Payette Coalition Community Forum http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/PayetteForward.html hourly 1 1970-01-01T00:00+00:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39007206 <p class="plain">Sorry to be late to the conversation, but on reading through everything I agree this would be good to discuss further in September. </p><p class="plain"><br></p> Regan 2019-08-23T11:21:54-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39007160 <p class="plain">It seems that further information and dialogue is needed regarding this letter.  I suggest holding off on its submittal and setting some time aside at the September meeting to address the issues brought up in discussion here and see if we can find way forward.</p> Paul_Litow 2019-08-23T09:48:13-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Draft August Meeting Notes http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006446 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">RE: the old voting rule, I obviously misunderstood.  Sorry, Frank, and thanks, Dennis.  <br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Dennis, there is an action item under the voting discussion for me get the amended voting rule language to you so that it is documented for future reference and inform the PFC where it will live on the website.  It is on my to-do list. </div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-08-22T18:53:28-07:00 RE: Draft August Meeting Notes RE: Voting Rule http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006445 <p class="plain">I believe Frank is referring to the voting eligibility rule regarding a PFC member's  BCC signature date compared to the date the PFC adopted project recommendations.  That rule does appear in the February 15, 2017 PFC meeting notes under the discussion of Member Expectations and Decision Process.  </p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Since the PFC is a self-organizing, self-governing entity that adopts its business procedures by an internal consensus decision process. I would argue that the rule is well within the concept of collaboration.  </div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">At the same time, given the Forum discussion about the voting rule as applied to the LCBC supportive objection letter, clarifying (and documenting) the rule would help avoid similar issues in upcoming PFC project decisions.  </div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">One other important business procedure worth a reminder:  in the PFC Organizational Structure, the coalition members committed to meetings open to the public.  Anyone can participate in the discussions regardless of voting status, including posting comments after the meeting in Forum discussion threads.  <br><br><br></div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-08-22T18:01:05-07:00 RE: Voting Rule RE: Draft August Meeting Notes http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006422 <p class="plain">Frank,</p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">I’ll add the request for the livestock industry to be on the committee and put a TBD regarding who that person will be.  And I’ll add Ryan’s name.  </p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">The voting rule predates 2017.  I don’t know when it came to be, exactly, but it has been around since the early days of the Coalition.  As was pointed out during the meeting, the PFC’s voting rules are its own (not governed by NEPA).     <br></p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">The voting rule did not—and the amended one still doesn’t—prevent members from commenting individually to the Forest Service.  As signatories to the PFC’s Basic Conditions of Collaboration (BCCs), however, members are expected to ensure they don’t violate the BCCs (and the Appendix to the PFC Decision Making Process as of April 2017) when they make comments.  In other words, the PFC’s voting rules don’t determine whether and how a person can make individual comments: the BCCs and Appendix set out the rules for that.  </p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">Thank you, Frank.</p> Paul_Litow 2019-08-22T15:34:38-07:00 RE: Draft August Meeting Notes RE: Draft August Meeting Notes http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006383 <p class="plain">I have a few suggested additions. First, under the discussion of the BFC/PFC subcommittee, please note that the livestock industry requested to be a future member of that subcommittee  if the project is selected to move forward. Second, under the discussion of the voting rule, please add the following: "The rule was put in place by the PFC in February 2017. The PFC rule is not consistent with the public comment process under NEPA or the concept of collaboration. However, members excluded from the PFC vote are still able to provide comments on the project through the Forest's NEPA process." Last, Ryan Kerby was also at the meeting but isn't on the attendee list.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Thanks.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Frank<br><br><br></div><p class="plain"></p> Frank Schwartz 2019-08-22T08:37:46-07:00 RE: Draft August Meeting Notes RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006331 <p class="plain">First, I recognize that not being part of the discussion limits my understanding of the issue and the proposed remedy. But I did attend the meeting specifically designed to provide recommendations on the Huckleberry DEIS and at that meeting we voted to provide a letter to the FS supporting Alt 2 with a few modifications that we outlined in our letter.</p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">It appears to me that, as currently written, the letter says we believe the FS failed to adequately address WUI protection in any alternative in the DEIS. This means we are asking them to propose treatments in the final that weren’t analyzed in the draft?  I believe this would trigger a new DEIS which could add significant delays to the project. Is this what the PFC is asking?</div><div class="plain"><br>Unless it can be made clear what specifically we are asking the FS to do in terms of modifying Alt 2, I don’t feel we should continue to communicate as a coalition on this project. And, if we are going modify our previous recommendations, this should be an agenda item announcing that we will be voting to amend our previous recommendations. </div><p class="plain"></p> Rick Tholen 2019-08-22T06:46:38-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39006330 <p class="plain">This letter isn’t specific enough about what it’s asking the FS to do to have my support. I’m not sure what specifically it is asking for in terms of additional treatments that utilize “new thinking” and “science of fire behavior prisms”. It asks that these additional treatments trump our other vegetation management recommendations within the WUI. Since I couldn’t locate a WUI boundary map, including on the Adams County website, I’m not sure how large of area we are talking about where these “new thinking” treatments would override our restoration treatment objectives. I feel this goes beyond what we previously agreed to in our letter of support for Alt 2 with modifications and the minority’s opinion evidently contained in those recommendations, and suggest that this letter not be forwarded to the Forest Supervisor without more discussion and explanation. </p> Rick Tholen 2019-08-22T06:37:48-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Draft August Meeting Notes http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39004935 <p class="plain">Attendee list has been corrected.  <br></p> Paul_Litow 2019-08-20T14:49:59-07:00 RE: Draft August Meeting Notes RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39004878 <p class="plain">It seems there are two issues.  Does this letter go beyond what the PFC asked for in its DEIS comment letter and veg management recommendations?  And, second, the wording of the letter is unclear in terms of what it is asking the Forest to consider.  I’m assuming the letter's second paragraph is problematic in terms of meaning as the first serves to clarify the reasons behind Mike’s no vote.  </p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">I have the sense that those at the meeting did not think this letter went beyond the PFC’s WUI recommendations (which called for some treatments largely based on the county’s Fire Mitigation Plan) or the DEIS comment letter itself (as it speaks pretty indirectly about the WUI in the shaded fuel break bullet point).  My take is this letter simply asks the Forest Service to pay attention to what both documents say as well as the fire behavior science underlying both.  </p> <p class="plain"> </p> <p class="plain">Perhaps clarification of the following things from Mike would help us move forward. First, Mike, could you talk a bit about the size of the areas you pointed out on the map last week?  Second, in your mind, are the treatments referenced in the letter above and beyond what the PFC originally recommended?  And third, are you asking that the treatments referenced in this letter trump or undermine what is already recommended in the DEIS comment letter?   </p> <p class="plain"> </p> <span style="" class="plain">If we can get these bits sorted out, then we can work on some language that clarifies and better-communicates what is being asked for.</span> Paul_Litow 2019-08-20T09:23:46-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39004451 <p class="plain">Presence at the discussion of his item may have made this clearer Rick. As Lin pointed out the Forest Service District Fire managers were some people that provided the principle information  and reasoning for needing modification of the vegetation treatment in and adjacent to the Cuprum WUI area.  It related to fire behavior history and several problems tied to egress and equipment access, as well as property boundaries. These all entered the Plans that were mandated and that the parties put in place to meet the law.  Dennis is correct in that there are  previous inferences that would infer this point. The letter simply points out a joint agreement that could be conceived as being beyond the vegetation treatments. </p><div class="plain">Ron</div><p class="plain"></p> Ron Hamilton 2019-08-18T13:29:02-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39004130 I don't know where in Adams County and/or FS records the decisions on the 2016 Fire Mitigation Plan is located, but I do know that Dustin Doane and Dave Chapelle were instrumental in contributing to the plan with the "current" science of fire behavior as a parameter in mapping WUI for each locality. The "prism" mapping was intended to supplant the simple "circle" around WUI area structures that was formerly considered. In general, as I mentioned at the meeting, a map layer of these prisms (where appropriate) should be part of every project, and more aggressive veg treatment should be planned in these areas to preserve egress, ingress and emergency service safety/performance. Specific to Huckleberry, I believe this virtual map layer is contained in the Adams County Fire Mitigation Plan, and appropriately aggressive veg treatments should be conducted in these areas. I believe it is appropriate to supplement the PFC's comments re: Huckleberry to reinforce this very necessary suggestion for the WUI areas it contains. I agree that Dennis' suggestion of referencing the August 2016 Recommendation Report WUI section would strengthen the letter. Lin Davis 2019-08-17T06:27:03-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39003918 <p class="plain">This letter isn’t specific enough about what it’s asking the FS to do to have my support. I’m not sure what specifically it is asking for in terms of additional treatments that utilize “new thinking” and “science of fire behavior prisms”. It asks that these additional treatments trump our other vegetation management recommendations within the WUI. Since I couldn’t locate a WUI boundary map, including on the Adams County website, I’m not sure how large of area we are talking about where these “new thinking” treatments would override our restoration treatment objectives. I feel this goes beyond what we previously agreed to in our letter of support for Alt 2 with modifications and the minority’s opinion evidently contained in those recommendations, and suggest that this letter not be forwarded to the Forest Supervisor without more discussion and explanation. </p> Rick Tholen 2019-08-16T18:15:12-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Draft August Meeting Notes http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39003916 <p class="plain">The attendee list isn’t complete. It should also show those on the video conference in Boise. They included me, John Robison, Tera Little (BNF) and Elizabeth Spaulding (BFC). I also thought I heard Mike Paradis in the McCall meeting but don’t see him on the list. The sign-in sheets are labeled “Page 1 of 3” and “Page 2 of 3”. There’s no “Page 3 of 3”. In the future I suggest that this page numbering be manually corrected so there’s no confusion about a missing page of attendees. </p> Rick Tholen 2019-08-16T16:47:15-07:00 RE: Draft August Meeting Notes RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter and PFC Recommendations Report http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39003914 <p class="plain">All - </p><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The PFC comment letter submitted to the Forest Service on July 30th includes a minority position.  When Mike Paradis cast his vote on the letter, he included a statement of his reasons for doing so.   His minority position is expressed on page 3 of the PFC comment letter.</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The PFC letter, including the minority position, is posted in the <a rel="" link="" target="_blank" href="http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/project-archive.html" class="plain">Project Library for Huckleberry.</a></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">Is the purpose of the informal letter to clarify Mike's minority position?  Or does the PFC wish to support Mike's comments and state that the members agree with Mike (i.e., it is not a minority position)?</div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain">The latter seems a reasonable conclusion for the PFC.   Mike's comments are consistent with the WUI section of the Recommendations Report adopted by PFC consensus on August 18, 2016.   I think the letter would be strengthened by incorporating a statement to that effect.  </div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-08-16T14:36:45-07:00 RE: Informal WUI Comment Letter and PFC Recommendations Report Informal WUI Comment Letter http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39003912 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge">All - </font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge"><br></font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge">After discussing the Huckleberry DEIS vote at the August meeting (<span style="" class="plain"><a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_39003913" class="plainlarge">please review the August meeting notes</a></span>), those present agreed it would be helpful to submit an informal comment to the Payette National Forest in regard to the Bear/Cuprum WUI. </font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge"><br></font></div><div class="plain"><font style="" class="plainlarge"> It is understood that this comment will not be part of the project record and it does not change the formal comments submitted in July.  For these reasons the group did not feel that a vote would be required.  However, <a link="" rel="" target="_blank" href="http://sitekreator.com/Tools/file_direct_link.html?node_id=39003911" class="plainlarge">please do review the draft letter </a> and comment no later than 3:00 pm on August 22. </font></div><div class="plain"><br></div><div class="plain"><br></div><p class="plain"></p> payetteforestcoalition 2019-08-16T14:19:51-07:00 Informal WUI Comment Letter RE: Draft PFC August Agneda http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_38993793 <p class="plain"></p><div class="plain">Gloria,</div><div class="plain">I imagine so.  How much time do you think we'd need?  <br></div><p class="plain"></p> Paul_Litow 2019-08-01T06:10:30-07:00 RE: Draft PFC August Agneda RE: Draft PFC August Agneda http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_38992328 Can we talk a little about barb wire on public lands and how to get rid of it? Gloria Pippin 2019-07-30T08:24:44-07:00 RE: Draft PFC August Agneda RE: Final or Intermediate Decision http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_38989375 <p class="plain">The question of the PFC decision type (final or intermediate) is always a relevant one.  </p><p class="plain">The PFC Decision Process lists examples of  PFC final decisions and the objection support letter clearly falls into the category of a final decision based on the examples in the protocol and the following points:</p><div class="plain"><ul><li class="plain">The Forest Service, due to litigation and Court order, issued a draft ROD (June 2019) and amended notice in the Federal Register with an extended comment period.</li><li class="plain">The draft PFC letter  referenced in this discussion thread expresses support for the June 19 draft ROD/errata.  The letter will be submitted (if the ballot achieves a consensus) to the Forest Service - a criterion for the final decision category.</li><li class="plain">As far as I can tell, this letter is the only PFC decision regarding the June 19th document.</li><li class="plain">The consensus standard should be the same as the standard applied for the PFC recommendations report, the letter submitted during scoping, the comment letter on the DEIS, and the comment letter submitted for the initial draft ROD (April 22, 2014).  </li></ul></div><p class="plain"></p> Spatial Interest 2019-07-23T20:36:59-07:00 RE: Final or Intermediate Decision RE: LCBC Supportive Objection Letter Vote http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/pc_url_38989354 <p class="plain">Hello Rick,</p> <p class="plain"> </p> <span style="" class="plain">As a facilitator, I don’t have the right or ability to change PFC policy or decisions.  It seems to me that this needs to be a group-level decision.  Do you have a proposal on how to do this?  Can discussion and decision-making be done inclusively and effectively in an online setting?  And can we do it one day away from the close of the vote?  </span> Paul_Litow 2019-07-23T19:55:20-07:00 RE: LCBC Supportive Objection Letter Vote