MMG Homeowner Landscape Scale Inputs to Forsythe II Project (page 1) September 13, 2018 Input Status and NFS Response Impact on Formal Project Objectives Individual unit inputs Phase I and II unit inputs provided NFS to respond with impact on treatment plans None – all accepted discretionary inputs assumed to be local / incremental modifications. All inputs on complying with Decision are required in any case. Special units (details supporting choice and proposed treatment to be provide in writing later) Significant treatment modification / set aside due to very high social and ecological value of current state Units of set aside from treatment: 77, 52 Units to significantly modify treatment approach: 53 Potentially one other unit to be determined ? For set aside unit 77: 5% reduction in total acreage treated across FI and FII projects. Much of unit 77 was previously treated, so even without FII treatment it partially meet FII Objectives For set aside unit 52: Minimal – unit already has good canopy spacing and retains low ladder fuel as a result of previous treatment. Conifer density reasonable by historical standards. Unit small and isolated. Significantly modified treatment unit 53: None – proposed alternative to standard treatment will insure continued Aspen dominance Conifer units in general Do not reduce basal area density below historical norms Potentially violated in Unit 46, but this can be treated as an acceptable exception due to Lower Montane nature and small size of this unit Status for other conifer units unclear None Completely consistent with FII Objective 2: “Restore … conifer stands … toward their characteristic species composition …” Historical densities sufficiently low to meet FII Objective 1: “Reduce … intensity of a wildfire within WUI”

MMG Homeowner Landscape Scale Inputs to Forsythe II Project (page 2) September 13, 2018 Input Status and NFS Response Impact on Formal Project Objectives Conifer units with previous treatments Reduce treatment from maximum allowed by decision if canopy spacing already reasonable for fire danger reduction Treat ladder fuels as necessary for reasonable fire danger while maintaining generational diversity ? None Previous treatment had similar objectives as FII Objectives Lodgepole units Maintain healthiest mature stands while locating patch / clear cuts in less health / more fire prone stands NFS may have sellable value considerations that are leading to preference to patch / clearcutting in healthiest mature stands Enhanced Supports FII Objective 3: “Emulate natural disturbances in lodgepole … mimic variable structural and spatial patterns …”. Healthy mature stands are necessary for full structural variability and are less of a fire danger than less healthy stands. Financial consideration of lumber salability is not a FII Objective Lodgepole units with previous treatments Build on previous treatments by retaining healthy mature and thinned stands while locating patch / clear cuts in less healthy and more fire prone stands Same logic as immediately above – but even more so since previously thinned healthy mature stands are among the healthiest and least fire prone Slash piles Develop and commit to plan and target timing for burning all burnable slash pile generated by FII and previous projects, including required budget allocation NFS developing plan for entire Boulder Ranger District ? Slash piles are an acknowledged fire danger Previous projects have demonstrated tendency of slash pile burning to be delayed beyond optimal minimal time window, which increases fire intensity in WUI in contradiction to FII Objective 1