We shouldn’t ask for the PA to be changed concerning legacy trees. Instead ask that the action alternatives contain language allowing limited removal for health, safety and aspen regeneration reasons.
Proposed revised language from the letter writers: "While the PFC understands the desire to retain legacy trees to the greatest extent practicable, we believe there are limited cases where the removal may be necessary. Language in the proposed action should provide for an allowance of limited removal of legacy trees for health, safety, and aspen regeneration reasons."
This language doesn’t address my concern. Should ask that all alternatives include this language.
Hi, Rick. If you would like, we can change the language from "proposed action" to "action alternative(s)." In the case of an EA, the proposed action could be the action alternative and there may not be multiple action alternatives. The comment letter was crafted as requested by the comment instructions in the Forest Service scoping document. Since this is a scoping comment period, the comments are supposed to be related to the purpose and need or proposed action, and any recommended changes. The team drafting the letter believed the language we had was correct and appropriate, but we want to be sure all PFC members find the language acceptable, so will change it if desired. Frank
I think that would be a good change Dennis. I don’t know when a PA changes enough to require additional scoping but we certainly don’t want to request changes that would do so. Thanks.
Based on the above discussion, Paul Litow [revised the comment letter available here](https://le.sitekreator.com/Tools/file_direct_link.html?id=ODc4MzY0LDE4NDIxNjcxNjA)