John Robison and Rachel Vandenburg will be compelling comments on behalf of the PFC and BFC so please email us your thoughts.
Amie Anderton has added [these four attachments to the proposal for review](http://sitekreator.com/Tools/file_direct_link.html?node_id=39095948). The description of each is: >Attachment B, Planned Treatments: This is also a working document. We are still working with partners and staff to come up with reasonable yet competitive numbers for this proposal. >Attachment C Utilization of Restoration Byproducts: This is an addition onto Attachment B for timber harvest acre estimations. >Attachment E Collaborative Letter of Commitment: This attachment is in draft form, but both the PFC and BFC will need to edit/review. >Attachment F, Funding Plan: This is also a working document, and we are still working with partners and staff to come up with numbers.
Thought it best to refine an earlier comment I posted on the history of the two collaborative groups. In this competitive proposal process, both the PFC and BFC should clearly communicate their strong track record with a bit of general summary data about project scale and decision status. [Here is the BFC summary](http://boiseforestcoalition.org/project-status) [Here is the PFC summary](http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/project-status.html)
Thought including the link to the BFC monitoring/CitSci page is a good idea in the Monitoring section. Suggest adding the [PFC monitoring page link](http://www.payetteforestcoalition.org/monitoring.html). The library includes several references on the monitoring of white-headed woodpeckers, an important wildlife issue identified in the very first meetings in 2009.
I assume comments should be posted on the forum, so let me know if they need to be provided separately by email. I didn't have comments on the collaboration and monitoring sections, but did have the following comments on other sections. Comments on WCII CFLR Proposal version posted by USFS week of December 2 The following are considered the minimum changes required to the proposal in order to make it acceptable. In the event the proposal team wishes to add further details on grazing, feel free to use the input provided to the proposal team by the Idaho livestock industries on October 28, 2019. 1. Page 1, fourth paragraph – add the word “grazing” after “Wildland Urban Interface (WUI areas)” in the first sentence of this paragraph. 2. Page 2, fourth paragraph – add the word “livestock” after “timber” in the first sentence. 3. Page 5, last paragraph – Add a sentence along the lines of the following: “In addition to other treatments, grazing is an effective tool for invasive species/weed reduction.” Sentence can be added in the middle or at the end of the paragraph. 4. Page 8, third paragraph – add the word “grazing” after “commercial treatments” in the first sentence of this paragraph. Add a new sentence somewhere in this section that states, “The ongoing grazing program is a sustainable fire risk reduction treatment that can be applied to the landscape and provide economic benefits year after year, unlike prescribed fire and other proposed treatments.” 5. Page 9, second paragraph under section 6 – add the word “grazing after “prescribed fire” in the first sentence. Add the words “and grazing” in the third sentence after “wildland fire.” 6. Page 10, second paragraph (first WUI paragraph) – add the words “grazing and” after “Maintenance using” in the fifth paragraph. Last paragraph on this page, add the word “grazing” after “prescribed fire” in the first sentence of this paragraph. 7. Page 11, second paragraph – add the words “livestock industry” after “log trucking.” In the last sentence of this paragraph add the words “and grazing” after “timber sales.” 8. Page 12, section under heading “Utilization of Forest Restoration Byproducts” – add the following: “The ongoing grazing program reduces fire risk and addresses the CFLR objective of beneficially utilizing restoration byproducts (forage) and generating revenue from the sale of these byproducts.” 9. Page 13, fourth paragraph – add the following to the end of this paragraph: “In addition to grazing being an important contribution to fire risk reduction and watershed health, livestock producers live in and around these rural communities year-round and are continually providing to the local economy. Grazing and its contributions are sustainable and extremely important to local communities. 10. Page 18, last paragraph – add the word “grazing” after “non-commercial treatments.” 11. Appendix B?? (first appendix) - first row, second column of the table – add the word “ongoing grazing program” to the list of treatments. Also, second column of row 4, remove the word “targeted,” since the grazing approach would be determined in project design. 12. Second table (Appendix B continued??) – last column, rows 1, 7, 11, 20, add “grazing.” 13. Table labeled “…Attachment C” – Add data for grazing program (acres, forage quantity removed, commercial utilization (100% if separate from wood products)). Forests should have this data readily available. 14. For the last narrative table in the section (maybe Attachment F??), include the livestock industry contributions as an element in the table. There is a fit under the “partner in kind contribution” row but may also be a fit under “goods for services” particularly if there is an expansion of grazing outside of the ongoing grazing program/permits. 15. The tables (attachment F??) that show dollars by year would have contributions from grazing for both NFS and non-NFS lands. Since revenue generated by grazing does not all go back to the forest, assume it could be shown in a similar manner as goods for services money from timber sales.
Frank, I am sending your comments on to Amie so she and her team can review. Providing there is space to include grazing references, I recommend avoiding blanket statements about grazing always being good (or bad). For example, a statement that “grazing is an effective tool for invasive species/weed reduction” is overly broad. A more accurate and compelling statement might be "properly managed grazing can be an effective tool for invasive species/weed reduction."
John, I agree with your comment and like your rewording. Thanks