Kachina
Village Project DEIS
Gene suggested that it might be of value for the GFFP
PAB to formulate a decision about the FS Preferred
Alternative. Brad stated that there is not unanimity
on the Preferred Alternative. Jim suggested that we
stand by our recommendation to the FS in May 2001
and, while there may not be complete agreement between
the PAB's previous recommendation and the FS Preferred
Alternative, the PAB supports the FS Preferred Alternative.
Keith mentioned that he could live with that idea
and that the nuts and bolts of what we recommended
are there in the FS Preferred Alternative. He feels
that as a Partnership, we support the Preferred Alternative.
Brad accepts the idea to say we support the Project
and mention/attach our May 2001 recommendation. Jim
reiterated the PAB's previous recommendations.
Gene
shared another economic consideration to take when
forming our decision about the FS Preferred Alternative.
With a normal timber sale, he can use the sale profit
to offset project costs. He cannot use appropriated
money from fuel (Fire Plan monies) to do roadwork
for Kachina. Basically, he is out of money to do roadwork
on Kachina. This could be offset, however, with the
sale of some timber, as proposed in the DEIS. There
is no legal way to offset the road costs with a service
contract. This is a pretty big dilemma that the Partnership
wasn't faced with at Ft Valley. Keith asked, if there
is no money for roads (without a timber sale), then
is there no money for trails or other recreation elements
of the project? Gene said yes. Keith stated that this
is another reason to support the FS Preferred Alternative.
Bob
R. asked, if when the public gives comments they could
talk about this issue. Jim said yes, and reiterated
that the "cap issue" is a "utilization" issue, not
a "cutting" cap, as recommended by the PAB in May
2001 (during the Proposed Action phase of the NEPA
process). He mentioned that the GFFP does not have
a blanket cap for all projects. Keith said the PAB
should write in our comment to the FS about the Preferred
Alternative that we have general support for the project.
Tom thinks the letter should be positive and state
that we know this project is not a timber sale but
that the PAB understands and appreciates the perceptions
others may have concerning this aspect. He thinks
we should attach the May 2001 recommendation to our
current comments to the FS. Gene said that there is
no urgency to write the PAB comment letter. He thinks
we are at least 60 days away from the end of the current
comment period. Brad said that he has not heard much
difference about the prescriptions. The difference
is the social and political views and any delays they
may cause. He supports the idea of waiting before
writing the comment letter to the GS, because we can
gauge what the public has to say about this project.
This may or may not be a public controversial issue.
Jim understands this but wonders if we wait, will
the PAB ever agree on our stance?
Jim
suggested that the recommendation for the DEIS Preferred
Alternative reads: The GFFP PAB--notwithstanding it's
May 2001 Recommendation, and understanding that new
information has arisen regarding ecological and economic
variables, and understanding that general agreement
exists between the GFFP and FS--the GFFP PAB generally
approves of and endorses the Preferred Alternative
of the KV Project.
Motion-
Keith
2nd- John Aber
Discussion- Brad said he would either abstain or vote
no to this motion. He doesn't want to make a big issue
on this. He doesn't want to make a big public statement
now. He feels this will cause long-term delay. He
doesn't want to hold up the GFFP but is making it
clear that the GCT is not supportive of this. He decided
to abstain.
Mike thinks that if we are waiting to hear social/political
views about the cap issue, things will never be done.
We should make decisions based on the ecological science.
He thinks we will get challenged in a number of areas
but at least we can base our information on something,
and the science verifies the Preferred Alternative.
Keith's perspective is that the Partnership has been
working on this for over a year and has done what
we can to get the public to participate. He thinks
we should say we made our recommendation, that there
is a small discrepancy between this and the FS Preferred
Alternative, and stand by this recommendation.
Brad is fine with the PAB supporting the initial recommendation
but he does not want to forget the difference that
exists between our initial recommendation and the
Preferred Alternative. He wants the FS to change their
Preferred Alternative and take the PAB's recommendation.
Gene wants the PAB to consider the current issues,
such as not being able to finance the roadwork or
recreation elements. The FS Preferred Alternative
meets all of the biological issues. He emphasized
that the FS is proposing cutting trees for biological
reasons. Consequently, some trees aren't needed to
stay on the ground, so they can be sold. Financially,
a solution is needed to fund the entire restoration
project. He is not making any implication that trees
need to be sold for the project to proceed.
Brad wants some documentation about what Gene is saying
within the DEIS. Brad says we cannot reach unanimity
about cutting trees for biological reasons. Brad wants
the FS to say that the trees need to be cut for economic
reasons.
Gene said that he has said that many times. But he
has never said that he wants to cut trees to drive
the project. Jim said that he understands that finances
are not driving the project.
Jim
added a sentence to the resolution so it reads: The
GFFP PAB, notwithstanding it's May 2001 recommendation,
and understanding that new information has arisen
regarding ecological and economic variables, and understanding
that general agreement exists between the GFFP and
FS, and understanding that the GCT is concerned and
appreciative of a difference in the methodology of
dealing with trees greater than 16" in diameter, especially
concerning social acceptance, the GFFP PAB generally
approves of and endorses the Preferred Alternative
of the KV Project. (Added sentence is italicized)
Brad suggested this wording: We think that 95% of
our restoration efforts can be accomplished by cutting
trees 16" and below.
Both of these wordings were taken out of the motion
and the discussion continued.
John
suggested the alternative language regarding the recommendation
be given to the PAB before the next meeting for people
to look at.
Jim doesn't want to have a motion that in the public
eye says the GCT doesn't agree with the GFFP. He thinks
that if we wait until the September PAB meeting, nothing
will get settled. Tom agrees that we shouldn't mention
that the GCT doesn't agree with what the full PAB
has agreed to. He thinks the GCT should abstain and
have them write their own comments to the FS.
Gene
stated that we cannot predict the press, they always
write about the controversy. Keith suggested that
perhaps we could take the lead before the press takes
the issue and distorts it. Brad thinks that groups
that are on the record about not cutting large trees
will decide within the next few weeks whether this
project will be a hot, large issue. He thinks we should
wait and decide what happens. Gene wanted clarification
that the issue is not cutting the tree, but it was
about selling the tree once it was cut. Brad said
that the PAB's May 2001 recommendation was a compromise.
He wants to be able to withstand charges that the
trees are cut for profit-- because he agrees we can
state that trees are being cut for ecological reasons.
He wants an Alternative that states it is allowed
to cut the trees, but to leave them on the ground.
James
said that this discussion directly affects his company.
If this is the future of our projects- then his only
supply is up to 16" DBH- there will be no market.
He needs those few larger trees to sustain himself
until new markets are created. Jim mentioned that
things might change with added technology.
Mike thinks this is a win-win-win situation because
of the biological support to cut trees and to remove
excess trees (excess of snag or downed log requirements)
for economic reasons. Eini stated that there is a
social component, besides a restoration component
to removing trees.
Tom
wants to know if there are other partners that have
similar concerns as Brad and want to abstain from
the vote. Jim said that he isn't as concerned about
the social or biological component- his concern is
about the team debate and having any partner stand
alone. The City of Flagstaff will also abstain.
Mike
called the question on the original motion.
Motion = The GFFP PAB--notwithstanding it's May 2001
Recommendation, and understanding that new information
has arisen regarding ecological and economic variables,
and understanding that general agreement exists between
the GFFP and FS--the GFFP PAB generally approves of
and endorses the Preferred Alternative of the KV Project.
2nd = John Aber
Abstain = Brad Ack for the GCT, Mark Shiery for the
City of Flagstaff
Motion approved by all voting members present.
[Top]
Kachina
Village Project DEIS outreach strategy
Jim temporarily left the meeting and Brian began being
the Chair.
Brian
gave an update of the FS 5 Step Plan outlined by Ken
Frederick:
1) Media outreach-It has already begun and is on-going.
2) Web communication-A lot of information is on the
Coconino NF website. A hard copy of the DEIS can be
obtained from Debbie Kill at Peaks RD.
3) Public meetings-August 21, 6:30-8:30 p.m. at Highlands
F.D. Brian and Jackie will be there with the GFFP
posters. PAB members are asked to contact Brian for
your participation with the meeting. It would be great
if more than just GFFP staff were at this meeting.
A second meeting, possibly at Flagstaff City Hall,
will be determined by the participation at the Highlands
FD meeting.
4) Field tours-August 24 & 31, 9 am to noon, meet
at Pic-n-Run in Kachina Village. Brian and Jackie
will be there but everyone is encouraged to attend.
5) Elected official and candidate briefing-Ken is
planning on doing the briefing to the elected officials
and candidates around Northern Arizona. These people
will be mailed information packets during the week
of August 19.
Brian
also discussed the GFFP 2 page KV Outreach Plan, which
was distributed, and the KV Information Card. These
two items should be used together.
Taylor
asked if Brian had followed up with the KV Stats Document.
Brian said that he is waiting on this and it will
be an item on the Management Team meeting.
Brian
requested feedback on both the 2-page document and
the Info Card. The draft cards were passed out. Contact
either Brian or Jackie if something in this document
doesn't work. Jackie will distribute the cards (on
colored paper) and the motion from this meeting to
the partners.
Tom mentioned that #6 in the card might be obsolete.
Brad thinks that we should leave it because we have
not collaboratively reviewed the DEIS. It was decided
to leave #6 for now.
As
was the case for the fire info card/messages distributed
earlier in the year, Brian reiterated that these talking
points are for GFFP perspectives only. As always,
feel free to speak for your respective organization
in that particular context.
Tom thinks that there will be questions about 16"
trees to be cut. He is requesting information to know
how many trees will actually be cut- i.e. 5% of trees
within the project. Brian said that we have this information-
but it may be in number not percent form. He will
contact Tammy to see if we can get this. He will also
give Tom the PIT question/response document from Ken
(the stats document).
Taylor wants to know how that number (how many 16"
trees to be cut) was derived. It is not in the DEIS.
He wants the public to know where our numbers come
from.
[Top]
Fort
Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project
According to the PAB request for a per acre update
each month, James Perkins gave an estimate. He said
on Unit 17 about 15 acres have been cut and on Unit
18 about 30 acres have been cut. Since they've been
in the woods after the forest closure only about 30
acres have been cut. Right now their only available
market is shut down so nothing is being cut.
Mike was wondering if there is any monitoring (and
should there be) on treated areas concerning beetle
infestations. Tom said that there is a Forest Health
Management Team with RMRS that deals with those infestations.
They are developing data by airplane fly-overs that
map tree mortality. He said that Neil Kobb with Merriam-Powell
is also doing research on this topic. Mike thinks
that this is a great opportunity to collect data and
do research on our treated sites.
Joint Fire Sciences Program Project-Dennis
Becker
Dennis distributed a hand out describing the program.
He also introduced Eini Lowell from the Pacific Northwest
RS and Bob Rummer USFS Southern RS.
Bob R. discussed his work, which is primarily on forest
operations on restoration treatments. He stated that
a match is desired with the pieces of utilization,
economics, restoration, etc. He actually deals with
how forest operations connect with products and their
treatments.
Eini discussed her aspect, which is the products aspect.
Taylor asked what components of soils they are assessing.
Bob R. answered that they are measuring operation
disturbance (visual and stand affects). They are not
looking at compaction. Taylor suggested that they
do analysis on compaction. Eini suggested another
local researcher do this. Bob R. said that this is
a complex issue to measure. He agrees that compaction
should be added to the discussion, but he wonders
to what extent it should be analyzed.
Dennis said to contact him with any other suggestions.
Eini said she hopes for data collection to be done
by Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003 depending on weather. After
that, Dennis will analyze the data. This will probably
be completed within the following year. They are working
in Units 13 and 23 (both 20 acre plots) in Fort Valley
with Perkins. They desire to add 2 more 20 acre plots
at the USFS's A-1 Project.
Woody
Mountain Field Tours
One more tour will occur on Tuesday August 27. Meet
at the Mormon Lake RD at 9 am. This is an all day
tour that will conclude at 4 pm. In the morning we
will go to Dry Lake with members of the Friends of
Dry Lake. In the afternoon we will go further south
into the Project Area, to a place we have not been
yet. Brian will send out a message about this as the
tour date approaches.
[Top]
Utilization
and Economics Team (UET)
Brian will schedule this team to meet soon. Keep a
look out for an email about this.
GFFP Utilization Study (Mater Report)
The GFFP PAB should have received an electronic copy
of the press release regarding the receipt of the
study. The Executive Summary is available on the GFFP
website; if you want a hard copy download it from
the website. Overall, it is being widely distributed
and has been well received! The full report is still
going through a full content edit (to make sure the
UET's ExSum suggested changes are reflected in the
full report). It
