Where comments/opinions were expressed, such as that the FS should turn roads they plan to decommission into UTV trails, but are not supported more broadly (as shown through a coalition vote), should be stated in the notes such that it's one persons opinions and not the opinion of the coalition. This is the danger with having individuals providing input directly to the FS at our meetings that don't fall within the bounds of determining if the proposal presented are consistent with the unanimous recommendations.

 

In the "Key Messages" under the BCC topic, I believe there are several issues with the way the discussion was captured in the notes.

 

1.  I don't believe the issue as to why someone would submit formal comments to the FS that were not consistent with the unanimous PFC recommendations had anything to do with a member feeling marginalized. In the example given during the discussion, the member is on the Steering Team and is very influential on the coalition. I can name at least 4 other PFC members who typically side with this persons interests. So feeling marginalized certainly didn't have anything to do with why this issue of complying with the BCCs was put on the agenda.

 

The discussion as to why having BCCs, which wasn't the purpose of this agenda item and should never been allowed to dominate the discussion, is unclear in these notes. The three things I heard were:

1.  It confused the Forest Service (Greg Lesch)

2.  It damages our legal position that we represent the public interest and speak with one voice (Paul Litow or Steve Kimball)

3.  It damages trust within the PFC (Lin Davis).

 

The person who was arguing that we were wasting his time talking about the BCCs does not represent any government organization. He represents the Meadow Creek Golf Association, which runs the golf course at Meadowcreek subdivision in New Meadows.

 

I don't see my point that the PFC is more influential if we speak with one voice is not documented in the notes.

 

The example in the last bullet is mischaracterized. The issue in the example was that a PFC member who signed the BCCs and voted to support the MFWR recommendation submitted a public comment during the NEPA process recommended that the Forest Service select a different alternative than the one supported by the PFC. The letter made no mention to being a PFC member or of support for the alternative recommended by the PFC.