Strategic Planning-Objections Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office 740 Simms Street, Golden, CO 80401-4720 Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer Brian Ferebee Via e-mail: r02admin_review@fs.fed.us January 6, 2017 Dear Mr Ferebee, Pursuant to 36 CFR 218, the parties listed below object to the proposed decision of Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Supervisor Monte Williams to approve the Forsythe II project, located on the Boulder Ranger District, as described in the Draft Decision Notice (DDN). The DDN was published on December 8, 2016; therefore, this objection is timely. A description of the issues on which we object and suggested remedies for them are attached. Sincerely, Magnolia Forest Group, NFP - lead objector (contact Vivian Long, Susan Wagner, Benjamin M. Wilson) s/Vivian R Long Vivian Long President, Magnolia Forest Group (MFG) 198 Range Rd Nederland, CO 80466 303-258-3727 vrlong@wildblue.net Comments – 10/4/15, 1/27/16, 1/28/16, 1/29/16 (MFG comments) s/Susan Wagner Susan Wagner, (back-up lead objector) Secretary, MFG 12300 Magnolia Drive [Mailing: P.O. Box 475] Nederland, CO 80466 303-953-2465 durkeewagner@yahoo.com Comments – (10/5/15 &1/2716 MFG comments) & 10/4/15 & 1/29/16 s/Todd Adelman Todd & Rebecca Adelman 1890 Lazy Z, Nederland, CO 80466 Comments – 10/5/15, 1/27/16, 1/28/16, 1/29/16, & MFG comments

s/Clark Chapman Clark Chapman 2083 Lazy Z Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Comments – 10/3/15, 1/28/16, & MFG comments s/Yvonne Short Yvonne Short & George Blakey 618 Aspen Meadows, Nederland, CO 80466 303-938-9658 Comments- 10/4/15, 10/5/15 & 1/29/16 (listed in reading room as Yvonne, George) & MFG comments s/Teagen Blakey Teagen Blakey 618 Aspen Meadows Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented – 10/4/15, 1/28/16, 1/29/16 s/Rocky Smith Rocky Smith 1030 Pearl St. #9, Denver, CO 80203 303 839-5900 2rockwsmith@gmail.com Last Commented – 1/28/16

s/Dr. Jason Orowitz s/Brittany Smith Dr. Jason Orowitz and Brittany Smith 4898 Magnolia Dr., Nederland, CO 80466 Comments – 1/19/16 s/Anne O Pfeffer s/W. Tad Pfeffer Anne O Pfeffer and W. Tad Pfeffer PhD 142 Range Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented – 10/4/15, 10/5/15, & 1/23/16 s/Ruth Mc Millan Ruth McMillan (Ruth Wharton) and s/ Peter McMillan Peter McMillan (Pedro McMillan) 244 Big Springs Dr./ PO Box 1166 Nederland, CO 80466 Commented – 9/22/15, 1/26/16, 1/24/16 & 1/28/16 s/Paul McCarthy Paul McCarthy 24 Wildflower Ct, Nederland, CO 80466 720-203-3731 Comments – 10/3/15, 10/4/15, 1/25/16 s/Avery Russell Avery Russell PO Box 3120, Nederland, CO 80466 Comments – 9/20/15 & 1/28/16 s/Jim Cowart PE Jim Cowart, P.E. Professional Engineer 1903 County Road 68 Nederland, CO 80466 jimcowart@gmail.com Comments - 10/5/15 & 1/28/16 s/Mark Banks Mark Banks 372 Ponderosa Way, Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented – 1/25/16 s/Lynda Chapman Lynda (Y) Chapman 2083 Lazy Z Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Commented – January 2016

s/Gretchen Spiro Gretchen Spiro 914 Pine Glade Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented - 10/2/15 & 1/29/16 s/Marielle Gerard Marielle Gerard 87 Pinon Way, Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented - 1/26/16 s/Deirdre Hade Deirdre Hade 375 County Rd 68, Nederland, CO 720-833-7014 Last Commented – 1/29/16 s/Erin Wolk Erin Wolk PO Box 1196, Nederland, CO 80466 Last commented- 1/28/16 s/Adam Clack Adam Clack 1458 Kennedy Ave, Louisville, CO 80027 Last commented – 1/24/16 s/Teresa Bradley Teresa Bradley 140 E. 2nd St, Nederland CO 80466 Last Commented – 1/29/16 s/Lori Thorne-Smith Lori Thorne-Smith 570 Aspen Meadows Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last commented – 1/19/16 s/Marri Collom Marri Collom 1013 Twin Sisters Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented – 1/28/16 s/Jennifer Stewart Jennifer Stewart 1107 Pine Glade Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last Commented – 1/24/16

s/Sheila Ranegar s/Ed Ranegar Sheila Ranegar and Ed Ranegar 1508 Lazy Z Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Last commented 1/25/16 s/Jaqueline Conley

s/Bill Merline Bill Merline 86 Spruce Way, Black Hawk, CO 80422 Commented – 1/29/16

Jacqueline “Jackie” Conley 1016 Indian Peak Rd., Golden, CO 80403 303-642-7367 Commented 1/28/16 (Two comments) s/Linda Marshall s/Steve Marshall Linda & Steve Marshall 1339 Mountain Pines Rd, Boulder, CO 80302 303-440-0313 lindaorsamarshall@gmail.com Last commented – 1/21/16 s/David L. Boswell David Boswell 198 Range Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Commented 10/6/15 & 1/28/16 s/William Arntz William Arntz 375 County Rd. 68, Nederland, CO 80466 Commented – 1/29/16 s/Vaughn Paul lll Vaughn Paul III PO Box 4132, Boulder, CO, 80306 Last comment was on 1/29/16 s/David H Hallock David H. Hallock 2478 Eldora Road Nederland, CO 80466 eldoradh@rmi.net 928-474-9475 Commented – 1/8/16 s/Alex Markevich Alex Markevich 5570 Magnolia Drive Nederland, CO 80466 ajmarkevich@gmail.com Comments - 10/06/2015, 01/29/2016

s/Christel Markevich Christel Markevich 5570 Magnolia Drive Nederland, CO 80466 christelmarkevich@gmail.com Comments - 10/05/2015, 01/27/2016 s/Anyll Markevich Anyll Markevich 5570 Magnolia Drive, Nederland, CO 80466 Comment – 1/27/16 s/Dana Schwartz Dana Schwartz 1630 30th St #240 Boulder, CO 80301 Date of last comment: 10/15/15 s/Gwen Wharton s/William Wharton Gwen Wharton and William 'Bill' Wharton 2593 Briarwood Dr. Boulder, CO 80305 Commented 1/26/16 s/Katie Asmus Katie Asmus (1/29/16) 1345 Bear Mountain Dr #D Boulder, CO 80305 Commnented 1/29/16 s/Dianne Fleming Dianne Fleming PO Box 1074 Nederland, CO 80466 428 North County Rd. Rollinsville, CO 80474 Commented 1/28/16 s/Mark Foreman Mark Foreman 294 Range rd., Nederland, CO 80466 Comment- 1/28/16

s/Vicki Lemmon Vicki Lemmon, 154 Cumberland Gap Road Nederland Comment sent 1/27/16 s/John Lemmon John Lemmon, 154 Cumberland Gap Road Nederland Comment 1/26/16 s/Emily Swindell Emily Swindell, 801 East 14th Ave. Denver, CO 80218 emmalaya@gmail.com Comment sent1/28/16 s/Dale Porter Dale Porter 55 Navajo Trail Nederland CO 80466 Comment sent 1/28/16 s/David Lomme David Lomme, 154 Cumberland Gap Rd, Nederland, Co Comment sent 1/29/16

s/Dennis Duckett Dennis Duckett PO Box 1592 Nederland, CO. 80466 Email: merge@createprogressive.org 303 258 7077 Comment sent 1/27/16 s/Tim Schuett Tim Schuett 1820 Lazy Z rd unit A Nederland, CO 80466 Comment 1/24/2016 s/Dr. Brian Hynek Dr. Brian Hynek PO Box 715, Nederland, CO 80466 Comment – 1/28/16 s/Claire Farley s/Roger Kram Claire Farley & Roger Kram 5714 Magnolia Dr., Nederland, C) 80466 Comments – 1/29/16 & 1/29/16

5

Table of Contents Attached Letter from Benjamin M. Wilson - attorney

Cover Letter

Table of Contents page 5

MFG Objection – Standing pages 6-7

MFG Objection Part One pages 8-25

MFG Objection Part Two - Amendment to the ARNF/PNG Forest Plan pages 26-30

MFG Objection Part Two – Scientific Controversy pages 31-50

MFG Objection Part Two – Public Input/ Social Impact pages 51-54

MFG Objection Part Two – Detailed Notes on the Draft Decision pages 55-67

MFG Objection Part Two – Off-Road issues pages 68-69

MFG Objection Part Two – Environmental Consequences pages 70-77

Photos page 78

16 Reference papers sent separately

Attached September 19, 2014 letter from Benjamin M. Wilson sent separately

Other Supporting Documents and more reference papers sent with Comments in January, 2016.

6

MFG Objection

Standing Rather than include a comment reference to every sentence or issue we have covered in our objection, we will comment here on our "standing" on the issues. Otherwise, the document would've been much too difficult to read. With all of our comments sent in during the 2015 scoping and 2015/2016 proposal comment periods (we also re-sent the 2015 scoping comments in 2016) and the supporting documents and scientific papers we included along with those comments, the only issues we don't have standing on are the "new" additions to the EA and Draft Decision Notice. Those we are allowed to comment on per 36 CFR 218.8(c). New additions include: the Amendment to the ARNF Plan and the two proposed egress routes instead of only one. Some of us did comment on the egress routes, but we assumed only one would be chosen. There are a lot of other details included in the 227-page EA (and supporting documents) that were not in the several-page "proposed" project that we did not have the opportunity to comment on, including, but not limited to: the alternative plans, the environmental consequences, the specialists' reports, public involvement and issues, management direction and supporting documents, legal requirements, the changed objectives, the monitoring plan, etc.. While some of us have already commented (through documents submitted) on these "subjects", not everyone did or should've been expected to, as the subjects were not presented in the scoping document or proposed action document. Therefore, these issues should be considered new additions and everyone, who commented on the project should be allowed to object to any of these topics per 36 CFR 218.8(c). The MFG comments were sent in by Vivian Long (January 27-29, 2016) along with numerous supporting documents, the MFG alternative plan, and previous communications with the USFS Boulder District Ranger, S.Clark. Listed, as follows:MFG Comments Oct 5, 2015 MFG comments Jan 27, 2016 Guide for Forest Management - MFG LearnSmart -MFG Letter to S. Clark on forest science Petition snapshot Old logging photo Letter to S. Clark of 9/16/15 On USFS treatments and effectiveness - MFG MFG Alternate Plan and Intro Scientific papers listed under references (Part Two- Scientific Controversy) Todd Adelman also supplied copies of numerous scientific papers and a copy of the petition with 731 signatures against the proposed project. Sent in January 28-29, 2016. Listed, as follows:Petition - MFG Guidance and treatment changes - MFG MFG alternate plan Comment letter CEQ regulations Scientific papers listed in references (Part Two- Scientific Controversy)

7

Teagen Blakey sent in her own comments and included references to the participation of Denver Water in this project. From her comment dated 1/28/16: "The Moffat Collection System Project would involve removing all of the trees around Gross Reservoir in order to triple it's current size. Interestingly enough the USFS plans would do part of this work, and Denver Water is already contributing financially." Although we repeatedly asked Sylvia Clark and Monte Williams, among others what the relationship was between Denver Water and the project, no answers were forthcoming. A FOIA request was brushed off with the explanation that there was no correspondence, but we did get the email correspondence between Don Kennedy at Denver Water and Claire Harper at the USFS through a request to Denver Water. This was after the comment period for the proposal had ended. We are not including it in our documentation, because the USFS regional office should have a copy. So, not only did Ms. Blakey already broach this topic, but we feel that the USFS deliberately withheld information requested by us prior to the previous comment period. Thus, it is new information. Rocky Smith wrote about the problem of temporary roads and off-road use by motorized vehicles and bicycles in creating new social trails after project work on page 2 of his 1/28/16 comment letter. While some of the signees of this objection signed the MFG comments, as well as sending in their own comments, others sent in their own comments and are now opting to join the group objection. Thus, this objection refers to all comments previously submitted by MFG and the undersigned individuals.

8

Magnolia Forest Group NFP – Objection to Forsythe ll EA and Draft Decision1

This objection is divided into two parts. Part One addresses the joint objections of Magnolia Forest Group and the undersigned individuals to the Forsythe ll EA and Draft Decision Notice (“DDN”), and provides an overview of possible resolutions. Part Two addresses specific objections and scientific controversies in detail. Both parts are based on the comments, documents, and papers submitted by MFG and the undersigned individuals during the Forsythe ll comment periods in September-October 2015 and December 2015- January 2016, except in the case of new information and new details/proposals in the (DDN) and/or Forsythe ll Environmental Assessment (“EA”), upon which the public has not had the opportunity to comment.

Part One

Introduction

Since 2012, the Boulder Ranger District of the United States Forest Service (the “USFS”) has pursued a ill-conceived “forest management” strategy. This strategy was first embodied in the Forsythe Fuels Reduction Project (“Forsythe I”). Forsythe I was scrapped in 2014 in light of the USFS’s failure to consider changed circumstances and new, significant factual information; new and significant scientific literature demonstrating that the types of work planned under Forsythe I would actually increase the risk of catastrophic fire; the languishing backlog of slash piles throughout the Forsythe I project area; the fatal defectiveness of the project notice; and numerous scientific and communication failures. In the course of developing the current proposed Forsythe II project, the USFS asked for and received significant and ongoing community participation in an effort to restore some of the trust and good faith that was lost during the aborted Forsythe I project. MFG and the various undersigned individuals have collectively submitted several hundred comments, which have included thorough outlines of our opinions, concerns, treatment recommendations, many scientific references, and a comprehensive alternative plan. It is apparent, however, that the USFS has summarily ignored and dismissed all of this correspondence and information, and that the public participation element of the Forsythe II project has been a sham. Forsythe II is fatally flawed. As set forth below, these flaws include, but are not limited to, (1) incomplete, incorrect, and confusing information about conditions in the Forsythe II project area; (2) the failure of the proposed project to meet the stated purpose and need for the project, as evidenced by the voluminous scientific information discussed below; (3) the fact that in the development of the DDN, the USFS clearly ignored that well over 90% of the local residents who commented on the project were strongly opposed to the project, except for the proposed “defensible space” measures; (4) the fact that while USFS representatives have denied knowledge of any funding of Forsythe II by Denver Water (“DW”) or any other relationship between the USFS and DW with respect to Forsythe II, a significant amount of correspondence in our possession illustrates that such funding and such a relationship exists; (5) the USFS’s insupportable dismissal of true “action alternatives” to reach the four essentially identical “alternatives” from which the DDN was generated; (6) the proposed (and significant, harmful, and unnecessary) amendment to the Forest Plan, by which USFS intends to justify diminishing and degrading wildlife habitat throughout the project area without performing the monitoring required by the Forest Plan (i.e., slashing and burning the forest without even knowing what is in it); (7) the intolerable precedent that the project would set for the ARNF Wildland Urban Interface; (8) the plain errors of fact and insupportable conclusions that comprise the Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), including but not limited to the intense scientific controversy on many issues affecting the project; (9) the inescapable conclusion that a full Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required; (10) the extremely large size and number of mature trees the project will destroy in areas where the science plainly does not support such treatment; (11) the opacity of the tree-cutting methods to be used on the project (i.e.,

1 Note that in our objection, quotes are in italic and our comments in regular font. A few quotes contained in sentences may just be in

quotation marks.

9

mechanical or hand-thinning); (12) the inappropriate areas proposed to be treated by “broadcast burn”; (13) the excessive restrictions on the creation of defensible space on National Forest lands; (14) the failure to time the project with actual wildlife movement in the area; (15) the inadequacy of the proposed buffers and corridors; (16) the change since the action was proposed in December 2015 of the number of egress routes to be allowed (which was never properly noticed to the public); (17) the lack of any need for another seven miles of “temporary” roads, as plenty of old abandoned USFS “temporary” roads still exist in the project area; (18) the danger of creating huge amounts of additional slash, with no timeline to remove it, while thousands of old slash piles still exist; (19) the USFS’s failure to abide by, for example, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Executive Order 12898, which require the USFS to analyze the environmental (including human health, economic, social, and cultural) effects of its actions; and (20) the insufficient monitoring protocol proposed to assess the effects of this project. Background: We, (MFG) and the other undersigned (the objectors), first observe that the background presented is incomplete, selective, and does not accurately describe the apparent failure of the USFS to meaningfully consider the facts, the law, current science, and the Objector’s concerns. The EA states, "During implementation of the Forsythe Fuels Reduction Project, neighborhood residents expressed several concerns with the vegetation management activities, primarily based on the discrepancies between the existing and mapped vegetation." (pg.7) While it is true that this is what the SIR addressed, it does not accurately address our concerns, which were based on many discrepancies between the task orders and the Forsythe l EA. These included: lack of insect infestation (the main driver behind original project), failure to communicate the project to neighboring landowners, incorrect fire modeling, composition of forest being cut, and treatments that were not consistent with the EA. More than simply expressing concerns, we were about to seek an injunction. (See September 19, 2014 letter from Benjamin Wilson- attached). Project Area: One could easily conclude that this document was written with the intent to confuse the public. Acreage, percentages, forest type, fuel types, etc. jump between the "project area", "treatment area", and "units", such that one is always comparing "apples to oranges". A few examples:

1) The entire project area is included under the umbrella of National Forest lands in some sections of the EA and separated into NF lands and private lands in others.

2) EA 1.3.2 states that "Ponderosa pine is the dominant species in 25% of the project area,” but

does not state its percentage in the treatment or unit areas. In Table 6 (EA pg. 73), it gives the acres of fuel hazard on NF lands by class for the entire project area, but does not tell us what it is on the remaining lands, under other ownership, in the project area. Could it be low or moderate on the other half?

3) EA 3.3.2 states that "Recent research has found that the increased density of forests has reduced

the number and size of canopy openings in the lower montane. The overall abundance of forested patches of Front Range’s montane ponderosa forest cover has significantly increased since pre-settlement conditions." And, "Silvicultural treatments would create conditions for shade intolerant species (ponderosa pine) to become more numerous over time, in an effort to improve fire resilience across the landscape." No mention is made of the pre-settlement conditions of the Upper Montane Zone, despite the fact that almost all of the treatment units fall in the upper zone, not the lower.

As an example, the project area is 18,954 acres, of which 9930 acres are NF lands, with an altitude range of 6,082 to 8945 ft. There are 2855 treatment acres (+968 burn acres) in the draft decision, but nowhere is the altitude range given for the treatment areas. The EA (pg.24) states "The proposed vegetation treatments would be applied to stands within the lower and upper montane forests of the project area," although studying the

10

maps, one learns that the treatment areas range in elevation from 7400 to 8945 feet, with the majority of units at 8000' or above. This is important, as treatment types should be different in the different montane zones. The EA gives the altitude for Lower Montane Zone as 5900 -8000 feet and incorrectly give the altitudes for the Upper Montane Zone as starting at 8000 feet, which most scientists give as: from 7200-7400 feet to 9800 feet. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy). Of course, altitude alone is not dispositive as to zone placement; one must analyze the vegetation type and aspect. The vegetation types in the treatment units are accurately identified as Upper Montane, not Lower Montane. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy). Although this is acknowledged in some parts of the EA, many of the treatments proposed, and the rationale for them, are based on treatments for a Lower Montane Zone and, as such, are inappropriate. The Proposed Project Will Not Meet The Purpose and Need: The DDN states in the FONSI (DDN pg. 15) that "The purpose and need of this project is to reduce the severity and intensity of a wildfire within the wildland urban interface; restore the landscape in order to increase resistance and resiliency to future natural disturbances; and provide private property landowners the opportunity to complete defensible space mitigation around their homes." However, it is increasingly well-settled that thinning and clear/patch cuts do not reduce the severity and intensity of a wildfire. There is scientific consensus that the best way to reduce fuel hazard is to start at the surface and work up; this project does the opposite. There is considerable evidence that thinning and patch-cutting can increase wind speeds; increase growth of flashy fuels: grasses, weeds and ladder fuels: shrubs, saplings, increase surface fuels in the form of "lop and scatter" and slash piles; and increase drying and solar heating of those fuels, all of which can lead to an increase in fire risk, severity, and intensity. There is scientific controversy regarding these treatments in the upper montane zone forests, especially given the climate, weather, and topography. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy, infra.) As for restoring the landscape, the DDN (pg.11) states, under the issues considered: "Management activities being applied to the forested stands in the upper montane zone may be inappropriate." While numerous references are made to the upper montane zone (EA pp. 11-12, and elsewhere), the EA refrains from admitting that the majority of the project is in the upper montane zone, which it is. (See Objection Part Two-Scientific Controversy) The closest it comes is to say, ”The majority of the project is located in the montane ecological zone." (EA 3.3 pg. 81) "Historical fire severity across the Colorado Front Range for the time period in the 1800s shows high severity fire occurred about every 249 years and these high-severity areas ranged from 422-20,590 acres. The historic fire records show that the mixed-severity fire regime of the Front Range had a higher-severity component that created extensive burn patches. High-severity fires were the primary fire type on over 60% of the landscape, with moderate-severity fires dominant on greater than 30%, and lower-severity fires dominant only at the lowest elevations (<6,200 ft.). Modern fires within the ponderosa pine/mixed conifer seem to be within the range of historical variability." (EA pg. 71) Restoration is not needed in the upper montane zone because these areas have not departed much, if at all, from the historical condition. Thus, the restoration goal is not being met by the project either. Regarding resistance and resilience, if we are talking in the long term, forests are both resistant and resilient without human intervention. Why try to emulate an insect infestation, when one cannot stop insects infestations from occuring? Moreover, the proposed cutting, and resulting slash, and chips may increase the odds of insect infestation. The main differences between a forest dying from beetle, fire, or logging are that the first two provide for more nutrient exchange and successional habitat. The latter allows for removal of timber before it is destroyed, but if timber isn't a consideration (as the USFS has repeatedly stated), then why not allow the natural processes? Sooner or later, fire will burn this landscape or portions of it, regardless of the proposed project activities. The chances that this project will reduce the severity of a wildfire are very small. EA Figure 7 shows that post-mitigation the fuel hazard will be lowered on only about1500 acres of the approximately 20,000-acre project area, with only 300-673 acres reduced to low hazard. Bear in mind that this appears to presume that the many slash piles have been burned, but apparently does not take into account regrowth of fine and ladder fuels. Any reduction would be transitory, if it exists at all with the proposed 10-15 year project

11

timeline and the fire probabilities for any given location. In fact, with the increased surface fuels, the effects of a fire on the surface will cause greater adverse effects to the watershed. The EA (pp. 23-24) states: "Forest restoration objectives are secondary to WUI objectives in highly populated areas regardless of what vegetation zone proposed treatments are located. Therefore, vegetation treatments within a WUI landscape would be more intensive than would be needed if vegetation restoration was the primary objective because of the infrastructure and houses that are at risk to wildland fire." Fire scientists say that if defensible space mitigation around homes is completed, there does not need to be treatment on a landscape scale. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy) So while the vegetation treatments around houses would be more intensive than those for forest restoration, there need not be more intensive vegetation treatments outside of the home ignition zone. Allowing homeowners to extend their defensible space into NF lands, where appropriate, is all that is needed for WUI protection. Science tells us that different actions are needed to meet these different goals. It has been realized in this almost-final iteration of the project that wildlife needs will not be met by this action, so that objective has been removed from the project. We are extremely concerned about this, as enhancing/improving biological diversity and wildlife habitat, and acting in accordance with the Forest Plan has been a continuous project objective until now. It is an important objective supported by the public and it was a major objective of the proposed action, even if forest treatments are unlikely to improve or maintain habitat. In contrast, the MFG alternative presented to the USFS would meet the purpose and need of the project, and it would avoid unnecessarily cutting mature trees. Timber was not referenced anywhere in the proposal or EA, so we assume it is not one of the purposes or needs of the project. The MFG alternative addressed the need to reduce surface and ladder fuels and was not confined to burning slash piles (as was stated in the EA pg. 36), but included removing excess fallen timber, low branches, and ladder fuels (see MFG Alternative Plan, submitted January 27, 2016). It also addressed the need for and benefits of defensible space for protection of homes and fire-fighters. When the MFG alternative was proposed, we expected some dialogue with the USFS regarding it. It could’ve been tweaked and compromises developed, but we heard nothing from the USFS. While the community does support the above stated purpose and need, the methods chosen by the USFS certainly do not reflect the desires and input of the community, nor do they reflect accepted current science and scientific principles. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy and Part Two-Public Input/ Social Impact) Project Approval Was Pre-ordained and Public Input Was Ignored. After the Forsythe l Project was halted, MFG offered to work with the USFS to come up with a plan more acceptable to the neighboring community. We requested meetings, field trips, hosted a field trip, submitted guidelines in various forms, project changes, and scientific papers in an attempt at collaboration. So while it is true that there was much interaction with the public, it is not true, as stated in EA 1.7.4.8, that, "A detailed proposed action was developed utilizing the input received from the public..." 374 comments were received on the Forsythe ll proposal issued in December 2015. Of these, 5 were submitted well after the deadline. 90% of the comments were opposed to the project proposal, except for the defensible space aspect. As the EA and Draft Decision Notice have changed only minimally from the proposal, it cannot be true that "These comments were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action" (EA 1.7.4.8). The EA also states, "In contrast, there were comments received on the Forsythe II Proposed Action that were in support of the project objectives and forest management," and "…[that] many in the surrounding area feel supports the tradeoffs to the short term and long term impacts to sense of place in the project area (sic)." Let's be clear, there were only 5 to 8 people with local addresses (depending on definition of local) that supported the project in their submitted comments. Of the few supporting comments, 13 came from those with conflicts of interest: municipalities, timber contractors, Denver Water, and other associated partners of the USFS. This can hardly constitute "many in the surrounding area." It came to our attention, through a request to Denver Water (“DW”) for correspondence between DW and the USFS, that Denver Water funded the field costs for the Forsythe l project. We have repeatedly asked Sylvia

12

Clark, Monte Williams and others what the relationship was between the two entities. Each of these USFS representatives denied that DW was funding the project, or that they knew of any relationship between the two entities. Even as recently as the Forsythe ll Open House meeting on December13, 2016, when asked point-blank about this funding, Sylvia Clark said she didn't know about it. However, correspondence includes the following: "TNC will be receiving nearly $1 million over the next 3 years to promote/facilitate science-based watershed restoration in the upper South Platte watershed for the benefit of Denver and surrounding Front Range communities." Both TNC (The Nature Conservancy) and the CFRI (Colorado Forest Restoration Institute), which also received DW money, are members of the Front Range (FR) Roundtable, cited in the EA (pg.17), as providing management direction and supporting information. Members of TNC and CFRI were invited by the USFS to attend meetings with MFG and field trips, as well. Also included in the correspondence was: "To date 846 acres have been completed in the Forsythe project area using your funds from the 2013 and 2014 agreements. This leaves approximately 3500 acres remaining of vegetation and fuels treatment and 968 acres of broadcast burn treatment, but these acres may change per the supplemental analysis. At this point, the Forest Service plan[s] to treat about 700 acres per year between 2015-2019, then follow up with broadcast burning in 2020-2024. So we are looking at an 8-9 year horizon for the treatments in the Forsythe area to be fully completed." (Claire Harper, USFS, to Don Kennedy, DW, October 31, 2014). "...everyone is excited and supportive of our partnership agreement renewal, five year plan goals, and planned activities." (Claire Harper to Don Kennedy, March 30, 2016). The contract was renewed until October 2017 (this was prior to the EA release) and the timeline extended. These documents suggest that the USFS planned to continue this project no matter what the public input was. It is indicative of quid pro quo backroom deals, hidden from the public. It would also indicate a conflict of interest to use studies funded by Denver Water to back up an EA for a project funded by Denver Water. For all the USFS' lip service to "community participation", this draft decision reflects that MFG and the hundreds of individuals that participated in this process wasted their time. There is no evidence that the USFS seriously considered any of the hundreds of comments opposed to this ill-conceived project -- the public participation was a sham. It appears from the correspondence between USFS and DW that the outcome was determined before the proposed action was published. The USFS has displayed ‘malicious compliance’ in following the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. See, e.g., Mobil Oil Corp. v. DOE, 728 F.2d 1477, 1490 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1983) (“Notice and comment procedures afford interested parties a meaningful opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and assure that an agency's decisions will be informed and responsive.”); see also United States v. Gould, 568 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Mobil v. DOE and other cases stating purposes of notice-and-comment procedures, including that an agency cannot make its decision and seek public comment later).

Forsythe ll EA and Decision Summary

Decision: First, the “action alternatives” considered in the EA were not truly alternative treatments. There were only minor differences in the four action alternatives. (EA Table 3 pp. 60-61) All of them included thinning of mixed conifer forests with 30-50% basal area reduction, clearcuts and patch cuts of lodgepole (except #4) with 30-50% of each unit cut, conifer removal in and around aspen stands, meadow “restoration”, broadcast burn, and regeneration treatments. These treatments were virtually identical, and almost all of the same units were included with very little difference in acreage to be treated. All of the alternatives had defensible space measures with a difference in only one. They all specify mechanical/hand treatments with the exception of #4. The alternatives were all based on the same concepts. There was no explanation about why one alternative should be valued over another, or what purpose the differences served. The only alternatives presented that could actually be considered true alternatives were those "considered, but eliminated", because they did not meet the "purpose and need." The eliminated alternatives were more in the spirit of the input received from the public, who obviously felt those alternatives better met the ‘purposes and needs’.

13

The draft decision pulled together components of the four very similar alternatives. Comparing the Forsythe ll (“F2”) plan to Forsythe l (“F1”) plan we see that the new proposal calls for more cutting than the original. For example: lodgepole units in F1 were to have patch/clearcuts no greater than five acres and constituting no more than 20% of any unit greater than 25 acres. Thinning was also to be utilized. Now, in F2 the plan is to have patch/clearcuts up to 10 acres and covering up to 30% of a unit. No thinning is proposed. More overall acreage is proposed for treatment, especially considering those units that were treated before F1 was halted. One aspect of the Forsythe ll project, as proposed, is laudable. MFG supports the creation of defensible space around structures. This goes furthest to achieve the goal of protecting values in the WUI. It needs to include all homeowners with property bordering USFS lands, including those whose land abuts proposed treatment units. "Defensible space is delineated along areas where private property abuts NFS lands, except those areas where proposed treatment units are located" (pg 6 Draft Decision, emphasis added). We also support monitoring groups that include members of the public and request to be included. Marking the trees either to leave or cut is supported by the community. Thinning of lodgepole regeneration was requested by our group and we support that treatment. Overall, the Forsythe ll project, as proposed, still contains many provisions which are intolerable and to which MFG objects, including, but not limited to the following: I. The amendment to the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest Plan (“ARNF”) is not acceptable and can

hardly be considered "non-significant". Is the USFS really changing the Forest Plan so they can destroy habitat? The majority of acreage in the project area falls under Management Area 3.5 to be managed for Forested Flora and Fauna Habitat, yet it is considered "non-significant" to change the management goal for the area? It is also significant that the amendment was not included in the proposal for public comment. In fact, the opposite was stated, i.e., that a project objective was to "improve wildlife habitat to benefit species within the project area," implying that the Forest Plan’s requirements for wildlife would be met.

A. Three of the four criteria for determining significance (described in EA Appendix C at 202-204 and

FSM 1926.51) are flawed, as follows: 1. Timing is appropriate

2. Location and Size -

According to the ARNF/PNG website its approximate acreage is 1.5 million acres, not 2 million. We are not sure whether this is strictly NFS lands or whether private lands within the forest are included in that number. The amendment addresses size, but not location. The 18,954 acre Forsythe ll project is comparatively small, but it lies in an important migration path for the Clear Creek/Winiger elk herd. It provides critical habitat and corridors in this WUI area. "The majority of the project area is located within Management Area (MA) 3.5, Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats. The emphasis in MA 3.5 is on providing adequate amounts of quality forage, cover, escape terrain, solitude, breeding habitat, and protection for a wide variety of wildlife species and associated plant communities." (EA 3.6)

3. Goals, Objectives, and Outputs- How, or to what degree, the amendment would affect the long- term relationship between levels of goods and services projected by the Forest Plan.

Forest Plan Goal 95 is to "Retain the integrity of effective habitat areas” (p.30) and Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 to "Maintain or increase habitat effectiveness, except where new access is required by law" (pg. 359). While the USFS may "estimate" that effective habitat has already been reduced, "quantitative data and updated effective habitat mapping are not available for the existing condition and thus are not available for quantifying changes to effective habitat or based on implementation of the action alternatives." (Terrestrial Wildlife Report pg. 88) The ARNF/PNG Monitoring

14

and Evaluation Report of the 1997 Revision of the Land and Resource Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2012 (pg. 17) states the following: "Assuring reliable data and updates is a fundamental requirement for Forest Plan implementation. Currently, resource condition data updates are not adequate to ascertain whether expected Forest Plan outputs and effects are on track." The Forest Plan calls for biennial monitoring, which, according to the ARNFand PNG Monitoring and Evaluation Report for fiscal year 2012, has not taken place. Per CFR 36 CFR 219.12, "Monitoring questions and associated indicators must be designed to inform the management of resources on the plan area, including by testing relevant assumptions, tracking relevant changes, and measuring management effectiveness and progress toward achieving or maintaining the plan's desired conditions or objectives."

Qualitatively, there are many diverse species represented in this project area and despite human changes to the area, new species have moved into the area. In the last few years moose have moved in and are thriving; Northern Goshawks have successfully reproduced; river otters, pine marten, and porcupine have been seen in the area again. The USFS "estimate" of effective habitat reduction was based, in part, on growth in the Town of Nederland and Boulder County and not on the specific community in the project area, nor on quantifiable wildlife data. The data on habitat effectiveness is needed to make a reasoned decision on the project, which would further degrade habitat effectiveness. (Part Two–Amendment to the ARNF/PNG Forest Plan) Habitat effectiveness has been reduced globally, but that is no reason to abandon efforts to maintain and increase effective habitat.

4. Management Prescription - Whether the change would apply only to a specific situation, or to future situations across the planning area.

According to a CFR Roundtable document referred to us by Sylvia Clark, Boulder District Ranger, it would appear that of the 632,245 acres of WUI needing restoration or fire mitigation ~ 250,000 acres are on NFS lands. This amendment would be precedent setting for other projects in the WUI and would thus be considered "significant," whether we are referring to 250,000 or over 600,000 acres, many of which could be said to have altered habitat effectiveness due to human encroachment.

B. Also, 36 CFR 219.16, 218.7, and 218.31 indicate that notification procedures for this amendment

to the Plan will only be met if the amendment is specific to this project. Yet, language in the amendment says it refers to the "effective habitat within the F2 project boundary." Number (3) states "the proposed site specific amendment" and number (4) states "The proposed amendment would apply only to the NFS lands within the 18,954 acre Forsythe ll project area." (EA pg. 204) This language binds the amendment to a location, not to a project. This is the fourth project to our knowledge to occur on NFS lands within the Forsythe ll project area and will probably not be the last. The implication is that other projects would be allowed to continue to damage habitat effectiveness.

C. We believe the amendment is significant and does not meet the tests for determining non-

significance. Neither does the need for an amendment meet the criteria under FSM 1926.5. Outrageously, the USFS is proposing an amendment to change the goals of the Plan, because the proposed project does not conform to the goals, rather than changing the project to conform to the Plan. Very little has changed since the Plan was adopted in 1997; therefore, it is apparent that the USFS is only making this significant change to the Plan in order to justify the Forsythe II project’s wanton destruction of wildlife habitat.

II. The FONSI (DDN pages 14-17) is inaccurate as a matter of fact and of law, and an EIS is required.

15

A. While we appreciate the effort and detail that went into the EA as a response to our questions, concerns, and criticism, the very length of it is indicative of the need for an EIS. (CEQ NEPA’s 40 most commonly asked questions, #36, https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm). "The environmental assessment is a concise public document which has three defined functions. (1) It briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS; (2) it aids an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, i.e., it helps to identify better alternatives and mitigation measures; and (3) it facilitates preparation of an EIS when one is necessary. Section 1508.9(a).” "While the regulations do not contain page limits for EA's, the Council has generally advised agencies to keep the length of EAs to not more than approximately 10-15 pages.” "Agencies should avoid preparing lengthy EAs except in unusual cases, where a proposal is so complex that a concise document cannot meet the goals of Section 1508.9 and where it is extremely difficult to determine whether the proposal could have significant environmental effects. In most cases, however, a lengthy EA indicates that an EIS is needed." A 227-page EA and 45-page decision, along with additional specialists' reports would definitely fall into the extraordinarily lengthy category. One presumes one of the differences in the objection periods of EA's (30 day) and EIS's (60 day) is in some part due to the length of the document and time needed to read and respond.

B. Finding and context

1. Considering review of public input, of which 90% opposed much of this project, the social concerns expressed and not addressed, the obvious impact on local wildlife and habitat, the length of the EA, and C (below), this project will have a significant impact, whether it is believed to be adverse or beneficial. 2. It cannot be denied that the project will have both short and long term environmental effects

on the region, locality, and affected interests, again whether adverse or beneficial.

C. The Council for Environmental Quality regulations list 10 factors that should be considered in evaluating the intensity of a project’s effects. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b). Numerous courts have held that the presence of any of the intensity factors should result in an agency decision to prepare an EIS. See, e.g., Humane Soc. of the U.S. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 432 F. Supp. 2d 4, 13 (D. D.C. 2006) (citation omitted); Public Citizen v. DOT, 316 F.3d 1002, 1023 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 124 S.Ct. 2204 (2004); Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Andrus, 825 F. Supp. 1483, 1495 (D.C. Idaho 1993). Here, it is clear that the USFS has not taken the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the Forsythe II project, and has not convincingly supported its decision not to create an EIS, and that the presence of many of the intensity factors, even standing alone, require the development of an EIS. Specifically, as to the 10 intensity factors, USFS made numerous factual errors, including but not limited to the following:

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even

if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect would be beneficial. "I have considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts described in the EA if my decision were to be implemented." “The activities of my decision would be beneficial to the lands from a wildfire perspective ..." "The vegetation management activities under my intended decision will decrease the effective habitat from the existing condition because the treatment activities will likely further reduce effective habitat based on reduction in canopy closure from thinning, patchcuts, and clearcuts where they are in close proximity to roads or trails." "Although there are some adverse effects, I feel the benefits of reducing the effects of a wildfire and increasing the resistance and resiliency to future disturbances outweigh the adverse effects." "Commenters on the project had varying views of the benefits this project could provide. Some of the public expressed concern that management activities would impact social values, including sense of place, quality of life, and peace of mind gained by

16

wildlife viewing, walking in the forest and being in nature; impact recreational experiences; and reduce property values." The community (based on number of opposing comments received) does not believe the effects are beneficial. This line of argument misunderstands the criteria under this heading. It doesn't matter whether the impact is seen to be beneficial versus adverse. Even a beneficial effect, if there were one, can be significant.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. "The proposed treatments would provide emergency ingress/egress access to the Big Springs Subdivision in case of a wildfire providing for public safety." We hope that the USFS has modeled these escape routes for viability during 90th percentile fires, as the topography and direction could pose significant safety issues. Whether or not the proposed treatments would increase firefighter safety is subjective and is not backed up by any presented data. The increased surface fuels from this project will increase wildfire hazard and affect public health and safety. (See Part Two–Scientific Controversy)

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. “Boulder County’s upper montane forests are some of the most diverse forests present in the county.” (EA pg. 12) Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (Boulder County Maps) lists areas within the Forsythe ll project area as "Critical wildlife migration corridors", "critical wildlife habitats", of "high biodiversity significance", "environmental conservation areas (areas that have a relatively low amount of fragmentation, contain high quality natural resources or habitat, are of a sufficient size to provide ecological benefit)", areas of "significant natural communities (plants)", "rare plants", "archeological sensitive areas and travel routes," and "natural landmarks", all of which could be affected adversely by the proposed project. There are historic farms/ranches in the project area adjacent to project units, which could be affected, as well.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. "Controversy, in this context, refers to opposing scientific opinions..." We contend that there is significant scientific controversy. We have presented numerous scientific papers with ideas and results that are not in agreement with what has been proposed here. While many studies agree that reducing the amount of fuels reduces wildfire risk, the methods to achieve this are not in line with the proposal. Some scientific opinions also contend that these methods are not effective in the upper montane zone. Whether the authors of this EA agree with these scientific opinions does not alter the fact that controversy exists. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy)

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks. "The treatments proposed in my decision are commonly implemented on NFS lands." "The environmental effects and associated risks of the types of treatments analyzed in the EA have been documented in many studies and post treatment monitoring has not disclosed adverse effects." Both the Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings and the Hayman Fire report document associated risks with these types of treatments. They not only don't always achieve their objectives, but they can cause deleterious effects. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy)

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. "Implementing my decision would not establish a precedent for future actions..." "The proposed activities would not be a major departure from the types of activities common to the ARP." And from above: "The treatments proposed in my decision are commonly implemented on NFS lands." Just because activities are common on NFS lands does not make them

17

appropriate or effective for a given area. It adds to the body of "commonly implemented activities", which in turn can affect future decisions and actions. The addition of an amendment to the ARNF Plan to allow a project to go forward that does not meet the goals of the Plan is precedent setting. (See l.A.4 above)

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The cumulative effect has reached a point where the USFS feels an amendment to the ARNF Plan is warranted. That is a significant cumulative impact. Also barely taken into account are two other projects overlapping parts of the Forsythe ll Project area: a) the Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails project, and b) the proposed expansion of Gross Reservoir also known as the Moffat Collection System Project.

a. Both the Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails and Forsythe ll Projects adversely impact or have the potential to adversely impact effective habitat for wildlife. However the only mention of the cumulative effect of the two projects is under Cumulative Effects to Elk and Mule Deer. (EA pp.146-147) Page 2, DDN Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails states: “Another fuels project [F2] is planned for the eastern portion of the project area. These past and future changes in landscape conditions have resulted in the need for this decision to include adaptive management for future changing conditions”. This line suggests that the cumulative impacts on the environment of these projects are significant.

b. “The total number of trees to be cut in Forsythe II, if the entire proposed action is

implemented, is estimated at just over 950,000.” (K. “Reid” Armstrong, Public Affairs Specialist/Community Liaison, ARNF/PNG) In comparison the expansion of Gross Reservoir would necessitate the clear-cutting of 200,000 trees. Cutting an additional 21% of the trees to be cut in the Forsythe ll Project cannot be counted as “insignificant”. Yet despite this the cumulative impact has not been accessed.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment. While not on the Endangered Species list, there are a number of Birds of Conservation Concern in the project area, including, but not limited to: Cassin’s finch, golden eagle, veery, Swainson’s hawk, rosy finches, Brewer’s sparrow, and Lewis’ woodpecker. Many of these birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposal also contradicts local requirements under the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan for areas listed as "Critical wildlife migration corridors", etc. (see #3 above). The BCCP philosophy is that preservation of our environmental and natural resources should be a high priority in making land use decisions. This local philosophy has been ignored and the impacts on these designated lands down played in producing this EA. Without the proposed amendment to the Forest Plan, this project will violate the standards and goals for the project area.

18

III. The <14" DBH maximum cut diameter for trees is arbitrary. "Mature ponderosa pine in the project area generally averages 12 to 16 inches in DBH and 40 to 50 feet total height." (EA 3.3). We do not have average diameters for mature Douglas-fir or Lodgepole in the area, but they are generally smaller than ponderosa pine for their age. Previous task orders for the Forsythe l project limited cutting to <10"or 12” for ponderosa, <8 or 9" for lodgepole in mixed conifer, and <8-12" for Douglas-fir. It is generally accepted in the scientific literature that fuels reduction projects should –first, reduce surface and ladder fuels; –second, raise canopy base height; -third, open the canopy; and -fourth, retain large, fire-resistant trees. (See Objection Part Two-Scientific Controversy) Rather than cut 40-50% of the basal area, much of which will be in the mature trees, the maximum DBH cut diameter should be reduced to 9.9" for ponderosa and Douglas-fir (7.9" for lodgepole) in order to retain and develop fire resistance and old growth. This is not to say that all smaller trees should be cut, because we do want to retain the diverse forest we have. Also, smaller trees will be needed to reforest the area if mountain beetles attack the larger trees.

IV. Patch cuts in lodgepole pine do not meet the purpose and needs of the project.

A. This is not forest restoration, as is indicated in the EA, "Lodgepole pine stands have not departed from the historical fire regime." (EA pg.15). Thus no restoration is needed. The patch cuts are also not wildfire mitigation, as "...these stands are homogenous in nature.." (EA 1.3.3). By creating small patches of differing seral stages, you set the stage for a future crown fire. Lodgepole forests have little surface or ladder fuel, thus the "long fire return intervals (100+ years).”(Ibid) These patches revegetate and create surface and ladder fuels with grasses, flammable weeds, shrubs, and trees, all of which grow in next to the older stands.

B. It is stated that thinning in lodgepole doesn't work, but we have plenty of local evidence that it can

release lodgepole to grow larger and healthier and, if done in small increments, can create less wind-throw than patchcuts. Mature lodgepole stands were successfully thinned during the Winiger Ridge Project, and the CSFS offers guidance on how to successfully thin lodgepole. Large patch-cuts have already been made (in F1) and most of the remaining lodgepole units are critical to elk habitat and corridors. It is stated in the EA (2.2.4) that "Thinning in lodgepole pine stands, unlike thinning in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands, tends to contradict lodgepole pine ecology and ecosystem function. Thinning these mature stands would not emulate a natural disturbance nor create a break in the canopy." Yet, lodgepole stands are often self-thinning as they age, so thinning does not contradict lodgepole pine ecology.

V. The 40% reduction in basal density in Douglas fir/mixed conifer and 50% reduction in Ponderosa/mixed

conifer is unscientific. We could not find in the EA where the current basal areas of the units are delineated. If this project has any scientific basis, there should be an explanation for these across the board basal reductions. In only one of the 4 alternatives was a 50% reduction in ponderosa/mixed forest considered, yet that was the option chosen for the decision- why? What is the ideal basal area, in USFS opinion, to reduce fire hazard to a sufficient level (whatever that may be)? Many of these units have been thinned multiple times. Is there a point at which they will be considered to have been thinned enough or will they be thinned into non-existence? A scientific approach would delineate an ideal basal area for different slopes, aspects, elevations, and forest types to balance forest health with fuels reduction, yet this is not evident in the EA or draft decision.

VI. Thinning of large trees in old growth stands is unacceptable. Any thinning should be from below and to

remove ladder fuels. Stands of ponderosa and mixed conifer in the upper montane zone are typically denser than in the lower montane zone. We object to the exception from leaving all lodgepole old growth, as follows: "Exceptions may be made if the lodgepole old growth is considered non-functional at time of implementation. This determination of functionality is to be made for the stand as a whole within the treatment unit." (DDN pg. 34) The USFS should improve conditions within the stand as a whole, rather than cut the old growth trees. Retaining "at least 40% canopy cover in mapped interior forests" is not sufficient. Interior forests are typically much denser and are necessarily so to preserve wildlife habitat.

19

VII. The treatment method designation of mechanical or hand does not give the public any idea of how much cutting might be done by hand versus by mechanical methods. It could mean it will all be mechanical with the exception of slopes that are too steep. Most in the community prefer hand cutting, preferably by local contractors, over mechanical cutting. This was expressed in many of the public comments submitted to the USFS. Hand cutting has benefits in that fewer residual trees are damaged, there is less damage to the surface, thinning can be more selective, and fewer roads are required. It is more difficult to remove the boles and slash, but it can be done using ATVs and carts, which can maneuver more easily through the forest.

VIII. Aspen restoration is beneficial, as long as it is appropriate. Many of the current aspen clones have not

expanded because of soil and moisture constraints, not because of conifer encroachment. There are locations where young conifers are encroaching, where aspens would benefit from treatment. Any conifer over 8" DBH (70-80 yrs old) was present before the aspen clone sprouted and is thus not interfering with that clone, as we were told by USFS aspen expert, Wayne Shepperd. Large conifers near and within aspen clones provide wind protection and shade, helping to retain moisture in the clone. No tree over 8" DBH should be removed from an aspen clone, and each clone considered for treatment should be assessed for other growth constraints (e.g., soils, moisture, wind exposure) prior to treatment.

IX. Meadow restoration has similar problems. The meadows here have remained fairly constant even

without burning. In the upper montane zone, meadows develop where soil conditions are not supportive of tree growth. Browsing animals also help retain the meadow by making tree regeneration more difficult. As the fire cycle is not the same as for lower montane forests, fire has had much less of a role in maintaining meadows. It is not appropriate to remove trees over 8-10" DBH to "restore" the meadow, again due to age of trees of that size. Reference

X. As stated above, we are supportive of thinning lodgepole regeneration, but treatment description details

are lacking. A 15' lodgepole at this altitude is often 25+ years old and should be thinned more carefully than a 5' (12-15 year old) tree. Regenerative thinning should also have a <2" DBH cutting limit. We want to be sure to avoid a tree-farm look of evenly spaced trees, so uniform spacing should be avoided. The design criteria should specify that thinning should be randomly spaced from 2-15 feet apart.

XI. Broadcast burn treatments are the best way to reduce surface fuels, which is the best way to reduce fire

risk. We do have concerns about the up to 35% mortality of surrounding overstory trees, especially in units 45, 40, and 39, which have prescriptions to cut the trees by 40% (and 50%) first. This could conceivably lead to a 75% (or 85%) reduction in those units, which we do not consider acceptable. Also, if the fire is hot enough to cause 35 percent mortality in the overstory, it could ignite the entire stand and areas beyond it, causing an escaped fire.

XII. Defensible Space restrictions for properties bordering units are not acceptable. "Defensible space is

delineated along areas where private property abuts NFS lands, except those areas where proposed treatment units are located." (DDN pg 6) This says that landowners living next to units being treated cannot create defensible space onto NF lands, despite the 15-year timeline for this project. As units will be feathered and scalloped, the thickest densities would be next to private property boundaries and conceivably their defensible space. We do want feathered or scalloped boundaries, rather than cuts right up to property lines, but the feathering must be on the forest side of the 300' defensible space zone. This would allow for the homeowners to follow defensible space guidelines within that zone and give the illusion of a forest beyond their defensible space zone. This should help meet fire protection goals, while mitigating losses in property values due to loss of scenic and social values. To be clear, we prefer the defensible space option presented in alternative 2.

XIII. Units important for wildlife have not been eliminated from the treatment proposal, although they should

be. Alternative 3 removed units from the proposal that CPW considered important to the Winiger elk herd. That is not the case in the draft decision. This project falls in an important migration route for a herd that moves from the continental divide to various points along the foothills. The elk herd is a management

20

indicator species reflecting the health of many other species. As the human population makes a bigger footprint on the ground, these wooded routes become even more important to the health of a herd integral to wildlife and scenic values and important to the hunting community. In addition to the units suggested by CPW, there are other units in critical habitat areas that need to be removed from the project (see below under Suggested Remedies). "Effective habitat, as defined in the Forest Plan, is mostly undisturbed habitat, which is buffered from regularly used roads and trails, both motorized and non-motorized travel. Buffer distances vary based on vegetation cover and topography" "The largest blocks of mapped effective habitat in the project area, based on the 1997 Forest Plan mapping, are south of Winiger Gulch, west of Gross Reservoir, in the Twin Sisters area, in the Front Range/Boy Scout trails area, east of Kelly Dahl campground, and north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon. Of these areas, Twin Sisters and the north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon are the most likely to still function as effective habitat, based on topography, land ownership, and generally less human activity than other parts of the project area." (EA 3.6). Units 77 and 81 were added to this project since Forsythe l and fall into the area of most effective habitat near Twin Sisters; they should be removed from the project.

XIV. Timing of the project to reduce impacts on wildlife is based on criteria in the Forest Plan and not wildlife

movements in the area. The Terrestrial Wildlife Report (pg. 90) states "Key winter range for elk ... occurs throughout most of the project area, and a mule deer winter concentration area overlaps about the eastern 2/3 of the project area. The project area is nearly all within an elk migration corridor." "Migration occurs in spring, generally April through June, and fall, from late August to as late as December in some years to the lowest elevations of winter range. Migration timing varies by year and depends on snowfall and other factors." In most recent years, the elk have not left the project area until late May or early June. "Most calves are born in late May to early June following a 240-255 day gestation period." (Terrestrial Wildlife Report pg. 64) Very pregnant elk cows, including some with calves (see attached photo #3), are at their most vulnerable at this time and most likely to be affected by project work.

The applicable design criterion would only prohibit activity in elk winter severe range and winter concentration areas from December 1 through March 30. (DDN pg. 37) Given the information above March 31th is not a reasonable date to start project work in the elk corridors and winter grounds. In addition, "Observations by CPW and local residents suggest that elk movements and use of some areas may be changing, but there are no recent studies attempting to document or quantify changes." (EA 3.6.3) "Assuring reliable data and updates is a fundamental requirement for Forest Plan implementation. Currently, resource condition data updates are not adequate to ascertain whether expected Forest Plan outputs and effects are on track." (Monitoring and Evaluation report for fiscal year 2012, pg. 17)

XV. The project does not provide adequate buffers or corridors. "Untreated buffers of at least 100 feet will

be left between patchcuts and clearcuts." (Pg 5, draft decision, lodgepole pine stands). The design criteria of the DDN do not address buffers or corridors, other than to involve a USFS Wildlife Biologist "to determine needs for narrow areas and/or island exclusions for wildlife crossing and cover."(DDN pg. 34) "[Forested corridors] Defined in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1997) by a combination of forest (habitat) structural stages, minimum area of 20 acres, minimum width of 100 meters, and maximum width of gaps or interruptions of 100 meters..." (EA 3.6) 100 meters and 100 feet are significantly different and 100 feet is not adequate. "Openings created by past vegetation treatments have reduced forested corridors locally in some areas, until trees regrow sufficiently to provide forested corridors again."- (EA 3.6). It must be remembered that many areas between the units shown on the map have already been clearcut, so spacing between units is not providing corridors. In this region, zone, and climate it will be at least 50 years before trees have grown sufficiently to provide a forested corridor or buffer.

XVI. The proposed action (Dec 2015) stated, regarding the two proposed egress routes, that "only one of

the routes would be converted to a NFS road for emergency egress purposes only." The DDN, as well as the "proposed action" alternative in the EA, removed this language and proposes to approve both ingress/egress routes. (DDN pg. 8). This is not what was proposed for public comment. We understand the Town of Nederland has requested these routes, but as they are on NFS lands they should still be part

21

of the public process on which all can comment, not only those who previously commented. We are not opposed to an escape route for the citizens of Big Springs, although we question the wisdom of an escape route on a steep, north-facing slope. The Doe Trail egress route is unacceptable as it will damage an important habitat, old growth, and wetland area.2 Methods for keeping vehicles off of these egress roads, yet still allowing them to function as emergency routes, are of questionable effectiveness. Even FS roads (e.g., 357 and 359) with locked gates have had issues with motorcycles and 4-wheel drive vehicles bypassing the closure until fences and large rocks have been added. In fact, even rocks and fences have been moved.

XVII. There have been a number of projects in this area in the past. Most of the roads for those projects are

still visible, even if they have slash on them. The roads accessing the units are still usable. Mechanical and hand treatments should utilize light-on-the-land equipment, as has been used in some previous projects.

A. There is no need to build another seven miles of "temporary" roads. The road built in 2014 into units

42, 45 (and south) is a considerable upgrade over the permanent FS road 238 that continues to Gross Reservoir. In fact, it looks like a highway compared to the County road, Lazy Z, from which it originates. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars to build such roads for a temporary project and then pay to decommission them.

B. There is no restriction on the size of trees cut to build these roads, nor on the 19.6 miles of roads to

be reconstructed/ maintained, which would conceivably be widened. There is nothing to prevent the contractors from laying out the roads to maximize removal of larger timber.

C. Regarding decommissioning or obliterating roads, roads from previous projects have not been

obliterated (despite EA requirements) and have subsequently been used by campers, shooters, or re-purposed into social trails. This has happened throughout the project area. Brown USFS no-motorized access signs have been ripped out of the ground and broken. Motorized vehicles regularly drove around gates at FS roads 357 and 359, until more fencing was added. Numerous additional road shortcuts were created in the Gross Reservoir (FS 359) area to avoid washed out areas. Decommissioning some of these roads is welcome, if it can be done.

XVIII. The community has repeatedly expressed concern over the slash piles that still exist from previous

projects and the thousands more slash piles this project will create. Although the DDN gives "Pile and burn and/or chip and/or masticate and/or remove off-site" as possible slash treatments (as have previous projects), the usual method seems to be removing timber-sized boles from mechanical treatment units, scattering a thick layer of slash on the surface, and piling the rest to be burned at some point in the future. This is obviously the cheapest method of slash disposal and we object to it.

A. Unburned slash piles have been attributed with exacerbating wildfire behavior in a number of fires,

including the Four-mile Canyon Fire. (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings pg. 79). Two homeowners affected by the Cold Springs Fire attribute burning slash piles with igniting their homes. Of course, all references to the Cold Springs Fire, including in the EA, are anecdotal, as no objective study has been done of the fire.

B. The slash pile 50' distance from streams and wetlands is too close. USFS Tips for Safe Low Impact

Campfires states, "Select a site that is not in a meadow or clearing, that is not next to a tree with low overhanging branches, that is at least 100 feet from any water source to protect fragile vegetation." A slash pile with a minimum 6' diameter and 6' high is a lot bigger than your average

2 The Doe Trail passes through an area that “provides valuable nesting and movement habitat for a variety of species. A 30-foot width

cleared of trees would reduce and/or eliminate habitat values in this area.” (Terrestrial Wildlife Report pg. 41)

22

campfire and can sterilize soils and create a hydrophobic layer. Post-treatment scarring of slash piles hasn’t happened in our experience.

C. Leaving 2 slash piles (minimum size above) per acre for wildlife is an unacceptable fire load. It is

simply relocating the fuel hazard from canopy to surface.

D. "If more than 50% of a treatment unit has continuous slash depth greater than 6 inches after initial treatment, additional piling will be required. In hand units, pile sound, existing and/or created slash material, 1 inch to 6 inches diameter and 2 feet or longer. Alternatively, any slash that must be moved more than 50 feet to meet minimum required pile size may be lopped and scattered to a maximum depth of 18 inches.” (DDN pg.36) The two above statements would indicate that a 6" depth of continuous slash would be acceptable on <50% of a treatment unit and that <6" of continuous slash would be acceptable on the entire unit for mechanical treatment. In hand units, there is no maximum area where the amount of slash can be left 18" deep other than it must be more than 50 feet to the nearest 6x6' slash pile. We would contend that if there is enough slash to leave it 18" deep, there is enough to create either a burn pile or a smaller wildlife pile. Rearranging fuels by moving them from the canopy to the surface is not reducing fire risk. The two photos (attachment: photos 1 & 2) show lop and scatter left in 2014 following hand treatments.

E. DDN pg. 36 states: "Locate machine piles a minimum of 150 feet and hand piles a minimum of 50

feet from any infrastructure or private property boundary." It is not acceptable to locate machine piles within defensible space zones, which are up to 300 feet from structures (DDN pg. 6).

XIX. The adverse environmental consequences are well detailed in the EA, with the exception of economic,

human health, and social consequences. We know that "treatment may lead to increased beetle activity, especially Ips, which is associated with slash." (EA 3.3) The effects on soils and associated effects on the watershed include compaction, erosion, vegetation loss, heat sterilization, runoff, and increased sedimentation, with risks to aquatic species. Wetlands near the Doe Trail egress route will be impacted, as well. Wildlife will be so adversely affected that it was felt necessary to write an amendment to the Forest Plan to exclude the area out from the requirement to maintain and improve habitat. The Terrestrial Wildlife section (EA 3.6) outlines that the forests here provide important habitat for many species, that they are part of an important migration corridor, that sufficient quantitative data is not available, and notes that previous projects have probably had an adverse cumulative effect. Recreation, visuals, and native plants will also suffer adverse effects. Mitigating activities are cited to reduce the adverse impacts, but there is nothing binding in the EA to assure these activities areactually carried out. Neither are there metrics to determine whether compliance has occurred.

XX. We strenuously object to the manner in which social concerns about this project were treated. The

response to real concerns of the community was condescending, disrespectful, belittling, or perhaps just unconcerned. The following sentence: "It is clear that some people have fond memories and ongoing experiences with the current forest condition, no matter the forest health conditions, as this is the forest that holds memories of their children playing, the dispersed recreational activities and wildlife viewing that have shaped their attachment to the landscape and created a sense of place for them." (EA pg. 32, emphasis added), is just one example of the condescending attitude. According to scientists doing research in this area, this forest is not unhealthy (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy). The residents here, with their sense of place, have also displayed considerable knowledge about forests, wildlife habitat, and fire; indeed, among their number are scientists in forestry, climate, biology, etc. Despite the mandate to address social concerns, it was not considered of sufficient interest to analyze in detail. Including the "social analysis of the 2012 Forsythe Project" amounts to nil. For more on social concerns see Part Two-Public Input/ Social Impact)

XXI. The monitoring protocol outlined on pages 9-10 of the DDN is not sufficient to assess the effects of this

project. We are told there will be both short and long term effects, yet monitoring doesn't seem to be planned for more than 5 years after any given treatment. Certainly fuel hazard reduction cannot be

23

effectively monitored in so short a time, as most re-vegetation growth would occur later. Neither can the effects on wildlife be discovered, if monitoring is abandoned when the project is complete. It would appear the only effects on habitat to be monitored are on raptor nests and whether or not roads remain closed. Yet, the USFS is happy to 'estimate' that habitat effectiveness has been reduced. The DDN (pg. 16) claims, "The environmental effects and associated risks of the types of treatments analyzed in the EA have been documented in many studies and post treatment monitoring has not disclosed adverse effects." Obviously, if post-treatment monitoring has been similar to what is proposed here, it is no wonder that it hasn't disclosed adverse effects. It isn't long term enough to disclose much of any significance.

A. To summarize: Soils monitoring will take place on selected units 1 year and 5 years after treatment

in those units. Silviculture monitoring seems to take place only during treatment or immediately after. Wildlife monitoring consists of checking known raptor nest sites until completion of all treatment activities and checking effectiveness of closures. Areas at high risk for noxious weeds will be inspected at least once in the first three years and any further monitoring based on those results. So, if no weeds were found in a unit that first inspection, it might never be inspected again. The multi-party monitoring group will meet once a year to review implementation during the project.

B. No metrics are presented to determine effects, what would trigger changes or mitigation, or whether

planned results have been achieved.

Suggested Remedies

Objectors request the following changes to the proposed decision: The USFS has not met the criteria for a FONSI or for an amendment to the Forest Plan. There are questions of impropriety with the involvement of Denver Water and disregard of public comment. An EIS is warranted and necessary for this project given the scientific controversy, lack of existing data, public opposition, ARNF Plan amendment proposed, length of the EA, and significant impacts, among other factors. If this project is to go forward, an EIS must be prepared, with true alternatives analyzed and considered. We think the Forsythe ll project should be scrapped and a new one designed based on forward-thinking, truly alternative methods. The MFG alternative is a good starting place for a project design that will meet the ‘purpose and needs’ and is acceptable to the public. Nonetheless, we are willing to suggest remedies to the current project that we may accept.

I. The proposed ARNF/PNG Forest Plan amendment(s) must be scrapped. An effort must be made to

improve or maintain habitat. If habitat is lost in one unit of the project area, it must be improved in another nearby unit.

II. Units (and partial units) requested to be removed by CPW must be removed from the project. This includes units (or partial units of): 10, 11, 19, 21, 60, 59, 17, 18, 29, 74, 42, 79, 57, 42, 76, along with portions of units: 2, 4, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 12, and 68. Units 77 and 64 must also be removed, as critical effective habitat (Twin Sisters area) and old growth units. Unit 1 should also be removed as elk corridor, but understand that is actually town property, so such removal must be requested by the town. Unit 107 connects to unit 1 and is also part of the elk corridor. It must also be removed, whether or not unit 1 is removed. Unit 43 should be removed as elk wintering ground, effective habitat without roads or trails.

III. Maximum cut diameter should be reduced to <10" for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir and <8" for lodgepole pine. With an across the board basal area reduction, task orders (or marking of trees) can be written to allow contractors to take larger trees rather than smaller trees, which is unacceptable. There is nothing in the DDN to specify proportions of size classes cut, not even to reflect their current percentage in the forest. As larger trees should be retained for both fire resistance and to develop old

24

growth, we need a maximum percentage (to be agreed upon in writing) of the cut for various size classes.

IV. Marking of trees must be on trees to be cut, as there should be fewer of them than those left standing. Marks should be at breast height and at the base of the tree for monitoring. That way there will be fewer mistakes by the contractors; they will have to see a mark before they cut. If they don't see the mark, they don't cut. There must be a simple procedure for recourse if those in the community observe that trees are being marked inappropriately and not in accordance with the EA and Decision.

V. As stated before, lodgepole patch/clear cuts will not meet the purpose and need of this project. As the USFS does not itself believe lodgepole thinning meets the purpose and need, the ideal solution is to remove all lodgepole treatments from the project. If patch-cutting/clearcutting is approved in a lodgepole area, these cuts must cover no more than 20 percent of the area of each treatment unit. The cuts must be designed to avoid causing or accelerating soil erosion. To maintain tree species diversity within lodgepole stands, any inclusions of mixed conifer must be left uncut and not be exposed, via cutting, to blowdown.

VI. In mixed conifer stands dominated by either ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, basal area reduction should be limited to a maximum of 30 percent, and appropriate reduction for each stand should be determined by looking at the existing basal area and conference between the USFS and the undersigned. The appropriate basal area reduction needs to be decided upon with regard paid to previous thinning, aspect, slope, and maintaining areas of effective habitat. This means the basal area reduction should not be uniform across the unit and should be less in many areas. The wildlife biologist must be involved in determining layout. A minimum basal area retention level should be established for protection of habitat.

VII. Only thinning from below and surface fuels reduction should be allowed in "old growth" areas, with no cutting of "old growth" trees or developing old growth.

VIII. Buffers must be left around interior forests (mapped or not) and interior forests must be left intact.

IX. No cutting (or slash piles) should be allowed within 100' of streams or stream beds to avoid damage to riparian habitat.

X. Most treatment units (other than meadow and aspen restoration) are listed as mechanical/hand treatments. We want to see which units (and/or what percentage of units) will be mechanically treated versus hand treated.

XI. Aspen and meadow restoration must be limited to cutting conifers less than 8" DBH from clones and around edges. Limit the distance for clearing around aspen clones to 10-30' depending on location (accounting for moisture levels and wind scouring) to allow for expansion, but also to protect from the drying effects of sun and wind.

XII. Mortality of mature trees from broadcast burning must be reduced, especially in units already undergoing extensive thinning. Ten percent mortality is acceptable and design criteria should reduce mortality.

XIII. Defensible space mitigation allowed for all landowners with a house (or empty lot) within the defensible space zone (of NF lands). The 300' defensible space zone (of alternative 2) on USFS lands must be reincorporated into the plan to allow homeowners to create their own defensible space on USFS lands. Or, alternatively, mapping of the project area could utilize current buildable and built lots to create the defensible space buffers. There are some large properties along the unit boundaries that cannot build further homes per Boulder County regulations and those would not need the defensible space buffer.

25

XIV. Timing of project work must take into account the elk migration period to the end of May/early June, not March, along with parameters for other wildlife breeding and nesting, etc.

XV. Only one ingress/egress route, preferably Wildewood, to be retained.

XVI. No new temporary roads should be constructed, as there are already sufficient access roads and they cannot be sufficiently obliterated to prevent further use; they always look like roads. The temporary roads are an unnecessary disruption to habitat. Any areas not currently accessible by mechanized thinning equipment should use hand methods. Light-on-the-land equipment (rubber tires instead of steel tracks, smaller size) should be specified to avoid unnecessary damage to soils and residual trees. Roads to be reconstructed must not be widened or re-routed, as that also will cause unnecessary disruption to wildlife habitat and soils.

XVII. Slash piles need to be minimized, so other methods must also be utilized.

A. Slash must not be piled under remaining trees, as it has been in the past.

B. There needs to be a specified maximum, as well as a minimum, size, so they can be burned safely.

C. Limits need to be set and enforced regarding how long any pile can be left on the ground. If a pile needs to cure for 6 months to a year, then a two year (2.5 year max) limit should be set, e.g., a pile created in June 2019, in this climate, could be burned in March 2020, Nov 2020, or Mar 2021 and be inside the two year limit. Piles should be mapped and tagged with their 'creation' date and 'burn-by' date. If, due to weather or simply too many piles, the USFS has been unable to burn the piles safely, then other arrangements need to be made to chip and/or haul or incinerate the piles. We request a binding commitment from the USFS that these piles will not sit on the ground for years and years.

D. Use a portable incinerator to burn more piles safely, without having to wait for the rare weather windows of opportunity. While this may not allow access to all piles, it would reduce the load.

E. Using ATVs with small trailers to haul piles out is preferable to leaving them dotted all over the landscape waiting for a wildfire. They could then be chipped, hauled away, and composted, or sold as organic mulch. The cut boles, resulting from hand cuts (vs mechanized), could also be hauled in the trailers, piled separately, and sold or given away for firewood.

F. Slash piles must be a minimum of 100 feet from streams and stream beds.

G. Slash piles left for wildlife must be smaller, with a maximum dimension of 4 feet. One per acre is sufficient, especially if some logs are left on the ground, snags are left standing, and interior forest is left intact.

H. While lopping and scattering does restore nutrients to the ground over time (here it is a long time), it also increases the surface fuel load. It is generally accepted that the first priority to reducing wildfire hazard is to reduce surface fuels. ‘Lop and scatter’ needs more restrictions -- covering less ground to a reduced depth. We recommend using small towable chippers to chip what would usually be lopped and scattered, although a limit of <1" depth of chips over no more than 20% of a unit - randomly scattered - should be enforced to avoid increasing surface fuel load too much.

I. Slash piles, machine and hand, must be located outside of defensible space zones. This means a minimum of 300' and preferably at least 500' or more in the case of machine piles, especially if located West or North (to account for prevailing winds) of private property.

XX. Monitoring must take place both more frequently and for a longer period of time to determine effectiveness of treatment and effects on wildlife habitat, soils, etc. Metrics need to be established to

26

determine the above and determine the actions to be taken to mitigate adverse effects. MFG members and concerned locals have a significant interest in effective monitoring and request to be included in the “multiparty monitoring, evaluation, and accountability process. (DDN pp. 9-10)

27

MFG Objection to the Forsythe ll EA and DDN Part Two - Amendment to the ARNF/PNG Forest Plan

The proposed forest plan amendment is inappropriate and must not be approved.

Amendment: Part of the draft decision includes a Forest Plan amendment that would remove the applicability of the following Plan provisions to all of the Forsythe II project area: Goal 95, which requires retention of the integrity of effective habitat areas (Forest Plan at 30), and Standard 2 in management area 3.5, which requires habitat effectiveness to be maintained or increased, except where new access is required by law (Plan at 359) (Draft Decision Notice (DDN) pg. 8). See Objection-Part One for more on the Amendment. Comment and Notice: A. Objectors did not comment on the proposed amendment, because it was not presented for comment during

the official comment period.3 Rather, it appeared the first time in the EA and Draft Decision Notice.

Therefore, we are allowed to object to the proposed amendment, per 36 CFR 218.8(c). There is actually

some question as to whether there are two amendments as stated in the DDN (pg. 8), or one as attached to

the EA.

B. The DDN states the following:

As a result of the analysis for this project, I found that the current effective habitat is estimated to be lower than what is stated in the Forest Plan (DDN pg 15). The analysis of the proposed project’s effects on habitat effectiveness is discussed in the Wildlife Report, dated November 18, 2016, beginning at pg. 88. The public had no chance to review this analysis during the comment period, as it was not available until shortly before the DDN was released.

This is a violation of NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations implementing NEPA state that: NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail [40 CFR 1500.1(b)]. And Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses. Environmental documents and appropriate analyses shall be circulated and reviewed at the same time as other planning documents. [40 CFR 1501.2 (b)] And Ultimately, of course, it is not better documents but better decisions that count. NEPA's purpose is not to generate paperwork--even excellent paperwork--but to foster excellent action. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. These regulations provide the direction to achieve this purpose (40 CFR 1500.1(c)). The final language of the amendment(s) has not been provided to the public, thus we can neither scrutinize the information nor accurately comment on it. The information this amendment is based on is not high

3 Note that the Magnolia Forest Group did express concern about the project meeting the requirements of Management Area 3.5 on

page 1 of its January 28, 2016 scoping comments.

28

quality, nor based on accurate scientific analysis and experts' comments, but rather on estimates and guesses with an admitted lack of data. The public has not had an opportunity to scrutinize the details of the USFS analysis. This amendment will not protect, restore, or enhance the environment.

C. Case law requires that agencies not approve an alternative that could not have been reasonably anticipated

from the ones that were presented for comment. (See California v Block, 690 F 2d 753 et seq, 9th Cir 1982).

There was no indication from the material presented to the public during the scoping or proposal comment

periods that a forest plan amendment would be considered.

D. CFR 219.16(b), 219.15(c)(4), 218.7, & 218.31 indicate that notification procedures for this amendment to

the Plan will only be met if the amendment applies only to this project. As stated in Part One, the language

of the amendment binds it to a specific area, but not the specific project. Although the project does fall

within the area, so too could other projects in the future. Indeed, future treatment, such as thinning of

lodgepole pine that regenerates as a result of the patch-cuts and clearcuts in Forsythe II, is contemplated

(DDN pg. 4).

Need: A. Under USFS FSM 1926.5, The need to amend a land management plan may arise from several sources,

including the following:

1. Recommendations of the Forest, Grassland, Prairie, or other comparable administrative unit Interdisciplinary Team that are based on findings that result from monitoring and evaluating implementation of the land management plan (FSM 1926.7).

The proposed amendment is not proposed because of monitoring, as the latter has not been done. The Forest Service admits the habitat effectiveness “is estimated to be lower than Forest Plan percentages due to changes in the project area since 1997” (DDN pg 13; emphasis added). Plus, any documentation of decreased habitat effectiveness would indicate a need to maintain or strengthen the current requirements, not weaken them.

(5) Changes in plan guidance necessitated by changed physical, social, or economic conditions. The changes in the project area are minimal, as property boundaries are fixed and influx of residents in the project area limited by County regulations. Any physical changes within the NF lands are due to previous USFS Projects in the same area. Social and economic conditions have not changed appreciably. There is no proof of changes that would necessitate a change in plan guidance.

(6) Desired implementation of projects or activities outside the scope of the land management plan. The project tasks are in direct contradiction to the Forest Plan’s goal 95 and standard 2 in management area 3.5 to maintain and increase effective habitat, thus they are not outside of the scope of the Plan, but directly within it and thus impermissible. Thus, this source would not apply in this case.

B. Under the Planning Rule, the responsible official must:

Base an amendment on a preliminary identification of the need to change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a new assessment; a monitoring report; or other documentation of new information, changed conditions, or changed circumstances. When a plan amendment is made together with, and only applies to, a project or activity decision, the analysis prepared for the project or activity may serve as the documentation for the preliminary identification of the need to change the plan (36 CFR 219.13(b)(1)). As discussed above, objectors did not see any identification of a need to change the plan prior to the release of the EA and DDN. The analysis presented therein, of likely reduction of habitat effectiveness

29

having occurred, indicates a need to maintain, not weaken, forest plan requirements for maintaining habitat effectiveness.

C. To the extent that habitat effectiveness may possibly be lower than it was at the time of Forest Plan

approval, it is at least in part because of “hazardous fuels vegetation treatments” (EA pg. 203). Indeed,

about 640 acres of clearcuts and patch-cuts and 3100 acres of thinning have occurred in the project area

since 1997 (Terrestrial Wildlife Report pp. 88-89).

The proposed decision alternative would reduce habitat effectiveness even further: “The treatment activities would likely reduce effective habitat further” (DDN pg.15). Specifically, alternatives 1-4 “would likely further reduce effective habitat based on reduction in canopy closure from thinning, patch-cuts, and clearcuts where they are in close proximity to roads or trails” (EA pg. 203, Apx. C). Since the proposed decision is a blend of alternatives 1-4, it too would reduce habitat effectiveness, as fully admitted: The vegetation management activities under my intended decision will decrease the effective habitat from the existing condition because the treatment activities will likely further reduce effective habitat based on reduction in canopy closure from thinning, patch-cuts, and clearcuts where they are in close proximity to roads or trails (DDN pp. 8-9).

In fact, treatment is heavily concentrated in at least one area said to have one of the largest blocks of effective habitat: the areas south of Winiger Gulch. (See Wildlife Report pg. 89). The Draft Decision Map shows many units in this area, mostly ponderosa pine-mixed conifer and Douglas-fir mixed conifer treatments. In such units, basal area could be reduced by up to 50 percent (DDN pg. 4), making for very open forest stands, thereby reducing habitat effectiveness.

Similarly, three other large blocks of effective habitat (Wildlife Report, pg. 89) would also have considerable treatment that could reduce habitat effectiveness: Twin Sisters (primarily Douglas-fir mixed conifer treatment); the area east of Kelly Dahl campground (lodgepole pine treatment); and the area west of Gross Reservoir (various treatments).

At a minimum, the proposed project would reduce effective habitat for the following sensitive species: flammulated owl, northern goshawk, golden-crowned kinglet, and olive-sided flycatcher.

If habitat effectiveness is indeed lower than it was at the time of the Forest Plan approval, how does that constitute a need to amend the Forest Plan to allow a project that would reduce it even further? At the time of the Forest Plan approval, the Sugarloaf Geographic Area (GA) was already well below 50 percent habitat effectiveness, and the Lump Gulch GA was just slightly below 50 percent (Wildlife Report pg. 88). These are in Management Area 3.5 or covered by Goal 95, as well; so, obviously the percentages of effective habitat are not criteria for exclusion, as the amendment for the project area would indicate.

D. Per 36 CFR 219.12, "Monitoring questions and associated indicators must be designed to inform the

management of resources on the plan area, including by testing relevant assumptions, tracking relevant

changes, and measuring management effectiveness and progress toward achieving or maintaining the

plan's desired conditions or objectives."

Previous projects have included monitoring components, yet there is no evidence that this has taken place. In fact, the lack of quantitative data would strongly indicate that it has not. The USFS Boulder Ranger District has one person to monitor both flora and fauna and implement noxious weed control with, at most, one or two seasonal assistants. It is apparent that the above requirement cannot be met given the staffing level. Without monitoring there is no way to determine current habitat effectiveness or a project’s effect on habitat. The ideas concerning loss of effective habitat are conjecture and not borne out by the recent evidence of increasing wildlife species in the project area.

30

E. Per 36 CFR 219.13(b)(3), A proposed amendment that may create a significant environmental effect and

thus require preparation of an EIS is considered a significant change in the plan for the purposes of the

NFMA (emphasis added).

A proposed amendment that changes the applicable management area governing the project area is a significant change in guidance and indicative of a potentially significant environmental effect.

F. 36 CFR 219.15 (c)(1) first suggests that in resolving inconsistency, you:

Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan components. Furthermore, in (d)(4) it states: Suitability. A project or activity would occur in an area: (i) that the plan identifies as suitable for that type of project or activity. It makes more sense, given the management designation of the unit, to change the project to enhance the environment and increase wildlife habitat rather than change the rules to do the opposite. The plan has identified this area as forested flora and fauna, scenic, dispersed recreation, with only a small proportion as residential intermix. The county has listed this area as critical for wildlife, with significant landmarks, and more (See Objections Part One). It would appear the Plan has not identified this as an area suitable for this project.

G. It is stated in the Wildlife Report (pg. 90) that temporary roads and skid roads proposed for the project are

not new permanent roads, and thus would not appear to violate standard 2 in Management Area 3.5.

However, they are likely to get used by people pursuing various forms of motorized and non-motorized

recreation (DDN pp.38-39). Under the proposed alternative, seven miles of temporary road would be used,

and 19.6 miles of existing road would be maintained or reconstructed (DDN pg. 3). Reconstructed roads

may allow higher vehicle speeds, making it even more difficult for wildlife to safely cross.

The project area already has a high density of roads and the “creation of unauthorized social trails” is a persistent problem (EA pg.150). It is hard to imagine that at least some temporary roads and skid roads would not get used as social trails or for other unauthorized uses. Once established, social trails tend to remain in use unless aggressive action is taken to close and obliterate them. Thus the project, through use of temporary roads and skid roads, upgraded roads, and a reduction in canopy closure, would reduce effective habitat. It is even possible that the use of temporary roads and skid roads as social trails would cause violations of Forest Plan guidelines 107 and 109. 107 (GL) Avoid disconnecting or severing intact areas of effective habitat with new open roads and trails. Favor seasonal use during non-critical times for wildlife when this cannot be avoided. 109 (GL) Additional open roads and trails should not reduce effective habitat below 50% by Geographic Area, or further reduce effective habitat in Geographic Areas that are already at or below 50% on NFS lands (Plan pg. 31).

Operations implementing the project may avoid most of the ‘stated’ critical periods for wildlife (See DDN pp 37-38), although these don't coincide with the observed April through June migration dates of the elk herd (Terrestrial Wildlife Report pg.90). However, recreation use of the routes would not necessarily avoid these times.

H. Wildlife need effective habitat, i.e., habitat that it can use, habitat that is not overrun with human use, as is

too much of the national forest land along the Front Range. Given the presence of people in the area, any

effective habitat must be maintained, as the Forest Plan Goal 95 and Standard 2 require.

Instead, the Forest Service proposes to approve a project that would reduce habitat effectiveness, and a Forest Plan amendment that would allow it. This is totally inappropriate and unnecessary. The Forest Plan requirements for wildlife, including the ones at issue here, exist to ensure that sufficient wildlife habitat for various species is protected to maintain their population viability on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. The requirements are also necessary to meet the following Forest Plan goal:

31

Establish an upward trend for threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species (TES) and maintain sensitive species through management activities that recognize TES habitat needs across all levels or scales (Plan pg. 4).

Exempting a project from any of the Plan requirements sets a bad precedent – that Forest Plan requirements do not need to be taken seriously if they stand in the way of a particular project. If enough projects get exemptions, the result could be a loss of viability for one or more species.

A smaller project, focused primarily on the wildland-urban interface (defensible space zone) where treatment would do the most good, would largely avoid the problem of reducing effective wildlife habitat, and would eliminate the need for a Forest Plan amendment. Significance See Objection-Part One for more on the Amendment and the FSM 1926.51 criteria for determining significance.

According to FSM 1926.52 (1), these changes are significant. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected [see section 219.10(e) of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000…], (36 CFR 200-299). The project area is mostly covered under Management Areas 3.5, 4.2, & 4.3, with only 510 acres considered 7.1 (forest/residential intermix). The goods and services projected for the majority of the area are those of forested flora and fauna (wildlife habitat), scenic areas, and dispersed recreation. This amendment would remove important criteria for Management Area 3.5, which covers 8,634 acres out of 9,930 acres of the USFS lands in the project area.

32

MFG Objection to the Forsythe ll EA and DDN Part Two - Scientific Controversy Regarding Forsythe ll Project

I. Introduction The draft decision (DDN) on the Forsythe ll (F2) project determined a FONSI. One of the factors this was based on was: "The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial" (DDN pg. 16). The DDN followed with: "The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Controversy, in this context, refers to opposing scientific opinions, not public opposition to a project." With this section, we will show that there is scientific controversy regarding the methods, and in some cases the philosophy, utilized in this project. While in general it is agreed that removing fuels reduces fire severity, the choice of which fuels to remove is controversial. It is also controversial whether removing fuels would be effective in reducing fire severity in the Upper Montane Zone, where the project is located. There is also scientific controversy regarding effective forest restoration and whether restoration is necessary. We understand that there are papers supporting the types of treatments outlined in the Forsythe ll project and that some of the quotes presented here come from papers supporting various types of fuels treatments, but these peer reviewed papers and fire studies also outline alternative methods and opinions and that is the root of controversy: they don't all agree. These pages should be evidence enough that this project methodology and the effects on the quality of the human environment are "highly controversial."

"Although there is a large base of scientific knowledge available for developing a national forest fire policy, it is largely ignored in current policy proposals." "Current efforts to develop national policies on fuels and fire include the administration’s initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (H.R. 1904), which the House of Representatives passed in the summer of 2003 to implement the administration’s proposal. However, these efforts focus on the short-term treatment of forest fuels rather than on developing a comprehensive national policy on fuels and fire management and identifying the scientific and social elements of such a policy. Most of the provisions of the administration initiative and H.R. 1904, for example, deal primarily with reducing requirements for environmental analyses of fuel treatment projects, limiting public appeals, and requiring prompt judicial response to legal challenges. These are procedural matters and do not address substantive issues such as where, how, and why fuel projects are to be conducted." (Franklin, Agee -2003)

II. Location While some of the greater F2 "project area" may fall into the higher elevations of the Lower Montane Zone, almost all of the treatment areas lie in the Upper Montane Zone. Location does matter, as the forest types, stand densities, fire regimes, and ecosystems are different in different areas. "Large fire events in the 1990s and early 2000s in the western US, particularly in lower elevation, dry-pine forests, have contributed to widespread concern that fire exclusion has caused an unprecedented threat of uncharacteristically severe fires in these ecosystems." (pg. 1) "[The] dual approach (forest restoration and fire mitigation) assumes that the probability of severe fire occurrence has increased to uncharacteristic levels during decades of fire suppression in western forests. Guided by this assumption, over 190 million acres of public lands have been identified as ’unnaturally dense’ with an increased likelihood of catastrophic wildfires." (pg. 2) "A key finding of our study of fire regime changes in the montane forest zone of the Colorado Front Range is that only 16% of the total study area recorded a shift from historical low-severity to a higher potential for crown fire today. This area of increased fire severity ...is concentrated in the lower montane zone." "A decline in fire frequency over the past 100 years leading to substantial increases in stand density is supported only for the lowest elevations of forest below 2200m (~7200 ft) in the CO Front Range." (pg.10) "..high-severity fire and high-stand densities are within the HRV for the mid- and upper montane forests, which needs

33

to be taken into account when forest management goals consider restoring forests to pre-fire-exclusion conditions." (pg. 12) (Sherriff, et al, 2014)

Figures (2-1, 2-2) per Boulder County Parks and Open Space Forest Management Policy

34

"The lower montane zone (~1800-2000m [~5900-7200 feet]) comprises primarily pure ponderosa pine on south-facing slopes and a mixture of ponderosa pine and Douglas fir on north-facing slopes. The upper montane zone (~2200-3000 m [~7200-9850 ft]) is comprised of ponderosa pine stands on south-facing slopes and more dense stands of ponderosa and Douglas fir on north-facing slopes along with lodgepole pine, aspen, and dispersed limber pine trees at higher elevations." (Sherriff et al – 2014, pg.2) "The Upper Montane Zone represents a transition from montane to sub-alpine forests. Ponderosa pine is a component of this zone, and forms nearly pure stands in places. However, several other tree species also are common and may be co-dominant in places, including Douglas- fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and aspen. Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, and sub-alpine fir are sometimes minor components of stands in the higher parts of the Upper Montane Zone. Vegetation patterns in this portion of the mountains are quite complex, and the controlling factors of topographic position, soils, and disturbance history are not fully understood." "In addition, dense stands of relatively even-aged ponderosa pine cohorts were a natural consequence of the moderate to high severity fires in this zone [high elevations of Lower Montane Zone]." (Emphasis added.) "At least in the Boulder County region, under the historical fire regime, forest structures in the Upper Montane Zone appear to have been shaped largely by fires that were relatively infrequent (i.e., fire intervals of many decades or even a century or more) but severe." (Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme -2006)

III. Wildfire and Hazardous Fuels Reduction

1) Probability of fire Before instigating a fuels reduction project, the probability of fire in that area should be determined, along with the chances that the fuels reduction units are in the right place with regard to the fire. A data driven study (Rhodes & Baker- 2008) indicates moderate to severe fires are unlikely to occur in any given treated area (only a 2 to 4 percent probability over a 20-year period). This is not due to treatment, but to probability of occurrence in a given location. Therefore, the negative impacts of logging far outweigh the benefits. For example, in ponderosa forests it will take ~323 years before a moderate to high severity fire will return to a previously burned area. The very short lifetime of a fuel treatment program (about 5-10 years before regrowth of ladder fuels) pales in comparison to the lifetime probability of a fire. Low intensity fires happen with a slightly higher (but still low) probability, but these low intensity fires will be affected by a treatment program with a probability of only 7 to 17%. That small number is irrelevant because low-severity fires are easily extinguished, so logging is unnecessary. The study provides a very compelling reason why even these probabilities are high -- the fuel levels rebound quickly (e.g., ladder fuels within a few years), so all of these probabilities can probably be halved. Bottom line: there is only a 1-in-50 chance that the fire mitigation will have any effect on a fire! Real-world data demonstrates that fuel treatment programs (aka logging) have no noticeable impact on fire. (Rhodes and Baker - 2008) "There is far less fire now than there was historically. There is also less high-intensity fire now than there was prior to fire suppression policies." (Hanson -2010) "For a fuel treatment to function effectively it must first spatially interact with an actual wildfire, and second mitigate fire behavior according to design objectives.” (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pp.77-78) The specific characteristics under which the treatments will interact with fire are unknown at the time of treatment design. However, we know the conditions under which substantial economic losses typically occur in the Front Range of Colorado: rapid large fire spread under extreme fire weather conditions (high fire danger, low air relative humidity, and high winds). Since it is unknown when and where fires will burn when treatments are designed and the amount of area burned is a small percentage of the

35

entire landscape, most areas receiving fuel treatment will never interact with wildfire. Therefore, the realized benefits (i.e. reduced losses) from treated areas that interact with wildfire should be counted against the cost of all treatments within the area covered under the program. Within the Fourmile Canyon Fire perimeter, evidence of reduced fire extent and intensity due to treatment was not apparent and the ability of suppression response to utilize existing treatments to stop fire spread was not clearly documented…” (Ibid) “Mitigation of the home ignition zone (HIZ) and the use of fire-resistant material in home construction can reduce the likelihood of structure damage or destruction if a fire occurs. Additionally, it may provide a location of safe refuge if a fire occurs and evacuation routes are impeded…” (Ibid) “Given the occurrence of rapidly spreading wildfires on the Front Range and the potential of limited structure protection resources relative to homes engaged by a wildfire, mitigation efforts within the home ignition zone may need to be designed such that the structure can survive without protection." (Ibid)

B. Effects of Weather on Fire Weather, climate, and topography are greater influencing factors on fire severity than fuel composition in this area. A wind-driven fire of high intensity can overwhelm any treatment areas. As these are the damaging fires we are primarily concerned with on the Front Range, the chances that a treatment area will be of any benefit is of low probability in this zone. "These large fires can occur any time of the year and typically burn when the wind speeds are high and the air is dry. During these conditions, which are very common on the Front Range, fire suppression efforts are typically ineffective and fires readily escape initial attack (Stephens and Ruth -2005)." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg.1) "High wind speeds and the low relative humidity of the air during the Fourmile Canyon Fire are common weather conditions associated with large wildfires along the Front Range foothills (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings – 2012, pg.58) "Even extensive fuel treatments may not reduce the amount of area burned over the long-term and furthermore, reduction of area burned may actually be an undesirable outcome." "The majority of acreage burned by wildfire in the US occurs in a very few wildfires under extreme conditions. Under these extreme conditions suppression efforts are largely ineffective. Bessie and Johnson (1995) show weather (fuel moisture and wind) is far more important than fuels in determining fire behavior; reducing fuels may have a limited impact on fire occurrence." (Reinhardt et al -2008, 2.3). "Canopy and understory thinning increased the spacing between overstory trees and made the forest more open (Figure 24). However, under the wildfire weather conditions experienced routinely in the Colorado foothills, high fire spread rates (0.5 to 1.0 mph) and high fire intensities (flame lengths of 5 to 10 feet) would be expected. Such intensities would be sufficient to ignite and entirely consume the leaves/needles of the residual overstory trees (Figure 25) (Scott and Burgan 2005)." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 24) "We cannot prevent all high-severity fires in Front Range ponderosa pine forests, and the likely effectiveness of mitigation will vary with elevation, and other factors including extent of treatment, topography, weather, and climate." (Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme -2006) "It is also because the ecologically most important fires, i.e., the fires that have the greatest influence on stand structure, both here [UMZ] and in the adjacent subalpine zone, tend to occur primarily under conditions of extreme fire weather. Under those conditions, variation in fuels characteristics has less influence on fire behavior than when fire weather is less extreme. Effective reduction in fire risk at these

36

higher elevations could potentially require more forest removal (and prevention of regeneration) than is either economically feasible or socially acceptable. Thus, we should not lead the public to believe that we can effectively or cheaply prevent all high-severity fires, either by fuels treatments or by suppression efforts." (Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme – 2006, pg. 12) "We did not find evidence to support the hypothesis that fire exclusion has greatly increased the prevalence of severe fire in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests. And, based on potential behavior of wildfire, as affected by climate and weather, high winds may subject virtually any conifer forest, regardless of fuel density, to crown fire." (Odion et al. -2014, pg. 10)

"The occurrence of mixed-severity fire prior to fire exclusion is also well supported by another line of evidence: the potential behavior of wildfire as affected by weather and climate. Based on direct observations of fire behavior, high winds (generally 10 m open wind speeds .32–35 kilometers/hr) may subject virtually any conifer forest, regardless of fuel density, to crown fire" (Odion, et al. -2014, pg. 11). "Where extreme fire behavior appears within HRV, high-severity fire may largely be explained by extreme weather conditions (for example, high winds and low humidity during severe drought) rather than quantity of woody fuels. (Sherriff et al, -2014, pg. 14)

C. Effectiveness of size and placement of treatments There appears to be controversy in where to best place fuels treatments. Placement probably often relates to land ownership, rather than the best possible physical location. Larger sized units may be more effective for fire-severity reduction, but least acceptable for wildlife habitat or social concerns. "Agee and Skinner (2005) report that under less extreme conditions during the 2002 Hayman Fire in Colorado, fuel treatments such as prescribed fire altered fire severity, except where treatments were small (less than ~250 acres) or where treatments were more than 10–15 years old." "If fuel treatments are scattered or a long time has elapsed since treatment (generally 10 to 15 years or more), they will be less effective in fragmenting the landscape fuel loads, and their efficacy at the stand level can be overwhelmed by intense fires burning in adjacent areas. (Agee and Skinner 2005, pp. 92-93)." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg.X ) “Large areas such as the Polhemus prescribed burn (approximately 8000 acres) were more effective than small fuel breaks (Cheesman ridge, 51 acres) in changing the fire progress. Under extreme conditions of June 9th, spotting easily breached narrow treatments, and the rapid movement of ht efire circumvented small units (fig. 26).” ( Hayman Fire case Study – X) "Even though most fuel treatments occur on a stand level, it is important to consider each treatment in a landscape context, especially since many current wildfires dwarf the size of individual fuel treatment projects and cross jurisdictional boundaries (Sisk and others 2004). Placement of fuel treatments on every square inch of ponderosa pine landscapes will never be feasible nor would it be desirable given other resource management needs." Placement of linear fuel breaks in strategic locations (for example, ridgetops) has also been proposed to break up fuel continuity and aid in fire suppression tactics (Agee and others 2000)." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg.X ) "Treatment units were located adjacent to roads and on ridge-lines, which confounds treatment effects with those of topographically related changes in fire behavior (Figures 34, 49). Clear evidence of topographic effects is visible in the post-fire burn severity images where north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms suffered minor impacts but had received no treatment (Figures 34, 45). The slim boundary between forest consumed completely by fire and intact north facing forests is coincident with ridgelines and slope changes whether treatments were present or not. Elsewhere, (Gold Hill, Sugarloaf, Bald Mountain, Melvina Road; Figures 45, 47) patterns of burn severity (living and consumed conifer foliage) were found to vary independently of fuel treatment locations (Figures 29, 45). Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish the various causes of burn severity, including the efficacy of the fuel treatments. " (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg.58)

37

"It was clear from photographic evidence that the fire readily burned through the treatments and pervasive spotting (0.5 mi at 1000 and 1.0 mi by 1400 on September 6) during the Fourmile Canyon Fire allowed the fire to easily breach the narrow fuel treatments located throughout the fire area (Figure 21, 45). No evidence was found that the progression of the Fourmile Canyon Fire was altered by the presence of fuel treatments and the treated areas were probably of limited value to suppression efforts on September 6 (Figure 32). In some cases, because there were large amounts of surface fuels present in the fuel treatments, they appeared to be ineffective in changing fire behavior. Moreover, it was suggested that the large amount of surface fuels present in many of the treated areas was because that they had not been maintained. However, the fire never reached these fuel treatment areas and the final fire perimeter was not coincident with the location of the known treatment areas (Figure 45). The changes in fire activity in this area were apparently a result of changing weather (increases in air humidity and decreases in wind speed, see Figure 28) and topography (northerly aspect) rather than any changes in forest structure and composition resulting from a fuel treatment. Several miles of roadside fuel treatments were designed to allow for better driving sight distances along the steep and narrow roads but it was impossible to assess the possible role these treatments had in assisting evacuations (Figures 45, 46). (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pp. 55-56) “Note the areas where the fuels were treated along the “Escape Route” were burned more severely than neighboring areas where the fuels were not treated." (Four-mile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pp.56-57) "Variability in forest fire patterns can be very local as well as regional, and fire policies must recognize that. Many forest landscapes, particularly in western North America, are actually mosaics of forests with contrasting fire patterns. Forest conditions and characteristic fuel loadings, fire patterns, and suppression policies may differ sharply on adjacent north and south slopes or at different elevations in the same river valley, with low-intensity fires at low elevations and on south slopes and stand-replacement fires on north slopes and higher elevations." (Franklin, Agee -2003) "If fuel treatments are scattered or a long time has elapsed since treatment (generally 10 to 15 years or more), they will be less effective in fragmenting the landscape fuel loads, and their efficacy at the stand level can be overwhelmed by intense fires burning in adjacent areas” (Agee and Skinner 2005, pp. 92-93)." (Yocom -2013)

D. Effectiveness of type of treatment

The EA (1.3.1) states, "Increased fire activity can be attributed to at least four factors: increasingly hot and dry summers, stronger winds, insect infestations, and human population growth in forested areas." The first question to be asked is whether there has been increased fire activity and that appears to be controversial. While there appears to be little controversy regarding the order of priority of fuels treatment (see below), the opposite order is prescribed in the F2 project. There also seems to be significant controversy regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of thinning (and clearcutting) in the Upper Montane Zone. Thinning without treating surface fuels is also not recommended. "Wildland fuel treatments have been documented and studied for 80-plus years (Weaver 1943, Pollet and Omi 2002, Graham and others 2004, Agee and Skinner 2005, Finney and others 2005, Cram and others 2006, Hunter and others 2007, Graham and others 2009, Hudak and others 2011). A large proportion of this evidence applies directly to the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range and the Fourmile Canyon area. This body of knowledge unequivocally demonstrates that changes in fire behavior and subsequent effects are most dependent on changes in surface fuels. In fact, very effective fuel treatment in many studies consists solely of prescribed burning with no overstory tree removal (e.g., Hayman Fire, Finney and others 2003). Canopy treatments start with removing ladder fuels (e.g., shrubs, small trees) and raising the crown base height of standing

38

trees by pruning the lowest branches to limit transition from surface to crown fire". (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 21; emphasis added) See Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings, Figure 20, id. pg. 22, which has the following caption: “The most effective strategy for reducing crown fire occurrence and burn severity is to (1) reduce surface fuels D, E, F; (2) remove ladder fuels B, C; (3) increase canopy base heights A; (4) and lastly, reduce canopy continuity and density " Many papers published by the USDA FS agree with the conclusions of Reinhardt, Keane, Calkin, and Cohen (2008, pg. 4) that “The most effective strategy for reducing crown fire occurrence and severity is to 1) reduce surface fuels, 2) increase height to live crown, 3) reduce canopy bulk density, and 4) retain large trees of fire resistant species,” in that order. “At the stand level, fuelbreak construction (and fuels reduction and forest restoration projects in general) should follow a step-wise progression of working from the ground up rather than the crown down. Moreover, the pathway for making fuels reduction projects serve programmatic long-term forest restoration goals is to slowly raise up the canopy over time through multiple light entries of thinning-from-below, rather than rapidly opening up the canopy in a single intensive overstory treatment. This means that surface and ladder fuels reduction should be the initial treatments (Graham et al 2004).” (Ingalsbee -2005, pg 91, emphasis added) "The state of knowledge clearly supports the generalization that changes in fire behavior and subsequent effects are most dependent on changes in surface fuels." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings pg. 23) "This vegetation-topographic pattern was evident throughout the Fourmile Canyon Fire area and had more of an impact on how the fire burned than any effects the fuel modifications or suppression activities may have had. In fact, most of the north facing forests occurring along Fourmile Creek remained untouched by fire." (Four-mile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 41) " It was clear from photographic evidence that the fire readily burned through the treatments and pervasive spotting (0.5 mi at 1000 and 1.0 mi by 1400 on September 6) during the Fourmile Canyon Fire allowed the fire to easily breach the narrow fuel treatments located throughout the fire area (Figure 21, 45). No evidence was found that the progression of the Fourmile Canyon Fire was altered by the presence of fuel treatments and the treated areas were probably of limited value to suppression efforts on September 6 (Figure 32)" ( Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 56) "In the absence of additional treatments, both thinnings and harvests tend to increase surface fuels even as they decrease canopy bulk density and canopy continuity. The degrees to which thinnings and harvests reduce wildfire hazard are directly related to the silvicultural prescription, i.e., the number of trees cut. Thinning and regeneration harvests both generate significant slash; if left untreated, these surface fuels can result in fire behavior that is more extreme than in untreated areas (Stephens 1998, Innes et al. 2006)." (Cochrane et al. -2013) "Results of these analyses support the assertion that treatment of surface fuels is critical for fire severity reduction (Agee and Skinner 2005)." (Wimberly et al, -2009) "The scientific consensus is that large and old trees should generally be retained, especially fire-resistant species such as pines. Indeed, from an ecological perspective these are absolutely the last trees that should be removed. Large and old trees are the most likely to survive a fire and subsequently serve as focal points for recovery. Large and old trees are also critical wildlife habitat, in part because they are the source of the standing dead trees (snags) and logs where animals live. Large old trees are essentially irreplaceable because they take centuries to reach that state." (Franklin, Agee -2003)

39

"Although the assertion is frequently made that reducing tree density can reduce wildfire hazard, the scientific literature provides tenuous support for this hypothesis. This review indicates that the specifics of how prescriptions are to be carried out and the effectiveness of these treatments in changing wildfire behavior are not supported by a significant consensus of scientific research at this point in time. This conclusion is supported by the work of other researchers." (Carey, Schumann -2003, pg. 14) "The removal of large, merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk." "In sum, the notion that mechanical thinning, or a combination of thinning and prescribed fire, reduces the incidence of catastrophic fire needs to be viewed as a working hypothesis and needs to be tested through experimentation and site-specific evidence. The proposal that commercial logging can reduce the incidence of canopy fire appears completely untested in the scientific literature." "Finally, scientists recognize that large scale prescribed burning and mechanical thinning are still experimental and may yet reveal unanticipated effects on biodiversity, wildlife populations and ecosystem function (Romme 2000b; Tiedemann et al, 2000). Few long-term studies document the effect of such treatments over time and across the landscape." "Based on the findings of this paper, a comparable investment must also be made in primary and applied research to provide a credible scientific basis for the design, implementation and evaluation of alternative treatments before they are applied on a landscape scale" (Carey, Schumann -2003, pp.15-16) "Although prescribed fire can kill seedlings, fuel treatments can also increase seedling density by opening the canopy and enhancing the seedbed for species such as ponderosa pine. In northern Arizona, higher-intensity treatments were found to have twice the number of ponderosa pine seedlings as low-intensity restoration treatments (Bailey and Covington 2002). Other researchers have found more seedlings germinated in burned treatments than in unburned treatments (Sackett and Haase 1998). Fajardo et al. (2007) noted that regeneration rates for Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in Montana were higher ten years after cut-and-burn and cut-only treatments than they were in control plots." (Yocom – 2013, pg. 5) "There is no substitute for local knowledge, data, observations, and monitoring given the numerous factors that affect fuel treatment longevity and the variation that can occur across landscapes. As Reinhardt et al. (2010) point out, ‘The outcomes of treatments varied between stands, indicating that cookbook, one size-fits-all fuel treatment prescriptions are likely to be unsatisfactory’ (p. 40)." (Yocom – 2013, pg. 7)

"Thinning the forests can actually increase the chance of fire, as grasses and ladder fuels grow into the openings once occupied by tree roots and covered with pine needles and shade loving low ground covers. (Cochrane et al, 2013) "Other evaluations of these trade-offs compared the erosional effects of fuel treatments with high severity fire under the explicit assumption that high-severity fire was inevitable without treatment and the implicit assumption that treatments always reduce or eliminate the potential for high severity fire. Our analysis indicates that these assumptions are unwarranted and likely mischaracterize the outcomes and associated impacts of treatment options." (Rhodes and Baker -2008)

"For fire managers, high canopy closure tends to mitigate surface fire behavior. In shaded fuelbreak proposals that excessively open up the canopy, the combined growth of flashy surface fuels ..with altered microclimate ..can raise fuel temperatures, lower fuel moisture, and lead to increased fireline intensity and rate of surface fire spread." (Ingalsbee -2005, pg. 91) "In the absence of surface fuel treatment, thinning will probably increase surface fuel loads due to fuels created by the harvest activity." "Thinning for fire hazard reduction should concentrate in general on the smaller understory trees to reduce vertical continuity between surface fuels and the forest canopy. In many cases the overstory can be left intact, although in some cases it may be desirable to reduce the horizontal continuity of the canopy as well by thinning some bigger trees." "Thinning will often result in increased potential surface fire behavior, for several reasons. First, thinning reduces the moderating

40

effects of the canopy on windspeed, so surface windspeed will increase. It also results in increased solar radiation on the forest floor , causing drier surface fuels. It may cause an increase in flammable grassy and shrub fuels over time." (Reinhardt et al, -2008, 3.2)

"Treated areas would indicate that higher wind speeds are necessary (by1.5 to 4x) to sustain crown fire, but study does not take into account that wind speeds do increase in thinned forest.” (Fule et al -2012) "Thinning treatments at higher elevations of the montane zone will not return the fire regime to an historic low-severity regime, and are of questionable effectiveness in preventing severe wildfires. Based on present-day fuels, predicted fire behavior under extreme fire weather continues to indicate a mixed-severity fire regime throughout most of the montane forest zone. Recent large wildfires in the Front Range are not fundamentally different from similar events that occurred historically under extreme weather conditions." (Sherriff et al, - 2014, pg. 1) "The potential for passive crown fires (initiated by the torching of a small group of trees) is reduced most efficiently by the reduction of surface fuels followed by a reduction of ladder fuels. ... Conversely, thinning from above, or overstory removal of dominant and codominant trees, decreases fire resistance." (Stephens et al, -2012) "Depending on how it is accomplished, mechanical thinning may add to surface fuels (and increase surface fire intensity) unless the fine fuels that result from the thinning are removed from the stand or otherwise treated.” (Carey, Schumann -2003)

"Typically the first order of business in these projects is to remove the large-diameter boles -- the least flammable, but most commercially valuable portion of a tree. This in turn involves moving the most flammable components -- the small diameter limbs and foliage -- from the canopy layer directly onto the ground surface. In such cases, one can argue that the net result is not fuels reduction, but rather, fuels relocation, essentially shifting the location of hazardous fuels from the crown to the ground where they become immediately available for surface fires. If these activity fuels are left untreated or are ineffectively treated, fire intensity and severity can actually increase compared to untreated sites." (Ingalsbee -2005, pg. 92) "Goals of ecological restoration and wildland fire hazard mitigation are both compatible with

management practices, like prescribed fire and thinning to reduce fuels, below approximately 2200 m

(7200 ft) in our study area, which experienced the greatest increase in fire severity, and likely fuels, since fire exclusion." (Sherriff et al, 2014, pg. 13) "The consensus from this evidence is that the traditional reference conditions of low-severity fire regimes are inaccurate for most of the forests of western North America. Instead, most forests appear to have been characterized by mixed-severity fire that included ecologically significant amounts of weather-driven, high-severity fire." (Odion et al, - 2014) This paper states that regarding the effects of pine beetle kill on increased fire risk, there was a delayed effect of 15-16 years before an increase of 11% on the odds of burning. It is easy to contend that patch/clearcuts to mimic disturbances could have the same effect. The following quote highlights the effect regeneration of lodgepole has on fire risk: "Identification of the biological mechanisms leading to this delayed increase in fire risk will require further study, although the time scale of the process is consistent with the time required for significant release of understory vegetation. Vertical heterogeneity, arising from the combination of rapid release of understory trees and the presence of surviving mature individuals may provide ladder fuels sufficient to increase fire risk. It is almost certain that, to varying degrees, both fire-promoting and fire-inhibiting changes are occurring simultaneously in the stand over the decades following substantial insect activity. Our results imply that the secondary effects of beetle activity on stand structure make a greater contribution to the increase in fire risk over the long term than

41

the primary effects of beetle-induced tree mortality (and the subsequent accumulation of dead fuel). In this, we concur with Bigler and others (2005), who also concluded that the more important effect of beetle activity on fire risk is through a change in stand structure and composition, as opposed to an increase in fuels."(Lynch et al, -2007) "Post-outbreak stand development and associated fire risk may proceed through three stages. (i) Immediately following an outbreak, when trees are dead and dry needles remain on the trees, the chance of a crown fire getting started may be greater than for live trees." "(ii) Once the needles fall off the dead trees, the likelihood of both crown fire initiation and spread actually may be reduced in comparison to an unaffected stand, since the dead trees create gaps in the canopy and reduce canopy bulk density." "(iii) After the dead snags fall, typically one to several decades after the insect outbreak, it is expected that the risk of crown fire initiation and spread may increase once again through two mechanisms. First, the fallen snags may fuel an intense surface fire, with heat and flame lengths that reach into the crowns of the trees. Second, small trees, which generally survived the outbreak and grew more rapidly in the more open conditions resulting from death of canopy trees, create “ladder fuels” that can carry a surface fire into the canopy." (Romme et al, - 2006) "The most important management implication of this study is both simple and robust: only a small fraction of the ponderosa pine zone of the northern Front Range fits the widespread notion that the historic fire regime was characterized mainly by frequent (that is, return intervals < 30 years) low- severity fires that maintained open woodlands. This is a critically important finding, because much of the current fuels reduction management in this landscape is based on the belief that thinning of stands throughout the ponderosa pine zone would both reduce fire hazard and restore the vegetation to an open structure formerly maintained by relatively frequent fires (for example, Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership Strategy, 2003). Such a perception is in fact valid only for the lowest elevations of ponderosa pine, especially those close to the plains-grassland ecotone such as the City of Boulder Open Space lands (Forest Ecosystem Management Plan, Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks 1999)." (Sherriff, Veblen -2007)

E. Defensible Space versus whole Forest treatments

It is well documented and little argument that fire-resistant construction and buffer zones around homes can reduce damage and destruction of those homes. There is controversy regarding whether any treatment other than these localized buffers is necessary. Research strongly indicates that treatment of the home itself and the area immediately surrounding it will provide much greater protection than treating areas further away. Defensible space mitigation is a more targeted approach and protects the values most at risk. “Survival or destruction of homes exposed to wildfire flames and firebrands (lofted burning embers) is not determined by the overall fire behavior or distance of firebrand lofting but rather, the condition of the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ)—the design, materials and maintenance of the home in relation to its immediate surroundings within 100’.” (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 80) "It may not be necessary or effective to treat fuels in adjacent areas in order to suppress fires before they reach homes; rather, it is the treatment of fuels immediately proximate to the residences, and the degree to which the residential structures themselves can ignite that determine if the residences are vulnerable." (Reinhardt et al, - 2008) "In addition, the rate of structure fire involvement after ignition was slow compared to wildfire spread. Homes were typically burning well after the wildfire had passed and thus burning structures did not significantly contribute to wildfire growth." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 61). "…the total destruction of homes is not indicative of high fire intensity or massive flame fronts engulfing a home. Any sustained ignition from whatever source resulted in total home destruction. For example,

42

home destruction associated with low fire intensities are revealed as varying degrees of unconsumed vegetation and other flammable materials adjacent to a totally destroyed home." (Ibid, pg. 63). "The area of the home and its immediate surroundings is called the home ignition zone (HIZ). Commonly home ignition occurs over small distances—a few tens of feet or less. During extreme burning conditions, such as crown fires, the flames outside the HIZ (beyond 100 ft.) will not ignite a home’s combustible materials. Fires spreading into and firebrand ignited fires within the HIZ must be closer than 100 feet and/or contact the flammable parts (e.g., shake roof, wood siding, wood deck) of a home before direct flame ignition occurs. Home ignitions from firebrands require lofted burning embers from whatever distance and source (e.g., burning vegetation and/or structures) to accumulate on a home’s flammable materials (e.g., litter-covered roof, decorative bark, ornamental shrubs) before ignitions can occur. Figure 55 shows a home from the Fourmile Canyon Fire area that had an ignition resistant HIZ and the home survived." (Ibid, pg 65) "The HIZ is largely owned by the homeowner or homeowners in higher density residential development. That means the responsibility for reducing vulnerability to wildfire rests with the homeowner(s). Thus, WUI fire disasters cannot be prevented without homeowners actively creating and maintaining HIZs with low home ignition potential." (Ibid) "Mitigation of the home ignition zone (HIZ) and the use of fire-resistant material in home construction can reduce the likelihood of structure damage or destruction if a fire occurs. Additionally, it may provide a location of safe refuge if a fire occurs and evacuation routes are impeded." (Ibid) "...past examinations (Cohen 2000a, Cohen and Stratton 2003, Cohen and Stratton 2008) indicate home destruction mostly occurs with low and moderate intensity burning near homes. Commonly high intensity canopy fires cease their spread within residential areas. ...83 percent (139/168) of the Fourmile Canyon Fire home destruction was not directly associated with intense wildfire." (Ibid, pg.67) "Computational modeling and laboratory and field experiments that describe the heat transfer required for ignition have shown that the large flames of burning shrubs and tree canopies (crown fires) must be within 100' to ignite a home's wooden exterior. Actual case examinations find that...most homes ignite from smaller flames and directly from firebrands." (Cohen 2008) "...heat within 30' of a crown fire reaches and exceeds the temperatures required to burn walls, but is only maintained for at most one minute, as the fire moves rapidly. It takes minutes for most combustible products to ignite and windows to break. The biggest problem is when burning vegetation actually touches the house. A nearby burning building is a greater threat as it burns longer. A burning house 40' away might not ignite another..." (Quarles -2012) "As revealed in the Angora fuel treatment report and other WUI disaster reports, it was not the high intensity wildfire encroachment that resulted in most of the home destruction. Unconsumed tree canopies existed between the wildfire and totally destroyed homes indicated that destroyed homes ignited directly from fire brands and/or surface fires contacting the structure. In such situations, destruction in the WUI is primarily a result of the flammability of the residential areas themselves, rather than the flammability of the adjacent wildlands. It may not be necessary or effective to treat fuels in adjacent areas in order to suppress fires before they reach homes; rather, it is the treatment of the fuels immediately proximate to the residences, and the degree to which the...structures themselves can ignite that determine if they are vulnerable." (Reinhardt et al, - 2008) "There are opportunities for reducing the home ignition potential during extreme WUI fires without the necessity of changing the broader-scale wildfire behavior. That is, effective WUI fuel treatments can focus on the structures and their immediate surroundings." (Reinhardt et al, - 2008)

43

"By definition, WUI fire disasters depend on homes igniting during wildfires. If homes do not ignite and burn during wildfires, the WUI fire problem largely does not exist." "WUI fire disasters principally occur during extreme fire behavior conditions that account for one to three percent of wildfires that escape initial attack control." "The disaster sequence starts when a wildfire or multiple wildfires burn during extreme fire conditions, and topography produces fast-spreading, intensely burning fire behavior that overwhelms suppression efforts." "If homes are sufficiently resistant to ignition and do not ignite during the extreme wildfire exposure, then homes survive without firefighter protection: we have an extreme wildfire, but not a WUI fire disaster." "...the large flames of burning shrubs and tree canopies (crown fires) must be within 100 feet to ignite a home's wood exterior. Actual case examinations find that ...most destroyed homes ignite from smaller flames [surface fires] and directly from firebrands." "Thus, given an extreme wildfire, the home ignition zone principally determines the potential for a WUI fire disaster." "Yet the evidence suggests that reasonable levels of fire suppression cannot prevent WUI fire disasters. The inevitability of wildfires...is axiomatic. Preventing wildfire disasters thus means fire agencies helping property owners mitigate the vulnerability of their structures." (Cohen -2008) "The only effective way to protect homes from wildland fire is to reduce the combustibility of the homes themselves, and reduce brush and very small trees within 100 feet of the homes. Commercial thinning projects that remove mature trees hundreds of yards – and often several miles – from the nearest home do not protect homes, and often put homes at greater risk by diverting scarce resources away from true home protection, by creating a false sense of security, and by removing large, fire-resistant trees and generating combustible logging “slash debris”, which increases potential fire severity. Currently, less than 3% of U.S. Forest Service “fuels reduction” projects are near homes." (Hanson -2010)

F. Effects on the Watershed Pulsed disturbances from fire may be less deleterious than chronic watershed impacts from repeated treatments. "If fire does not affect treated areas while fuels are reduced, treatment impacts on watersheds are not counterbalanced by benefits from reduction in fire impacts." "Substituting space for time, our results indicate that, on average, approximately 2 to 4.2% of areas treated to reduce fuels are likely to encounter fires that would otherwise be high or high-moderate severity without treatment. In the remaining 95.8-98% of treated areas, potentially adverse treatment effects on watersheds are not counterbalanced by benefits from reduced fire severity. These results also provide an estimate of the likelihood of high-severity fire affecting forests, if fuels are untreated. On average, over a 20-year period about 2-4.2% of untreated areas would be expected to burn at high or high-moderate severity, respectively." "Due to transient effects of fuel treatments, extent and frequency of treatment, impacts may be significant and increase potential for cumulative effects on aquatic ecosystems." "Treatments would have to be repeated every 20 years for 340-700 years before more than 50% of the treatment areas would have been affected by high severity fire." (Rhodes & Baker -2008) Roads are needed to implement fuel reduction projects. But they often have adverse impacts on watersheds: "In many forested areas, unpaved roads are a primary source of sediment (Libohova, 2004), and the number, location, and design of forest roads is a key control on whether thinning or harvest activities will affect water quality and aquatic ecosystems (MacDonald and Stednick, 2003; Libohova, 2004). Forest harvest and bug kill can reduce slope stability as a result of the decay in root strength (Sidle et al., 1985), but the increased susceptibility to landslides and debris flows is rarely an issue in Colorado." (Romme et al, - 2006) "Natural ecological processes generally lead to the development of new forests after insect outbreaks, so a "no treatment" option can be a form of responsible forest management" (Romme et al, -2006)

44

G. Slash Slash treatments can also increase fire spread, speed of spread, intensity, and temperature, as well as cause ecological damage and increase insect infestations. This may be well-known and not controversial, but the length of time that slash piles typically have been left on the ground in the project area belie this knowledge. Unfortunately, the long time scale of the F2 project means large amounts of surface fuels could be on the ground for many years. "Piling slash can also facilitate the increase in bark beetles, which in turn can cause mortality in residual trees (Six et al 2002)." (Wimberly et al, -2009) "Surface fuels in these ponderosa pine forests consisted of perennial grasses, cheat grass, mountain mahogany shrubs, and an abundant amount of pine needles and small branches (Figures 5-7). With these abundant surface fuels and their dry condition, the fire spread rapidly with frequent torching of overstory trees (Figures 25, 30). Continuous flame zones developed in the deep needle litter resulting in burning the crowns of many overstory trees." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 37) "Mastication can increase surface fuel depth and continuity, allowing fires to spread more easily and burn hotter at the soil surface (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005a, Harrod et al. 2008, Reiner et al. 2009). Managers on the Truckee National Forest have found that masticated fuels can be difficult to ignite but, once ignited, can result in high levels of tree mortality, which can hinder future prescribed fire. Soil heating during post-mastication fires has the potential to cause biological damage, particularly in dry soil with a mulch depth of 3 inches or greater. (Busse et al.)” (Cochrane et al, -2013) "Mastication in a mixed conifer stand in Colorado increased surface fuels three times and resulted in 28 tons of surface fuel per acre (Battaglia et al. 2010)." "Burning slash in piles can have more severe but localized effects because of the increased heat and long residence times on soils (Seymour and Tecle 2005), plant establishment (Korb et al. 2004), and adjacent vegetation (Hillstrom and Halpern 2008). The pile location (i.e., away from high-value trees), size, and burning conditions affect the amount and rate of pile combustion (Johnson 1984, Hardy 1996)." (Cochrane et al, -2013 ) "Post-fire satellite imagery clearly showed the absence of moderated burn severity inside treated areas compared to neighboring untreated stands (Figure 45). In some cases, treated stands appeared to burn more intensely than adjacent untreated stands, perhaps because of additional surface fuels present as a result of the thinning and higher wind speeds that can occur in open forests compared to those with denser canopies (Figure 46). One clear example of this comes from near Gold Hill where the piles of slash were scattered in the understory of a thinned stand but where the intended slash burning had not yet been completed. This situation reinforces the notions that fuel treatment performance metrics should be described and treatments need to be executed as planned to be effective (Figure 47)." "The amount and condition of surface fuels present in a forest is the major determinant in fire ignition, spread, and ultimate burn severity (Graham 2003, Graham and others 2004)." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 57) This same story has played out in other fires, including among others: 2011 Wallow Fire, 2007 East Zone Complex, 2011 Cougar Fire, 2005 Camp 32 Fire, 2006 Warm Fire.

H. Social Effects of Treatments While the social effects of the project were considered in the EA, they were basically dismissed. (See Part Two-Public input/ Social Impact) "A comprehensive national forest fire policy should consider all aspects of wildfire management, not just fuels and fire suppression. This policy needs to deal with long-term management of fuels and wildfire and consider the full range of ecological and social values, including issues related to forest health and the well-being of communities and people. Fire and fuel policy should also be an integral part of an overall vision for stewardship and management of the nation’s forests." (Franklin, Agee -2003)

45

"It should be a strategic goal if not essential need for land managers to fully collaborate with citizen groups and local communities to come up with agreements over the model, means, and methods of fuelbreak design, construction, maintenance, and use." (Ingalsbee -2005) "Too often decision-makers focus on acceptance of a decision by the public without fully considering that an agency’s attempt to implement socially acceptable resource policies is inherently a question of process instead of outcomes (Kakoyannis et al, 2001). A growing body of evaluative research throughout the last decade has shown that the public’s idea of fairness and legitimacy involves the quality of the decision-making procedures. Of particular importance are opportunities for citizen participation (e.g., Lauber and Knuth 1997, Shindler and Neburka, 1997, Tuler and Webler, 1999); e.g., interactions between agencies and citizens in forest communities are closely linked with public acceptance because management decisions are made and implemented in settings important to those communities. It is not only opinions about procedural fairness that influence acceptance of and compliance with resulting policies but also how people feel about the decision-makers (Lawrence et al. 1997)." (Shindler, Brunson, Stankey -2002) "Adequate attention has not been given to all contextual aspects—spatial, temporal, and social—when evaluating acceptability practices and resource conditions. For example, the uniqueness of a place and its meaning is particularly important for citizens, but prescriptive one-size-fits-all policies ignore most contextual circumstances." "Agnew (1989) argues that place-based decision -making is a vital part of the social fabric but believes that the meaning of geographic characteristics is treated as if independent (or even nonexistent) from the social order." "As such, constructing a “sense of place” offers resource professionals a way to anticipate, identify, and respond to the attachments people form with specific places (Williams and Stewart, 1998). This view recognizes that society values natural resources in ways not easily or necessarily captured by more traditional measures, such as “yield” or “use.” Contextual, place-specific interactions generate their own set of shared meanings for citizens and agencies that may be distinctly different from the broad “placeless” planning efforts that people often see in today’s landscape-level approaches." (Shindler, Brunson, Stankey -2002) “This emphasis on scientific knowledge encourages resource professionals to place less importance on public input and values (Magill 1991). The experiential knowledge of the public is often undervalued and frequently dismissed as too emotional (McGee-Brown and others 1995, Vining and Schroeder 1987). In a study of the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful agency-public interactions, Wondolleck and Yaffee (1994) found that traditional approaches to management assign little value to public involvement. Furthermore, we noted that the Forest Service’s “we know best” attitude also interfered with establishing productive agency relations with citizens (Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994). Resource professionals who rely only on technical expertise tend to feel a need to “educate” a misinformed public rather than acknowledge public input (Brunson 1992).” (Kakoyannis et al, -2001, pg.7) “People’s sense of place is a powerful sentiment that should not be underestimated or undervalued. People not previously involved in management decisions often become mobilized when an undesirable practice is slated to occur in a highly valued location. Williams and Carr (1993) suggest that the reason natural resource managers have so many conflicts with their decisions is partly because of their failure to recognize the importance of the strong bonds that people form with specific landscapes. There is an erroneous presumption that there are suitable substitutes for any particular recreation site, such as a campground or fishing hole. Individual sentimental sites, however, cannot be replaced without an emotional loss to the recreationist. These place-grounded sentiments are often ignored in natural resource decisionmaking because managers do not consider them to be valuable components of their technically-oriented management plans. Yet, Williams and Stewart (1998) note that “even what planners and scientists put forward as a data-driven description of a place in the form of a scientific assessment is itself another competing sense of place.” Instead of viewing the public’s sense of place as an obstacle to overcome in order to develop management decisions, Williams and Carr (1993)

46

suggest managers make greater efforts to recognize and understand the strong meanings and ties that people have with the natural environment.” (Ibid, pg. 11) “Although frequently used in the research literature, terms like trust and confidence lack consistent definitions. We use La Porte and Metlay’s (1996) definition of trust as “the belief that those with whom you interact will take your interests into account . . .” and confidence as knowing that the other party “is able to empathize with your interests, is competent to act on that knowledge, and will go to considerable lengths to keep its word.” In short, trustworthiness is a combination of trust and confidence.” (Ibid, pg. 12) “These types of efforts, such as using public input and sharing decisionmaking power, could go a long way toward improving public trust in natural resource management institutions. Because trust is such a critical component of acceptable natural resource decisions, an effort was made to incorporate the many factors found to influence the formation of trust into the social acceptability knowledge base.” (Ibid, pg.13)

I. Performance Metrics of Treatments Monitoring would be needed to assess the possible effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments. However, the monitoring outlined in the EA is lacking in both detail and metrics. The frequency and time limitation on monitoring makes it useless for determining the effectiveness of the project. This lack of monitoring has been a problem in previous projects, which is one of the reasons there is so much resistance to this project within the community. "This assessment did not find documentation that described the intended treatment performance, either in terms of changes to wildfire behavior under a targeted set of weather conditions, the intended use of treatments by fire suppression resources, or a possible strategic role of treatments in changing fire progression. Long-term maintenance of treatments for re-growth and understory response was not mentioned." (Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings -2012, pg. 28)

"This situation reinforces the notions that fuel treatment performance metrics should be described and treatments need to be executed as planned to be effective (Figure 47)." "The description and documentation of fuel treatments performed in the area where the Fourmile Canyon Fire burned did not mention the weather conditions under which they were intended to be effective nor the methods for maintaining surface fuels (litter, grasses and herbaceous fuels) in a treated condition. The amount and condition of surface fuels present in a forest is the major determinant in fire ignition, spread, and ultimate burn severity." (Four-mile Canyon Fire Findings pg.57) "An inherent challenge with the extensive fuelbreak systems is the need for periodic maintenance to retard the growth of flammable shrubs and saplings that can thrive in the increased sunlight and disturbed soils of logged sites." "Numerous scientific reports ... caution that without proper maintenance fuelbreak sites become ineffective..." "Over a relatively short time, this can lead to a type conversion from timber fuels to grass or brush fuels, resulting in increased fireline intensity and rate of spread compared to the newly-constructed fuelbreak or even the original uncut stand." (Ingalsbee -2005)

IV. Forest Restoration

A. The goals of forest restoration should be to create a healthy, ecologically sound forest with native species of plants and animals, characteristic within the natural range of variation (NRV) of the forest zone. There is considerable evidence that the project area already falls within the NRV, thus the parameters of forest restoration within the project are in controversy.

47

"[Low-severity fire & open forest] applies only to portions of the lowest elevations of the Colorado Front Range, and generally does not apply to most of the middle and higher elevations." “This forest was characterized by dense stands of lodgepole on north-facing slopes and variable stands, predominantly dense, of mixed-conifer elsewhere. Some gentler south-facing slopes may have had some open stands of ponderosa pine. "The goals of fuels reduction to decrease the likelihood of severe wildfires and restore historical forest structure and species composition are complementary in ecosystems where fuels and fire severity have increased [lower elevations], yet are incompatible elsewhere and threaten ecosystem integrity and ecosystem services." (Sherriff et al, -2014, emphasis added)

"A key finding of our study of fire regime changes in the montane forest zone of the Colorado Front Range is that only 16% of the study area recorded a shift from historical low-severity to a higher potential for crown fire today...and is concentrated in the lower montane zone." "The dominant (72.2% of the 564,413 ha study area) historical fire regime of the northern Colorado Front Range consisted of mixed-severity regime in which stand structures were shaped primarily by moderate-severity (46.5% of sites) and high-severity (45.7% of sites); only 7.8% of the sites recorded predominantly low-severity fires.” (Sherriff et al, -2014) "This is a critically important aspect of the historical fire regimes of the Colorado Front Range, an aspect that cannot be overemphasized. This landscape probably was never characterized by large, homogeneous stands with low tree densities. On the contrary, variation in forest structure was important across the area, as were changes over decades and centuries. For these reasons, creating large landscapes with uniformly low tree densities probably would be unprecedented in the ecological history of this area." "We are stressing that reduction in stand density does not always mimic the effects of historical fires and should not be uncritically equated with ecological restoration." (Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme -2006) "Currently, high stand densities over much of the range of P. ponderosa in this large study area are due to past severe fires and not due to 20th century fire exclusion. Both high-severity fires and high stand densities are within the historic range of variability for these forests, which needs to be taken into account when forest management goals include restoring forest conditions to pre-fire-exclusion conditions." "Variable-severity fire regimes are less clearly candidates for thinning than are low-severity fire regimes and a cautious approach to restoration efforts has been recommended (Brown et al. 2004)." "Although natural disturbance regimes have been proposed as models for management of many forest types (Hunter 1993; Perera & Buse 2004), numerous studies (e.g. Cumming et al. 2000; Anderson et al. 2005; Bradstock et al. 2005), including the present one, are showing that variability of fire regimes within the same ecosystem type is greater than previously believed." (Sherriff, Veblen, -2006) "Thinning is not a recommended method for reducing moderate to severe dwarf mistletoe infestations, because it will stimulate the remaining mistletoe (Conklin and Fairweather 2010). Thinnings in mixed conifer stands designed to remove ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe can accelerate the conversion to fir, while in stands with infected Douglas-fir and a healthy pine component dwarf mistletoe will favor the pine (Conklin and Fairwather 2010).” "Similarly, more intense harvest (i.e., shelterwood versus group selection) opens up more growing space and can have a greater proportion of exotic species (Battles et al. 2001). Fuel breaks can provide corridors of invasion and facilitate the spread of exotic species into wildlands (Keeley 2006)." "Mastication can attract Ips bark beetles because of the release of monoterpenes, so avoiding beetle flight season by chipping in the late summer through early winter is optimal (Fettig et al. 2006). Ensuring that chips do not pile up at the base of remaining trees may also reduce post-treatment mortality (Fettig et al)." (Messier, Puettmann, Coates - 2013)

"Not all lodgepole pine forests are the same. Some forests are composed of pure lodgepole pine that was established following large fires that occurred decades or even centuries ago. Others are mixed with subalpine species such as Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen at higher elevations, or

48

with mixed conifer species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and aspen at lower elevations. The ecology and fire behavior of each type of forest is unique. Lodgepole pine trees in all three types are vulnerable to attack by mountain pine beetles." (Franklin, Agee,-2003) "Ecosystem restoration treatment and fuel treatment are not synonymous. Some ecosystem restoration treatments reduce fuel hazard, but not all fuel treatments restore ecosystems. Ecosystem restoration treatments are often designed to recreate pre-settlement fire regimes, stand structures and species composition while fuel treatments objectives are primarily to reduce fuels to lessen fire behavior or severity - this is known as hazard reduction. Achieving fuel hazard reduction in the absence of ecosystem restoration is insufficient. (Reinhardt et al, -2008) "It would be difficult to replicate the wide-ranging influences of wildland fire with only mechanical treatments (Nitschke 2005). Fire's effect is manifest at many scales and across many ecosystem components." (Reinhardt et al, -2008) "Given the wide range of ecosystem conditions that may have occurred in the past, it may be a better idea to restore stand structure to within the range and variation of historical conditions on the entire landscape." (Reinhardt et al, -2008) "Mixed conifer -Recent science has shown that this area was not characterized by frequent low-severity fires, but rather mixed severity fires (with very few low-severity fires) at the rotation stated above [250 years].” (Odion, et al, -2014) "Forest densities indicated were much denser and more variable in pre-settlement than they are now.” (Dickenson -2014). "The FIA data were inconsistent with the hypothesis that the ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests of western North America, in unmanaged landscapes, were predominantly park-like with low age-class diversity due to the dominant influence of low/moderate- severity fire." (Odion et al, -2014, emphasis added) "In areas naturally characterized by lower frequencies of moderate- to high-severity fires, fuel reduction through prescribed fire and thinning will likely not achieve both ecological restoration and fire hazard mitigation goals." (Sherriff, Platt, Gartner -2014, pg. 14) "Restoration thinning treatments will not return the fire regime to one of low severity across the Front Range montane zone, which was historically predisposed to periodic fires of varying severities, and are of questionable effectiveness in preventing severe wildfires." (Sherriff, Platt, Gartner -2014) "Where extreme fire behavior appears within HRV [historic range of variability], high-severity fire may largely be explained by extreme weather conditions (for example, high winds and low humidity during severe drought) rather than quantity of woody fuels." (Ibid)

"Thus, management efforts to create large areas of open wood-lands in the higher elevation areas of the ponderosa pine zone of ARNF would not be consistent with historic fire regimes and stand structures." (Sherriff, Veblen - 2007)

"Generally the response of wildlife to specific changes in landscape patterns of forest structure is poorly understood." "Our current understanding of the ecological consequences of using variable density (groups-clumping) thinning to restore forests stands is poor." (Dickenson -2014)

"Pre-Euro-Settlement forest structure provides a useful reference for thinning targets, but there are limitations in the use of historical data since site specific information is often not available." (Hunter et al 2007) "Tree densities in unlogged reference ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests in this

49

landscape from the late 19th century and early 20th century indicate much denser and more variable forest conditions." (Odion et al, -2014) "The idea that a historical fire regime of primarily low-severity fires maintained savannas and open woodlands applies only to portions of the lowest elevations of the Colorado Front Range, and generally does not apply to most of the middle and higher elevations." (Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme - 2006). "Because they are relatively rare, older, scarred, and character trees should be protected by leaving them and protecting them." (Dickenson -2014) They are rare here, because they are cut regularly. Those 14" trees are barely middle-aged. The ARNF plan states that “all existing lodgepole pine and spruce-fir old growth should be retained.” (Forest Plan, pg. 359, for Management Area 3.5, emphasis added) Management Area 3.5 covers a large percentage of the areas proposed for treatment. “Lodgepole- Larger patches should occur on north facing slopes compared to south facing slopes (perhaps a single patch comprising the whole slope on north facing aspects)." (Dickenson - 2014)

REFERENCES

Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland Proposed Monitoring Plan- Forest Plan Monitoring Under The 2012 Planning Rule [USFS] Brown, Agee, Franklin - 2004 - Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of place [attached] Boulder County Comprehensive Plan – Maps [attached] Carey & Schumann, 2003 - Modifying Wildfire Behavior, The Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments [TA] Cochrane, Moran, Wimberly, Baer, Finney, Beckendorf, Eidenshink, Zhu -2012 - Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments [VL] Cochrane, Wimberly, Eidenshink, Zhu, Ohlen, Finney, Reeves -2013 - Fuel Treatment Effectiveness in the United States [attached] Cohen- 2008 -The Wildland urban interface fire problem - a consequence of the fire exclusion paradigm. [TA] Dickinson, 2014 - Landscape restoration of a forest with a historically mixed-severity fire regime: What was the historical landscape pattern of forest and openings? [USFS] Franklin & Agee -2003 - Forging a Science Based National Forest Fire Policy [TA] Fule, Peter Z., Joseph E Crouse, John P Roccaforte, Elizabeth I. Kalies -2012 – Do thinning and/or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffry pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? [attached] Graham, Finney, McHugh, Cohen, Calkin, Stratton, Bradshaw, Nikolov - 2012 - The Fourmile Canyon Fire Findings [TA] Graham, Finney, Romme, Cohen, Robichaud -2003 - Hayman Fire Case Study [USFS] Hanson, Chad -2010 - The Myth of “Catastrophic” Wildfire- A New Ecological Paradigm of Forest Health [VL]

50

Ingalsbee, Timothy - 2005 - Fuelbreaks for Wildland Fire Management: A Moat or a Drawbridge for Ecosystem Fire Restoration? [TA] Kakoyannis, Christina, Bruce Shindler, and George Stankey -2001 - Understanding the Social Acceptability of Natural Resource Decisionmaking Processes by Using a Knowledge Base Modeling Approach [attached] Kaufmann, Veblen, Romme - 2006 - Historical Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Colorado Front Range, and Recommendations for Ecological Restoration and Fuels Management [USFS] Lynch, Renkin, Crabtree, Moorcroft - 2007 - The Influence of Previous Mountain Pine Beetle Activity on the 1988 Yellowstone Fires [attached] McCaffrey, Toman, Stidham, Shindler -2012 - Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs [attached] Cornett, Meredith & Mark White - 2013 - Forest restoration in a changing world: complexity and adaptation examples from the Great Lakes region of North America; Managing Forests as Complex Adaptive Systems: Building Resilience to the Challenge of Global Change, Chapter 6; Routledge- 2013 [TA] Odion, Hanson, Arsenault, Baker, DellaSala, Hutto, Klenner, Moritz, Sherriff, Veblen, Williams -2014 - Examining Historical and Current Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed-Conifer Forests of Western North America, [VL]

Noss, Reed F. (editor), Jerry F. Franklin, William L. Baker,

Tania Schoennagel, and Peter B. Moyle – 2006-

Ecology and Management of Fire-prone Forests of the Western United States; Society for Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on Fire in Western U.S. Forests, North American Section, Arlington, VA August 2006 [VL]

Quarles, Stephen -2012 – Vulnerabilities of Buildings to Wildfire Exposures [attached] Reinhardt, Elizabeth D., Robert E. Keane, David E. Calkin, Jack D. Cohen -2008 - Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States [VL] Rhodes & Baker - 2008 - Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western US Public Forests, The Open Forest Science journal, 2008, 1, 1-7 [VL] Schoennagel, Tania, Rosemary Sherriff, Thomas Veblen - 2011- Fire history and tree recruitment in the Colorado Front Range upper montane zone: implications for forest restoration [VL] Sherriff, Rosemary, Rurtherford V. Platt, Thomas T. Veblen, Tania L. Schoennagel, Meredith H. Gartner- 2014 - Historical, Observed, and Modeled Wildfire Severity in Montane Forests of the Colorado Front Range. PLoS ONE 9(9): e106971. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106971. [VL] Sherriff & Veblen, -2006 - Ecological effects of changes in fire regimes in Pinus ponderosa ecosystems in the Colorado Front Range [VL] Sherriff, Veblen -2007 - A Spatially-Explicit Reconstruction of Historical Fire Occurrence in the Ponderosa Pine Zone of the Colorado Front Range [VL] Shindler, Brunson, Stankey -2002 - Social Acceptability of Forest Conditions and Management Practices: A Problem Analysis

51

Stephens, Scott, James McIver, Ralph Boerner, Christopher Fettig, Joseph Fontane, Bruce Hartsough, Patricia Kennedy, and Dylan Schwilk - 2012 - The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States [attached] Yocom, Larissa – 2013 -– Ecological Restoration Institute, working Paper No. 27: Fuel Treatment Longevity - Southwest Fire Science Consortium [TA] Williams & Baker - 2012 - Variability of historical forest structure and fire across ponderosa pine landscapes of the Coconino Plateau and south rim of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA [attached] Wimberly, Cochrane, Baer, & Pabst - 2009 - Assessing Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Using Satellite Imagery and Spatial Statistics [TA] Veblen,Thomas, & Joseph Donnegan – 2005- Historical Range of Variability for Forest Vegetation of the National Forests of the Colorado Front Range [attached] [TA] = submitted in January 2016 by Todd adelman [USFS] = referenced or published by the USFS or U.S. Government [VL] = submitted by Vivian Long in January 2016 [attached] = submitted along with this objection, although in separate email We have omitted complete references, including publications, as we have submitted the papers or they have already been referenced by the USFS.

52

MFG Objections to the Forsythe ll EA and DDN Part Two - Public input / Social Impact

Background Background information on the project and initiation of public involvement is covered in the first section of our Objections- Part One. EA 1.7.1 (pg. 19) Regarding meetings and field trips, there were many meetings aside from the public meetings and field trips, most of which were requested and/or instigated by MFG to discuss possible outcomes for the new analysis. We also submitted numerous alternative guides to managing this forest that would achieve the stated objectives of the project, albeit in new ways. On EA page 20 it states: “A detailed proposed action was developed utilizing the input received from the public and internal USFS resource specialists.” Despite the many comments for changes to the scoping document, there were no significant changes between it and the project proposal document. When pressed as to why official public comments were ignored in the creation of the project proposal, S. Clark, Boulder District Ranger, gave us a housing analogy - that when selling a house, you start with your highball price and work down towards a compromise. Of course, we thought the scoping document was the highball price and the proposal should’ve knocked a little off the price, to finish the metaphor. In other words, we should’ve seen some indication that the USFS was taking public input seriously. We did not. We still have not. Issues Social concerns have been brought up during every step of this project as one of the most important factors to the community. Yet, they were not considered important enough to be analyzed in detail (see below). Why wasn’t a social impact analysis performed as part of the EA? (FSH 1973.1). EA 1.7.2 (pp. 20-26) states: Issues are assigned to one of three categories: Key issues, other issues, and issues not analyzed in detail. “Key issues are used to develop alternatives, mitigation measures, or design elements to address the effects of proposed activities. “Other issues” do not lead to a new alternative but are analyzed in terms of environmental consequences. “Issues not analyzed in detail” are issues that are not analyzed because they are addressed through the project design; outside the scope of the analysis, already decided by law, regulation, the Forest Plan, or mitigated as standard operating procedures and do not require tracking throughout the document. We are given each of the Key issues, with indicators for those issues, but no indication as to how they will be resolved. It is interesting that the Key issues fall into categories that the USFS has experience addressing: soils, hydrology/fisheries, terrestrial wildlife, silviculture, recreation/trails, visual resources, and noxious weeds, regardless of whether they resolve these issues. In chapter 3, the effects of the alternatives on the Key issues are further discussed, but basically dismissed as having minimal cumulative impact. We do not agree. EA 1.7.4 (pp. 27-35) deals with the issues “not analyzed in detail,” “because they are addressed through project design, management requirements, or design criteria.” These issues include transportation; botany; heritage; climate change and carbon sequestration; air quality; economics; and social concerns. We did not see that the social concerns expressed were addressed through either project design or design criteria to any great degree. They are supposed to be addressed through management requirements. (Executive order 12898 & Presidential Memorandum) (FSH 1909.17, 30-34, 30.2, 31.1, 33.2) (36 CFR 219.5) (40 CFR 1508.14) (FSM 1973.03). The major form of addressing them seems to be to dismiss them. (More on this below in comments) Location

53

We find much in section 1.7.4.8 that is misleading, whether intentional or not. On page 30 it is stated that “many of these private land parcels were patented mining claims that have since been developed with mountain residences and cabins”. This is true, no doubt, for much of the ARNF and even in much of Boulder County, but not true for the project area. While there are some ex-mining claims/ residences within the area, the majority of subdivisions were part of the Gigi or Scates’ ranches and are large contiguous pieces that have been developed for many years. The forest is also mostly fairly large contiguous pieces, which is why it is such valuable habitat. Unlike areas of Sugarloaf, which are a patchwork of mining claims and forest lands, these parcels are more continuous. The statement that “the Forsythe ll (F2) project area is heavily populated with the community of Nederland to the west, interspersed private lands throughout and the city of Boulder to the east,” (pg. 31) is misleading. As stated above, it is less interspersed, or intermixed, than this statement would lead you to believe. The project area, particularly the treatment area, is not that close to Boulder. The population of Nederland is ~1500 and much of that is on the other side of Barker Reservoir from the treatment area. Only a portion of the populace lives next to the project area. The population of the “interspersed” residents is probably less than 1000. The subdivisions were created long ago and Boulder County regulations haven’t allowed subdividing to less than 25 acres since before the Forest Plan was created, so growth is limited. Comments EA Page 31 states, “There were 374 comment letters received in response to the F2 Proposed Action.” Approximately 90% of these comments were opposed to much of the proposed project. Only ~9% were in support of the project and almost half of this 9% were associated with the USFS, timber contractors, municipalities, or private and public agencies. "Many comments on the F2 Proposed Action expressed concern that management activities would impact social values, including sense of place, quality of life, and peace of mind gained by wildlife viewing, walking in forest, and being in nature. Some felt it would impact their recreational experiences. Some… expressed concern that the forest management practices proposed would impact or reduce their property values.”(pp. 31-32) Followed by: "It is clear some people have fond memories and ongoing experiences with the current forest conditions, no matter forest health conditions…" (emphasis added) There is nothing to indicate the forest is unhealthy. It is characteristic of an upper montane forest, within the natural range of variability (“NRV”) and among "some of most diverse forests present in the county." (EA pg.12) It has a diverse and amazing quantity of wildlife for an area with so many people. The underlined phrase is very condescending and insulting. Unfortunately, this attitude is reflected in more comments in the EA, regarding the social concerns of the public, as on page 32: “Those who have special place attachments in the project area may have a difficult time finding a substitute site and may feel displaced by the forest management activities in the short term.” May have a difficult time and may feel displaced? It takes 50 years for some semblance of a forest to regrow and while that is short term for a forest, it isn’t short term for most people or for wildlife. Also on EA pg. 32: “Some private landowners live in and prefer the existing condition because that has been accepted by them as a healthy forest.” Again, there is certainly a lot of local scientific consensus that these forests are typical for their zone. (See Part Two-Scientific Controversy). They are not dying from beetle infestation and the mistletoe is at endemic levels. Old photographs indicate that pre-logging and mining, this is what the forests looked like. (photos submitted 1/28/16) And on EA page 33: “The initial social response, by most, to vegetation management activities is negative, and a more positive social response occurs as the open areas fill in and the newly created views become the norm." This statement would indicate the USFS thinks we are all on the edge of dementia (or are, at least, very forgetful). Is the supposed "positive response" equal to the response prior to treatment or only in comparison to

54

immediately post-treatment? Is it truly a new norm or just a ‘can't do anything about it now, so learn to live with it’ response? Can the USFS provide data to back this claim up? Regarding the concern that the project would negatively affect property values on page 35: "…there is an indication that property values are negatively affected only if there are ongoing wildfires during a time when someone is looking for a mountain property and not specifically due to fire mitigation or forest management (Theriault, personal communication 2016)." Where did this "indication" come from - data? Can this be provided to us? People might only be frightened by actual fire, not by an indication of fire due to fire mitigation activities, but very few people looking for a mountain forest home are searching for the ‘field of stumps’, ‘invasive weeds’, or ‘regeneration thicket’ look. Ask a realtor. Most people looking for a mountain home in the forest want some forest. To have to wait 10+ years for a change can have a detrimental impact on property values and people's lives. On EA pg. 32: "In contrast, there were comments received …that were in support of the project objectives and forest management. These comments expressed the need to manage the NF for improved forest health, restoration, and resiliency." Out of 374 comments ~33 (~9%), of which only 5-8 (depending on definition of local) were local. The remainder were contractors, USFS associates, out-of-state people, and governmental or private (Denver Water) entities. Yes, it is a contrast that so few, especially of the locals this project was designed to protect, were actually in favor of it. It goes on to say that: “These comments expressed the need to allow for mountain residents, with property adjacent to the NF, to complete work for defensible space around their homes and communities.” This was actually something MFG pushed for, before the scoping document was published, that was incorporated into the plan. This statement makes it sound like only those few ‘reasonable’ people that supported the project were in favor of defensible space options. Perhaps it was just poorly worded, but this paragraph seems very misleading. On both EA pp. 33 & 35, the following sentence is stated (emphasis added): "With management activities, as proposed, there is an opportunity to reduce risks of wildfires impacts to communities, private property, forest resources, provide opportunities for wildfire suppression, and increase landscape resiliency that the ARP and many in the surrounding area feels supports the tradeoffs to short term and long term impacts to sense of place in the project area.” (sic) This means that 8 people and 13 agency representatives out of 374 would be considered "many." On EA pg. 34: "Projects such as Forsythe ll... receive several hundred letters in response to the proposed actions, with a wide range of comments, beliefs, & opinions. While the USFS personnel work to address concerns and listen to input, It is not possible to meet everyone's specific concerns or needs." (emphasis added) There were 374 letters of which over 335 were opposed to the proposed management activities and only 33 were in favor (most of whom were agency associated). There was a lot of consensus in the specific concerns of the opposition. This decision hasn't gone very far to meet the concerns and needs of the majority who commented. Page 33: The EA says that thinning with chainsaws is more socially acceptable than mechanized thinning and that patch-cuts and clearcuts are less socially acceptable. “Acceptability [of patch/clearcuts] appears to decrease with an increase in size of the cutting unit. However this work addresses the need to reduce the risk of crown fire and additionally provides fire suppression opportunities and increase in firefighter safety.” It is debatable as to whether it does actually reduce the risk of crown fire, as lodgepole pine, prior to clearcutting, are at lower risk of crown fire, as long as ladder fuels have been removed. The increase in lodgepole regeneration, as happens after a clearcut, actually increases the risk of crown fire. (Lynch et al, 2007). The roads, driveways, large meadows in the area give ample opportunity for suppression efforts and combined with defensible space around homes provide for firefighter safety. While there theoretically may be some additional safety provided immediately post-treatment, assuming slash piles have been removed, that quickly changes within a few years. In fact, with the increased surface fuels from lop-and-scatter, slash piles,

55

flashy fuels growing in, and an increase in ladder fuels, this will not provide safety for firefighters, instead it will increase danger. EA page 33: “For many commenters, it is more acceptable to use chainsaws for cutting trees than to use mechanical harvesters. Again, there are tradeoffs as the sole use of chainsaws for implementation creates more slash (including logs and limbs) across the landscape to be disposed of at a later time.” Hand cutting is more socially acceptable, because it causes less damage to the forest, as we have had plenty of opportunity to witness. Slash is a problem and alternative ways to dispose of it must be found. We haul ours away and/or chip and thinly scatter it. Leaving it on the ground is not an acceptable option. It is interesting that other than the sentence above and one stating that mechanized treatment creates less slash the social concerns about slash are not mentioned. This was and is one of the most frequently mentioned concerns raised by residents. There are still slash piles from 2000-2001 on the ground. In the August 2016 “US Forest Service Boulder Ranger District Action Plan,” it was acknowledged that were was “a back log of approximately 2,600 acres (approximately 65,000 slash piles)” in the Boulder Ranger District. This is a social concern, as well as a fire hazard, because they are unsightly - reducing scenic values and property values, and destroy our sense of place and social identity. EA pg. 34: On information and community involvement, the EA states that the “project development was in support of …Community Wildfire Protection Plan(s), which by design are resident and community driven.” The Boulder County CWPP designated a “Forsythe Area” for WUI projects, but although it overlaps the F2 project, it is mostly at lower elevations. There was no-one on the committee from the project area, so it was not community driven, nor was community input requested. The Nederland plan was written without the knowledge or input of most of the community. So, while the various communities can point to their CWPPs, there has been little, if any, community participation in their creation. Boulder County acknowledged this to us when we asked for a revision, by stating that no one uses these CWPPs, so it doesn’t matter whether it is correct or not. EA pg. 35: "In selecting a final alternative, it is realized that no alternative would be able to answer all the needs of all communities and individuals interested in the project outcome." More of an effort could have been made to meet the needs of the majority, who commented and who live in the community directly impacted. Most of the letters supported the MFG alternative, which was considered, but eliminated. On page 34 the EA addresses the issue of trust: “Finding ways to better understand what commonalities or shared values the USFS has with the concerned citizens would be a key step to improve communications and work towards improving trust.” The next paragraph in the EA outlines a few steps that can be taken to build trust. Unfortunately, it leaves out one of the most important, which is listening. It does conclude with “Often the result is the opposite perception that management does not care and does not listen. Building trust takes time and willingness of all involved.” When the draft decision for a project differs only incrementally from the proposed action, despite much participation (time and willingness) from the community to find a different course of action and ignores the overwhelming majority of comments, how are we to believe that management listens? When the management personnel state that they value our input and commitment, but then disparage our concerns, without offering true solutions, how are we to believe in their willingness to build trust? (see more on trust in Part Two-Scientific Controversy) We have shown that our comprehension of the issues is not slight. We have offered numerous scientific papers to back up our objections. This is an unusual community with a very high percentage of people holding PhD’s, including many scientists in various fields. There are many naturalists and all of us enjoy observing nature, from our porches and during walks through the forest. There are a number of firefighters, past and present, within the community and within MFG. Yet, we are treated as if we just don’t know better -- that we don’t know what a healthy forest looks like.

56

MFG Objection to the Forsythe ll EA and DDN Part Two

Detailed Notes on the Draft Decision Notice

This project has been scoped, proposed, and decided on the premise that the only way to achieve the objectives is by thinning and clearcutting trees. One could believe that is the objective. We contend that there are other ways to achieve the same objectives and that the community is willing to experiment. Indeed, it is requesting that the USFS pursue other methods to achieve the objectives. This is a perfect opportunity to test a new approach, yet the USFS is unwilling to listen and take this opportunity. Instead, they insist on continuing down a path that damages habitat, does not restore the forest, and is almost universally rejected by the local residents. Indeed, the USFS rejected, out-of-hand, alternatives that didn't follow the original pattern, as not meeting the ‘purpose and need’ or being ‘outside the scope’ of the project, without further analysis. This is a closed-minded approach and does the USFS no credit. We do not believe that the proposed Forsythe ll (“F2”) project meets the purposes or needs stated in the objectives, but we understand that the USFS may proceed with this project regardless of public opinion. Nonetheless, we feel obliged to record our objections both generally and specifically to the decision. We earnestly hope that there will be a fair and honest review of our objections. Pg. 1 - During implementation of the Forsythe Fuels Reduction Project, neighborhood residents expressed several concerns with the vegetation management activities, primarily based on the discrepancies between the existing and mapped vegetation. That was not our primary objection. We had a long list of discrepancies between task orders and EA. Pg. 2 - It is expected that implementation of the management activities could take 10-15 years to complete. At which time more regeneration would need to be treated, so when do the roads get decommissioned? Pg. 4 - There are 971 acres mapped as Douglas-fir mixed conifer treatment, 392 acres as ponderosa pine mixed conifer treatment, 44 acres as 2-staged mixed conifer treatment, and 42 acres as old growth mixed conifer treatment (Figure 1). Treatment prescription in units designated as mixed conifer will be as follows:

• Thin to reduce the stand density by no more than 50% in ponderosa pine dominated units, from the existing volume or basal area. Why 50%? The only alternative that suggested 50% had fewer acres being treated. These units have been previously treated. What is the ideal basal area density they are trying to create? Forsythe l had less reduction of basal area. So why is more reduction needed now? This percentage needs to be reduced.

• Thin to reduce the stand density by no more than 40% in Douglas-fir dominated units, from the existing volume or basal area. There was to be less reduction in the Forsythe l project. So, why is more reduction necessary now? This percentage also needs to be reduced.

• Areas designated as inventoried and retention old growth will have the density reduced by no more than 30%, from the existing volume or basal area. Old growth should only have thinning from below and/or surface fuels reduction.

• All limber pine that do not pose a safety hazard, will be retained. Probably already cut most of them.

• All trees 14 inches DBH and larger will be retained. EA states that the avg DBH of mature ponderosa is 12-16". Lodgepole will be less. Retaining 14" and larger trees still allows a significant number of mature ponderosa and almost all lodgepole to be cut. This is not acceptable.

• Treatment could be done mechanically or manually.

57

We would like to see specific units designated manual or mechanical. We understand the problems and benefits associated with both methods. Most residents would prefer hand treatment, although slash has to be removed – in either case.

• Treatment prescription in Unit 74 is designated as a 2-staged mixed conifer treatment. We think this unit needs to be removed. It provides a unique habitat area, is east of all homes, and will have minimal impact on the watershed.

Pg. 5 - There are 1,482 acres mapped for lodgepole pine treatment (Figure 1). Up to 30% of the mapped acres (445 acres) will be patchcut/clearcut. Treatment prescription in units designated as patchcut/clearcut will be as follows:

• Patchcuts (removal of all conifer trees) could be 1-5 acres in size.

• Clearcuts (removal of all conifer trees) could be 5-10 acres in size. There is nothing to tell us what percentage might be patch-cuts versus clearcuts, so what is the point of differentiating them? We need to see some limitations based on something (slope, aspect, wildlife habitat) or percentages to determine this.

• No more than 30% of a unit will be patchcut or clearcut. Forsythe l only cut 20% of a unit and included thinning. Based on forest restoration and intermediate and long term fire mitigation, there should be no cutting or at most 20% of a unit in lodgepole.

• Untreated buffers of at least 100 feet will be left between patchcuts and clearcuts. Buffers need to be larger, at least 100 meters, as is cited in the Forest Plan. This is an important wildlife migration path. CPW asked that units be removed for corridors and wildlife habitat to protect the elk herd’s migration path and winter grazing/shelter grounds.

• Mixed conifer species may be retained in patchcuts or clearcuts if there is minimal potential for blowdown when the remainder of the stand is cut. Who decides on the "if"? A buffer needs to be retained around mixed conifer species to prevent blowdown.

• Following patchcut/clearcut treatments, reforestation treatments (tree planting of mixed conifer species) will occur in these areas. There will probably need to be multiple reforestation treatments, as well as logs and slash left on the ground to prevent erosion and flooding on steep slopes. This, of course, defeats the purpose of both forest restoration (by replacing lodgepole stands with mixed conifer) and fire mitigation (leaving surface fuels and new ladder fuels – regeneration). It also begs the question of whether ponderosa and other species will thrive on the north-facing slopes.

• Treatment could be done mechanically or manually. What determines this?

17 acres of lodgepole pine are mapped as regeneration thin (Figure 2). Treatment prescription in units designated as regeneration thin (areas previously patchcut/clearcut with trees less than 15 feet tall) will be as follows:

[Note: Anything 15 feet tall is probably 25+ years old. Most of the regeneration is less than 8’ tall.]

• Thin regenerated lodgepole pine to an average spacing of 10-15 feet. This needs more clarification. We don't want an evenly spaced 10-15' between trees. We need some dense areas of trees and varied spacing from 4- 15’.

• Treatment could be done mechanically or manually. Treatment cannot be done mechanically without damaging the young, dense thickets of trees. The idea is to strengthen the root systems by thinning while young (10-15 yrs old), so that they will grow larger and stronger and be more resistant to blowdown. Compacting soil, driving on their roots, nicking the small trunks will cause unnecessary mortality and damage to the roots.

There are 231 acres mapped as aspen (Figure 1). Treatment prescription in units designated as aspen restoration will be as follows:

58

• Cut all conifers, except ponderosa pine 14 inches DBH and greater, within and up to 50 feet of the edge of the aspen clone. Reduce DBH to <8” cut, as larger conifers were there first (Per Wayne Shepperd). Reduce distance, as conifers act as wind shield for aspen. Too great a distance and the aspen suffer wind throw and dry out, reducing vigor of the stand. Also, recognize that some aspen clones will not expand no matter how many conifers are cut, due to condition of soils.

• Retain all limber pine.

• If snags are not available in the aspen stand, create snags within the aspen stand by girdling up to five of the largest conifers less than 14” inches DBH, unless they will pose a safety hazard. This should depend on the size of the aspen clone, what the forest around the aspen clone is like and how many conifers are in the clone and they need to be smaller in DBH.

• Treatment could be done mechanically or manually. Aspen clones spread through their root systems. Compacting the soil with mechanized treatment could damage the root systems. Disturbing the soil could promote conifer regeneration rather than aspens.

Meadows and Shrublands There are 45 acres mapped as meadow/shrubland (Figure 1). Treatment prescription in units designated as meadow/shrubland restoration will be as follows:

• Cut all ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir up to 14 inches DBH and all lodgepole pine up to 12 inches DBH. Any trees that size have been there for ~100 years. This does not signify any significant change to the meadow. Most meadows in the upper montane zone are there due to soil restrictions that keep trees from growing. Wildlife browsers help keep the rest under control. To retain habitat, if you must, cut trees under 5" DBH (~40-50 years old).

• Retain all limber pine.

• Treatment will be done manually. Seven miles of temporary roads will be constructed to facilitate the vegetation management activities and will be decommissioned after the completion of management activities. Temporary roads have already been constructed, there are plenty in the vicinity, and more should not be necessary. Decommissioning is generally a failure. Plus, there is the problem of the length of time of the project and how that will overlap with the next project; roads may never be decommissioned. Pg. 6 - Defensible space is delineated along areas where private property abuts NFS lands, except those areas where proposed treatment units are located. Defensible space needs to be along all borders between private property and NF lands. The “Design criteria” state boundaries will be feathered (50-200') and scalloped, which we want to prevent loss of property values and sense of place. But, this means there will be no defensible space at the property boundaries. All private property boundaries need to have the 300' defensible space zone, with feathering and scalloped edges after that zone. Mortality of up to 35% will be acceptable but not the focus of the broadcast burn. The project describes cutting the trees in these units 40%; the burn adds an additional 35% mortality. That means up to a 75% reduction. This is unacceptable! Any fire that produces 35% mortality is burning too hot and risks an escape fire into the WUI. Up to 10% mortality is high enough. Pg. 8 - To decrease the risk of erosion and sedimentation and improve hydrologic function, approximately 6 miles of NFS roads will be decommissioned and another 2.3 miles converted to administrative use only (not open to public travel) (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). This decision will close approximately 1.9 miles of road currently open to motorized public use [NFS road 302.1F (0.07 miles) will be decommissioned and removed from the Motor Vehicle Use Map and NFS road 97.1 (1.86 miles) will be converted to administrative use only and removed from the Motor Vehicle Use Map].

59

This is confusing. Chart shows 7 miles of temporary roads constructed and 6 decommissioned, so how will it close 1.9 currently open, unless it doesn't decommission those or leaves some of the temporary roads? Are temporary roads not included in the number of roads decommissioned, because they are assumed temporary? Two ingress/egress routes identified (Doe Trail, 0.72 miles, and Wildewood Trail, 0.36 miles) to the south and east of the Big Springs Subdivision, both currently existing as trails, could become private roads under special use authorization for emergency ingress/egress purposes only for residents of the subdivision (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). Road work including widening, installing gates, and cutting all trees within the 30 foot road corridor will be completed. This clearing will be approximately 3.9 acres (2.6 acres along Doe Trail, 1.3 acres along Wildewood Trail). The proposed action that people commented on said "only one of the two routes proposed [would be used]". This change should allow people that didn’t previously comment a chance to comment &/or object, as they were expressly told there would only be one route. The Nederland CWPP indicates these are not safe and viable egress routes when it states “An additional escape route was considered for both Big Springs and East Big Springs communities, but the analysis of the fire behavior has shown that the cost-benefit ratio of the work involved was not adequate to ensure for life-safety. There is a “road” from the hairpin turn on Big Springs that extends to Magnolia Road (marked by the star on the map below). It is currently blocked by large boulders. Because this drainage is extremely dense and could experience fire below the road, it is not a viable option for an additional escape.” *My intended decision includes two non-significant Forest Plan Amendments. I will be removing the applicability of Forest Plan Goal 95 (Retain the integrity of effective habitat areas) and Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 (Maintain or increase habitat effectiveness, except where new access is required by law) on NFS lands within the Forsythe II project area. The removal of the applicability of Forest Plan Goal 95 covers the 9,930 acres of NFS lands within the project area and Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 covers 8,634 acres of NFS lands within the project area (see Chapter 3, Section 3.6 in the EA). We don't agree that this is non-significant. You state here that you propose two amendments, yet in Appendix C of the EA, there is one proposed amendment that removes both the goal and the standard. No amended language of the amendment (or two) is included here. You are required to provide complete information on the amendment, which should certainly include the exact amendment language! (See Objection Part Two- amendment) The vegetation management activities under my intended decision will decrease the effective habitat from the existing condition because the treatment activities will likely further reduce effective habitat based on reduction in canopy closure from thinning, patchcuts, and clearcuts where they are in close proximity to roads or trails. Some effective habitat reductions from fuels treatments will be expected to return to functioning as effective habitat in the long-term as trees grow back, depending on human activity. So let's make changes to improve habitat. Two wrongs don't make a right. Evidence of previous degradation of habitat is anecdotal, or based on growth within the town limits, and is mostly due to previous fuels treatments. You are saying that USFS management of the forest has degraded the effective habitat enough to warrant changing the goals for the lands. Maybe you need more monitoring to determine effectiveness of treatments, the effects of treatment on the forests you manage for the public, and more careful project development. Perhaps, you need to follow suggestions we made 20 years ago and 5 years ago to complete treatments on smaller parcels, before attempting to change the landscape. No EIS or study has been done to determine the current effectiveness of habitat. There is no scientific analysis or data to back up this statement about “existing condition”, or none that has been presented to the public, as required. Pg. 10 - ISSUES CONSIDERED The 374 comments received were analyzed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT or ID team) to develop issues for the Forsythe II project. Issues are grouped by resource and described using an issue statement. These issues were used to develop the action alternatives, mitigation measures, and design elements to address the effects of proposed activities for the project. More detailed information about these issues can be found in Chapter 1, Section 1.7 of the EA.

60

Nowhere did we see a denial of the truth of these issues, only the statements that mitigation might lessen the impacts. “If a proposal appears to have adverse effects which would be significant, and certain mitigation measures are then developed during the scoping or EA stages, the existence of such possible mitigation does not obviate the need for an EIS. Therefore, if scoping or the EA identifies certain mitigation possibilities without altering the nature of the overall proposal itself, the agency should continue the EIS process and submit the proposal, and the potential mitigation, for public and agency review and comment. This is essential to ensure that the final decision is based on all the relevant factors and that the full NEPA process will result in enforceable mitigation measures through the Record of Decision.” (Questions and Answers About the NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed Reg 18027, March 23, 1981, Answer to Question 40) Soils 1. Operation of heavy equipment is likely to cause soil compaction and displacement on temporary roads,

landings, heavily traveled sections of primary skid trails and isolated/discontinuous compaction and displacement within the matrix of the treatment unit. True

2. Protective ground cover may be impacted by vegetation management treatments, construction of roads and landings and/or application of prescribed fire. Localized erosion and/or sedimentation could occur within and adjacent to areas without adequate protective ground cover. True

3. Patchcuts/clearcuts on sensitive soils may impact above and below ground nutrient cycling processes. True

4. Pile burning may cause moderate to high soil burn severity effects to the limited spatial extent of the burn pile footprints. True

5. Application of broadcast prescribed fire could result in small localized areas of moderate to high soil burn severity but low burn severity is expected to occur over most of the treatment area. Erosion and sedimentation may occur due to removal of protective ground cover. If the USFS is expecting up to 35% mortality in the over-story, this isn’t a low-severity burn. The last sentence is true.

Hydrology/Fisheries 1. Mechanical timber harvest, permanent and temporary roads, broadcast burns, and burn piles may increase

the extent of bare compacted soils and connected disturbed area (surface flow paths that connect upland disturbances directly to stream channels and bypass vegetated buffers or filters), which increases the risk of erosion and sedimentation into streams and aquatic habitat occupied by forest MIS species, macroinvertebrates, and potential habitat for threatened and endangered species (TES) such as the Arapahoe snowfly. True

2. Road decommissioning and restoration may decrease the risk of erosion and sedimentation and improve hydrologic function. Or may make it worse, as they disturb soils once again, or never get around to doing it, which is most likely.

Terrestrial Wildlife 1. Proposed vegetation management activities may affect individuals, populations, and/or habitat values for

federally Proposed, Threatened or Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive (PTES), MIS, or other terrestrial wildlife species. Including species of conservation concern and indicator species

2. Road decommissioning and restoration may improve wildlife habitat and reduce disturbance and displacement of wildlife. If this happens. Unfortunately, by the time the roads are decommissioned and restored, social trails and off road motorized vehicle traffic may have permanently displaced wildlife.

Silviculture 1. Management activities being applied to the forested stands in the upper montane zone may be

inappropriate. They are inappropriate and do not "restore" the forest. (See Objection Part Two- Scientific Controversy)

61

2. The proposed vegetation treatments may affect old growth (retention, inventoried, and development) integrity and large trees. True

3. The proposed vegetation treatments, specifically in lodgepole pine dominated stands, may be susceptible to windthrow or blowdown. Previous treatments in this area have shown that there is more blowdown around the edges of the patch/clearcuts than there was after thinning operations in lodgepole.

4. Vegetation management activities may lead to increased mountain pine beetle, ips, or other insect infestations. This is one of the disturbances the USFS is trying to create resilience against, yet it is very likely to increase beetle activity.

Recreation/Trails 1. Vegetation management practices may affect recreational access (system and non-system trails and

roads) within the project area. It will not only affect access, but also the experience. A setting of stumps will certainly lessen the appeal of recreation in a forest. The after effects will likely increase the proliferation of social bicycle and motorcycle trails, along with off-road motor vehicles in prohibited areas. This is not an unusual response to this type of project. Dispersed shooting will probably increase, as it did after the last round of cutting. People see a disturbed area and don’t think it matters whether they disturb it more, so there are more abandoned campfires, littering, and shooting of trees.

Visual Resources 1. Proposed management activities may affect visual resources.

True. Let’s remember too that not everyone sees the visual resources (or scenery) from the road. Some people actually venture into the woods, climb on rocks, and look at the scenery.

Noxious Weeds 1. Proposed vegetation management activities may affect occurrence of noxious weeds and other

undesirable nonnative plants. True. It will increase the occurrence of noxious weeds, as it has after every USFS project in this area. Weed control doesn’t happen either during the project, or after the project. The Boulder Ranger District wildlife biologist is also the weed control person. Sometimes she has a temporary assistant. We have notified the district (multiple times) about patches of noxious weeds from the Winiger Project that still haven’t been dealt with, so we certainly expect to have an increased problem. Washing or removing seeds from project equipment will be done how?

Pg. 12 - Alternative Two- This alternative was developed to address wildlife, soils, and hydrology concerns while still meeting the purpose and need for this project. Alternative 2, when compared to Alternative 1 – Proposed Action, limits the size of clearcuts to 10 acres, retains trees 14 inch DBH and greater, increases the amount of basal area or volume cut within ponderosa pine mixed conifer treatment units to 50%, and allows up to 30% of any given lodgepole pine treatment unit to be cut. This alternative has the increased defensible space opportunities we would like to see. Alternative 3 This alternative was developed to address wildlife, soils, and hydrology concerns while still meeting the purpose and need for this project. Alternative 3, when compared to Alternative 1 – Proposed Action, 15 units were dropped and another 10 units became smaller units. These changes decreased the treatment acres by 438 acres, however another five units were added, 88 acres, to address public comments received. This alternative removed the units recommended to be removed or reduced by CPW and we concur with CPW’s recommendation. Alternative 4 This alternative was developed to address wildlife, soils, and hydrology concerns as well as public comments received during the scoping period while still meeting the purpose and need for this project.

62

Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 1 – Proposed Action, because the treatments would be done manually, except in areas mapped as lodgepole pine treatment, and the diameter cut limit would be 12 inches DBH. The lodgepole pine treatment could be completed either mechanically or manually, only patchcuts up to five acres in size would be allowed, and up to 30% of any given unit could be cut. Pg. 13 - These four action alternatives, the No Action Alternative, and the four alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail fulfill consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives. Can we really consider these to be a reasonable range of alternatives, when they were so close in their proposed actions? The differences were in minor details, as can be seen in the tables on pages 43-45 of this decision. The NEPA Regulations require agencies to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" 40 CFR 1502.14(a). This is reinforced by the following guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. (Questions and Answers About the NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed Reg 18026, March 23, 1981, Answer to Question 2a) By this standard the MFG alternative was reasonable and should have been considered. We contend that it did meet the objectives and, as such, should have been analyzed. There were nine key issues and seven other issues raised during the comment period that were considered during the analysis. Specific information on each issue can be found in Chapter 1, Section 1.7 of the EA. The action alternatives and design criteria were developed to address these issues. My decision responds to the purpose and need for this project described in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of the EA; addresses the issues identified by USFS resource specialists and the comments received from the public during the scoping and comment periods [not really]; and meets the requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). [See above]. I have made this decision based on the rationale described below. I considered whether the proposed activities would comply with the general direction outlined in the Forest Plan as well as the goals, standards, and guidelines. I also considered the direction outlined in the four geographic areas (Caribou, Lump Gulch, Thorodin, and Sugarloaf) this project falls within. After reviewing Chapter 3 of the EA, I found that the current effective habitat in all four geographic areas is estimated to be lower than Forest Plan percentages due to changes in the project area since 1997. There is no data to back up this estimation on effective habitat Regarding meeting the requirements of NEPA, the following have not been met: 40 cfr §1501.2 Apply NEPA early in the process: Agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head off potential conflicts. Each agency shall: (a) Comply with the mandate of section 102(2)(A) to “utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision-making which may have an impact on man's environment,” as specified by §1507.2. (b) Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses. Environmental documents and appropriate analyses shall be circulated and reviewed at the same time as other planning documents. c) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided by section 102(2)(E) of the Act. Based on data used for the Forest Plan, mapped effective habitat occurred in the project area as of the 1997 Forest Plan. The Forest Plan developed in the mid-1990s, listed the percentages of effective habitat by geographic area (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix B (pp. 15-16). The geographic areas, which partially occur in the Forsythe II project area, were between 41% - 59% (Table 27 of EA). Changes in effective habitat on NFS lands are due to increased private home development;

63

While new homes have been built on private lands, the subdivisions were laid out long before the 1997 Plan. (construction of roads accessing private lands); We don't believe any new roads have been constructed through NF lands in that time period, other than those used for previous fuel treatment projects, nor have any new county roads been constructed in the project area. increased recreation use (development of unauthorized social trails); It has increased, but we don't know what effect it has had on wildlife, as no studies have taken place. and changed vegetation conditions (including hazardous fuels vegetation treatments, natural and human caused fires, etc.). Fuels treatments, particularly patchcuts and clearcuts, can reduce effective habitat when they are located near roads or trails. This should be covered under the cumulative effects of USFS treatments and should be a reason to ensure that this project does not further reduce habitat. Because the effective habitat is currently estimated to be lower than what the Forest Plan states and proposed activities will likely further decrease effective habitat, two non-significant site specific amendments will be needed. (emphasis added) Amending the Plan, rather than designing a project to improve habitat, is like saying "I can't win at this game, so I am changing the rules." On a global scale, should we kill remaining elephants and tigers, because their habitat has been decimated and they have been poached, or should we keep trying to save them? Everywhere on this planet effective habitat has been reduced, sometimes one small patch at a time, yet that is not a reason to abandon the effort to improve and maintain habitat. What kind of forest management is this? Any amendment presented at this stage must be project specific, not site specific. These amendments will remove the applicability of Forest Plan Goal 95 and Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 for effective habitat. The ARP is not currently undertaking a formal Forest Plan revision process. Because the completion of the Forest Plan revision process is not imminent and the last Forest Plan revision was approximately 19 years ago, these non-significant Forest Plan Amendments are being proposed at an appropriate time. In addition, guidance states that in most cases, the later the change, the less likely it is to be significant to the current forest plan. This change will take place during this planning period. Forest Plan Goal 95 affects the 9,930 acres of NFS lands within the Forsythe II project area Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 affects 8,634 acres of NFS lands within the project area. These site specific amendments will not affect the long-term relationship between levels of goods and services projected by the Forest Plan. We do not think it meets the standard for being non-significant. (See Objection-Part One and Part Two- Amendment). Only one amendment document has been presented to the public.

Pg. 14 - FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, review of public input, and the use of project design criteria, I have determined that the actions of my intended decision will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.13 and 40 CFR 1508.27). Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following, organized by sub-section of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition of significance cited above. CEQ http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p3.htm “The environmental assessment is a concise public document which has three defined functions. (1) It briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS; (2) it aids an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, i.e., it helps to identify better alternatives and mitigation measures; and (3) it facilitates preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.” [Section 1508.9(a), emphasis added] Context- The context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis presented in the EA. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. This project is located in a

64

populated area within the wildland urban interface. There are many homes located throughout the project area and Gross Reservoir provides a municipal water source for the city of Denver. Proposed activities will be localized. Cumulative effects of past and reasonably foreseeable future management actions combined with the proposed activities are described by resource area in detail in Chapter 3 of the EA. Cumulative impacts have had a negative effect on habitat and social concerns, and further action will have more negative effects, as has been shown in the EA and through the many comments submitted regarding this project. The homes are in a wildland urban interface; when you remove the wildland, you make a significant change to the sense of place held by communities. Degrading habitat and reducing wildlife also has a significant impact on the community and visitors alike. There will be a significant impact on society and their interests, certainly at a local and possibly regional level. Gross Reservoir will continue to supply water to Denver, whether this project goes forward or not. It is quite possible that the cumulative effects of fuels treatments will have a greater adverse effect on the watershed than would fire. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact based on information from the effects analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the EA. The effects of actions of this project have been thoroughly considered with an analysis that considered concerns and issues raised by both the USFS resource specialists and public. Relevant scientific information and site visits were used to determine the environmental effects of this project. Implementation of project design criteria will reduce the impacts of the proposed activities. The following ten factors were considered in evaluating the intensity. (See Objections-Part One for more on this) Pg. 15 - 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect would be beneficial. A key point here is that even beneficial effects can be significant! Any significant impact, beneficial or adverse, disallows a FONSI. I have considered both the beneficial and adverse impacts described in the EA if my decision were to be implemented. The purpose and need of this project is to reduce the severity and intensity of a wildfire within the wildland urban interface; restore the landscape in order to increase resistance and resiliency to future natural disturbances; As is stated in the EA, the forest characteristics are within their natural, historical range of variability - they don't need to be restored! Changing this will have a significant impact, whether it is beneficial or not. and provide private property landowners the opportunity to complete defensible space mitigation around their homes. The activities of my decision would be beneficial to the lands from a wildfire prospective because the treatments would lessen the potential of a catastrophic wildfire. This is debatable. USFS and national scientific papers all show that the first steps to reduce wildfire risk are to remove surface & ladder fuels, raise canopy height, and lastly thin the canopy. This project will increase surface and ladder fuels, both by directly adding to them and by allowing opening for grasses, shrubs, and thick regeneration lodgepole to grow between trees and in clearings. Openings have been shown to increase wind speeds, thus increasing fire risk, and to allow increased solar radiation to heat surface fuels. So, the next sentence is not necessarily true. Threats from a future wildfire to homes, infrastructure, a municipal water source, and firefighter/public safety would be reduced as a result of the activities. As a result of the analysis for this project, I found that the current effective habitat is estimated to be lower than what is stated in the Forest Plan. This is based on anecdotal evidence only. There have been no studies to determine actual habitat effectiveness. Growth in the town of Nederland was projected onto Magnolia subdivisions, although the subdivisions (and their roads) were laid out long before the ARNF Plan was written. While recreational activities come and go, they are mostly in localized areas and stick to social paths. Opening up the forest, as planned, removes cover and will significantly expose wildlife to contact with humans that they have heretofore been able to avoid. Even if the effective habitat is lower than what was stated in the Forest Plan that is no

65

reason to abandon it altogether. It makes it even more important to try to improve habitat and reduce effects of human impacts. I am proposing to remove the applicability of Forest Plan Goal 95 and Forest Plan Standard 2 under Management Area 3.5 within the project because of current estimated effective habitat. The treatment activities would likely reduce effective habitat further, in the short-term, by opening the forest canopy in many areas and creating temporary roads, skid trails, and landings. In the long-term, some treated areas may return to functioning as effective habitat, depending on human use. Effective habitat could be reduced in the long-term if temporary roads or skid trails receive continued use after closure. Design criteria provide for obliteration of temporary roads and skid trails within one year after completion of use which should help to minimize the potential for continued human use. Despite such clauses in previous projects, roads were not closed. The project is projected to last 10-15 years, by which time a new regeneration thin will be needed. When will the roads and skid trails really be obliterated, if ever? The long-term to re-grow a forest in this climate and at this altitude is long, indeed. In the time it takes to return to effective habitat, the wildlife could be long gone. Trees cut cannot be put back, if it is determined to have too adverse an effect on habitat. This amendment alone proves the cumulative significant effects of the F2 project. Although there are some adverse effects, I feel the benefits of reducing the effects of a wildfire and increasing the resistance and resiliency to future disturbances outweigh the adverse effects. The effects of wildfire could be reduced with significantly less impact to habitat. The answer here is to change the design of the project to reduce the WUI fire hazard, while maintaining and increasing effective habitat. Some innovation may have to be used, rather than continuing to use methods that degrade habitat. The MFG alternate plan was a good starting place, even if it could’ve used tweaking. Commenters on the project had varying views of the benefits this project could provide. Some of the public expressed concern that management activities would impact social values, including sense of place, quality of life, and peace of mind gained by wildlife viewing, walking in the forest and being in nature; impact recreational experiences; and reduce property values. Still other public expressed support for the management activities because of the concern of wildfires. Just to make this clear, of the 374 comments, a maximum of 31 were in favor of the project, 12 of those were associated with municipalities, timber interests, and people associated with the USFS. Only 5 people with local addresses wrote in favor of the project. The overwhelming majority of the comments were opposed to the project and were concerned with the impact on social values. A large percentage supported the MFG alternative plan. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. My decision would not significantly affect public health or safety. The proposed treatments would provide emergency ingress/egress access to the Big Springs Subdivision in case of a wildfire providing for public safety. There is no question that Big Springs needs another egress route, but there is a big question as to whether either of these routes will be of any benefit. I believe the Fire Chief dismissed them as crazy in the beginning. They could provide an escape route from fire coming from the East or North, which means from within the subdivision itself, from the Reservoir, or against prevailing winds. Even so, to try to outrun a fire burning uphill is a watchout situation. Using those egress routes during a fire coming from the South or West would be sending people into the fire. At most only one of the proposed egress routes should be utilized, preferably the shortest one. The proposed treatments would increase firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire. Not if there are still slash piles with jackpot fuels or a substantial amount of lop and scatter on the ground or if the increased ladder fuels send a surface fire into the crowns.

66

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The analysis completed for this project did not indicate there are parklands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers within the project area. There are historic farm/ranches in the project area, as well as critical wildlife areas, etc. (See Objections-Part One). A total of 2,188 acres within the project area have been adequately inventoried for cultural resources within the last 10 years. Design criteria developed for this project would protect cultural resources from damage as a result of treatment activities. Although wetlands have not been mapped in the project area, they are known to exist. Design criteria developed for this project should protect wetlands. Although slash piles for burning are too close to streams. Without mapping the wetlands, there is a chance the contractors will cut too close to them. The Doe Trail egress route goes through and/or near a wetland. Pg. 16 - 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Controversy, in this context, refers to opposing scientific opinions, not public opposition to a project. Why should scientific opinions hold sway over public opinion regarding the quality of the human environment, except as it relates to the land itself. Most scientific papers do not even consider social impacts. Nevertheless, there is significant scientific controversy on how a project of this type will affect an upper montane forest and whether it will achieve any of its objectives. Generally the scientific community agrees that reducing the amount of hazardous fuels lowers the potential for high intensity wildfire behavior and increases the resistance and resiliency to future natural disturbances. Studies have shown that effective structure protection from wildfire requires creation of defensible space around the building in combination with fuel reduction treatments on a landscape scale. While this statement is mostly true, the scientific community disagrees with the methodology being used in this project to reduce hazardous fuels. The scientific community is also divided on whether structure protection requires landscape-scale fuel-reduction treatments. There are studies that show that a crown fire can burn within 30' of homes and not set them alight. (Quarles- 2012) Defensible space is the key to protecting homes and firefighters within the WUI. Studies show that the forest can be left intact (fuel reduction is not needed on a landscape scale) if defensible space is created around buildings and even simple measures are taken to harden homes against fire. The landscape scale fuel reduction is not necessary. (See Objection Part Two-Scientific Controversy) 6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Implementing my decision would not establish a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The proposed activities would not be a major departure from the types of activities common to the ARP. Additionally, decisions made in regards to activities within this project area would not commit the USFS to actions on lands outside this project area. As I have already stated, the number of WUI acres in the ARNF is significant. If these actions are usual and common and are applied to other WUI communities (and why wouldn't they be?), then the amendment to the Forest Plan could be duplicated on other project areas. This would have a significant impact on the forest as a whole. It would set a precedent. You can fill (or empty) a bucket drop by drop. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

67

The cumulative effects analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the EA for each key resource discloses the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could lead to impacts, which are cumulative in nature. From the analysis completed, the effects of implementing my decision would not individually, nor when considered with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions near the project area, reach a level of significance. Past forest projects are cited as one of the reasons for habitat degradation, so the cumulative effects have had and will have a significant impact. I did not see much consideration of the cumulative impacts of the Gross Reservoir expansion proposal; it may have been mentioned, but not dealt with in any detail. If the Reservoir expansion project is approved, the cumulative impact will be very high. See more on these 10 conditions in our Objection Part One. Pg. 33 - Mixed Conifer Areas 1. Trees shall be marked as either leave trees or cut trees, whichever is most efficient, prior to any cutting. Good. They should be marked as cut trees, as these will be fewer, thus less work. Marking cut trees has the added benefit of preventing contractor error. Trees should be marked at breast height and at the base for monitoring purposes to ensure compliance. There needs to be some recourse for trees marked inappropriately. Pg. 34 - 4. In order to meet scenery standards within the proposed patchcut/clearcut lodgepole pine dominated units, three to five uncut islands of trees must be retained within patchcut/clearcuts greater or equal to 5 acres in size. These islands shall be at least ½ acre in size and total 25% of the appropriate patchcut/clearcut area within each unit. While this may or may not increase the scenic value, it means the fire risk reduction is virtually nil, especially with regeneration of lodgepole. It was evident from cuts in the West Magnolia area that there was much more windthrow at all edges than was expected. Better to have wider treed corridors and also remove the units suggested by CPW from the project or forget the patchcuts altogether. The acreage within the islands will not decrease the number of overall acres to be cut within a designated patch/clearcut unit. For example under the proposed action in unit 11 (20 acres),? 50%? or 10 acres of the unit could be cut utilizing a combination of patchcut/clearcuts. To equate to a one 10-acre clearcut that is treated, the boundary of the clearcut will encompass 12.5 acres to account for the 25% acre retention to be included without changing the intent of reducing the overall acreage by 50%. Patchcuts are limited to 30% of a unit, not 50%. Old growth - In Management Area 3.5, exclude vegetation treatment from inventoried or discovered lodgepole pine old growth per Forest Plan standard. Exceptions may be made if the lodgepole old growth is considered non-functional at time of implementation. This determination of functionality is to be made for the stand as a whole within the treatment unit. This isn't excluding treatment from old growth areas. Have they already determined whether they are or aren’t functional? Based on what? How would a unit become a functioning old growth unit if old growth is continually removed? Perhaps an effort should be made to enhance the function of the habitat. Within mapped interior forest and within a 328 foot buffer around mapped interior forest, retain at least 40% canopy cover. Has interior forest been mapped? Where are these areas? Unit 74 could certainly be considered interior forest. Interior forest should not be thinned; it should be retained for effective habitat! Pg. 35- 5. In treatment units where slash is piled by hand, leave an average of 2 piles per acre for wildlife habitat, including any piles remaining from previous vegetation treatment, distributed randomly throughout the unit. Minimum pile size, hand or machine created, shall be no less than 6 feet high by 6 feet wide. A 3 acre area (the size of many residential parcels) would have 6 piles that are at least 6' high and 6' wide. That is an outrageous amount of piled fuel to leave on the ground. This would leave 2900 piles in the mixed conifer treatment areas alone. What kind of wildlife habitat is this supposed to simulate?

68

Pg. 36 - In machine units, reasonably gather and place activity slash material, 1” to 6” diameter, into piles. If more than 50% of a treatment unit has continuous slash depth greater than 6” after initial treatment, additional piling will be required. (emphasis added) This means that up to 50% of the unit could have continuous slash greater than 6" (without needing more piling) and the whole unit could have continuous slash up to 6" deep. How is this supposed to reduce fire risk? This means in the mixed conifer acres there could be up to ~1450 acres of 6" deep slash, with 750 of those acres with slash greater than 6". If you include the other types of treatment units, this goes up. Fire scientists agree that reducing surface fuels should be the first step in reducing fire hazard. 11. In hand units, pile sound, existing and/or created slash material, 1” to 6” diameter and 2 feet or longer. Alternatively, any slash that must be moved more than 50 feet to meet minimum required pile size may be lopped and scattered to a maximum depth of 18”. We don't know which units will be hand units vs. machine units, but 18" deep slash only compounds the problem. Locate machine piles a minimum of 150 feet and hand piles a minimum of 50 feet from any infrastructure or private property boundary. Not only is the USFS not going to allow homeowners next to units to create defensible space, they are going to put large piles of jackpot fuels within the defensible space! This is outrageous. This statement would also question the details of feathering and scalloping at property boundaries. Pg. 37 - 3. Unless a site-specific exception is determined to be appropriate by a USFS Wildlife Biologist, avoid treatment from December 1 through March 30 in elk severe winter range and winter concentration areas. It is cited in the Terrestrial Wildlife Report that the elk move out of the area in late May and early June. This is also the time that they are calving according to CPW and the above report. What is the point of starting activities in April, if the elk are still in the project area and at their most vulnerable? These areas are based on the most current available mapping data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Raptor nest areas, including species-specific buffers, will generally have no treatment activity from March 1 through September 15, depending on species, or until determined unoccupied by the wildlife biologist. What about nesting periods for migratory bird species? Pg. 38 - 3 All temporary road construction, including skid trails, shall be obliterated within one year of completion of use, including pile burning. Based on previous history and a 10-15 year project timeline, this could mean 15+ years before they would be obliterated, if then. Pg. 39 - 6. Temporary road construction shall be kept to the minimum construction possible to accommodate intended use and shall meet the following guideline. There is nothing in the guideline regarding placement of temporary roads to avoid cutting large trees. Nothing is mentioned about including the trees cut for temporary road placement in the acreage or percentage of trees to be cut in the unit. A 15' swathe meandering through a unit constitutes a considerable patch-cut and could be placed such that it takes out the largest trees in the unit for the contractor’s advantage.

69

MFG Objection Part Two – Off-Road Issues

Creation of Openings Will Exacerbate The Existing Problem of Off-route Motorized and Bicycle Travel in The Project Area. There are already many openings, including large ones, in the project area: “[f]uels treatments on NFS and County lands have created relatively large forest openings...” in parts of the project area. (Wildlife Report pg. 80). Under the DDN alternative, numerous openings would be created. Also, removal of up to 40 or 50 percent of the basal area would occur in some stands (see DDN pg. 3), creating a very open forest in many treated areas. This would generate an increase in off-route use and expand the area in which it occurs within the project area, as is clearly admitted: …it is widely known that user safety is compromised and compliance issues escalate when large scale projects such as described in the action alternatives are implemented. (EA pg.151).

The project area already has a problem with off-route use, including “motor vehicles off-road and/or parked in undisturbed areas” and “creation of unauthorized social trails”. In particular, fuels treatment burn piles and areas that have not been reforested after fuels treatment and located along roads and trails become an attractive nuisance that further exacerbate these issues and perpetuate problems associated with target shooting. (EA pg. 150).

Mitigation measures have been applied and have helped some, but: Projects in the vicinity of Nederland and Gross Reservoir have been much less effective, compliance is less than desirable. USFS employees continuously replace “No Motor Vehicle” signs and repair wood barriers that are damaged, vandalized and/or stolen. (Ibid).

One way to address the issue of new off-route motor vehicle and bicycle use would be to retain logs and stumps to block access. A design criterion (All Treatment Areas #11, DDN pg. 31) requires coarse woody debris (CWD) to be left. Another criterion (for patchcut/clearcut #1, DDN pg. 34), requires retention of coarse and fine woody debris. But these measures are for ecological reasons; there is no requirement to arrange the material to block motor vehicles and bicycles from traveling into newly created openings or forests newly opened up by thinning. Slash takeback will only be allowed on skid trails and in patchcut/clearcut areas to meet the CWD requirement, primarily in units 1a and 1b. Design criterion #4 under Mechanical Treatment, (DDN pg. 33). Slash will be piled and burned, and some may be broadcast burned. (DDN pg. 34-37). This would eliminate material that could be used to block motor vehicles from traveling off of system routes. One measure attempts to address this issue:

In general, locate openings away from system trails, or social trails that will be changed to system trails, once a Decision is made on the Magnolia Trails Project. A wildlife biologist shall approve locations of patchcuts and clearcuts in the vicinity of such trails.

Design Criterion #3 under Patchcut/Clearcut areas, (DDN pg. 34). But this is only general guidance, not a hard requirement. Also it would not apply to openings created near social trails that will not become system trails, or to areas that are heavily thinned but not clearcut or patchcut.

70

Any project in the Forsythe II area that creates openings and/or significantly reduces the tree density must apply measures to prevent an increase in motor vehicle use off of system routes. Public comment should be sought on any proposed measures, and the EA must evaluate their possible effectiveness.

Objector Rocky Smith raised this issue on pg. 2 of his January 28, 2016 scoping comments.

71

Objection to Forsythe ll EA and DDN Part Two - Environmental Consequences

Introduction The Forsythe ll (“F2”) EA describes possible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project. Adverse effects of ‘no action’ are exaggerated, while those of the four alternatives (and thus the decision) are minimized. Some adverse effects are minimized by confusing wording, others simply by declaring them to be so. An example is on EA page 95: There are no known irreversible effects to vegetation from the action alternatives. The risk of irretrievable effects to vegetation is reduced within the proposed units in all action alternatives because of the reduced risk of crown fire. Areas outside of the treatment units on NFS lands would have an increased risk or irretrievable effect to vegetation if a stand replacing wildfire occurred in the analysis area. Obviously, if the first statement is true, then the last statement is false. The project proposes to cut down vast quantities of trees and build roads, among other things. If roads are obliterated, vegetation will grow back over time. Trees will grow back with time, as well. If a stand replacing wildfire occurs, the trees will also grow back over time. Neither is an irreversible or irretrievable effect to vegetation in the long term. In the short term, both will have a tremendous impact on the landscape, whether for good or ill. Another point here is that stand replacing fires in the Upper Montane Zone are driven much more by wind and topography than by fuels. (See Objection Part Two-Scientific Controversy) If conditions are such that a stand replacing fire is likely and a fire is ignited, the fuels reduction that the project proposes will likely have minimal effect, even if the units happen to be in the right place. The greatest effect they may have on the fire would be in the first 3-5 years, presuming slash piles have been removed and minimal slash is left on the ground. After that time, without maintenance, vegetation grows enough to significantly reduce any mitigating effects of the project. (Rhodes and Baker, 2008) There are many examples of inconsistencies and contradictions in the EA and its supporting documents. Unfortunately, with an objection period of 30 days and well over 500 pages to review and catalogue, we will not be able provide a point by point objection. Let it be understood that the few we do point out are representative of many more. 3.2 Fire/Fuels Page 72, Table 6 shows the acres of fuel hazard on NFS lands by class for the entire project area. Unfortunately, it does not show the same statistics for the non-NFS lands and, since these represent half of the project area, it gives us a very distorted picture of the actual fire hazard. The same is true for tables 7-10. A map showing the fuel hazards by area across the entire project would’ve been helpful and informative, alas, there were no such maps. We do not know whether the project units are in the highest fuel hazard area or not. We suspect not, as many units have been thinned during previous projects. On page 73, we are given a rundown of the various fuel types used for the fuel model, as well as the percentages of those fuel types across the project area (Table 11), but no indication whether this is for the entire project area or just the NFS lands across the project area. We are given predicted fire behavior results for those fuel types under 90th percentile weather conditions (Table 12), but no indication of just which weather conditions resulted in Table 12, as I’m sure there must have been different scenarios run for the model. What was the wind direction and speed for this model? Where did the fire originate? What happens if the fire originates somewhere else, perhaps in Boulder Canyon north of unit 60? These programs assume the atmospheric conditions, slope, fuel moisture, and fuels are continuous, uniform, and homogenous across the landscape. Because of assumptions such as these, the predicted fire behavior presented in this analysis could be underestimated or overestimated for the existing stands. The predicted fire

72

behavior that could be represented within the existing stands under 90th percentile weather conditions are presented in Table 12. (EA pg. 73) It is also possible that the predicted fire behavior could be overestimated or could behave very differently, as the topography means that slope definitely isn’t continuous or uniform and neither are fuel moistures. Does this model take the roads and other fire breaks (defensible space, meadows) not on NFS lands into account? Furthermore, the tables for post-treatment do not relate to the previous tables. There is no table to show us post-treatment percentages of fuel types. Instead we see a table (13) that shows us pre and post-treatment fuel models with no percentages. Then, in Table 14 we are shown the predicted fire behavior post-treatment with no explanation for why Fuel Model TL3 would have such different characteristics than TL3 in the pre-treatment table (12). Ditto for TL8. The treatment areas are only a small portion of the NFS lands, yet the fuel models have all changed. So, is this table only for treated lands? If so, it doesn’t give a very clear picture of fire behavior across the entire project area, which, considering the WUI impact, is really what concerns us. On page 78, Figure 7, shows us the changes in fuel hazard within the project for the different alternatives. The DDN has combined various alternatives, but they aren’t far apart so we can assume the DDN would be similar. Using an average for the DDN treatment, we see that this entire project will shift about 800 acres from very high to moderate fuel hazard and approximately 450 acres from very high and high to low fuel hazard, which is a shift of 1250 acres to a lower fuel hazard rating within an entire project area of 19,000 acres. This is, of course, discounting the effect of the slash piles and only valid for the 3-10 years before regeneration occurs. The result is a lot of habitat loss, social disruption, and loss of ‘sense of place’ for an extremely transient, possible fire-severity reduction. Page 79 used anecdotal evidence to support the effectiveness of vegetation treatments: The Cold Springs fire in July 2016 spread quickly under very dry conditions and tested the effectiveness of vegetation treatments. Thinning of conifers was completed on NFS lands in 2015 along Ridge Road, just north of the Forsythe II project area, where the material was piled to be burned. At the time the fire burned through the treated area, the piles had not yet been burned. Although the thinning treatment did not stop the fire, it did alter fire behavior enough to allow firefighters to use the treated area as an anchor point to suppress the fire. The Cold Springs fire did destroy eight homes, however, firefighters working on the fire believed that the treated area prevented the fire from causing more spot fires across Boulder Canyon, into the Forsythe II project area, which would have put thousands more residences at risk of being destroyed by the fire. Firefighters also confirmed that the unburned piles did not increase fire spread. This was not taken from an objective analysis of the fire and has no place in an EA. To put it into perspective, it is easy to see on aerial photographs of the Cold Springs fire the red line of retardant across the tree tops where the fire stopped. The treatments referred to were nowhere near Boulder Canyon or the spot fires across Boulder Canyon. At least two homeowners believe that the embers thrown from burning slash piles were responsible for their houses burning. What firefighters see and believe during a fire can only be from their position and is a subjective view, as is the homeowners’ point of view. 3.2.3, pg. 81, states: The treatment units scattered across the landscape act as a barrier to large fire growth as evidenced by fuels reduction projects tested by wildfires across the western United States. Fire intensities would decrease due to these cumulative treatments not only on federal lands but also on private and county lands… We were given no evidence to support how the fuel treatments would change fire intensities on private and county lands, as they didn’t seem to be part of the fire modeling. We weren’t given any examples of fuels reductions projects tested by wildfire across the western U.S. Were they in similar montane zones, with similar vegetation types? Were they weather and topography driven fires? Was there a simultaneous change in weather at the time they reached treated lands? What about the fires where slash piles had a deleterious effect on fire behavior, as in the 2011 Wallow fire, 2005 Camp 32 Fire, 2008 Jack Fire, etc.? An inherent limitation of models lies in their restricted capacity to represent the great variation within natural forests, even within a relatively well-defined class such as an even-aged, single-species stand. Such variation places a practical limit on the degree of accuracy of models when used on the landscape level (van Wagner

73

1993). Ideally the whole fuel complex would be included in a model (Andrews and Williams 1998). In addition, the development of models incorporating non-uniform fuels and spotting has been identified as a research priority (Rothermel 1988). Reinhardt and Ryan (1998) cautioned that models should not be used to provide general conclusions about fuel treatments, although they may be useful in comparing specific alternatives on a single site. (Carey, Schumann – 2003, pg. 5) 3.3 Silviculture Page 81, The majority of the project is located in the montane ecological zone. The majority of treatment units, if not all, are in the upper montane zone. (See Objection Part Two-Scientific Controversy) While the fuel models were only for the NFS lands (as far as we can tell), the cover types are for the entire project area. This is misleading, because it misrepresents the cover type where the treatments are taking place. Even so, it shows lodgepole pine (an upper montane species) as covering 31% of the entire project area. As the treatment units are at the higher elevations, where lodgepole grows, there is undoubtedly a higher percentage in the units. In the upper montane portion of the project area where lodgepole pine is the dominant species, stand-replacing fires created stands dominated by lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine establishes from large quantities of seed released by serotinous cones and initially grows rapidly on sites of favorable habitat. Lodgepole pine stands have not departed from the historical fire regime. (pg. 82) [Ponderosa/mixed conifer] Within the lower montane portion of the project area, it is common to see dense groups of trees (many trees growing in close proximity to each other) that have resulted from conditions favorable for tree regeneration to occur. (pg.83) That may be so, but is not really relevant to the treatment units, which are almost all in the upper montane zone. Ponderosas in the upper montane zone do naturally grow in denser than in the lower montane zone. Page 85 states: There would be no means to effectively provide for ‘old forest conditions’ without active management (analogous to an active disturbance regime). Essentially, the growth system of the plant community is closed and would remain this way until some type of event disrupts the cycle. Historically, a disruption in this type of vegetation had been realized in wildfires or insect outbreaks that resulted in a mosaic of stand variation across the landscape adding to the ‘old forest condition’ arrangement. First, we should point out that the project will not fire-proof the area. Fires will still break out and wind-driven 90th percentile weather fires will still occur. Second, project activities will not proof the forest from insect infestations either. In fact, slash disposal may increase insect activity. So, active management is neither needed instead of, nor proof against, natural disruptions. To state that an ‘old forest condition’ won’t happen without human intervention is hubris indeed. On page 86, The No Action Alternative would not provide for disturbance systems to actively work within the aspen communities, and would rely on environmental factors to continue to determine outcomes. The existing condition of aspen communities shows that conifer encroachment would continue, which would lead to continued decline of individual aspen and overall reduction of clonal viability. The lack of fire, as well as competing conifers indicates that the seral aspen communities in Forsythe II Project area could be entirely lost. It is interesting that in the paragraph between these two excerpts, it describes the mortality of old growth, large trees, and suppression mortality of smaller stems. Yet, none of this mortality will provide an opportunity for the aspens to grow. Much of the encroachment of conifers that has been pointed out to us is actually the reverse. The conifers were there before the aspens. There is certainly some encroachment of young conifers into aspen clones and where that has occurred, it is appropriate to remove small conifers.

74

More Notes4 Obliteration of the roads would reduce erosion and sedimentation, revegetate road surfaces, disconnect disturbance areas, and improve watershed condition and aquatic habitat.

Obliteration does not provide ground cover to hold soils, so does not really prevent erosion. Revegetation of road surfaces takes time. If the project lasts 15 years, there is some doubt the roads will ever actually be decommissioned.

Erosion and stream sedimentation from timber harvest activities and associated infrastructure have the potential to create negative impacts to aquatic species Design criteria for protection of water and fisheries resources are common for all alternatives. This is dependent on supervision of contractors, implementation of design criteria Risk of adverse effects increases with mechanical treatment acres, road mileage(s), acres of burn, acres of treatment with burn piles. Risk declines with miles of road decommissioning. Cumulative effects- In the case of this project there is little overlap of cumulative impacts in time and space of the project area.

What about Gross dam expansion?

3.6 Terrestrial Wildlife The majority of the project area is within Management Area (MA) 3.5, Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats. The emphasis in MA 3.5 is on providing adequate amounts of quality forage, cover, escape terrain, solitude, breeding habitat, and protection for a wide variety of wildlife species and associated plant communities. However, lodgepole pine is highly valued as hiding cover for deer and elk, and provides important breeding habitat for USFS Sensitive species such as northern goshawk. Red squirrels, prey for species including Canada lynx and northern goshawk, use lodgepole heavily as secondary habitat. 31% of project area. Ponderosa pine provides important habitat for many wildlife species, particularly for reproduction and winter habitat. Many species harvest and cache the pine nuts, use the large and open branch structure for roosting and hunting, and some species such as Abert's squirrel are almost entirely dependent on ponderosa pine trees for their survival. 28% of project area, but not unit area. Douglas-fir is an important species for wildlife, providing a more continuous source of cones and seeds than pines. The thick branches are used by multiple bird species for nesting and roosting. 25% of project area Quaking aspen forests provide breeding, foraging, and resting habitat for a wide variety of birds and mammals.5% of project area Larger mistletoe brooms are often used as wildlife nest structures and weakened limbs can provide an entry point for rot, which creates cavities in live trees. Cavities in live trees are generally availably longer for wildlife use than cavities in dead trees, as dead trees would tend to weaken and fall sooner.

It is also a food source.

Mountain pine beetle larvae provide a great resource of food for many species of birds and mammals. Concentrations of dead trees killed by mountain pine beetle also provide an increase in suitable openings, hunting perches, and down wood necessary as habitat components for many wildlife species. The ARP obtained a project-specific proposed, threatened and endangered species list dated December 7, 2015 from the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC) on-line tool (www.fws.gov/ipac).

4 The following notes have not been transcribed for clarity, nor edited, so there are no reference page numbers. With a lot to comment

on and a limited time period, they are simple included for the record. Note that the USFS had a year to write this EA, but we only had

a 30-day period for comment.

75

This tool states that it is not a replacement for on the ground observation.

The largest blocks of mapped effective habitat in the project area, based on the 1997 Forest Plan mapping, are south of Winiger Gulch, west of Gross Reservoir, in the Twin Sisters area, in the Front Range/Boy Scout trails area, east of Kelly Dahl campground, and north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon. Of these areas, Twin Sisters and the north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon are the most likely to still function as effective habitat, based on topography, land ownership, and generally less human activity than other parts of the project area.

But not having quantifiable data makes this all subjective.

No NFS trails have been added to the project area since the Forest Plan. But there is a concurrent trails plan proposed.

Forest-wide Direction Goal (GO) 95. Retain the integrity of effective habitat areas. This is a wildlife goal for the entire 2 million acres of ARP lands. As stated above the current effective habitat in all four geographic areas is estimated to be lower than Forest Plan percentages due to changes in the project area since 1997.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not consistent with this goal, and all have the potential to further reduce effective habitat, in the short-term by opening the forest canopy in many areas and creation of temporary roads, skid trails, and landings. In the long-term, some treated areas may return to functioning as effective habitat, depending on human use. Because Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not consistent with this goal, a Forest Plan Amendment is needed to remove the applicability of this goal for any of the four action alternatives.

GL 107. Avoid disconnecting or severing intact areas of effective habitat with new open roads and trails. Favor seasonal use during non-critical times for wildlife when this cannot be avoided.

No new open roads or trails would be created in the short or long term under No Action. Non-critical times for wildlife vary by species and area. In general, critical times include reproduction – for example bird nesting, elk calving, and deer fawning. Migration occurs in spring, generally April through June, and fall, from late August to as late as December in some years to the lowest elevations of winter range. could result in this guideline not being met in the short-term under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. In the long-term, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with this guideline. If elk spring migration occurs as late as June, where are the elk calving (late May to early June)?

GL 108. When developing new open roads and trails, do not reduce contiguous areas of effective habitat to less than 250 acres or further reduce effective habitat of 20 to 250 acres in size, except where access is required by law.

No new open roads or trails would be created in the short or long term under No Action.

ST 3. Discourage or prohibit human activities and travel, where needed, to allow effective habitat use during season of primary use by elk, deer and bighorn sheep (at least the minimum periods of May 15 through June 30 for elk calving, June 1 through June 30 for deer fawning, May 15 through June 30 for bighorn lambing, and December 1 through March 31 for wintering deer, elk and bighorn).

Per CPW data there are no known elk calving areas in the project area. Key winter range for elk (severe winter range and winter concentration areas as defined and mapped by CPW) occurs throughout most of the project area, and a mule deer winter concentration area overlaps about the eastern 2/3 of the project area. The project area is nearly all within an elk migration corridor. Bighorn sheep do not occur in the project area. There are currently no seasonal closures to non-motorized use in the project area based on key elk or deer winter range, and no such need has been identified by CPW or USFS biologists to date. The Winiger Ridge area, which is within key winter range for elk and mule deer, is closed to motorized use in the winter.

ST 4. Discourage or prohibit human activities and travel, where needed, to allow effective habitat use by other wildlife species, especially during the seasons of birthing and rearing of young.

76

As discussed under Standard 3 above, there is no mapped elk or mule deer production in the project area, and bighorn sheep do not occur. Raptor nesting is documented in portions of the project area, and is discussed further in the Sensitive Species analysis for specific raptor species. Seasonal closures can be implemented under No Action if and when needed.

**Corridors- Forested corridors in the project area are important for a variety of wildlife species, especially larger mammals including elk, mule deer, moose, mountain lions, and black bears. Defined in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1997a) by a combination of forest (habitat) structural stages, minimum area of 20 acres, minimum width of 100 meters, and maximum width of gaps or interruptions of 100 meters, mapped forested corridors are abundant Forest-wide. Available forested corridor mapping does not include updates for vegetation treatments on NFS, county, private, or other lands. Openings created by past vegetation treatments have reduced forested corridors locally in some areas, until trees regrow sufficiently to provide forested corridors again. Indirect effects may occur from the rearrangement of fuels from the canopy to the ground. In general, marten avoid habitats with less than 40% canopy cover (Ruggiero et al., 1994) and with more than 25% openings Additionally, the reduction of dense forest, potentially including interior forest, including canopy cover reduction in Douglas-fir forests and clearcuts and patchcuts in lodgepole pine, may reduce the amount of security cover available during travel, or cause displacement from occupied territories...Untreated buffers of 100 feet between patchcuts and clearcuts in lodgepole pine under all alternatives are too narrow to be used by marten... Both papers concluded that retention of large undisturbed stands was more important than dispersing the effects of smaller cuts across the landscape...Based on average home range size of about four square miles and a total project area of about 30 square miles, a few marten territories at most may occur in the project area, and each treatment unit would be unlikely to overlap more than one marten home range. ...Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

As all alternatives are thinning by 30%+, and opening canopy with clearcut acres, I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion.

In summary, because river otters are not known to occur within or near any treatment units, potential use of the entire project area is likely transitory at most, and because design criteria are expected to reduce impacts to water resources that may affect potential river otter habitat and prey, the determination for Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 for river otter is may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

We have seen river otters twice within the project area in the last two years.

It is uncertain how long it would take alternative goshawk prey such as rabbits and grouse to move into patchcuts and clearcuts; timing likely depends on the ability of the site to regenerate, and the amounts of snags, large woody debris, slash, and chips left behind. High densities of chips or slash can suppress understory regeneration, delaying habitat recovery. Activities under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 have a greater potential of impacting a known nest territory than Alternative 3 based on proximity of several treatment units to known nests; however design criteria would help to minimize this potential.

So why aren't we eliminating those units? Given that the project is expected to last 10-15 years, the short term effects could be long enough to permanently disturb the species in this area.

Fuels treatment activities can impact goshawk habitat structure in various ways. Edges of larger openings are often used by hunting goshawks if they support prey species; however an increase in edge and open habitat could also favor goshawk predators including great horned owls and red-tailed hawks. Lodgepole pine units in the project area support red squirrels, an important prey species for goshawks (Kennedy, 2003). Since treatment in these units includes clearcuts and patchcuts, the treatments are expected to cause a decrease in red squirrels in lodgepole units. In summary, there would be habitat disturbance and a short term loss of habitat for existing goshawk prey; however, project design criteria are designed to reduce impacts to breeding goshawks and maintain current nesting habitat, and fuels treatments may provide more diversity of foraging habitat in the long term.

77

These are the units slated for patch and clearcuts. Short term may be enough to permanently disrupt goshawks in this area. When considered over the project area and the treatment units, this amount is negligible for olive-sided flycatchers, but could benefit individual birds if a territory is nearby and wind-firm snags occur at the edge of the meadows. Alternative 3 does not include several lodgepole pine units near an area where olive-sided flycatchers were observed during field surveys; these units are included in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Based on this, potential impacts to individual nesting olive-sided flycatchers and their snag habitat are somewhat less under Alternative 3 than under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Because there is the possibility that an occupied nest tree may be removed, and disturbance from project activities may impact foraging or nesting, individual olive-sided flycatchers may be impacted.....may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Death by a thousand cuts. Songbirds and migratory birds are under considerable threat due to habitat loss across the globe. Every loss of habitat, no matter how small, adds to the cumulative effect.

, Alternative 3 would retain forested corridors in strategic areas important to elk, especially during migration and/or winter. The project area includes key winter range for elk, which consists of winter concentration areas and severe winter range areas as defined and mapped by CPW.

Elk are usually present in the project area until late April or through May and often calve during that time.

Alternative 1 is expected to have the highest potential for negative impacts to forested corridors for mule deer, followed by Alternatives 4, 2, and 3. Alternative 3 proposes to treat slightly more lodgepole pine acres than Alternative 2, however as described above, Alternative 3 would retain forested corridors in strategic areas important to elk and mule deer, especially during migration and/or winter. Let's remember that these are indicator species, which indicate the presence of other species. Bear and Mountain lion can be expected to thrive when their prey thrives, but also require different habitat for denning, hiding, etc. Meta-analyses of partial harvesting of forests across North America suggest that golden-crowned kinglet abundance is maintained with light-intensity forest thinning (> 70% forest retention), but decreases at higher thinning levels. Various forest harvest treatments and experimental thinning have resulted in local kinglet population declines of as much as 82%. Spruce/fir is the primary habitat used by golden-crowned kinglets. The forest edge habitat created as a result of the action alternatives may be detrimental to the kinglet, due to the potential for increased penetration of nest predators into interior habitat and the drying and windthrow that may occur if cutting occurs in or adjacent to spruce/fir habitat. An unknown amount of interior forest habitat may occur in the project area and it is possible that some would be affected by proposed treatments. However, mapped spruce/fir in the project area is minimal ... Based on field surveys, the project area contains numerous small pockets of suitable habitat; and golden-crowned kinglets were found in a number of drainages in the project area with a spruce/fir component during field surveys. However, because current interior forest mapping is not available, it is unknown whether spruce/fir occurs within habitat currently functioning as interior forest. ...The action alternatives may degrade an unknown amount of interior forest, if it still occurs in proposed treatment units and if canopy cover is reduced below 40%. Pygmy Nuthatch- Existing old growth stands would have basal area reduced by up to 30%, while old growth development and other ponderosa pine stands would have basal area reduced by up to 40%. Clearcuts and patchcuts would occur in lodgepole pine stands, which are not primary habitat for pygmy nuthatch but may be used if suitable snags are available.

We have observed many PN nesting and living in dense, developing old growth lodgepole. Because locations of defensible space treatments are unknown, and would only become known as landowners apply for permits, it is not possible to know quantities of different habitats that would be affected by the treatments.

But need to be offset by reduced tx in the units Based on the relatively low number of acres that could be treated for defensible space and proximity to private land and structures, minimal impacts to USFS Sensitive species and MIS are expected, and separate discussions regarding defensible space activities by species are not needed.

78

I. Number of acres treated may be underestimated, as it is based on current numbers. As insurance companies get stricter, more homeowners may be forced to create defensible space. The numbers are also based on people participating in an official program, although a lot of people do it on their own.

"Effective habitat, as defined in the Forest Plan, is mostly undisturbed habitat, which is buffered from regularly used roads and trails, both motorized and non-motorized travel. Buffer distances vary based on vegetation cover and topography" "The largest blocks of mapped effective habitat in the project area, based on the 1997 Forest Plan mapping, are south of Winiger Gulch, west of Gross Reservoir, in the Twin Sisters area, in the Front Range/Boy Scout trails area, east of Kelly Dahl campground, and north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon. Of these areas, Twin Sisters and the north-facing slopes of Boulder Canyon are the most likely to still function as effective habitat, based on topography, land ownership, and generally less human activity than other parts of the project area." "Key winter range for elk (severe winter range and winter concentration areas as defined and mapped by CPW) occurs throughout most of the project area, and a mule deer winter concentration area overlaps about the eastern 2/3 of the project area. The project area is nearly all within an elk migration corridor." "avoid treatment from December 1 through March 30 in elk severe winter range and winter concentration areas." (Appendix B) "Observations by CPW and local residents suggest that elk movements and use of some areas may be changing, but there are no recent studies attempting to document or quantify changes."(3.6.3) "Most calves are born in late May to early June following a 240-255 day gestation period." (Specialist terrestrial wildlife report) "Assuring reliable data and updates is a fundamental requirement for Forest Plan implementation. Currently, resource condition data updates are not adequate to ascertain whether expected Forest Plan outputs and effects are on track." "Since 1998, there has been a upward trend in acres of habitat improvement for all wildlife, including Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive species (TES) and habitat. Outputs have been ‘near-expected’ relative to budget levels.."( monitoring & evaluation report for fiscal year 2012)

All good reasons to try to preserve and improve the existing effective habitat, not destroy it.

79

MFG Objection

Photos

Photo 1, Lop and scatter, 2014, CR68 Photo 2, Lop and Scatter, 2014, Winiger Ridge BCCP Natural Landmark Area

Photos 3 & 4, Elk Calf, June 6th, 2015, Between Boy Scout trails and Twin Sister’s Road, off Magnolia Rd.