Dianne Feinstein: “We wanted to protect the ability of individuals to go to meetings, to state their issues, to have those issues…”

“We wanted to protect the ability of individuals to go to meetings, to state their issues, to have those issues considered. The only change I see in this is twofold. The first is that they will have the environmental review to look at, which is important in understanding what you differ with in the environmental review and then being able to make the case. Secondly, the number of alternatives is reduced from five to nine to one. There is a good reason for that. As I pointed out earlier, if we were talking about a network of highways or something like that, you may want five to nine alternatives to be considered. We are talking about an area which has been designated in the highest risk of catastrophic fire. Therefore, the alternative would be one. For example, do you believe there is too much thinning? Do you believe there is too much burning? Would you do mechanical in what proportion to burning to thin this area out? There would be the ability to come in with one precise alternative. Of course, the other alternative that some might argue for is to do nothing.”