1. 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”

2. 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