for the most part. According to Mr. Dallas, it does provide at least five miles of access over roads 1009 and 1013. Regarding issue 2, the selected alternative does not provide unrestricted east-west access to inholding property owners, Mr. Dallas said that it provides some through negotiations through Fish & Wildlife Service, but added that he certainly could not call it unrestricted. Kim Pierson said it would be and Ms. Higgins agreed. Chairman Dinning said the county was under the impression that it was an easement, totally unrestricted, perpetual. Mr. Dallas said he was talking about length-wise and it is two different things. Ms. Higgins agreed that it was two different things. Ms. Higgins stated that the private landowners would have access beyond Silver Creek to the private property so it would come from east-west and it would be unrestricted. Ms. Higgins clarified that unlimited is a better term, not unrestricted. It would be unlimited access and it would be through an appropriate instrument to grant that access, according to Ms. Higgins. They would work out that administrative piece of it once the decision is issued, according to Ms. Higgins.

Chairman Dinning asked, in Ms. Higgins’ discussion with Fish & Wildlife, what was the reasoning in this case. About a third of that road it was okay to go in on, but the other two-thirds it would not be. What was Fish & Wildlife’s analysis for that? Ms. Higgins responded that their assessment is that the most important habitat right now for grizzly bear is in Bog Creek and in Grass Creek so they originally were looking at closing Grass Creek in order to provide some offset for the disturbance that was going to occur in Bog Creek. Their preference is to keep Bog Creek fairly restricted so the intention is that the use on Bog Creek would be very, very minimal and it would be restricted to Border Patrol’s need to access that. They feel like there is going to be a disturbance there, but it would be less disturbance and both Bog Creek and Grass Creek have habitat components that are important to the bear. So they did not want to come any closer into Grass Creek because they felt that there would be more conflict with bears with increased public access into Grass Creek. So that is why they stopped at Silver Creek, according to Ms. Higgins.

Erika Malmen said it looks like the road is currently seasonally restricted and she asked if that designation would stay the same. Ms. Higgins said that the difference is that it is restricted to administrative use and it is restricted seasonally. They count trips and the administrative use is limited to 57 trips. When you talk about season, it is during the time when there is bear immergence from April 15th to November 1st and that is when the active bear year is. There normally would not be a restriction during the winter months. There is currently a closure in that area because of a separate legal decision over snow use, but normally the only restricted period would be during that time period when the bear is active. What is different is this would be unlimited public access during the time period July 15th to August 15th which is similar to what was submitted in Alternative 4 Modified. The idea is recognizing that there is more activity with the bear and there could be more conflict and trying to reduce that conflict. The reason they stopped at Silver Creek was because of the anticipated usage and activity in Grass Creek. Ms. Malmen stated that the rest of the year the road would be open for administrative use only and then this period from July 15th to August 15th would be unlimited public access. Ms. Higgins indicated that was correct and further stated that she would imagine that there would be some variation of the number of administrative trips that could be taken during the time period other than July 15th to August 15th because those 57 trips are split out by season so there are less trips during certain parts of the season because of the potential for disturbance to the bear. Ms. Higgins went on to say she would imagine that there would be some variation to that that would be available to the agency and remember this also includes permitted access. Ms. Higgins stated that now that Ms. Malmen asks that question, she is not really sure because the Forest Service limits themselves to those 57 trips, but they would not place a limitation on access to private land so she is not sure how Fish & Wildlife Service would view that so at this point in time anyway there is some expectation that there would be limited agency access during that time other than July 15th to August 15th. Ms. Malmen asked if this segment they are talking about now is currently being used by private inholdings. Ms. Higgins responded that this is the route that is used to access the private land. Ms. Malmen asked if it was the mine. Ms. Higgins indicated that it is the mine. Ms. Malmen asked if it was limited to just the mine or are there other private inholdings. Ms. Higgins said that there are no other private inholdings and the only use that occurs on that road is administrative use.

Ms. Malmen said so in theory if this were to be agreeable, it sounds like there may be some maintenance activities that would be needed to restore it to a condition where it can accommodate public access. Ms. Higgins said that she has not been on the road so she does not know what its current condition is as far as its drivability. Someone said it is an excellent road. Ms. Malmen stated that she only asks because she thinks someone mentioned some sort off washout or some kind of issue on it now that would need to be addressed. Someone said that it was at Bog Creek. Ms. Malmen inquired if they would foresee a lot of additional maintenance in order to accommodate public access. Ms. Higgins stated that the one thing that she is not certain about is they have to provide a safe turnaround and they have to find a location somewhere along that route that makes the most sense for a turnaround and without having the engineers out there to access that she is not sure exactly what that would look like.

Ms. Malmen asked if Fish & Wildlife Service indicated if the Forest Service would adopt Alternative 4 Modified that would result in a jeopardy decision. Ms. Higgins responded that they did. Ms. Malmen inquired even though Fish & Wildlife understands that regarding the Access Amendment and Recovery Plan requirements, all the i’s have been dotted and t’s have been crossed on all of that, Fish & Wildlife Service is still taking the position that we would have jeopardy. Ms. Higgins stated that Alternative 4 Modified was seasonally available public access along the entire length through Bog Creek to Priest Lake. Chairman Dinning asked if it was all the way through. Ms. Higgins stated all the way through. Kim Pierson added we are talking about the entire package versus the small portion of Alternative 4 Modified she thinks is the key to this.

Ms. Higgins stated their biggest concern is that piece from Grass Creek to Bog Creek because that is where the quality habitat is for the bear. Because Alternative 4 Modified included public access through Bog Creek during that period July 15th to August 15th, their concern was that public access during that period would impact the bear because of bear movement north-south. So they believe if public access is limited to Silver Creek, then the bear would still have that corridor to be able to move. Even though there would be some administrative access, it would be fairly minimal and that is the kind of access that is currently occurring in there now, which the bear has gotten used to. There is a difference in terms of Bog Creek, but their feeling is that would not jeopardize the continued existence. It would have if we would have allowed full public access on that entire length of road even during a month period of time, according to Ms. Higgins. That was the conversation the Forest Service had with Fish & Wildlife Service because the Forest Service did include Alternative 4 Modified in the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement).

Ms. Malmen asked if it was their view that 30 days of public access would result in jeopardy to the whole of Bog Creek. Ms. Higgins and Mr. Dallas reviewed the map with Chairman Dinning and Ms. Malmen. Chairman Dinning said so Alternative 4 Modified was analyzed which takes the road to the Blue Joe gate and that was analyzed by Fish & Wildlife. Ms. Higgins said yes and pointed to two areas on the map that the Forest Service discussed with Fish & Wildlife Service. Ms. Higgins said Fish & Wildlife Service’s concern is with Grass Creek because with Bog Creek Road there will be some disturbance there. The bear is primarily using that area and there will be disturbance with reconstruction there and the minimal use the Border Patrol will have. Fish & Wildlife believes that Grass Creek is going to be critical to provide offset habitat to Bog Creek and that is why they would only support access into Silver Creek rather than all the way into Grass Creek and then Blue Joe Creek. Ms. Higgins asked John Petrilla if that was correct and Mr. Petrilla responded that it was.

Rhonda Vogl asked Ms. Higgins if she was modifying the Modified Alternative 4 essentially. Ms. Higgins stated that it was within what the Forest Service had analyzed in the EIS and the Forest Service would have to modify the biological assessment because the biological assessment did not include that, but based their conversations with Fish & Wildlife, Fish & Wildlife Service believes that they have the biology and science to support that. This is all verbal. We do not have a written biological opinion yet, but there have been a number of discussions around what Fish & Wildlife Service could support. Fish & Wildlife believes they can support this based on visiting with experts from the Montana field office. The rationale again is that we have got fairly established use to private land and the administrative uses and the additional public access should not jeopardize the continued existence of the bear, according to Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins said that she will say that there are going to be some monitoring requirements that come with this. Additional monitoring to understand whether or not if we do make these modifications to the decision that they are still supporting recovery of the bear because that is ultimately Fish & Wildlife’s goal is continued recovery of the bear. Fish & Wildlife believes that the science will actually now support those components that Ms. Higgins just described.

Mr. Dallas said if Boundary County believes that this is a sufficient resolution then the actual process part of it is what is more or less what Ms. Higgins described. This whole thing would then be a modification not only to the final Record of Decision (ROD), the key point is that it would go into the analysis that gets submitted associated with this project to Fish & Wildlife Service and then Fish & Wildlife Service would ultimately issue their opinion. Fish & Wildlife Service has more or less told the Forest Service this is what we believe is feasible and Fish & Wildlife Service is okay with that.

Ms. Malmen asked would that require also a slight modification to the Forest Service biological assessment that would be done. Mr. Dallas and Ms. Higgins responded yes. Ms. Higgins said what that means then is that the Forest Service would have to modify the biological assessment and that actually starts the clock again for their production of the biological opinion. The biological opinion would come within 135 days.

Chairman Dinning inquired if this was acceptable, would there be a document created, an easement to Boundary County for that public access. Chairman Dinning stated that because people change and Forest Plans change, he wants something that cannot be undone by somebody who is not associated with this process. Ms. Higgins asked if Chairman Dinning could ask that again as there was a train going by which was making it hard to hear. Chairman Dinning stated that we have an easement now in the Boundary Creek settlement and he asked if there would be a document similar to that to Boundary County because everything that we may agree with today can be undone at any point in the future by different parties, by people totally unrelated, by a new Forest Plan and all kinds of things. Chairman Dinning asked Ms. Higgins how she foresees nailing something down. Ms. Higgins stated that Chairman Dinning is actually bringing something forward that he did not necessarily identify in the county’s objection resolution letter. Ms. Higgins said that there would be an instrument that would grant the private landowners access. Ms. Higgins started to comment that in terms of the county though and Chairman Dinning indicated that is not what he meant. Chairman Dinning asked how the public is protected with the decision so in ten or 20 years when there is another Forest Plan, somebody just does not just wipe this out on a whim where all of the sudden we have made a decision that we do not have access anymore to that point. Ms. Higgins responded that this decision does not guarantee another decision being made in the future so it does not necessarily impact the county’s current easement. Chairman Dinning stated that he is talking about this additional public access. Ms. Higgins responded that she thinks that there are a couple of factors at play here. Obviously the Forest Service would meet the Access Amendment standards so what would cause a change is the question that we need to ask ourselves, according to Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins stated that in her mind, the only thing that would cause a change would be if the activities we are having on the landscape were somehow impacting the recovery of the bear. Ms. Higgins stated that she does not even know what that would look like. Ms. Higgins continued by saying that the other thing that could change is if the Forest Service was to propose active management in this area and they needed to open up some roads to actually manage it, they may need to make some modifications to meet the grizzly bear standards and actually be able to do that active management. Ms. Higgins stated that those are two things that she could think of that could impact or influence a change in the future. Ms. Higgins asked if Forest Service District Ranger Kevin Knauth could think of anything else. Mr. Knauth stated that an analysis would occur and public opinion would be sought. Ms. Higgins agreed that it would be a public process.

Ms. Malmen suggested that it could be the listing of a new species which could impact the use of it. Ms. Malmen said that her impression is that the Forest Service can administratively decide without public input to open and close roads based on certain criteria. Ms. Higgins responded that those are generally a very limited, narrow set of criteria and usually if the Forest Service is going to open and close roads there will be a public process. Generally it is for safety reasons that the Forest Service temporarily closes roads. Mr. Dallas added for emergencies and Ms. Higgins agreed. Generally the expectation requirement is that there is a public process if the Forest Service is going to open or close roads to public access. Ms. Malmen asked if this is the same road that the Continental Mine folks are using now for east-west access. Ms. Higgins responded yes. Ms. Malmen questioned if maybe that is why it is a little bit more palatable to Fish & Wildlife Service. Ms. Higgins responded yes.

Ms. Malmen asked those representing the Border Patrol, when they participated in this process, what alternatives were they willing to live with in terms of the range that was considered in the EIS. Rick Petrey responded that all the alternatives met the Border Patrol’s need. Their need was for access to Bog Creek. They needed that east-west access so they could actually patrol the border. Mr. Petrey stated that he has learned much more about the grizzly bear than he ever intended as a Border Patrol Agent and it is a very complicated situation. A lot of the discussion has been how much public access, but the more access that is there, it requires the Border Patrol to be there more. Mr. Petrey stated that the short answer is, any of them, we just need the access.

Ms. Malmen stated that she has seen some comments on both sides of the issue of whether public access is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of Border Patrol. She has read that it is good to have more eyes, more people reporting. Ms. Malmen went on to say that she has heard comments like what Mr. Petrey described being maybe it makes Border Patrol’s work more difficult with public access. Ms. Malmen stated that she was wondering if there is an internal thought process on that.

Mr. Petrey said Border Patrol works very closely with a lot of the landowners up there now and they have an outstanding relationship with the right people in the area and absolutely they can give the Border Patrol some information, but the Border Patrol cannot control under public access who is up there. The limited people who are up there now, they have a great relationship with landowners and they have a communications site up there and if they want to call the Border Patrol and report things, that is great. A known presence isn’t necessarily adverse to border operations, but anytime you increase the number of people, that is more people that Border Patrol has to sort through and it does require Border Patrol to be in that area. We would like to think that anyone who would go up to that area would be there hunting and for recreation, but the reality is that there is narcotic smuggling that goes on up there and that increased access would definitely impact, according to Mr. Petrey.

Ms. Malmen stated that she knows this is a new alternative that we are discussing although within the range of alternatives that were considered. She inquired has Border Patrol had a chance to think about this or is this something that they will have to go back and take a look at as well. Mr. Petrey responded that they have thought about that and with that short period, that one-month time period, they would have to adjust their operations during that time due to the increased activity, but that is much easier to withstand for a month’s time than it would be for the entire summer. Anytime that it is open for unlimited access that would be a lot harder with manpower being what it is. We can make that adjustment for the month period so the Border Patrol has to take that into account and they would be willing to support that increase for that one month up to Silver Creek, according to Mr. Petrey.

Chairman Dinning stated that historically after the settlement on Boundary Creek Road, had Boundary County not intervened as they did in that whole process, you would not even be able to rebuild Bog Creek today because that would have been gone. The only reason you are able to do it now is because the county entered into that settlement agreement for future use. We spent eight years in court, according to Chairman Dinning, and so it concerns him a little bit that we hear on a national level that public access is fine. At least that is what we hear. But it is not occurring here even though we have been just as great a partner as anybody else has, according to Chairman Dinning. This settlement with Boundary Creek Road was originally intended to give access to the intersection of the 2450 and the 1013 road. It went through Canada, but public access was to that point. When everything with 911 occurred, that ultimately went away and that was sometime in 2006 or 2007 Chairman Dinning thinks that was when it was shut off. So we are looking at 13 years. Had all of that not occurred we would still have access to that intersection, according to Chairman Dinning. Now we can go back in hindsight and say we entered into an agreement that said we did not have to replace it if we shut the border off and we did, but the overarching intent of all of that was to provide public access to the intersection of the 2450 and the 1013 stated Chairman Dinning. Chairman Dinning stated that he looks at this from a standpoint of what is right. We can take science or somebody’s opinion and we can make it match anything we pre-determine and, to Chairman Dinning, he has concerns about what is being proposed especially with the intent of the original settlement on Boundary Creek. Kind of the way this all rolled out with the Forest Service in that, way before Ms. Higgins and Ms. Pierson and Chairman Dinning said he is not blaming them, but the Forest Service promised to come back to the Commissioners before any alternatives were developed and allow us to see what we could do as a community and that never occurred. Chairman Dinning said asked Ms. Higgins at the last meeting where is the Fish & Wildlife Service. This is typically the problem, according to Chairman Dinning. The Forest Service has to deal with Fish & Wildlife Service in a vacuum from the public’s view is what occurs. Chairman Dinning said he would love to have Fish & Wildlife at the table today so we could specifically ask them questions. One question that was never answered for Chairman Dinning was the 1009 road is going to be called an open road for modeling and open road density for core habitat is his understanding. It would have been that way and so other than someone’s perception that this is going to be jeopardizing animals, there is really no change to anything that is being modeled. Probably from Fish & Wildlife’s side that is how it comes to the Forest Service. Chairman Dinning stated that we never did get a good answer from Fish & Wildlife if it is modeled as an open road why can’t it be an open road to the public and even a 30-day open road. Chairman Dinning stated that he does not know if Ms. Higgins had the conversation with Fish & Wildlife Service or if they even raised the issue.

Ms. Higgins stated she is not actually sure if she can answer that, but she would do her best. Ms. Higgins stated that she is not a bear biologist and she is probably not describing it right so she is putting all those caveats out there. The greatest influence on bear movement is roads and this science is born out of does that road have an impact on bear movement. The science has shown that there is a certain amount of activity on a road that is tolerated by bears before they start avoiding it and that science relates to the number of trips that are allowed. In this case, the agencies have been adhering to those number of trips however the private landowners have had basically unlimited access to their property. There is not a real good assessment of how many trips are actually occurring there, but it is a use that has been established and there has not been conflict with that. Ms. Higgins stated that is what she is hearing Fish & Wildlife say is that piece they believe is manageable and will not jeopardize the continued existence of the bear. If the road was open all the way to Blue Joe Creek for public use, that increases not only the number of trips, but it also increases the possibility of human/bear conflict. Depending on the length of time, obviously the time period of July 15th to August 15th is not during an active hunting season, so there is less potential for conflict related to hunting, but more potential for conflict related to users who are not used to being in bear country and having potential encounters with bears which creates a potential for increased mortality. It is that possible occurrence of increased mortality along with the disturbance and avoidance of the road. The north-south corridor is really important to the bears moving back and forth in the bear management unit between Canada and the United States. That movement is really critical to the genetic exchange of bears to be able to reproduce and increase the population. Ms. Higgins stated that is the best she can do to describe and she asked if Ms. Pierson, Mr. Petrilla, or Mr. Knauth had anything that suggests she did not describe that right or that there is something more or that she has missed something.

Mr. Petrilla said that he thinks that is right. Ms. Higgins hit an important point that the road would not be modeled as open because the trips from the Continental Mine owners would exceed the 57 which is the threshold for the restricted designation. However, it is the increase of trips through Grass Creek during even the summer months when Fish & Wildlife has told us there is high quality summer and fall habitat in Grass Creek that they worry that increased access from the public would jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear. It is really those two things that Ms. Higgins has hit on already. It’s the established use that the Continental Mine owners and the administrative users already have and the high quality summer and fall habitat that is in Grass Creek and Bog Creek that they have shown in their modeling that the grizzly bears use those areas whereas they don’t have that concern in the Silver Creek area, according to Mr. Petrilla. That is sort of why Fish & Wildlife Service has been pointing us in this area because it is possible to support public access in the eastern third to Silver Creek, but not any farther into Grass Creek or into Bog Creek, according to Mr. Petrilla.

Chairman Dinning said to clarify, in case he may have misheard, if there is no public access on the western two thirds of the 1009 road, will that still be modeled as an open road? Mr. Petrilla said he thinks it would have to be modeled as an open road. Kim Pierson added that it would have to be open administratively. Mr. Petrilla agreed stating that is the definition in the terms of the EIS, right? Ms. Pierson stated it would actually have to be a special case where opened administratively had some . . . we may have to look at it. Ms. Pierson said she is not sure. Ms. Pierson said they feel like it is covered in the range of alternatives. Ms. Higgins said that it would be modeled as an open road for the purposes of the Access Amendment so it would be included in the OMRD model. Chairman Dinning stated that was his question. It’s open motorized, it counts against density so there is an assumption that it is already exceeding the trips in that model so other than we think there is going to be bear conflict, Chairman Dinning stated that is where he is getting confused and he’s not understanding and he’s spent a lot of time with it. If it is called an open road, it is modeled an open road, it impacts core, it impacts all of the other statistical things, then why shouldn’t it be able to be used, asked Chairman Dinning. Chairman Dinning added, or reduce somewhere the impact in the tabulations of the core and the OMRD and all of that because it is not truly that.

Ms. Pierson said the other piece of that is we all want to the alternatives to meet the Access Amendment, but there is that management situation where the needs of the grizzly bear need to be put first according to the Recovery Plan. Ms. Pierson said that she thinks that is part of that balance in understanding where can there be impacts and where can there be offsets. It is the mix of those things that would allow some public use here, but we have got to accommodate and offset that somewhere else and that is where that Grass Creek piece becomes so critical, according to Ms. Pierson. Chairman Dinning said that we can agree to disagree.

Ms. Higgins indicated that the Forest Service is just relaying what they hear from the professionals that are experts in those areas. Ms. Higgins said that she thinks if this was a bear management unit in some other location, we probably would not be having this conversation. Because of its location and because of the north-south transcontinental movement, this is a primary and critical corridor for their movement. Their telemetry data bears that out. Ms. Higgins asked if Fish & Wildlife Service left the maps with the Commissioners the last time. Chairman Dinning said none of the telemetry stuff was shared with Commissioners. Ms. Higgins stated that she would hope that she could share that with Commissioners. Ms. Higgins said Fish & Wildlife brought maps the last time and she thought they were left with Commissioners, but they show that movement. That is about the best that she can describe it in terms of why that corridor is critical. Ms. Higgins continued by stating that previous conversations were that any increased public access was going to be problematic. Ms. Higgins thinks the biggest challenge is reconstructing Bog Creek Road is going to impact the bear and she thinks that we have known that all along, that it is going to have an impact to the bear and how the bear uses Bog Creek right now. Now the issue becomes how do we adjust for that and try to minimize that impact. Fish & Wildlife Service has told the Forest Service time and time again that Grass Creek becomes really important because of quality habitat. So that is why those two areas ended up becoming such a focal point around trying to minimize the amount of use that occurs in there whether it is administrative or public use. The conversations have been around how the agencies can reduce their presence in that area and being able to understand how the bear is using that area. Obviously the whole intention of reconstructing Bog Creek is so the Border Patrol can have easier access in there to follow-up on things that might be occurring in that area, but it is not necessarily expected that they will be there every single day. Ms. Higgins said regardless that is not necessarily for us to know and they need to be able to carry out their mission. Those two things are a delicate balance. She thinks that the Fish & Wildlife Service is using the best science that they have to try to inform and support it. Will it change in the future, Ms. Higgins stated that she thinks that is one of the questions that Commissioners had originally is something changing here and could it change in the future and she thinks it is all dependent on how well the grizzly bear is ultimately recovered. Shelly Lubin added, and the importance of monitoring. Ms. Higgins agreed.

Ms. Higgins said that she realizes that this is probably not what the county was hoping for. Chairman Dinning stated Ms. Higgins is right. Ms. Higgins stated that this may not completely resolve the county’s issues but there are options here related to how the Forest Service proceeds. Chairman Dinning stated that there are other additional roads. Right now the 2254 is shut. Chairman Dinning stated that it stays away from Grass Creek and it is down even closer to the eastern side. Chairman Dinning inquired are there other roads additionally and did the Forest Service look at any along those lines. Ms. Higgins responded that the challenge with that is we have not included those as open public access and they were not included in the EIS. Whether or not there is additional open motorized access in certain areas that would be supported by the Fish & Wildlife Service, there could be, but it would take more analysis in order to be able to do that, according to Ms. Higgins. Ms. Higgins said the Forest Service would still have to meet that total in open route density. Ms. Higgins stated that the Forest Service looked at so many different options with it. Ms. Higgins pointed out that on the map, the roads in red would be put in storage so that we can meet the total motorized route density. The blue roads are still within total route density, but they would not be accessible and would not be considered open road so they would all be managed under that 57 trips. They would be available for administrative use.

Ms. Pierson added that some of the red roads, the closure actually allows the Forest Service to meet that percentage of core as well which is why there is some concern. It would be nice to utilize those, but we still have that need under the Access Amendment to meet core, according to Ms. Pierson.

Mr. Dallas stated that he would characterize it slightly different. The county asked the question if it counts in the model as an open road, why can’t it be open. Mr. Dallas stated that Ms. Higgins explained the modeling that there was a certain level that the bears do not tolerate or get used to because the agencies are accessing it. There are vehicles on that road, but it is limited. It is basically a mitigation measure. It still stays open, there is some level of use and there is unlimited use during a time that is least likely to impact the bears, but it is still an open road the rest of the time because there is some limited use there. The mitigation then is limiting that to a time when it is least likely to impact the bears with complete openness and then not going clear through, which was the county’s interest, but it would still stay an open road. It was the mitigation that was applied to it to try to limit the impact. Mr. Dallas stated that it does not completely meet what the county wants which was being able to get clear through, but there is some level of give through the interactions with the Fish & Wildlife Service. Mr. Dallas stated that his question back to the county is, and it does not have to be answered at the table it might be a process where the county has to go back and consider it, but for all intents and purposes the Forest Service and Border Patrol have described what they can do which is what brought on the county’s objection. Mr. Dallas asked if it was sufficient for the county to withdraw their objection or keep it on the table. Mr. Dallas thinks the Forest Service is willing to go back and make this change in the biological assessment regardless.

Ms. Higgins stated that she thinks there are two options which is the county can keep their objection on the table, but the Forest Service would note that this would address partially the county’s concern or the county could withdraw their objection if the county felt their issues have been resolved. So the county can either leave it on the table with this recognition that it partially meets the county’s need or interest, resolves the county’s issues or the county can withdraw their objection. The county can do either one, according to Ms. Higgins.

Mr. Dallas said from a process standpoint, it does not need to be done at this table. Objections Assistance Olga Troxell said that it has to be done by June 15th. Chairman Dinning asked for clarification of what has to be done by June 15th. Ms. Troxell stated that Mr. Dallas needs to respond by June 15th. If the county drops the objection, the county would not get a written response. If the county keeps it on the table, the county will receive a written response. Mr. Dallas said that it gives the county the ability to seek legal redress. Chairman Dinning asked if the county chose to respond to the resolution offer, what does the county need to do at a future date between now and the 15th of June. Chairman Dinning asked if the county has until the 15th to do that. Ms. Troxell stated that Ms. Dallas has until the 15th so he has to get a response out to all objectors by then, but the county can respond informally by talking to Mr. Dallas. For the Forest Service to acknowledge if the county drops their objection, that needs to be submitted in writing. If the county does not respond, the Forest Service just assumes it is still on the table. Chairman Dinning indicated that it made sense and that he thinks this was the same question the Continental Mine owners had because he does not believe they dropped their objection. Ms. Troxell stated that they did not. Chairman Dinning stated that we have nothing that says this is how it is going to occur down the road and he asked if that was accurate. Ms. Troxell responded yes.

Ms. Malmen said if the county did not take any action, the county would get a response from the reviewing officer by June 15th to all of the points in the county’s objection. Ms. Troxell said that is correct. Ms. Malmen said that her impression is that it would not be too late to still try to proceed to some sort of settlement after that point or is there a cutoff date when this resolution is off the table. Ms. Malmen stated obviously after the ROD (Record of Decision) is issued but, between now and then. Mr. Dallas clarified stating this process has a beginning and an end. Knowing what we know now, Mr. Dallas, suggested just writing a letter in response. Mr. Dallas said there is documentation and a recording of what the resolution was so just based on the partial meeting of the county’s interest here just so everyone can hear it, he asked Ms. Higgins and Ms. Pierson if they intend now on going forward and modifying the biological assessment to accommodate that. Ms. Higgins said yes. Ms. Higgins stated that the Forest Service agreed last week that they will accommodate that and it is captured in the notes the unlimited access to the private land and again they did not withdraw their objection, but that is captured in the notes that the Forest Service will do that and the same thing would be true with the granting of public access on the 1009 road. Chairman Dinning inquired if we did nothing, the Forest Service would still proceed with what has been offered today. Ms. Higgins said yes. Mr. Dallas said that was why he asked the question and asked that it be answered verbally so it could be captured in the notes. Ms. Troxell said that Mr. Dallas is the reviewing officer and Ms. Higgins and Ms. Pierson have all the work to do, but Mr. Dallas can instruct Ms. Higgins and Ms. Pierson to do this. Chairman Dinning said we have to do nothing to have that occur. Ms. Higgins said to remember, the Forest Service has several objections yet to go through here and we do not know how the day will end, but Fish & Wildlife Service has said that they can support that so she intends to do that. Ms. Higgins went on to say that the county doesn’t have to do anything and she believes this partially resolves the county’s issues and whether the county chooses to formally acknowledge that or not is up to the county. Ms. Dallas asked, just as a matter of public record and intergovernmental courtesy, that some sort of documentation letter from the county stating the county understands that the 1009 will go through to Silver Creek and the county asks that the Forest Service follow through with that. Ms. Pierson said that it will be in the final decision. Ms. Malmen said that it will have to be in the Final Record of Decision that is issued in the fall as the selected alternative. Ms. Higgins and Mr. Dallas agreed. Ms. Pierson said that currently the draft decision has elements and parts of the alternatives and the final decision, which the Forest Service will be consulting on, will have some modifications to those elements, but that will be the final decision. Ms. Higgins said know that this is all verbal. We still have to get the biological opinion before the final decision is issued, but we have modified the biological opinion. Mr. Dallas said that his number one instruction is do not issue the decision until you have the notes in the biological opinion. Ms. Malmen said yes, that would be critical.

Ms. Malmen stated that she is curious about the team that the Forest Service selected to review the county’s objection letter. Initially Mr. Dallas had mentioned that it was sort of an interdisciplinary type team. Ms. Malmen asked if somebody from ODC was on that team. Mr. Dallas said yes and he added that he would call them ad hoc. Mr. Dallas said from a process standpoint how this would occur is the team initially comes back to him. Mr. Dallas said the team by the way, or the panel or whatever we call them, is certainly a wildlife biologist that probably has grizzly bear experience, a reality specialist because of the questions about easements and legal access and that sort of thing, and an environmental coordinator. It would mirror a lot the team that did the analysis, according to Mr. Dallas. Mr. Dallas said ODC’s role is, number one they come back to him and they just go through all the assertions and all of the objections. For anything the environmental community said about the failures of the Forest Service’s analysis, the folks from Continental Mine said the opposite. If they come back to him and say there is a questionable thing about whether we have complied with the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, or National Forest Management Act, then Mr. Dallas stated that he engages them to look at it and they usually tell him its yes or no or a gray type thing then they tell him how much risk or liability the Forest Service is looking at. Mr. Dallas said there was a no as they could find absolute proof of compliance with everything. The second thing was an assertion made that is unique or different or has not been seen before, is precedence setting, so then Mr. Dallas said that he asks them to engage in that part of it too. Mr. Dallas said so yes, ODC is and usually is involved in some way or another in every one of these. It is a rare one when the Forest Service does not engage them, Mr. Dallas said, but are they sitting there the whole time, no.

Ms. Malmen stated that the primary reason she asked that question was on page five of the county’s objection the county questions whether the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines are really binding and whether they were actually incorporated into the Forest Plan. That seems to be, at the end of the day, the sentence that the Fish & Wildlife Service hangs their hat on, which is we have to prioritize the needs of the bear over all of the other needs. Ms. Malmen thinks that comes from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines so she was just curious if that came up in the legal review and if the Forest Service received any feedback on that assertion. From a practical perspective, Ms. Malmen stated that it was hard for her to wrap her mind around the fact that you can have an action that meets the Recovery Plan and the Access Amendment, but still end up with a jeopardy opinion. Ms. Malmen went on to say that this sort of plays into that argument that I’m not even sure that the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines are binding or secondly were incorporated into the Forest Plan. If that is sort of the trigger for all of these, Ms. Malmen stated that she doesn’t want to call it hypersensitivity, but the feeling is that more activity is necessarily bad, she guesses what she is suggesting is that she is not sure that prioritizing the needs over the grizzly bear hasn’t already been done by the fact that we are complying with the Recovery Plan and the Forest Plan and Access Amendment. Ms. Higgins stated that she cannot answer that.

Mr. Dallas stated that he can answer it in this way, in a broad general sort of way. Being familiar with endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, those guidelines that come through, there is a process once something is listed, the reasons why it is listed, the science behind it all kind of feeds into that. Then there is how are we going to manage it and that is unique to every species. Mr. Dallas said that is a statement in the Endangered Species Act that then gets pulled into the guidelines which then gets pulled into the management. That is actually a statement of the law, it is just a general statement and that is how they treat it. There is all this other stuff that is related to it as far as mitigation and all of that kind of stuff. You manage as conservatively as possible. All of this stuff just kind of flows down through from the intent of the Endangered Species Act, according to Mr. Dallas. Mr. Dallas said that he can see that we could argue about this for hours.

Mr. Dallas said that he would appreciate some sort of response, but it is up to the county. The whole thing about withdrawing the objection, do you want to keep the objection on the table, some sort of acknowledgment so we can match our notes and the recording, would be useful, according to Mr. Dallas. Ms. Malmen said that she thinks that we could commit to communicating after we have a discussion amongst ourselves about how we want to proceed. Ms. Malmen informed those present that the county very much appreciates their time.

Commissioners’ participation in the objection resolution meeting with the Forest Service regarding Bog Creek ended at 12:08 p.m. and they returned to their chambers in the Courthouse along with legal counsel Erika Malmen.

12:16 p.m., Commissioner Kirby moved to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-206(1)f, to communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Commissioner Cossairt second. Commissioners voted as follows: Chairman Dinning “aye”, Commissioner Cossairt “aye” and Commissioner Kirby “aye”. Motion passed unanimously. The executive session ended at 12:32 p.m.

Commissioner Kirby moved to sign the no spray weed agreements for Sharon and BJ Wood, Chris Smith, Mike and Karen Glazier, Lara O’Neel, Richard Jenkins, Ray Sayers, Rob Fredericks and Mimi Feuling, Marqui and Simon Ronniger, and Kathy and Wayne Tesoriero. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Erika Malmen and Chairman Dinning left the meeting at 12:33 p.m. to return to the Extension Office to hear other Bog Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision objectors that were scheduled.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:33 p.m.

These minutes were approved by motion on June 24, 2019.

____________________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman

ATTEST:

_________________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Nancy Ryals, Deputy Clerk