DRAFT Decision Notice Appendix A – Response to Marshall Woods Restoration Project...

MarshallWoodsRestorationProjectDraftDecisionNoticeAppendixA

A‐1

DRAFTDecisionNoticeAppendixA–ResponsetoMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectEAComments

CONTENTSCompliance with Laws and Regulations for RNRA ............................................................................... 11

General comments about the NEPA process .......................................................................................... 19

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 29

Fire/Fuels ................................................................................................................................................ 43

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................. 57

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................... 58

Old Growth ............................................................................................................................................. 64

Fisheries .................................................................................................................................................. 67

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................... 74

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 77

Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................................... 80

Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 82

Visual Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 86

Travel Management ................................................................................................................................ 87

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................... 89

Economics ............................................................................................................................................... 93

Educational/Interpretive .......................................................................................................................... 95

Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 95

General Support .................................................................................................................................... 100

General Opposition ............................................................................................................................... 106

Review of References Cited in Comments - Dick Artley Attachment #3 ............................................ 108

Review of References Cited in Comments - Dick Artley Attachment #8 ............................................ 134

Review of References Cited in Comments - Dick Artley Attachment #9a ........................................... 144

Review of References Cited in Comments - Dick Artley Attachment #11 .......................................... 204

Review of References Cited in Comments – Mike Bader .................................................................... 217

Review of References Cited in Comments - Dick Hutto ...................................................................... 226

Review of References Cited in Comments – Jeff Juel .......................................................................... 232


A‐2

Table1.ListofEACommenters

CommentLetterID

Date NameofCommenter

1 2/23/2015 Reneau,Susan

2 3/13/2015 Brown,Jim

3 3/18/2015 Belsky,Jill

4 3/18/2015 Lane,Richard

5 3/18/2015 McDonald,Patti

6 3/18/2015 McGinley,Michael

7 3/18/2015 Moy,Randy&Nancy

8 3/18/2015 Plant,Emily

9 3/18/2015 Roscoe,Matt

10 3/18/2015 Simpson,Neil

11 3/18/2015 Stewart,Cathy

12 3/18/2015 Unknown

13 3/18/2015 Volkman,Sandy

14 3/18/2015 Williams,Jerry&Greta

15 3/18/2015 Wright,Alden

16 3/20/2015 Franke,Rick

17 3/20/2015 Kolppa,Eric

18 3/20/2015 Kurtz,Eric

19 3/21/2015 Decaro,Diane

20 3/21/2015 Vosburgh,Mark

21 3/21/2015 Wollersheim,Tod

22 3/22/2015 Artley,Dick


A‐3

23 3/23/2015 Dieterle,Shana

24 3/23/2015 Everingham,Dave

25 3/23/2015 Oetinger,John

26 3/23/2015 Slobod,Karen

27 3/23/2015 Tonnessen,Kathy

28 3/24/2015 Hightower,Tom

29 3/24/2015 Hopkins,Robert

30 3/25/2015 Arensberg,Rebecca

31 3/26/2015 Andrus,Genevieve

32 3/26/2015 Blunn,Thomas

33 3/26/2015 Clapp,Jim

34 3/26/2015 Reiter,JohnandSharon

35 3/26/2015 Schroeder,Jeff

36 3/27/2015 Brown,JimandSue

37 3/29/2015 Artley,Dick

38 3/29/2015 Cook/Coleman,Julie/Mark

39 3/29/2015 Lesica,Peter

40 3/30/2015 Christopherson,Leroy

41 3/30/2015 Cunningham,Bill

42 3/30/2015 Decaro,John

43 3/30/2015 Hall,Deborah

44 3/30/2015 Hoem,Harold&Jan

45 3/30/2015 Ingold,Kurt

46 3/30/2015 Narcisco,Claudia

47 3/30/2015 Ninteman,Wendy


A‐4

48 3/30/2015 Powell,Edward

49 3/30/2015 Wiener,Jason

50 3/31/2015 Bernofsky,GeneandJoAnn

51 3/31/2015 Kuhne,David

52 3/31/2015 Lousen,Ken

53 4/1/2015 Herling,Daphne

54 4/1/2015 Walker,Jerome

55 4/1/2015 Worthy,Willie&Jeanne

56 4/2/2015 Bayless,Aurora

57 4/2/2015 Farmer,Dave

58 4/2/2015 Grimm,Douglas

59 4/2/2015 Jackson,David&Kathleen

60 4/2/2015 Roach,Terri

61 4/3/2015 Parnell,Chase

62 4/3/2015 VanDerPoel,W.I.

63 4/3/2015 Ward,Judy

64 4/4/2015 Hinther,Roger&Janet

65 4/5/2015 Cook,Tom

66 4/5/2015 Gaddy,Will

67 4/6/2015 Jangurdesfer,Mary

68 4/6/2015 Smith,Phil

69 4/7/2015 Ambrose,Bob&Rachel

70 4/7/2015 Hayes,Bob

71 4/7/2015 Rothermel,Richard


A‐5

72 4/8/2015 Reinhardt,Howard&Chin

73 4/10/2015 Clarke,William

74 4/10/2015 Deschamps,Robert

75 4/10/2015 Gaul,Bill

76 4/10/2015 Hillis

77 4/10/2015 Thomas,M

78 4/11/2015 Haggett,Ben

79 4/11/2015 Walker,Annette

80 4/12/2015 Ellison,Julia

81 4/12/2015 Oertli,Donna

82 4/12/2015 Ream,Tarn

83 4/12/2015 Tobias,Cris

84 4/14/2015 Graham,Gary

85 4/14/2015 Autio,Lela

86 4/15/2015 Schwanemann,Fed&Eileen

87 4/16/2015 Hudson,Michael

88 4/16/2015 Lonski,Caroline

89 4/16/2015 Puckett,Melanie

90 4/17/2015 O’Leary,Dan

91 4/18/2015 Rising,Dave

92 4/19/2015 Hoag,Kay

93 4/19/2015 Roy,Tom

94 4/20/2015 Smith,Jeff

95 4/20/2015 Herling,Daphne


A‐6

96 4/21/2015 Hoem,Jan

97 4/21/2015 Romano,Albert

98 4/21/2015 Ryan,Chris

99 4/22/2015 Abramson,CE.

100 4/22/2015 Athauser,Robert

101 4/22/2015 Childress,Laurie

102 4/22/2015 Ford,Mark

103 4/22/2015 Jackson,Beverly

104 4/22/2015 Landini,Rich

105 4/22/2015 Serra,

106 4/22/2015 Winterburn,David

107 4/23/2015 Parker,Jim

108 4/23/2015 Polichio,Rosemary

109 4/23/2015 Williams,Marcia

110 4/24/2015 Beardsley,Wendell

111 4/24/2015 Benson,Robert

112 4/24/2015 Campbell,Dave

113 4/24/2015 Clark,Mary

114 4/24/2015 Csorosz,Betty

115 4/24/2015 Hansen,L

116 4/24/2015 McQuillan,Jessie

117 4/24/2015 Rose,Stan

118 4/24/2015 Schandelson,Brett

119 4/24/2015 Tahta,Stefne

120 4/24/2015 Tahta,Stephen


A‐7

121 4/24/2015 Turner,Bill

122 4/24/2015 Young,Bev

123 4/25/2015 Crawford,John

124 4/25/2015 Hutto,Richard

125 4/25/2015 Jakob,Keith

126 4/25/2015 Sims,Bruce

127 4/26/2015 Bernofsky,Gene

128 4/26/2015 Bernofsky,JoAnn

129 4/26/2015 Everingham,MarkandBill

130 4/26/2015 Grant,Jimmy

131 4/26/2015 Hagemeier,Jim

132 4/26/2015 Menson,Sharene

133 4/26/2015 Schultz,Bill

134 4/26/2015 Weddle,Lynn

135 4/27/2015 Brown,Ken

136 4/27/2015 Hoem,Harold

137 4/27/2015 Kulla‐Farmer,Kimberly

138 4/27/2015 Padgett,Jeffery

139 4/27/2015 Price,Catherine

140 4/27/2015 Zapp,Patricia

141 4/28/2015 Gullny,Tim

142 4/28/2015 Laughlin,Donnie

143 4/28/2015 Miller,Chip

144 4/28/2015 Siebert,Steve

145 4/28/2015 Zapp‐Knapp,MaryLouise


A‐8

146 4/29/2015 Allison,Janet

147 4/29/2015 Atkins,David

148 4/29/2015 Brigham,Tom

149 4/29/2015 Butler,Will

150 4/29/2015 Chinske,Cass

151 4/29/2015 Colwell,Bill

152 4/29/2015 Kent,Robin

153 4/29/2015 Kulla,Andy

154 4/29/2015 Metcalf,Peter

155 4/29/2015 Pape,Taylor

156 4/29/2015 Strong,Harry

157 4/29/2015 Wiesner,Bob

158 4/29/2015 Yonce,J.B.

159 4/30/2015 Arno,Matt

160 4/30/2015 Arnold,Randy

161 4/30/2015 Azzara,Tom

162 4/30/2015 Bader,

163 4/30/2015 Berkoff,David

164 4/30/2015 Brown,Dylan

165 4/30/2015 Clark,Erin

166 4/30/2015 Cleaves,Kendall&Alice

167 4/30/2015 Clemow,Richard

168 4/30/2015 Darcy,

169 4/30/2015 Dill,Sharon

170 4/30/2015 Dutton,Barry


A‐9

171 4/30/2015 Edlund,Eric

172 4/30/2015 Evans,Larry

173 4/30/2015 Folsom,Loreen

174 4/30/2015 Friess,Jeffrey

175 4/30/2015 Glassy,Joe

176 4/30/2015 Goldman,Derek

4/30/2015 Grady,Kathryn

178 4/30/2015 Haber,Paul

179 4/30/2015 Horton,John

180 4/30/2015 Hoyt,Pelah

181 4/30/2015 Hudson,Jen

182 4/30/2015 Juel,Jeff

183 4/30/2015 Johnson,Chris

184 4/30/2015 Krelick,Jake

185 4/30/2015 Lousen,Kenneth

186 4/30/2015 Lund,Roger

187 4/30/2015 Malek,Sue

188 4/30/2015 Mikesell,Tracy

189 4/30/2015 Narcisco,Claudia

190 4/30/2015 O’Herron,Mike

191 4/30/2015 Olson,Doug

192 4/30/2015 Peterson,Cindy

193 4/30/2015 Potts,Rick

194 4/30/2015 Pukis,Rick

195 4/30/2015 Rossbach,Bill


A‐10

196 4/30/2015 Schmitt,Glen

197 4/30/2015 Sigrist,Ellie

198 4/30/2015 Snodgrass,Will

199 4/30/2015 Stangl,Marjorie

200 4/30/2015 Susman,Sahra

201 4/30/2015 Tutskey,Bob

202 4/30/2015 VanderMeer,Mark

203 4/30/2015 VonLossberg,Bryan

204 4/30/2015 Webster,Joel

205 4/30/2015 Wiener,Jason

206 4/30/2015 Wilson,Carlan

207 4/30/2015 Wilson,Bob

DRAFTDecisionNotice–AppendixAResponsetoComments

A‐11

COMPLIANCEWITHLAWSANDREGULATIONSFORRNRA

1. “ThelegislationthatestablishedtheWildernessandtheNRAexpresslyforbidscommercialactivitiesineither…”(54,1)

FSResponse:TheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaandWilderness(RNRAW)wasestablishedbylawonOctober19,1980(PL96‐476).ThislawprovidesnomanagementdirectionfortheNRAotherthanspeakingtolandacquisitionandexchange,coalleaseandbiddingrights,andwaterrights(ProjectFile,ItemN‐1).ItstatesthattheRNRAbedesignatedforhighvaluemunicipalwatershed,recreation,wildlifehabitat,andecologicalandeducationalpurposes.TheMarshallWoodsprojectmaintainsallfivevaluesidentifiedinPL96‐476.OnallfederallandsontheLoloNFwelooktotheForestPlantoguideourmanagementactivities,anditspecificallyoutlinesgoalsandstandardsforresponsiblestewardshipincludingtheRNRA.NoactivitiesareproposedintheRattlesnakeWildernessarea.

2. Thecommercialthinninginunits2,3,4,5,and6appearstoconflictwithatleastfourstandardsforManagementArea28(essentiallytheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationArea)intheLoloNationalForestManagementPlan:

Standard3:Treeremovalwillbelimitedtothatrequiredtoeliminatesafetyhazardsorpermitconstructionorexpansionoffacilities.Themanagementareaisclassifiedasunsuitablefortimberproduction.Standard13:Areaswillbeevaluatedperiodicallyforsignificantinsectanddiseaseproblemssuchasmountainpinebeetle.Buildupsofminorinsectsandmostdiseaseagentsdonotnormallyposethreatstoadjacentlandsandeffectsofthesewillbeacceptedasnaturallyoccurringphenomena.Standard15:Timberremovalwillbelimitedtothatneededtomaintainandimproverecreationvalues,Standard36:Theexistingroadswillbemaintainedtotheirpresentstandardswithmaintenanceemphasisonreducingmudholesandimprovingdrainage.(95,1;98,1;189,2;157,8;157,11;162,5)

FSRESPONSE:TheMarshallWoodsprojectcomplieswithStandard3.TreeremovalwithintheRNRAinAlternativesBandCis,inpart,designedtoprovideforfirefighterandpublicsafety.Firefighterefficiencyandsafetyismeasuredastheabilitytoinitialattackafirewithdirectattacksuppressiontacticsduringtypicalfireseasonweatherpatternsandfuelconditions(EAp.129).Directattacksuccessisgenerallyhigherwithflamelengthslessthanfourfeetinheightallowingfirefightersagreatermarginforsafety(EAp.129).AlternativesBandCreduceflamelengthsandreducethepotentialforhighseverityfireintheRNRA(EA


A‐12

p.143).“Treeremovalwilloccurtoeliminatesafetyhazards(aroundparkingareas)andreducethechanceofwildfireandbarkbeetleinfestationsbothofwhichwouldresultinmultiplehazardtrees(deadstandingtrees)throughouttheRNRA,portionsofWoodsGulchnotintheRNRA,andMarshallCanyonifleftuntreated”(RecreationSpecialist’sReportp.54).RegardingStandard13,thefieldassessmentconductedfortheMarshallWoodsprojectconstitutestheperiodicevaluationforsignificantinsectanddiseaseproblemssuchasmountainpinebeetle.MountainpinebeetleisthemostaggressivebarkbeetleintheWest(EAp.92).RefertotheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.16‐18,EApp.92‐94,andProjectFileItemsM5‐7,M5‐10,M5‐11,M5‐12,M5‐13,andM5‐14forcurrentinsecthazardandrisk.In2009,mountainpinebeetlemortalitywasspreadacross27%oftheanalysisarea.Anincreaseof85%hadoccurredfrom2008.Althoughinfestationhasrecentlydecreased,itisexpectedtoincreasewithoutactivemanagement(EAp.93).Effortstoprotecthighvaluetreesnearrecreationfacilitieshaverecentlybeenimplemented(carbarylinsecticide)withpublicapproval(EApp.93and285).Studieshaveshownthepublicsupportsresponsetoactiveinfestationsbutdoesnotgenerallysupportpreventativemeasures(EAp.285).Allstandsintheprojectareaarehighlysusceptible(EAp.94).TheMarshallWoodprojectcomplieswithStandard15.OutdoorrecreationisconsideredahighvaluefortheMissoulacommunity(RecreationSpecialist’sReportp.55).TheMarshallWoodsprojectareacurrentlyhasahighexistingscenicintegrity(EAp.290).Themainimpactstotherecreationvaluesoftheareastemfromrecreationuse,noxiousweedsandpastsuppressionoffireswhichhasledtoahighriskforwildfireimpactsandshiftofnaturalforestconditionstowardsoverstockedstandsathighrisktoinsectsanddisease(EApp.13,16,86to96,and268).Timberremovalalongwithprescribedfiretreatmentswouldincreaseforestresilience,resistancetodiseaseandinsects,improveforestfunctiontoaccommodatefire,insectsdiseaseandclimatechange,maintainspeciescompositionandstructureoftheforestincludinglargetreesthatareviewedbythepublicwhilerecreatinginthearea(EApp.97to125).Theprojectwouldmaintainthehighscenicintegrityoftheareathatisassociatedwithanintactandfunctioningforest.“Theeffectsfromtheothertreatmentunitswouldbeshort‐termandrecoverwithin1to5yearsofprojectimplementation.Thesetreatmentswouldreducetheriskofdisease,insectinfestation,andhighseveritywildfirewhileincreasingvegetationdiversity,whichwouldincreasesustainabilityandhavesomebeneficiallong‐termimpactstothevisualqualityofthelandscape.Otherproposedrestorationactivitieswouldhavesomeminorimpactstoscenerybutwouldbebeneficialinthelongterm”(ScenerySpecialist’sReportp.21).RegardingStandard36,“MaintenanceandBMPworkwillbeperformedonthefirst3.7milesofthemainRattlesnakecorridorroad99/Trail515andincludes:…”(EApp.27‐28).“ThisworkisneededregardlessofanypossibletimberhaulactivitiesincludedintheMarshallWoodsprojectandiscategorizedasroutinemaintenance”(EAp.28).Alsoseeresponsetocomment#3below.


A‐13

3. Regardingstandard36,theproposedactionappearstoincludeupgradesofTrail

515/Road99thatgowellbeyondmaintainingthetrail/roadtoitspresentstandardand"reducingmudholesandimprovingdrainage."Thechapterrecognizestheneedtoprotectexistinginfrastructure,suchasthebridgeatSpringGulch.However,smoothingtheroad/trailasproposeddoesnotappeartoberequiredforadministrativevehicularaccessbytheForestServiceandMountainWaterCo.(95,2;98,2)

FSResponse:AsdescribedintheEAonpp.27and28,theworkproposedonRoad99/Trail515isroadmaintenanceandbestmanagementpractices(BMP)application,anditisincludedinallalternatives(includingtheNoAction).EAp.27alsodiscussesAlternativeN,whichwasconsideredbutnotindetailstating,“ThisalternativewascreatedinresponsetoacommentthatexpressedthedesiretoleaveRoad99/Trail515“asis”,anditdoesnotincludeanyroadmaintenanceorBMPworkasisincludedinAlternativesA,B,C,andD.Thisalternativewasconsidered,butnotindetailbecauseroadmaintenanceisnecessarytopreventdamagetofacilities,maintainsafety,andtoprecludeadverseimpactstoresources.TheForestServiceconductsroutineroadmaintenanceactivitiesbasedonprioritizationandavailablefunding.Road99/Trail515iswithinaprioritywatershedandroutinemaintenanceisnecessary.”TheRecreationSpecialist’sReportidentifiesimpactsoftheroadimprovementsonpage24andthecumulativeimpactsoftheroadimprovementsonpage25(pp.276–277oftheEA).

4. The‘CongressionalReport‘language(designatingtheRattlesnakeNRA)clearlystatesthattheareais‘unsuitablefortimberharvest’andtheLoloForestPlanstandardclearlystatesthattheareais‘unsuitablefortimberproduction.(194;189,3;162,4)

FSResponse:AdiscussiononsuitabilityislocatedintheProjectFile,ItemM5‐48:“Identificationoflandsgenerallysuitablefortimberharvestandtimberproductionismadeatthelandmanagementplanlevel(36CFR219.11(a)(2)).Timberharvestonlandsnotsuitablefortimberproductioncanoccurforpurposesotherthantimberproductionthroughouttheplanarea,orportionsoftheplanarea,asatooltoassistinachievingormaintainingoneormoreapplicabledesiredconditionsorobjectivesoftheplaninordertoprotectothermultiple‐usevalues,andforsalvage,sanitation,orpublichealthorsafety.Examplesofusingtimberharvesttoprotectothermultipleusevaluesmayincludeimprovingwildlifeorfishhabitat,thinningtoreducefirerisk,orrestoringmeadoworsavannaecosystemswheretreeshaveinvaded(36CFR219.11(c)).Thisprojectisconsistentwith16USC1604(k)and36CFR219.11theimplementingregulationsoftheNationalForestManagementActof1976.”ThereisnospecificwordingintheActestablishingtheRNRAthatprohibitsthecuttingorremovaloftrees.TheRNRAandWildernesswerebothestablishedonOctober19,1980byPublicLaw96‐476(RecreationSpecialist’sReport,p.5).Section1(a)oftheActdifferentiatesWildernessfromtheNRAandqualifiesthattheNRA,whilenotpredominately


A‐14

ofwildernessquality,hashighvalueformunicipalwatershed,recreation,wildlifehabitat,andecologicalandeducationalpurposes.Section2oftheActsummarizesdesignationandmanagementoftheRattlesnakeWildernessAreainaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheWildernessAct(RecreationSpecialist’sReport,p.6).Section3designatestheRNRAbasedonanOctober1,1980datebutprovidesnofurtherdescription.ForestServicedirectivesintheForestServiceManual2370(RecreationSpecialist’sReport,pp.5‐6)providethelatitudeforhowtheNRAistobemanagedtotheForestServicethroughitsForestPlanorinacomprehensivemanagementplanthatgivesspecificmanagementdirectionforallresourcevalueswithinthearea(thisisAppendixO‐4oftheForestPlan).ManagementArea28isnotconsideredassuitableforestlandintheLoloForestPlan.SuitablelandisdefinedasForestlandforwhichtechnologyisavailablethatwillensuretimberproductionwithoutirreversibleresourcedamage,thatcanberestocked,andforwhichthereismanagementdirectionthattimberproductionisanappropriateuse(ForestPlanpg.VII‐43).Timberproductionreferstopurposefulgrowing,tending,harvesting,andregenerationofrotationalcropsoftreestobeputforindustrialorconsumeruse(ForestPlanpg.VII‐41).IntheForestPlantimberproductiondoesnotincludeproductionoffuelwoodorharvestofunsuitablelands(suchasinthecaseoftheproposedtreatmentsinAlternativesBandC).Timberharvestonlandsnotsuitablefortimberproductioncanoccurwhenharvestisnecessaryorappropriateforothermultipleusepurposesandtoachievethedesiredvegetationconditions(16U.S.C.1604(k),36CFR219.12(a)(2)(D)(ii)).Thisisconsistentwith16U.S.C.1604(k)and36CFR219.12(a)(2)(D)(ii)theimplementingregulationsoftheNFMAof1976.

5. “TheEA’sdescriptionoftheRegulatoryFramework(page126)containsnodiscussionoftheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationandWildernessActorthespecificmanagementstandardsfortheareacontainedintheForestPlan.”(162,3)

FSResponse:ThiscommentregardingEApage126isreferringtotheregulatoryframeworkforfireandfuels.AswasnotedintheEASummary,theEAisaconcisesummaryandthefullspecialist’sreportsarepostedontheLoloNF’swebsite(MarshallWoodsEA).ThecompleteregulatoryframeworkfortheFireandFuelssectionoftheEAisincludedintheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportwhichincludesthedirectionfortheRNRA(pp.5–6).TheregulatoryframeworkfortheRecreationsectionoftheEAisincludedintheRecreationSpecialist’sReport(pp.5–15).SimilarlytheregulatoryframeworkforotherresourceareasregardingtheRNRAWcanbefoundintheotherresourcespecialistreports.

6. AlternativeBdoesnotcomplywith“MA28Standard27states:“Programswillnotentailsitemodificationortheconstructionoffacilitiesthatwouldviolatethenaturalappearanceofthearea.”(162,6)

FSResponse:Noneofthealternativesproposeconstructionoffacilities.Theanalysisofimpactsonvisualresources(visualquality)determinedtheneedforaForestPlan


A‐15

amendment.Thisisacknowledgedonpp.32–33oftheEAandpp.21‐22oftheSceneryResourcesSpecialist’sReport.

7. “…along‐establishedprocessfortheRNRAWthroughtheLimitsofAcceptableChange(LAC)hasbeenbrushedaside.Forexample,theEAatpage288statestheLACstandardforclearanceonTrail515willbeviolated,unilaterallyraisingit10feetto14feettoaccommodatelogtrucks.Brushingandremovalofmaturetreestoaccommodatethesetrucksisalsoenvisioned.”(162,7)

FSResponse:ThefactthattheLACstandardforclearanceonTrail515wouldbeviolatedinAlternativeBisacknowledgedonp.288oftheEA.EAp.276discussesthatroad“upgrades”…suchasthebrushing…“wouldbenoticeabletotherecreatingpublicbutwouldmorethanlikelybefavorabletotherecreationalexperience…brushingwouldallowagreaterlineofsightandwidthforpassing,especiallyincongestedareas…improvementswouldresultinminortomoderate,short‐termnegativeimpactsduringtheimplementationphase;howevertheimprovementswouldlastbeyondasinglerecreationuseperiodandwouldeventuallyhavelong‐termbeneficialimpactstorecreationalusersandtheirexperience.”

8. Priorto2011“commercialloggingandroadbuildingwasunderstoodandappliedasnotallowedintheRNRA.PleasediscloseyourrationaleforthisabruptchangeintheinterpretationthatcommercialloggingisnowallowedintheRNRA…RNRAWIssuesandConcernspage8ItemNVEGETATION…doesnotmentioncommercialloggingorlogremoval.”(153,3and15)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#s2,4and5.ThemanagementoftheRNRAhasnotchangedsinceitsinceptioncitingwordingofLACandForestPlan.Additionallyin1997,theSawmillFuelsprojectwasimplementedwhichincluded79acresofcommercialharvestintheRNRA(ProjectFile,ItemN‐15).

9. “PleasedisclosethedateandcommentsyourRegionalNRAManagerhadontheMWEAandrecreationanalysisinrelationtotheLNFPlanMA28andLACstandardsandyourresponsetothosecomments.PleaseincludetheLNFandRegionalNRAspecialiststenureinthatjob,Gradelevel,theirprofessionalrecreationeducationandprofessionalexperienceinNRAmanagement.Ifyouoverlookedthatreview,why?”(153,4)

FSResponse:ThereisnospecificdirectionrequiringconsultationwiththeRegionalOffice.ForestServiceManual(FSM)2370assignstheresponsibilitiesforthemanagementofaNRA.TheFSMdoesnotrequiretheForesttoconsultwithaRegionalManagerordefinetenure,grade,ortheprofessionalrecreationeducationandexperienceofpersonnelinNRAmanagement.Inaddition,thereisnoonespecificallyassignedasaRegionalNRAManagerinRegionOne.


A‐16

10. “The1986LNFPlanpagei,listsalltheLNFPlanManagementAreas(MAs)andsayswhetherroadsareallowedinthatMA.UnderMA28,forroads,itsays“no”.RoadbuildinginMWEAalternativesBandCviolatethat“no”roadsstatementintheLNFPlan…RNRAWIssuesandConcernspage6ItemL.ROADSANDTRAILS…includesnomentionofnewroadconstructioneitherpermanentortemporary…becausetheywerenotallowedintheRNRA(LNFPlanpagei).”(153,7and14)

FSResponse:ThepagethatthecommenterisreferringtoisnotapageintheLoloNFForestPlan(1986);itisadocumentthatwaswritteninMay,1987toprovideemployeeswithaquickreferencetobeusedwheninitiallyconsideringactivitieswithinamanagementarea.This“quickreference”doesnotreplaceorinanywaycontradictthecontentsoftheForestPlanwhichprovidesamorethoroughexplanationofthestandardsofthemanagementareas.TheForestPlanasamendedbytheLimitsofAcceptableChange‐basedManagementDirectiondonotstatethatroadconstructionisprohibited.MA28Standard14states,“Roadaccessmaybeprovidedtomeetadministrative,recreation,andeducationobjectives.”TheactionsproposedintheMarshallWoodsprojectareadministrativeintendedtomaintainrestorevegetationandaddressfuels.Inadditiontheroadsproposedtoaccomplishtheseobjectivesaretemporaryandwouldberemovedfromthelandscapefollowinguse.

11. “MA28Standard15says:Timberremovalwillbelimitedtothatneededtomaintainandimproverecreationvalues.ThecommercialloggingandroadbuildinginMWalternativesBandCdoesnotimproverecreationvalues.TheMWrecreationreportsaysoutdoorrecreationisconsideredahighvaluefortheMissoulacommunity,buthowdoesthatrelatetocommercialloggingandroadbuildingintheRNRA?HastheMissoulacommunitytoldyouthatyouhavetologandbuildroadsintheRNRAtomaintainorimproverecreationvaluesintheRNRA?”(153,9)

FSResponse:InJuneof2014,theCityofMissoulainitiatedacomprehensivestudytodevelopagrowthpolicyfortheCityknownastheOURMISSOULAproject.Theyconducted30ListeningSessionwhichinterviewedmultiplesectorsoftheMissoulacommunitytoaddresseconomicdevelopmenttosocialservicesandconsideredothertopicslikeartandcultureaswellasagingneeds(ProjectFile,ItemO‐414).AllthegroupsidentifiedoutdoorrecreationasanimportantpartoftheMissoulalifestyle(RecreationSpecialist’sReport,p.22).Whilecommercialloggingandtemporaryroadbuildingisnotspecificallystatedasavalue,theindirectresultofimprovingtheecologicalintegritytoensurefuturegenerationscanenjoythebenefitsofoutdoorrecreationasexperiencedtodaycouldbeconsideredanimpliedaspirationofthecommunity(ingeneral).Additionally,refertoresponsetocomment#22whichsummarizesthepublicinvolvementconductedfortheMarshallWoodsproject.

12. “MA28Standard39saysTheHomesteadMeadowswillbetreatedbyburning,hand‐piling,and/orcuttingtoremoveinvadingtreesandnoxiousweedstoretainthetypicalclearedhomesteadappearance”...Previously…”weonlyhandcutandhandpiledencroachingtrees


A‐17

inStrawberryMeadows.Themeaningofthisstandardfrom1991to2011hadalreadybeendecidedandimplementedintheRNRA.Ifcommercialloggingwasallowed,wewouldhaveloggedStrawberryMeadowsandtheadjacenthillsideswhenwedidthetreeencroachmentcuttingprojectthere.Whathaschangedinrelationtoapplicationofthisstandardsince2011?”(153,12)

FSResponse:AsisstatedonEAp.12,thatinterpretationofthestandardwasimplementedthroughtheRattlesnakeNRAWildlifeHabitatImprovementandEcosystemMaintenanceBurningDecisionNotice(1997).AsdiscussedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.41andEApp.38‐39and119,allactionalternatives(B‐D)proposethesamemeadowandaspenrestorationtreatments“alongthemainRattlesnakeTrailandinthePoeMeadowsarea(Units100Aand100B).Treeencroachmentisconvertingthesehomesteadmeadowsintoforestedareasandresultinginthedeclineofsmallaspengroves.Tomaintainmeadowsandaspen,theproposalwouldreduceorremoveconiferencroachment.Treeswouldbecutandleftonsite.Theslashwouldbetreatedbyloppingandscattering,handpilingandburning,and/orchipping.Whereaspenarepresent,parenttreeswouldberetainedandsurroundingconiferswouldbefelledtoprovidesufficientlighttostimulateaspenregeneration.Felledtreeswouldbejack‐strawedaroundaspenclumpstoreducebrowsingpressureonregeneratingsprouts.Lightjackpotburningandconstructionandmaintenanceofsmallexclosuresmayalsooccurtostimulatesuckeringandprotectyoungaspentreesfrombiggamebrowsing.Integratedweedtreatmentswouldcontinueintheseareas.”Page36ofLACallowsthemanagerto“selectwhichmanagementaction(s)willbetakenonsitespecificreviewofthedegreeandcircumstances…”

13. “MA28Standard40saysTheponderosapineflatbetweenSpringCreekandPoeMeadowborderedbyStrawberryRidgeandRattlesnakeCreekwillbetreatedbycuttingand/orprescribedfiretoencourageamosaicofold‐growthpinewithinterspersedopeningsandthickets…If“cutting”meantcommerciallogging,thestandardshouldhavesaidtreatedloggingorcommercialtimbercuttingorlogremoval.Cuttingdoesn’tmeancommerciallogging.Whywouldthisstandardhavebeenwrittentoallowcommercialloggingbutnotplainlyandtransparentlystatethat?”(153,13)

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsEAconsideredarangeofalternativeswhichconductstheneededtreatmentsusingeithernon‐commercialandcommercialtreatments.Throughanalysis,wefoundthatthealternativeswhichuseonlynon‐commercialtreatmentsarenotaseffectiveasthecommercialtreatmentsandonlypartiallyachievetheobjectivesforfuelsandstandhealth.TreecuttingisnotdefinedbytheForestPlan.ItisalsonotdefinedbytheLAC.Page36ofLACallowsthemanagerto“selectwhichmanagementaction(s)willbetakenonsitespecificreviewofthedegreeandcircumstances…”

14. “Area‐WidePoliciesLACDirectionpage15statesintheareawidepolicyaboutvegetationtreatmentdirectionfortheHomesteadMeadowsandtheFlatbetweenSpringCreekandPoeMeadows,“direction”meansavegetationmanagementprescriptionconsistentwiththe


A‐18

RSActandotherLNFPlanandLACstandards.Anysuchdirectioncouldn’toverrideotherLNFPlanorLACstandardsunlessthatobjectiveclearlystatedintheMWEA,conductedwithtransparentpublicinvolvementthatthat’syourobjectiveandincludedasadecisiontobemadeintheMWanalysis.Thisobjectiveisn’tincludedintheMWEAorfourobjectivesoftheMWproject.IfimplementingthisareawidepolicywasoneoftheobjectivesoftheMWproject,whywasn’tthatclearlyandtransparentlystatedasoneoftheobjectivesoftheMWanalysisintheEA?...AlsonotethatsitespecificanalysisaccordingtotheLACDirection(whichispartoftheLNFPlan)wouldapplyonlytotheHomesteadMeadowsandtheFlatbetweenSpringCreekandPoeMeadows,notanyotherOpportunityClassesorgeographicareasoftheRNRA.”(153,16)

FSResponse:UnderFIREANDLADDERFUELS(AppendixO‐4oftheForestPlan(LAC)p.30)thevegetationtreatmentsareextendedtoOC3,4,5,and6wheretreecuttingwillbeallowedtoreducehighhazardladderfuelsandtofacilitateprescribedburning(TableV‐1,p.30oftheLAC).The“Area‐widePolicies”onp.15oftheLAC(AppendixO‐4)states,“vegetationtreatmentdirectionforHomesteadmeadowsandtheflatbetweenSpringCreekandPoeMeadowswillbedeterminedthroughfuturesitespecificanalysiswithpublicinvolvement”.TheMarshallWoodsEAisasite‐specificanalysiswithpublicinvolvementasissummarizedintheresponsetocomment#22.TheLACstandardsallowustocompleterisksurveysbeforesettingstandards.Theyalsoallowustocomparecomposition.Eventhoughavegstandardwasnotset,page36allowsthemanagertodeterminewhatmanagementactionsareneeded.

15. “LACDirectionpage36:MANAGEMENTACTIONSFORTHEPREFERREDALTERNATIVETableVIII‐1listsrecommendedmanagementactionsandstatesthatgenerallymanagementstrategiesthatareleastintrusivewillbeimplementedfirst.Youhaven’ttried“leastintrusive”managementactionssuchasthoseincludedinMWAlternativeDORothersuggestionsforlessobtrusivemanagementactions.”(153,17)

FSResponse:AsincludedintheFAQsp.6,“Theproposedaction,AlternativeB,wasdesignedtoincreaseresilienceofvegetativecommunitiesanddecreasehighintensitywildfirepotential,andenhancefirefighterefficiencyandsafetywithinthewildlandurbaninterface.TheRattlesnakewasidentifiedasthesecondhighestwildfireriskintheMissoulaCountyCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan.The225acresproposedforcommercialharvestalongthemainRattlesnakecorridorarethemostat‐riskareastostand‐replacingwildfire…AlternativeBwasdesignedtoreducehighlyhazardousconditions…alltreatmentsweredesignedtoemploythelightest‐touchapproachtoeffectivelymeetthepurposeandneedoftheproject.Forexample,ifhandthinningorprescribedburningalonewouldeffectivelyreducethehazard,thatisthetreatmentproposedinAlternativeB.WithinUnits2and3,thetreesaresimplytoolargeandstandconditionstoodensetoeffectivelyreducetheextremehazardintheareawithouttheuseofmachinery”(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11).Alsorefertoresponsetocomment#97.


A‐19

Inaddition,page36oftheLACallowsformanagerialdiscretion.Inthiscase,wehaveconductedananalysistodetermineneeds.Wehaveoffereddifferentapproachestoachievingthoseneedswithouralternatives.TheLineOfficerhasthediscretiontoskipoverthelessintrusiveactionsiftheyfeelthattheywouldnotbeeffectivebasedonpastexperienceandknowledge,ortheLineOfficercanselectthelessintrusivealternativethatdoesnotdocommercialharvestatthistime.

GENERALCOMMENTSABOUTTHENEPAPROCESS

16. …”thispredecisionalEAisnotbasedonbestavailablescience.”(22,1)FSResponse:Adecisionhasnotbeenmade.Variousalternativesweredevelopedtocomparedifferentapproachestomeetingtheprojectspurposeandneed,thereforeitisnotpredecisional.Thescientificmethodologythatwasusedintheanalysisisdiscussedinthemethodologysectionsofeachspecialist’sreportandtheliteratureusedislistedinEAAppendixB.TheIDTeamalsoreviewedtheliteraturesubmittedand/orcitedbythecommenters.

17. “…pleasepostyourresponsestopubliccommentsonlineaswellasmaintainingahardcopyintheProjectFile.”(22,4)

FSResponse:TheresponsetopubliccommentwillbeincludedasanappendixtotheDRAFTDecisionNotice,whichwillbepostedon‐lineashasbeenourstandardpracticeformanyyears.

18. “Pleaseanalyzeindetailanalternativethatdoesnotconstructorre‐constructanynewroads.”(22,8)

FSResponse:AlternativesAandD,bothanalyzedindetail,donotincludeanytemporaryroadconstruction.

19. “…youproposetoamendyourforestplantoallowyoutocommerciallylogaportionoftheRattlesnakeNRA.Thiswillviolateyourforestplanscenerystandards.”(22,9)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedonEApp.32‐33,AlternativesBandCwouldrequireaForestPlanamendmentforvisualqualitystandards;howeverlongtermsceneryobjectiveswouldbemetandimproveduponasstatedinScenerySpecialist’sReportandEA.TheForestPlanallowsforsitespecificamendmentstoachievemanagementobjectives.

20. Theenvironmentaleffectsdisclosuresareflawed…”eachIDTmemberstillhastimetomodifythetexttheyauthored.”(37)


A‐20

FSResponse:ThecommenterfailstodemonstratehowtheeffectsanalysisisinsufficientandthereforenosupportingreasonsareraisedfortheResponsibleOfficialtoconsider.

21. Thecommentperiodneedstobeextended.(41)FSResponse:ThecommentperiodwasextendedfromitsoriginalenddateofApril6toApril30,2015;thisextensionalongwiththeearlypostingoftheEAontheLoloNFwebsite(February25)providedacommentperiodof61dayswhichistwotimeslongerthantheregulationsrequire(36C.F.R.218.24(b)(4)).

22. “…therehasbeenalackofpublicengagementonthisproject.”(52,2)FSResponse:ThefollowingsummarizesthepublicinvolvementandcollaborationeffortsfortheMarshallWoodsproject(EAp.24andsupplementedbyactivitiesfollowingtheEA’srelease):

SelectedforrestorationactivitiesbytheLoloRestorationCommittee(LRC)in2008.PurposeandNeedwasdevelopedcollaborativelywiththeLRC.

MissoulaDistrictandLRCjointlyhostedtwopre‐scopingopenhousesonFebruary3and24,2010.NewsreleasesweresenttotheMissoulianonJanuary25andFebruary16,2010(ProjectFile,ItemsB‐4and11).Notificationwassentto1,724residencesincluding664homesintheFoxFarm,LincolnHills,andRattlesnakeDriveareas;410residencesintheUpperRattlesnake;and,650homesmostlylocatedupDuncanDrive(ProjectFile,ItemsB‐12and13).Approximately61peopleattended(ProjectFile,ItemsB‐8and15).

AnarticleabouttheprojectwaspublishedintheMissoulianonFebruary2,2010whichincludednotificationoftheopenhouseFebruary3(ProjectFile,ItemB‐3).

MissoulaDistrictandLRCjointlyhostedtwopublicfieldtripsonAugust3and5,2010.AnewsreleasewassenttotheMissoulianonJuly30,2010(ProjectFile,ItemB‐31).Notificationwassentto145individuals/groupswhohadexpressedinterestintheprojectorprojectsofthistype(ProjectFile,ItemsB‐25and27‐30).Approximately40peopleattended(ProjectFile,ItemsB‐34and37).

InformationalmaterialwithdescriptionsoftheproposedtreatmentsincludingbeforeandafterphotosalongwithhowtobeinvolvedintheprojectplanningwaspostedattheRattlesnakeTrailheadandatproposedUnits2and3and4‐6inSeptember2010(ProjectFile,ItemsC‐6‐8).AsdiscussedintheRecreationSpecialist’sReport(p.16)theestimatedtrafficcountalongthemaincorridorinSeptember2010wasapprox.6,536countssuggestingthisinformationcouldhavebeenwidelyviewed.

Scopingletterwassentto91individuals/groupswhohadexpressedinterestintheprojectorprojectsofthistypeonAugust23,2010(ProjectFile,ItemsC‐1‐4).TheForestreceived39scopingcomments(ProjectFile,ItemsD‐1‐45).

TheMissoulianpublishedafrontpagearticleonitsSundayeditionabouttheproposedprojectonSeptember12,2010(ProjectFile,ItemC‐9).


A‐21

AwebpagededicatedsolelytotheMarshallWoodsprojectwentliveonJanuary20,2015.

TheEAwaspostedon‐line(i.e.,a“soft‐release”)onFebruary25,2015;notificationwassentto35individuals/groupswhohadexpressedinterestintheprojectandprovidedtheircontactinformation(ProjectFile,ItemsE‐3‐6).

EAcommentperiodwasMarch6–April6,2015;anextensionwasgranteduntilApril30makingtheEAavailableforstudybyreviewersformorethantwiceaslongastheregulationsrequire(ProjectFile,ItemE‐25)

InformationalmaterialsabouttheprojectandEAcommentperiodwerepostedattheRattlesnakeMainTrailhead,RattlesnakeHorseTrailhead,SawmillGulchTrailheadandWoodsGulchTrailheadonMarch17,2015(ProjectFile,ItemsE‐15and17).

ArticleswerepublishedintheMissoulianonMarch15and19,2015(ProjectFile,ItemsE‐14and22).

PublicMeetingwasheldMarch18,2016.Notificationsentto35individuals/groupwhohadexpressedinterestintheprojectandprovidedtheiremailaddresses.Themeetingwasattendedbyapprox.70people(ProjectFile,ItemE‐21).

NumerousmeetingsandpresentationsincludingLRC,ConservationLandsAdvisoryCouncil,AudubonSociety,MissoulaNordicClub,MissoulaMayor’sOfficeandWard1Aldermen,MountainBikeMissoula,CityParksandRecreationCommittee,BackcountryHorsemen,SocietyofAmericanForesters,andMissoulaFireProtectionAssociation,MontanaWildernessAssociation,andAirQualityBoard(ProjectFile,ItemE‐41).

NewsReleaseannouncingcommentperiodextensionwassentonApril2,2015(ProjectFile,ItemE‐25).

NewsReleaseannouncingpublicfieldtripswassentonApril8,2015(ProjectFile,ItemE‐28).

Radiointerview(KGVO)byteamleaderdiscussingtheprojectoccurredonApril9,2015.

PubicFieldTripsonApril14and18,2015.Approximately41peopleattended(ProjectFile,ItemsE‐33and35).

23. TheFS“shouldmakeabetterpublicrelationseffortinstressingthatthepointoftheproject

isn’tlogging,buthabitatimprovementandfirereduction.”(186)FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#22above.

24. “Whyistheprojectareasolarge?...TheproposedloggingmakessenseinMarshallCanyonandespeciallyonsection31…sowhydoestheprojectboundaryincludethemainRattlesnakeCreekandalltheprivatelandsallthewaydowntoI‐90?”(74,2;147,4)

FSResponse:Ateachproject’sinitiation,theIDTeamdelineatesanadequate,logicalboundaryfortheiranalyses.Theprojectareaboundaryencompassesallproposed


A‐22

activities.Theboundarymaybeexpandedtoallowforconsiderationofeffectsoftheprojectonvariousresourcesincludingfish,wildlife,water,fire,andhumanuses.FortheMarshallWoodsproject,theprojectboundarywasdevelopedtoallowfortheassessmentofthecumulativeeffectsoftheprojectontheNRA,watersheds,wildlifehabitat,etc.TheEAspecificallydisplaystheeffectsoftheprojectontheNRA.Analysisisalsoconductedtodisplaytheeffectsonindividualresources.

25. “TheProjectBoundaryIncludesAreasofLandNotIncludedintheProject…Theprojectboundaryincludesmorethan1,000acresofCityofMissoulaOpenSpacelands...TheprojectboundaryalsoincludesthelowerRattlesnakeresidentialarea,milesawayfromtheproject’streatmentunits…Theactualtreatmentunits,whensummed,arelessthan5,000acres.ArtificiallyexpandingtheprojectareaboundaryalsoskewsthefigurespresentedforhowmuchoftheprojectareaiswithintheNRA.NEPArequiresaclearandunderstandableanalysisforpublicreviewandcommentandmanipulationofnumbersdoesnotcomply.”(162,14)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#24above.TheEA(p.12)isalsoclearregardinghowtheacreagesaredividedamongstownerships.

26. “Statedobjectives,thirdbullet,p.18—Insteadofproviding‘…educationopportunitiestobuildsupportforrestoration,’whynotprovide‘…educationopportunitiestobuildsupportforincreasingthelevelofhomesafetysothatwhentheinevitablefiredoesburnintheRattlesnake,wecanthencelebratethenaturalroleofmixed‐severityfireinasystembornandmaintainedbysuchfire?’”(124,7)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedonEApp.23‐24,thepurposeandneedandprojectobjectivesweredevelopedthroughworkingwiththeLRC.EAp.126discusseshowrepresentativestakeholdersareworkingtogetheracrossvariouslandsandjurisdictionstocreatefire‐adaptedcommunities.

27. “RegardingtheEAdocumentitself,Iwasparticularlyawarethatthemapofthealternatives(pages82,83and84)didnotshowslopegradients…Alsohelpfulwouldbeaglossaryoftermsandacronyms.”(136,3)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcarefulexaminationoftheanalysis.Generallyitiscost‐prohibitivetoincludemapsaddressingeveryfeatureofthelandscape;however,theIDTeam’sanalysisincludesusingnumerousmapsandspatialtools(e.g.,GIS).Asapractice,additionalinformationcanberequestedbythepublic,anditistypicallypostedontheLoloNF’swebsiteforpublicviewing.Regardingincludingaglossary,termsaredefinedandacronymsspeltoutthefirsttimetheyareusedinthetext;itthenbecomesthereader’sresponsibilitytorememberthemthroughsubsequenttext.Searchableelectronicversionsofplanningdocuments,suchastheMarshallWoodsEA,arepostedontheLolo’swebsiteand/oravailableonCDandcanaidthereaderinsearchingforspecifictext.


A‐23

28. “Politicallyandhistorically,the“donothing”or“doaslittleaspossible”strategyfor

managingforesthealthisquitefrequentlythemostpopularone‐‐itoffersmanyinthepublicthesatisfactionofhavingstoppedanothermisguidedattackonabelovedresource,anditoffersmanagersawelcomerespitefromcriticismandultimately,litigation.ButaslandscapesliketheMarshall‐WoodsandNRAareunawareofhowthey’vebeenclassifiedbyman(as“NRA”,vs.”federalforest”,“wilderness,“nationalpark”,“cityorcountyopenspace”,etc.),theirecosystemdynamicstrundlealongovertimeprettymuchsubjecttothelargerforcesofclimate,thousandyearoldfireregimesandfireecology,andpathogenpopulationdynamicstheysharewithanysimilarregion.Aswelegitimatelysetcertainareas‐‐liketheNRA‐‐asideforparticularpurposes,westillhavetorecognizeandrespondtothesenaturalecosystemdynamics…”(175,1)

FSResponse:Theprojectanalyzesarangeofproposedactivitiesthroughthefouralternativesrangingfromdoingnothingtodoinglittletotakingmoreaggressivemanagementactions.TheEAdisplaystheeffectsofpastmanagementandnaturalprocessesandtheoutcomesofthispastastheexistingsituation.Theprojectisdesignedtorespondtothesepasteventsandrestoreandmaintainconditionswhichrespondtobothnaturalandhumanneeds.

29. “…theboundaryshouldbeexpandedtoincludetheareainareajustnorthoftheMountainWaterCo.pond(sec.2),SawmillandSpringGulches.Theseareaslaytothewestofmanyrattlesnakeresidencesandgivenprevailingwindsthelackoftreatmentonaportionoftheselands,contributessignificantwildfirerisktoresidencesintheRattlesnake.”(147,3;147,25)

FSResponse:Pleaseseetheresponsetocomment#24above.

30. TheobjectivesinthepurposeandneedstatementsintheEAshouldbere‐wordedtobettertietomanagementdirectionandprovideclarification.(147,5)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#26above.

31. “IsuggestanalysisofalternativeC&Dunitsrequiringthecutting,pilingandburningofthelargertrees,resultinginthesameprescriptionasalternativeBshouldbedisplayed.Assurfacedinthefieldtours,manypeopledonotknowwhythatissodifficultandcostlyandtheEAdoesnotaddressthisalternative.TheeffectsshouldshowhowmuchCO2andmethanewouldbereleased,thetonsofparticulatematterreleased,theaddedinvasiveweedtreatmentthatwouldbenecessaryasthelargepilesofslashwouldscorchamuchlargerareaofsoil,thelargepileswouldlikelyscorchandkillsomeofthelargertreesthatwereleftanddisplaytheadditionalcostthatwouldbeinvolvedtoachievethedesiredcondition.”(147,6)


A‐24

FSResponse:Whilethiswouldbeinterestingtodisplay,thealternativesweredevelopedinresponsetotheissuesbroughtforwardduringscopingin2010.Sincethiswasnotsuggestedatthattime,itwasnotincludedinanyalternatives,andwillnotbeaddressedinthisanalysis.Inaddition,thisrangeofeffectswasalreadydisplayedinAlternativeB.Alsoseeresponsestocomment#s103and104.

32. “…themaplegendshowstwoshadesofyellowforlandownershipasBLMandPlumCreek.Theseareveryhardtodifferentiate.AlsoIbelievealltheformerPCTClandonthemapsarenowTNC.AlsotheMissoulaCoopenspacelandsonMtJumboandtheNorthHillsareinyellowandthatownershipisnotinthelegend.”(147,7)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.TheBLMandPlumCreekcolorsinthelegendareanerror;thereisnoBLMorPlumCreekownershipinthevicinityoftheproject.Wewillcorrectthisonsubsequentmaps.TheMissoulaCountyOpenspacelandsthatshowupasayellowish‐tanareinthelegendnearthetop.

33. “...iftheForestServiceintendstoimplementAlternativeBoritschiefcomponents,itmustprepareaFullEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)pursuanttotheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA).TheForestServicewouldalsoberequiredtoconductafull‐scalewatershedeffectsanalysispursuanttoINFISH.Duetothecomplexityoftheissues,thehighlevelofcontroversy,thethreatenedresourcesatstake,andreasonablyforeseeablecumulativeeffects,NEPArequirespreparationofafullEIS.”(162,1)

FSResponse:AsstatedonEAp.10,“thepurposeoftheEnvironmentalAssessmentistocomplywiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)andtoprovidesufficientevidence,analysisandbasicconclusionsfortheDecidingOfficertodeterminewhethertoprepareanenvironmentalimpactstatement(EIS)orafindingofnosignificantimpact(FONSI)”.Also,pleaseseetheresponsetocomment#133.

34. ”TheForestServiceHasDoneaPoorJobonPublicProcess,UnilaterallyDepartedtheCollaborativeProcessandHasUnderminedPublicTrust…TheLoloRestorationCommitteehasbeenthecollaborativepartneronthisprojectforseveralyears…therewereseveralcommercialunitsproposedwithintheRattlesnakeNRAoutsideofthemaincorridorandontheWoodsGulchsideoftheprojectareathatsurprisedatleastsomemembersoftheLRC.ThiswasalsothefirsttimethattemporaryroadbuildingintheNRAwasproposed.”(162,8)

FSResponse:ThecommercialunitswithintheNRAoutsideofthemaincorridorontheWoodsGulchsideoftheprojectareaaswellasthetemporaryroadsproposedtherehavebeenapartoftheProposedAction(AlternativeB)sincetheprojectwasscopedinAugust2010.AnyonewithinternetaccesscanverifythisbygoingtotheLoloNFNEPAProjectsWebpageandlookingatthescopingletter(http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31552).TheLRCjointlyhostedandpresentedatthepublicmeetingswiththeLoloNFwhenthis


A‐25

projectwasscoped;theProposedActionwaspresentedtothepublic.Furthermore,asaresultofscoping,theLRCsubmittedcommentssuggestingAlternativeCwhichalsoincludesthecommercialunitswithintheNRAoutsideofthemaincorridorontheWoodsGulchsideoftheprojectareaaswellasthetemporaryroadsproposedthere(ProjectFileItemC‐42).Alsorefertoresponsetocomment#22.

35. “ThereareseveralaspectsoftheNEPAprocesswhichhavebeeninadequate.TherewasasuddennotificationtothebroaderpublicsincetheForestServiceonlydidalargemailingtoresidentsintheverynorthernedgeofMissoulawithintheRattlesnakedrainage.”(162,9)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#22above.

36. “Thereisalsotheissueofaperceived‘pre‐decisionalbias’thatisprohibitedbyNEPA.AttheMarch18thpublicmeeting,theLoloRestorationCommitteewasnotallowedtospeakaspreviouslyagreedto.NoalternativeviewpointswerepresentedandonlymapsofAlternativeB,theProposedAction,weremadeavailabletothepublicandtheywerethewallmapsthatwereshownaswell...NowtheForestServiceisclaimingithasnopreferredalternative(DistrictRangerJenHensiek,fieldtrips).NEPArequiresthatanEAorEIScontainareasonablerangeofalternativesincludingaclearlyidentifiedpreferredalternative.”(162,10)

FSResponse:AlternativeBwaspresentedatthepublicmeetingbecauseitincludesthegreatestextentofactivities,anditwasexplainedthatAlternativesCandDincludesub‐setsoftheseactivities(ProjectFileItemE‐20).TheForestServicehasneveridentifieda“preferredalternative”fortheMarshallWoodsproject.FurthermoretheidentificationofapreferredalternativeforanEAisnotrequired(FSH1909.15(16)).

37. “…theForestServicedidnotadequatelyincorporatemanyscopingcommentsinitspreferredalternative,renderingAlternativeBnon‐responsivetothepubliccomment.”(162,11)

FSResponse:TheForestServicedoesnothavea“preferredalternative”.AsdescribedonEAp.25,“Basedoncommentsreceivedduringscoping,preliminaryissueswereidentifiedaswellaspotentialeffectsthatmightresultfromimplementingtheproposal.Furtheranalysisandprojectdevelopmentaddressedcommentseitherbydevelopingprojectdesigncriteriaandresourceprotectionmeasurestoavoid,offset,orreduceanypotentialeffectsoftheproject;developingandevaluatingalternatives;incorporatingthecommentintotheanalysistocheckandconfirmthatnosignificanteffectswouldbecausedbythetreatments;orexplainingwhythecommentsdidnotwarrantfurtheragencyresponse…AcontentanalysisofthecommentsandthedispositionorsummaryoftheanalysisofthosecommentsislocatedinAppendixC.”


A‐26

38. “WearegladthattheForestServicehasmadea‘decision’totreat<Section31>liketheRNRA,sowesuggesttheagencyfollowfurtheritsvaluesbyincludingaforestplanamendment“Decision”withthisproject,toadministrativelysetthemanagementofthisareaidenticaltotheRNRA.”(182,5)

FSResponse:ThemajorityofSection31,exceptaverysmallpieceintheSEcornerwhichisMA23(winterrange),hasalreadybeendesignatedasForestPlanMA28.Whiletheareaisbeingmanagedassuch,CongresshasnotacteduponthisbyamendingtheboundaryoftheNRA.

39. “Thankyouformakingthealternativemapslargerthanthestandard8½”x11”.Unfortunately,theForestServicemadethosemapshardtoread.Thesymbolsinthekeyforthevarioustreatmentsaresosmallit'salmostimpossibletofindtheircorrespondinglocationsonthemap.Thesamewiththelinearfeaturessuchasroads.They'reallsosmallyoucanhardlydiscernthecolor…ItwouldalsobeusefultoshowthelocationoftheRNRAonatleastonemapintheEA.”(182,38)

FSResponse:PleasenotethatonEAp.27,thereaderisdirectedtotheLoloNF’swebsitefor“larger,easiertoviewmapson‐line”.TheRNAboundaryisshownonFigure1(EA,p.11).

40. “WeincorporateourSeptember23,2010scopingcommentswithintheseEAcomments,sincetheyraisemanyissuesthatthisEAfailstoaddress.TheyareincludedintheAppendixofthesecomments,sopleaserespondtothem.”(182,39)

FSResponse:PleaseseeEAAppendixC–MarshallWoodsProjectCommentTrackingandIssueAnalysis.Allscopingcommentswererespondedto.Alsoseeresponsetocomment#37above.

41. “Pleasedisclose:1)whytheMWrecreationspecialistrepresentationwasreduced/downgradedinandafter20112)whythenextmostexperiencedrecreationspecialistontheMRDwasnotassignedtotheMWIDTinandafter2011toemphasizetheimportanceoftherecreationresourceintheRNRA3)howthecurrentMWrecreationspecialistcomparestootherMWIDTmembersinrelationtoexperienceandeducationintheirrespectivespecialtiesandgradeand4)whythenewrecreationspecialistwasputunderthedirectsupervisionandcontrolofthemostvocalcommercialtimberharvestingproponentontheMWIDT.”(153,5)

FSResponse:Commonly,andtheForestServiceisnoexception,organizationalstructurecontinuallychangesandadapts.Retirements,resignations,andemployeetransfersprovideexcellentopportunitiestore‐evaluateorganizationalstructure.ForestServiceIDTeamformationisdirectedbyFSH1909.15whichrequiresthatthe“teamhastheexpertisetoidentifyandtoevaluatethepotentialdirect,indirect,andcumulativesocial,economic,physicalandbiologicaleffectsoftheproposedactionanditsalternatives.”Attheindividual


A‐27

teamlevel,theResponsibleOfficialisresponsibleforensuringtheteamincludesthenecessaryskillmixtocompleteanadequateanalysis.ThebackgroundandcredentialsoftheMarshallWoodsIDTeamarebrieflysummarizedinEAAppendixA.ItshouldalsobenotedthatAppendixAincludesthe“core”teamofpreparers;inputandreviewwasprovidedbyotheremployeesasisperusualintheinterdisciplinaryteamsetting(FSH1909.15.12.2).

42. “Howcanyouproposeaprojectascontroversial,divisiveandaslargeasthisintheonlyNRAintheRegionandhaveNOOBJECTIVESorpurposeandneedthatsupportorevenmentionrecreationvaluesanywhereintheRNRA?(EAsummaryatpage9).SincethisistheonlyNRAintheRegion,whyisn’tmaintainingandimprovingrecreationvaluestheprimaryorevenastatedobjectiveorpurposeandneedoftheMWprojectthroughouttheNRAwherecommercialloggingandroadbuildingareproposed?(EAsummaryatpage9).WhyistheonlyrecreationrelatedobjectiveintheMWprojectlimitedto“diversetrail‐basedrecreationopportunities”andonlyinSection31whichisoutsidetheNRA?(EAsummaryatpage9)”(153,6)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedonEApp.23‐24,thepurposeandneedandprojectobjectivesweredevelopedthroughworkingwiththeLRC.Asdiscussedonp.23,“In2008aspartoftheLNF’scollaborativeeffortswiththeMFRC,thenForestSupervisorDeborahAustinagreedtoprovideanopportunityfortheLRCtoselectaprojectareaforrestorationactivities.ProjectareaselectionwasidentifiedbytheMFRCasanimportanttoolfordevelopingcommunitysupportforforestrestorationandmanagement.DevelopingprojectsthatareconsistentwiththeMFRC’s13RestorationPrincipleswasalsoidentifiedasimportanttogainingsupportforforestmanagementactivities.Inresponse,LNFresourcespecialistsandLRCmembersexaminedseveralareasacrosstheMissoulaandNinemileRangerDistrictsforrestorationopportunities.Aftercarefuldeliberation,theMarshallWoodsprojectareawasselectedbytheLRCbecauseofitscloseproximitytotheCityofMissoulaanduniqueopportunitiestoconductforestrestorationtreatmentswithinaNationalRecreationArea(NRA).”TheprojectareawasalsoselectedtoprovideeducationalopportunitiesasdiscussedonEAp.18.

43. “PleaseprovideliteratureortheanyreferencesyouhavetodocumentorsupportthatthepublicgoestotheRNRAtoreducetheirriskofbeingcaughtinaforestfire,toseeecologicalintegrity(orthatthereisevenanycommonpublicunderstandingastowhatthatmeans)oravoidthesightofdeadtrees.“Whyaren’tthereanyspecificobjectivesintheMWEAthatdealwithandstatethespecificLNFPlanMA28standards(includingbutnotlimitedtostandard15)throughouttheNRA?Forexample:WhyaretheobjectivesbeingdrivenbylogginginsteadofbyrecreationenhancementintheNRA?”(153,7)

FSResponse:Theprojectisdrivenbyrestorationobjectivesandtheprotectionofrecreationvaluesforthelong‐term.Alsorefertotheresponsetocomment#42.


A‐28

44. “PleaseincludeanddocumentintheMWEAtheestablishmentandmanagementhistoryintheRNRA,whythecitizensgroupinitiateddesignationoftheRNRAW,theForestServicepositionondesignationin1979,andhowtheRSAct,LNFPlanstandardsandLACstandardshavebeenapplied(withexamples)intheRNRAfrom1980to2015priortothereleaseoftheMWEA.”(153,9)

FSResponse:ThereisnorequirementtoincludetheestablishmentandmanagementhistoryoftheRNRAintheMarshallWoodsEA.PastactivitiesintheprojectareaaresummarizedinEAAppendixD.CompliancewithLoloNFPlanstandardsandLACstandardsareaddressedineachspecialist’sreport.TheRNRAWActisincludedintheProjectFile(ItemN‐1).Alsoseeresponsetocomment#1.

45. “Youshouldn’tchangestandardstomeetallowloggingandroadbuilding…However,ifyouwouldliketochangeallthestandardsthatarenotmetwithcommercialloggingintheRNRAtoclearlyallow/includeloggingasamanagementtoolintheRNRA…youshoulddoittransparentlywithfullpublicinvolvement.”(153,10)

FSResponse:Standardshavenotbeenchanged(seeresponsetocomment#s2,8,and10‐13).Theproposedaction(AlternativeB)wasscopedwith”fullpublicinvolvement”in2010asisexplainedindetailintheresponsetocomment#22.

46. “WastheFORinvitedintothecollaborativegroupforMWandifnotwhy?IftheFORwasnotinvitedintotheMWcollaborativeeffort,whateffortsdidyoumaketoinvite,involveorgettheircommentsduringthescopingandpublicinvolvementphasesoftheMWprojectpriortorollout?HaveyouinvitedtheFORintomeetwithyousincerollouttodiscusstheproject?”(153,18)

FSResponse:AsdescribedonEAp.23,the“collaborativegroup”thattheForestServiceworkedwithonthisprojectwastheLoloRestorationCommittee(LRC).TheLRCisadiversegroupoflocalvolunteersandisaprivateinitiativenotconvenedormanagedbytheForestService.AllofthecontactsandcommunicationsfromthisgrouptothegeneralpublicorotherorganizationsarenotknownbytheForestService;howeverinastatementmadebyJakeKrelick(LRCChair)on4/27/2015,hesaysthatin2010“theLRCheldselectedmeetingswithkeystakeholdersincludingtheFriendoftheRattlesnake”…”toseektheirinputontheproposedproject”(ProjectFile,ItemK‐39)..ThemembershipoftheFORisalsonotknownbytheForestService;howeverweareawarethatthecontactforthegroupisCassChinske.ThemailingfortheAugust2010fieldtripswassenttoMr.Chinske(ProjectFileItemB‐29),buthedidnotattend.Sincetheroll‐outoftheEA,ForestServicestaffmembershavecommunicatedwithMr.Chinskemultipletimes,andtheLoloNFForestSupervisormetwithhiminpersononMarch20,2015(ProjectFileItemE‐41).Alsopleaseseetheresponsetocomment#22aboveregardingthepublicoutreachandinvolvementthatoccurredforthisproject.


A‐29

VEGETATION47. “Openinguptheforestisdesirablebutnottotheexclusionofallthicketsofsmall‐sized

trees.SomethicketsofsmallDFandPPshouldbeleftastheyareimportanthabitatnichesforvariouswildlifespeciessuchasgroundandlowercanopynestingsongbirds.”(2,1)

FSResponse:Asdisclosedintheanalysis,EAp.116andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.39:“Changesattributabletofire‐inducedmortality,barkbeetlepredation,andnaturaldisturbancesresultingreaterpatternvariationandthecreationofclumps,openingsandregenerationovertimeandAlternativeBisdesignedprovidesuchheterogeneity(Churchilletal.,2013).Stand‐basedaverageBAandspacingbasedsilviculturalprescriptions,especiallyovercontiguousstands,donotrestorethevariationandpatternthatexistedwhenfrequentfireoccurred(Churchilletal.,2013).UnderAlternativeBtheprescriptionwouldthinstandstoatargetaverageof50‐80squarefeetBAperacre,butprovideagreaterdensityrangeacrossthestand(30‐100variance),andretainclumpsofregenerationandsmallopeningsthatareimportantelementsofrestorationandresilience(Churchilletal.,2013).Spatialheterogeneityatmultiplescales,inadditiontoforeststructureandcomposition,areessentialtoecosystemresilienceandvaryingtheBAthroughoutthestand,coupledwithprescribedfiremortalitywouldprovideamoreresilientforest(Levin1998,Mortitzetal.2011,Northetal.2009,Stephensetal.2008).Fine‐scalemosaicpatternisconsideredakeycomponentofresilienceindryforestecosystems(Churchilletal.,2013;Binkleyetal.,2007;Stephensetal.,2010;Stephensetal.,2008).Irregularpatternscreatedbygroups,clumps,openingsandvariationinfuelsandcanopycanreducethepotentialandspreadofcrownfire(thispatternisanalogoustostrategicallyplacedfueltreatmentsatthelandscapescale)(Finneyetal.,2007).”

48. “The21inchdbhcutofflimitfornocuttingseemstoohigh.Itisnotapparenthowthatlimitwasarrivedatbutitwouldexcludemanylargeimportanttrees.Alimitconsiderablesmaller,suchas16‐18inchesisneededtoretainvaluablelargetreesonthelandscape.Howwillleavetreesbedeterminedintheharvestunits?”(2,2)

FSResponse:Thereason21”dbhtreeswereidentifiedintheEAp.104andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.27‐28,underthesectiontitled‘TreatmentsAffectingLargeTreeRetention’,isbasedoldgrowthcriteriaidentifiedbytheForestPlanandGreenandothers(1992).The‘thinanduseprescribedfire’treatmentsanalyzedintheEAdonotincludea“21inchdbhcutofflimit”asyousuggest,rather,asdisclosedintheEAp.104andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.27,“Alltreatments,inallalternatives,aredesignedtoretainlarge,fire‐resistantponderosapineandwesternlarchwheretheyoccurwithinthelimitsofthetreatmentdesign(i.e.diameterlimitsinAlternativesCandDwouldpreventremovingtreescompetingwithlarger,remnanttreesinUnits70,71,2,and3andUnits70,71,and1‐6,respectively,leavingthemsusceptibletobarkbeetles,fireandotherstressors).TreatmentsinAlternativeB(Units1‐6)weredesignedtoprotectlargediameter(>21”dbh)ponderosapineandwesternlarchfromtheriskofstand‐replacingwildfiredue


A‐30

toladderfuelaccumulations,historicallyatypicalstanddensities,andhighsurfacefuelloading.”Forclarification,inallproposedtreatments,thelargest,healthiesttreespresentwouldbefeaturedirrespectiveofstanddiameterdistributions.AsstatedintheEAp.106andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.29,“Silviculturalprescriptionswouldfavortheretentionofthelargest,healthiestdominant/codominanttreestothedegreepossibletomeetunitobjectives.Toensurethis,aCertifiedSilviculturistwouldprepareorreviewsite‐specificprescriptionsandmarkingguides.Site‐specificsilviculturalprescriptionsand/ormarkingguidesmayincludetermssuchas“thinfrombelow”orspecifyanupperdiameterlimitoftreeseligibleforharvesttomeetthisobjective.Thiswouldretainlarge,healthytreestothedegreethepracticeisconsistentwiththeobjectiveofmaintainingorrestoringagivenstand.”PleaserefertotheEApp.113‐116andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.36‐39forgreaterdetailonleavetreeselection.Additionally,theFAQspp.6‐7provideadditionalinformationabouttreediameterswithintheMainRattlesnakecorridorthatwouldberemovedunderAlternativeB,“Mostofthetreesthatwouldberemovedarelessthan100yearsoldandbetween7and16inchesindiameter”(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFileItemE‐11).Inaddition,asstatedonEAp.166andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.38‐39,“Akeyelementofrestorationandresilienceinvolvesretaininglarge,fire‐toleranttrees(AgeeandSkinner,2005;HessburgandAgee,2003;TaylorandSkinner,2003).Conversely,diameterlimits,asincludedinAlternativeDandinAlternativeCinUnits2and3,withouttheflexibilityforyoungtreeestablishmentorin‐standageclassvariationandheterogeneitymayactuallyconflictwithrestorationofspatialpatternsandotherobjectives(Churchhilletal.,2013;Abellaetal.;2006;Northetal.,2007)”.

49. “CommercialharvestinsomeofUnit5isappropriatebutnoteverywhere.Themoresoutherlyaspectsarenotovercrowdedwithunderstoryfirandtheoverstoryisnotoverlydense.Understoryburningwouldbeappropriatebutnotcommercialharvest.ItisnotworththeriskofweedinvasiontoputheavyequipmentonmuchofUnit5toharvestevenafewtrees.”(36,1)

FSResponse:Unit5ischaracterizedbyaponderosapineandDouglas‐firoverstorywithanaverageBAof140squarefeetandhighcanopycoveronapredominatelyDouglas‐fir/ninebarkhabitattype.Considerablebarkbeetlemortalityhasoccurredduetohighhazardandstresscomplexeswithintheunit.Thereisconsiderablevariabilityinthestockinglevelswithintheunit(ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.13;ProjectFile,ItemsM5‐47andM5‐50).Theentireunitareawouldlikelynotbeharvested,ratherunderAlternativesBandCtheunitisproposedforcableyarding;therefore,heavyequipmentwouldberestrictedtothetopoftheunitonorneartheproposedtemporaryroad.Cableyardingwithskylinesystemsinvolvesfullsuspensionoftheleadingedgeofthelogswithminimalgrounddisturbance.Itisanticipatedthattheareabelowthe513.1trailwithinUnit


A‐31

5wouldnotbeharvestedduetologgingsystemsrestrictionsandwouldbetreatednon‐commercially(EAp.36and114andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.36).Weedtreatmentsareincorporatedinprojectdesignandtreatmentsmaybemodifiedifnecessarytomitigatenoxiousweeds(EApp.60‐61)

50. “Idonotwantthisareatoresembleapark.Thereneedstobeunderbrushandoldwoodforhabitat.”(42)

FSResponse:Pleaserefertoresponsestocomment#s53and55below.

51. “I’mawarethattheForestServicemaybelievethatloggingandthinningactivitiesarenecessarytothecontinuedhealthofaforestbutIwouldurgeyoutoconsiderthatforestmanagementmaywellbeoptimizedbyallowingtheforesttomanageitselfinthelongrun.Forexample,considertheworkofDianaSix,aleadingforestentomologistattheUMDepartmentofEcosystemsandConservationSciencesandEricBiberatUCBerkley,whoseresearchshowedthattheForestService’sbeetlecontrolandsuppressioneffortshavereducedtreemortalityonlymarginally.”(120,1)

FSResponse:AsdisclosedandconsideredintheEAp.107andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.30,“Recently,Sixetal.(2014)questionedwhetherrelevantsciencesupportsMPB‘outbreaksuppression’.‘Outbreaksuppression’isnottheintentorobjectiveoftheMarshallWoodsproject,northemanagementstrategiesimplementedforMPBonNFSlandsinthewesternUnitedStatesassuggestedbythepaper(Eganetal.,2014,ProjectFileItemO‐532;Fettigetal.,2014,ProjectFileItemO‐535)”.“DirectcontrolisnotthepurposeorgoalofanytreatmentsproposedintheMarshallWoodsproject.Rather,silviculturalcommercialthinningtreatmentsinAlternativesBandCareintendedtoenhancethevigoroftreesandstandstomakethemlesssusceptibletoinsectattack.Thisapproachprovideslong‐termbenefitsinreducingbeetledepredations;itisnota‘quickfix’.”

52. “Statedobjectives,p.13—Ithinkthatyourfirststatedobjectiveof“restoringfunctioningecosystemsbyenhancingnaturalecologicalprocesses”isoverlyvague.Istheecosystemnotcurrentlyfunctioning?How,exactly,doesone“enhance”anecologicalprocess?Whichecologicalprocess?Shouldweeverbe“enhancing”orshouldwebe“maintaining”ecologicalprocesses,asdirectedbytheNFMA?Ihopeyouseetheabsurdityofthesekindsofstatements.IwouldstickwiththesafetyargumentsforloggingintheWUIandditchtheecologicalargumentsbecausetheecologicaljustificationisinappropriatelyappliedtoamixed‐coniferforestbornofmixed‐severityratherthanlow‐severityfire.”(124,1)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedintheEApp.13‐15subheadingsa‐cidentifiedmorespecificobjectivesthatwereanalyzed.Forexample,asdisclosedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.4‐7,PurposeandNeedsubheadinga,“Maintainandenhanceresilienceandresistanceofvegetativecommunities”,wasdiscussedandtheeffectsanalysisindicatorsweredescribedindetail.


A‐32

53. “VegetationTreatmentDescriptions,p.35—Prescribedfire(hereandp.116)doesnot

“emulatenaturalprocesses”orthekindsoffiresthatburnedherehistorically.Prescribedfiresburnatmuchlowerseveritiesthanhistoricalmixed‐severityfiresdidandtheyaregenerallyconductedoutofseason,sotheydoNOTemulatenaturalmixed‐severityfirestypicalofmixed‐coniferforestslikethoseintheprojectarea(SherriffandVeblen2006,Bakeretal.2007,Hessburgetal.2007,SherriffandVeblen2007,Klenneretal.2008,Amorosoetal.2011,Perryetal.2011,Schoennageletal.2011,Heyerdahletal.2012,WilliamsandBaker2012,Marcouxetal.2013,Odionetal.2014,Marcouxetal.2015).Accordingly,prescribedfireswillnot“promoteecosystemhealth,”asstatedunderthesecondstatedobjective;onlyamixed‐severityfirecandothat.Theuseofthinningandprescribedfireisalsosaidto“…mimicthemortalitycausedbysurfacefireorinter‐treecompetitionandconcentratethesiteresourcestothelargest,dominantponderosapineandwesternlarchtrees,”butthenaturalfireregimeofmixed‐coniferforestsintheRattlesnakeandelsewhereinwesternMontanaconsistsofmixed‐severityfire,notlow‐severityfire.Thus,Iwouldsuggestre‐focusingthegoaltowardsafetythroughthecreationofmorereadilydefensiblespaceduringawildfire;theecologicaljustificationisunsound.”(124,2)

FSResponse:OnEAp.35,thevarietyofprescribedfiretreatmenttypesaredescribed;any,all,oracombinationsoftreatmentmayoccurasdescribed.Theseasonality,burnintensity,andburnparametersarenotspecified.It’sunclearwhatthecommenterattemptstoreferenceonEAp.35.OnEAp.36,underthedescription‘thinandprescribedfire’,theEAstatesthat“thinningfrombelow(lowthinning)involvesremovingtreesfromthelowerpartoftheforestcanopy,leavingthelargest,healthiesttreestooccupythesite.Thetreatmentmimicsthemortalitycausedbysurfacefireorinter‐treecompetition…”ThinningfrombelowisjustoneofthetypesoftreatmentsdescribedonEApp.35‐37.Thedefinitionisastandardtermusedinforestryandwasincludedtoassistthereader.Thecommentercitesthestatementout‐of‐contextregardingwhatthatmeansandhowthetreatmentmayormaynotbeappliedtostands.Thedescriptionisaboutoneproposedthinningtreatment,notprescribedfireapplication,orhowprescribedfiretreatmentmayormaynotbeappliedtostands.

MixedorvariableseverityfireregimeswithintheMarshallWoodsareawerediscussedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportonpp.9‐11,“habitattypegroupsareassemblagesofhabitattypeswithsimilardisturbanceresponse,potentialstockingdensity,potentialproductivity,potentialdownwoodaccumulation,firefrequency,speciescompositionandstandstructures.Theyarealsobasedonenvironmentaltemperatureandmoistureregimes.ThegroupsusedinthisanalysisarebasedontheWesternMontanaZone,whichgenerallyencompassestheareafromtheBitterrootMountainDividetotheContinentalDivideintheRockyMountains,Montana(Greenetal,1992,errata2008).Habitattypesstratifysiteconditionsonthepotentialforasitetosupportplantcommunities.Withinanygivenhabitattypegroup,inclusionsofnon‐forestedsitesandriparianareasexistwherefireoccurrence,intensity,andresponsesmaydifferfromthemajorityofthearea.Referencestohistoricconditionsdescribetypicalecologicalconditionsthatexistedpriortotheperiodoffiresuppression,whichfortheMarshallWoodsareaisapproximately1650to1880(Heyerdahletal.,2008).Theuseofhistoricconditionsprovidesinsightonalteredfireregimesthatserveasstressorstofire‐dependentforestssuchasponderosapine(Joyceetal.,2008).


A‐33

NearlyalltheareaproposedfortreatmentunderAlternativesB,C,andDisoccupiedbyHabitatGroupB:(moderatelywarmanddry)including:themainRattlesnakecorridor,WoodsGulch,MarshallCreek,andSections31and33.ThishabitattypegroupissimilartoHabitatGroupA(warmanddry)inthatitsupportsrelativelyopengrownponderosapineandDouglas‐firforests.However,thesesitesoccurfurtheralongmoistureandtemperategradientresultinginkeyvegetationdifferences.Increasedmoistureavailabilityonthesesitesallowsthemtosupportgreatertreedensities.Shrubsandmoistsiteforbsdominatetheunderstory;pinegrass,elksedge,ninebarkandsnowberryareoftenwellrepresented.ThedominantfiregroupsaredryDouglas‐firhabitattypes(FireGroup4)andthemoisterDouglas‐firhabitattypes(FireGroup6)(FischerandBradley,1987).Onmanyofthesesites,Douglas‐firisavigorousmemberatstandinitiationaswellasofmatureforests.Ponderosapineandlodgepolepineareintolerantspecieswhoseabundancevariesbyhabitattypephase.WesternlarchisoftenaseraldominantonmoistDouglas‐firhabitattypes.Withinthishabitattypegroup,significantenvironmentaldifferencesmayoccur.Oncoolersites,suchasfrostpockets,lodgepolepineismoreprevalent(Pfisteretal.,1977).

Averagefirefrequencyrangedbetween5and50years.Historicallyfiresweremixedwithvariableintensitiesrangingfromfrequent,lowintensity,non‐lethal,understoryfirestoinfrequent,highintensity,stand‐replacementfires.Downed,deadfuelloadsaveragedabout12tonsperacre,butmayhavebeenmuchhigherastheyrangedfrom1to74tonsperacre(FischerandBradley,1987).Intheabsenceoffiredisturbancethecorrespondingincreaseinstanddensityandagemayresultinhighlevelsofinsectanddiseasemortality,blowdown,naturalthinning,andsnowbreakage.Withtheexceptionofrecentlyacquiredlands(Section33and31),muchoftheareaoccupiedbyHabitatTypeGroupBwithintheMarshallWoodsareacurrentlysupportsdense,continuous,closedcanopystands.MatureoverstockedDouglas‐firstandswithdenseunderstoriesoftenresultinmoderatetohighburnseverities(FischerandBradley,1987).ManyofthesesiteswithintheMarshallWoodsareapresentlysupportdense,Douglas‐firdominatedstandswithadecliningponderosapinecomponent.”

EAp.116states,“Prescribedfireapplicationwouldemulatenaturalprocesses(by)stimulatingforageproduction,creatingmicrositesfornaturalregeneration,andincreasedresiliencetofireinthefuture”.Againthisstatementiscitedout‐ofcontextasitwasincludedintheeffectsdisclosedonEApp.115‐117.

54. “VegetationTreatmentDescriptions,p.37—Itsaysthattreatmentswillmakestands

“…moreresilienttonaturalfireoccurrences.”A“resilient”landscapeis,bydefinition,onethatcanreturntoapre‐disturbanceconditionatsomepointafteritisdisturbed.Mostwesternforestlandscapes,includingtheforestsintheproposedtreatmentareaarealreadyquiteresilient!LANDFIREandotherdatabasesshowthatasmuchas90%ofallwesternforestsbelongtomixed‐andhigh‐severityfireregimes.Mostwesternforestsaredisturbance‐dependent,meaningthattheyevolvedinthefaceofrepeatedmixed‐andhigh‐severityfires.Theyare,therefore,alreadyquite“resilient”andfullycapableofreturning(throughthenaturalprocessofsuccession)toaconditionsimilartowheretheystartedafterafiredisturbance.”(124,3)

FSResponse:TheEAp.20andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.3explicitlydefineresilienceas,“Thecapacityofasystemtoabsorbdisturbanceandreorganizewhileundergoingchangesoastostillretainessentiallythesamefunction,structure,identity,andfeedbacks(FSM2020.5)”.Futhermore,ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.5states


A‐34

resiliencewillbemeasuredintheanalysisasthe“vulnerabilitytostressorsandabilityofstandstopersistthroughandreorganizeafterdisturbanceandmaintainbasicstructureandfunctionovertime.Measurementindicatorsincluderesiliencetofireandbarkbeetles(barkbeetlehazard)undercurrentandfutureconditions…Thetemporalresilienceofstandstobarkbeetlesandfirewillalsobeaddressed.”Thedefinitionandstatementprovidedbythecommenterthatresilienceis“onethatcanreturntoapre‐disturbanceconditionatsomepointafteritisdisturbed”isincorrect.Furthermore,theEAp.87andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.8statesthat“Naturaldisturbancesarenotdisruptionsinforestsrathertheyarethenormand…aredisturbancemediated.Thespeciesthatoccupytheseforestsevolvedwithandaremorphologicallyadaptedtoveryfrequentdisturbance,namelyfire.Theseforestsareever‐changinganddynamic;forestdevelopmenttypicallyfollowsaninitialfloristicpatternwherebyspeciesinvadeatapproximatelythesametimefollowingamajordisturbance,butassertdominanceatdifferenttimes(OliverandLarsen,1996).Thetype,size,scale,arrangement,duration,speciesaffected,etc.inadisturbanceeventdictatehowforestdevelopmentpatternsemergeafteritsoccurrence.”

55. “Directandindirecteffects,p.98—Hereandelsewhere,yourefertotheneedfor“…restorationofforeststructure,speciescomposition,function,andresilience.”Really?Wereovergrownforestsnothistoricallypresentinthislandscape?Aremixed‐coniferforestsnotdisturbance‐dependentecosystemswhereinhistoricalforestspeciescompositionsandstructurescomeandgowithstagesofnaturalsuccessionafterdisturbance?Ifthisforestsystemisaconstantlychangingseriesofforeststructuralconditions,thenwhyareyoupreoccupiedwiththe“restoration”ofoneparticularlate‐successionalstage(open‐grown,matureforest)?Mixed‐coniferforestswereneversteady‐statesystemsthatmaintainedthemselvesinonestructuralcondition—mixed‐coniferforestshavealwaysbeendynamicsystemsthatconsistofaninfinitenumberofforeststructures,andthecurrentconditioniswellwithinthehistoricalrangeofnaturalvariation,no?”(124,4)

FSResponse:Refertoresponsetocomment#53above,andreferencethefollowingexcerpts:ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.5states,“Toachievethepurposeandneed,standtreatmentsweredesignedto:1)Reducecrownfirepotentialandrestorefireasanecologicalprocessfocusingonlowintensity,highfrequencyandmixedseverityfireregimes;andincreasedresiliencetosurfacefireandbarkbeetles;2)Maintainorincreasethespeciescompositionoffire‐resistantshade‐intolerantspecies(e.g.,westernlarch,ponderosapine);anddesigntreatmentstoretainlargediameter,oldponderosapineandwesternlarchtreesandcreatestandconditionsthatcouldprovidelargetreesinthefuture;and3)Provideforageclass,speciesandstructuraldiversitytoreducevulnerabilitytostressors(e.g.,fire,insects,anddisease).”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.8,“Naturaldisturbancesarenotdisruptionsinforestsrathertheyarethenorm,andwarm,drylowelevationforests,likethosethatoccupyMarshallWoodsarea,aredisturbancemediated.Thespeciesthatoccupytheseforestsevolvedwithandaremorphologicallyadaptedtoveryfrequentdisturbance,namelyfire.Theseforestsareever‐changinganddynamic;forestdevelopmenttypicallyfollowsaninitialfloristicpatternwherebyspeciesinvadeatapproximatelythesametimefollowingamajordisturbance,butassertdominanceatdifferenttimes(OliverandLarsen,1996).Thetype,


A‐35

size,scale,arrangement,duration,speciesaffected,etc.inadisturbanceeventdictatehowforestdevelopmentpatternsemergeafteritsoccurrence.”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp9,“Itiswellacceptedthatongoingclimatechangeshavepushedregionalclimatesbeyondtheboundsofthelastseveralcenturies.Warmerclimatesareexpectedtoalterstresscomplexesthataffectforestsrenderingthemvulnerabletoincreasedfrequency,severityandextentofdisturbances,namelyfireandinsectoutbreaks(Joyceetal.,2008).”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp14,“Sincetheearly1920snaturalprocessessuchasfirehavebeenabatedtoprotectsocialvaluesinthe(MarshallWoods)area.Thesedisturbancemediatedforestshaveadaptedovermillenniawithveryfrequentfireandendemicinsectanddiseaseoccurrence.Values‐at‐riskandincreasingsettlementandrecreationalusewithintheWUIhaveprecludedthenaturalroleoffrequent,lowintensitysurfacefirestocontinuallyshapevegetationpatterns.Theresultissmallpatchsizesanddisturbancesthatprecludepatternsthatestablishlandscaperesilienceincludingheterogeneityandvariabilityinageclass,speciescomposition,foreststructureandfunction.”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.20‐21,“Thegeneraldesiredfutureconditionsarelistedbyhabitattypegroup.Theyprovidearangeofconditionstoguideactivemanagementbasedanunderstandingofhowecosystemsrespondtochangingconditionsgainedfromhistoricalconditions,aswellas,recognizethatcurrentandfutureconditionsareandwillbedifferent.Thefocusliesonanindeterministicapproachofdevelopingstructurallyandcompositionallydiverseforeststhataremediatedbyecologicalanddisturbanceprocesses.Theobjectiveistohedgebetsinthefaceofanuncertainfutureandstillenablecomparisonofcurrentconditions,andthetrendsordirectionofchangeofconditionstoassistmanagementdecisions.Overall,thedesiredfutureconditionsaddresslandscapesizeclassandstructuraldistributionsandtree‐stockinglevelsasastrategytominimizeforestvulnerabilitytostressorsconsistentwiththelong‐termdisturbancesexpectedundercurrentandfutureclimates(www.frcc.gov).Managinginthefaceofuncertaintyrequiresavarietyofapproachesandstrategiesthatarefocusedonenhancingecosystemresistanceandresilience.Thisinvolvesincreasedemphasisonecologicalprocessesandmanagingforchange,despiteuncertaintyaboutthedirectionormagnitudeofachangingclimate(Joyceetal.,2008).“RefertoForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.20‐21foradescriptionofthedesiredstructuralstagesandspeciescompositionbyhabitattypegroup.ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.22,“Projectdesignemploysanadaptiveapproachtomakeadjustmentsintheapplicationofhistoricalconditionsasareferencepoint.Flexibilityisincorporatedtoaddressinherentuncertaintyaboutthelocaleffectsofclimatechangebyenhancingtheresiliencyandresistanceoftheforests,andspecificaspectsofstructure,compositionandfunction(Joyceetal.,2008;Millaretal.,2007).”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.22,“Managingforresilientspatialpatternrequirescombiningreferenceconditionswithclimatechangeadaptation(Churchilletal.,2013).Pre‐settlementforestsdevelopedfollowingcenturiesoffrequentdisturbancesandclimaticvariation,andserveasaguideformanagerstoincreaseresilienceyetmustbeconsideredinthecontextoffutureclimatestoprovidetargetsforrestoration(Keeneetal.,2009;Spiesetal.,2010;Stephensetal.,2011).Properlyfunctioningsystemscanaccommodateprocessesincludingfire,insects,disease,andclimatechangeandprovidea


A‐36

sustainableflowofecosystemserviceswhetherornotthosesystemsarewithinthehistoricalrangeofvariation.Gilletteandothers(2014)concludedthat,“Managingforbiologicallydiverseandresilientforestsisourbestandonlylong‐term,sustainableresponsetoamultitudeofstressors–insectsanddiseaseoutbreaks,firesthatareunprecedentedinseverity,anddrought–thatarelikelytoincreaseinfrequencyasclimatechanges.Inthecaseofbarkbeetlesandotherstressors,thiscallingforgreater,science‐baseduseofsilviculturaltreatmentsthat,paradoxically,requiresometreemortalityforthegreaterresilienceoftheentireforest.”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.24,“Large‐scalethinningtoreducestanddensitytominimizedroughteffects,reduceimpactoflargewildfireevents,managethepotentialforincreasedinsectanddiseaseoutbreaks,andensureawidevarietyofspeciesandageclassesdiversity,whilemanagingforprocessesareapproachestofacilitateadaptioninthefaceofthechangingclimate(Joyceetal.,2008;Millaretal.,2007).”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.33,“Aspreviouslydiscussedhabitattypegroupsareassemblagesofhabitattypeswithsimilardisturbanceresponse,potentialstockingdensity,potentialproductivity,potentialdownwoodaccumulation,firefrequency,speciescompositionandstandstructures.Therefore,habitattypegroupisimportantwhenconsideringtheeffectsoftreatmentsonspeciescomposition,structure,function,resilience,resistanceandregeneration.WithintheMarshallWoodsarea,themostprofoundchangeshaveoccurredinthewarmanddryhabitattypes,HabitatTypeGroupsAandB.Notablechangesduetoreducedfireactivityinclude:1)anincreaseinfuelloadingsandbiomassresultinginlessavailablenutrients;2)lackofsuitableseedbedandconditionsforcontinuedsuccessfulregenerationoffire‐adaptedspecieslikeponderosapineandwesternlarch;3)higherinsectanddiseaselevelsasthesedisturbanceprocessesattempttosubstituteforthelackoffire;and,4)changesinvegetationcompositionandstructure.Withintheanalysisarea,mid‐agedcontinuous,denseforestdominatesmuchofthelandscapeandalackofplantspeciesandageandsizeclassdiversitycoupledwithdroughtandmildwintershavecontributedtoMPBactivityinthearea.Allactionalternativesproposetreatmentsinpredominantlydryhabitattypes(HabitatTypeGroupsA,B,andC)toaddressshiftsinforeststructure,compositionandfunction.AlltreatmentsinAlternativeBworktowardsrestoringthefire‐adaptedecosystembymovingtowardsthedesiredfuturecondition.Asmentionedpreviously,thisisnotastaticstateorstructurally/compositionallyonespecificcondition.“ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.38‐39,”Akeyelementofrestorationandresilienceinvolvesretaininglarge,fire‐toleranttrees(AgeeandSkinner,2005;HessburgandAgee,2003;TaylorandSkinner,2003).Conversely,diameterlimits,asincludedinAlternativeDandinAlternativeCinUnits2and3,withouttheflexibilityforyoungtreeestablishmentorin‐standageclassvariationandheterogeneitymayactuallyconflictwithrestorationofspatialpatternsandotherobjectives(Churchilletal.,2013;Abellaetal.;2006;Northetal.,2007).Additionally,AlternativeBwouldreducewildfirehazardoverthelong‐term(20‐30years)byrenderingstandsmoreresilienttonaturalfireoccurrenceandecosystemprocesses(M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33).Changesattributabletofire‐inducedmortality,barkbeetlepredation,andnaturaldisturbancesresultingreaterpatternvariationandthecreationofclumps,openingsandregenerationovertimeandAlternativeBisdesignedprovidesuch


A‐37

heterogeneity(Churchilletal.,2013).Stand‐basedaverageBAandspacingbasedsilviculturalprescriptions,especiallyovercontiguousstands,donotrestorethevariationandpatternthatexistedwhenfrequentfireoccurred(Churchilletal.,2013).UnderAlternativeBtheprescriptionwouldthinstandstoatargetaverageof50‐80squarefeetBAperacre,butprovideagreaterdensityrangeacrossthestand(30‐100variance),andretainclumpsofregenerationandsmallopeningsthatareimportantelementsofrestorationandresilience(Churchilletal.,2013).Spatialheterogeneityatmultiplescales,inadditiontoforeststructureandcomposition,areessentialtoecosystemresilienceandvaryingtheBAthroughoutthestand,coupledwithprescribedfiremortalitywouldprovideamoreresilientforest(Levin1998,Mortitzetal.2011,Northetal.2009,Stephensetal.2008).Fine‐scalemosaicpatternisconsideredakeycomponentofresilienceindryforestecosystems(Churchilletal.,2013;Binkleyetal.,2007;Stephensetal.,2010;Stephensetal.,2008).Irregularpatternscreatedbygroups,clumps,openingsandvariationinfuelsandcanopycanreducethepotentialandspreadofcrownfire(thispatternisanalogoustostrategicallyplacedfueltreatmentsatthelandscapescale)(Finneyetal.,2007).”

56. “TreatmentsAffectingInsectInfestation,p.106…Iamdisheartened,however,bythefocusonbeetlesasundesirablecomponentsofa“healthy”forest.Thevastmajorityofbirdspeciesdependonbeetleandotherinsectlarvaeasfood.NinetypercentofthestomachcontentsofseveralbirdspeciesintheIntermountainWestconsistofsprucebudwormlarvae,forexample.AhealthyforestisNOTanalogoustoahealthyindividualorganism—quitethecontrary!”(124,5)

FSResponse:Ahealthyforestwasnotdescribedasanalogoustoahealthyindividualorganism;norwerebeetlescharacterizedasundesirablecomponentsofahealthyforest.Rather,theEAdisclosedtheexistingconditionsofforestpathogens,includingbarkbeetles,andtheeffectsofthetreatmentsonpathogensandtheabilityofthefouralternativestomeetthepurposeandneedoftheproject.AsstatedonForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.4,thepurposeandneedisto“Maintainandenhanceresilienceandresistanceofvegetativecommunitieswhileensuringvisualquality….Toachievethepurposeandneed,standtreatmentsweredesignedto:1)Reducecrownfirepotentialandrestorefireasanecologicalprocessfocusingonlowintensity,highfrequencyandmixedseverityfireregimes;andincreasedresiliencetosurfacefireandbarkbeetles…and3)Provideforageclass,speciesandstructuraldiversitytoreducevulnerabilitytostressors(e.g.,fire,insects,anddisease).“Resilienceasaneffectsindictorisconsidered,“Evaluationofvulnerabilitytostressorsandabilityofstandstopersistthroughandreorganizeafterdisturbanceandmaintainbasicstructureandfunctionovertime.Measurementindicatorsincluderesilienceto…barkbeetles(barkbeetlehazard)undercurrentandfutureconditions.Attributesthatareconsistentlylinkedasprimaryfactorsassociatedwithbarkbeetleinfestationsarestanddensity,basalarea,standdensityindex,treediameterandhostdensity(Fettigetal,2007)(ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.5).AsdisclosedonForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.20‐21thedesiredfutureconditionsinclude,“Insectsanddiseasesatendemiclevels”.

57. “Onpage36theEAindicatesthethinningwillremove30‐60%oftheexistingcrown

cover…Italsosaysthat‘Mostofthetreesthatwouldberemovedarefromtheintermediatecrownclasseswithalloraportionoftheircrownsovertopped…‘Ithinkitwouldbea


A‐38

clearerdescriptiontoindicatethatco‐dominanttreeswillalsoberemovedparticularlyinthe60%removalportionsofthetreatments.Itisimpliedbysaying‘most’willbeintermediate,whichistechnicallytruebasedonthenumberoftrees,butintermsofbasalareatheco‐dominantswilllikelybeasmuchormoreinthe60%canopyremovalareas.”(147,8)

FSResponse:Co‐dominantswouldberemovedinAlternativeB(Units1‐6)andAlternativeC(Units1,4‐6).AsstatedonForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.36,andEApp.36and113‐114,“Theproposedtreatmentsinclude:crownthinningorthinningfrombelow;singletreeselection,creatingsmallopenings,removingtreestoimprovespeciescompositionandresidualtreequality(i.e.,improvementcutting),andremovalofindividualdead,dyinganddiseasedtrees.Theresidualoverstorymayhavesomesmallopenings…..Thethinningtreatmentsaredesignedto:1)favorfireanddisease‐resistantponderosapineandwesternlarchfirstand2)thinstandsfrombelowsecond.….Inaheavylowthinning,themaincanopymayalsobethinnedtoreducecompetition,density,andcrownfirepotential.”

58. “Units60‐66didnotindicatewhattheBAorcanopycoverreductionswouldbe,norforunits90‐92.Thefiguresonunits70‐71(p.38)are5‐25%andonpage112itindicatestheBAwouldbe86sqfeet.Ithinkthesedataarecriticalforevaluationofthealternatives.Thesefiguresaredirectlylinkedtothefire/fuelsevaluationandshouldbecrossreferencedwithinthedocument;Ithinkthattable19onpage143needstobeduplicatedforthenon‐commercialharvestunitsIhavejustlisted…Ihaveseenanyexplanationofwhyunits64and66whichhaveexistingroadaccessarenotbeingconsideredforremovingtheroundwood/pulplogsandsmallsawlogs.Alsounits60,61,62and63couldeasilyhaveshortextensionstoexistingroadsorplannedtemporaryroadstoremovethetreesfromaportionofthoseunits.Noexplanationastowhytheprescriptionbeingappliedtounits1‐6arenotbeingappliedtounits60‐63and64and66,unit65doesn’thaveanyreasonableaccessforremoval.”(147,9)

FSResponse:TheprojectedcanopycoverreductionforproposedUnits60‐66and90‐92arelocatedtheProjectFile;forAlternativesB,CandDtheestimateis20%(ProjectFile,ItemL‐19).ThisinformationwasnotincludedintheEAastheproposedtreatmentandmethodswerenotidentifiedasanissueduringscopinganddidnotdrivealternativedevelopment.AllactionalternativesproposethesametreatmentsinUnits60‐66and90‐92;therefore,thecomparisonisbetweentreatmentandnotreatment(AlternativeA).TheonlydifferencebetweentheactionalternativesisthatinUnits60‐66theupperdiameteratbreastoftreesthatwouldbefelledis8inchesunderAlternativesCandDinchesversus10inchesunderAlternativeB.EAp.38,Table8;p.40,Table9;p.42andEAp.111andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.34,“AlternativeBwouldincludecuttingtreesupto10”dbh,AlternativesCandDwouldincludecuttingtreesupto8”dbh.ThedifferenceinthesetwotreatmentswithinUnits60‐66wouldbeminor;AlternativeBwouldresultisslightlymoreopenstandconditions,treatmentefficacyandlongevityandagreateropportunitytoprovidelarge,down,coarse,woodydebristoensurelong‐termnutrientcyclingandsoilproductivity.”Hence,proposedtreatmentsinUnits60‐66werenotselectedasformodelingintheFireandFuelsExtensionoftheForestVegetationSimulator.


A‐39

Units60‐66occuronthewarmestanddriestsites(HabitatTypeGroupAandB,ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.9‐10)proposedfortreatmentintheMarshallWoodsproject,generallyonsouthtowestaspects.AsdiscussedonEAp.37‐38,110andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.33‐3,4theseare“sitesthatwerehistoricallyoccupiedbyveryopentomoderatelyopenponderosapineorponderosapineandDouglas‐fircommunities…Someverydryinclusionsthatwerehistoricallyoccupiedbygrasslandcommunitiescurrentlysupportmoderatenoxiousweedpopulationsincludingspottedknapweed,leafyspurge,andcheatgrass.Somesitesareclassifiedasnon‐forested.AsincludedintheFAQsp.6“...alltreatmentsweredesignedtoemploythelightest‐touchapproachtoeffectivelymeetthepurposeandneedoftheproject.Forexample,ifhandthinningorprescribedburningalonewouldeffectivelyreducethehazard,thatisthetreatmentproposed…”asisthecasewithUnits60‐66(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11).TheinformationcontainedinEATable19,p.143forproposednon‐commercialUnits70‐71iscontainedintheparagraphimmediatelybeneaththeTable19,page143,“MechanizedtreatmentsasproposedunderAlternativeBinUnits70and71alongthemainRattlesnakecorridorwouldresultinaCFIof41,FLof2,andPMundersevereconditionsof11%.WhilesomelocalizedimprovementwouldoccurinUnits70and71underAlternativesCandD,thetreatmentwouldresultinaCFIof39,FLof6,andPMof97%undersevereconditions.UnderNoActiontheCFIwouldbe35,FL4,andPM81%undersevereconditions.”

59. “Ididnotfinddisplayedestimatesofthetonnageperacretobefelled/piledandburnedfortheunitsaswellasthetonnageremovedforsawlogsandpulp/non‐sawbytruckssoitcanbeseenhowtheamounttobeburnedisreducedbyremovingandutilizingsomeofthematerial.Thesefiguresshouldbeprovidedandalsoincludetheamountofcarbonthatcanremainstoredinlongandshortlivedwoodproductsratherthanburnedonsiteorinawildfire.Thetonnagesareimportantforevaluatingtheairemissions(bothparticulatematterandgreenhousegases)aswellandbeingabletoquantifythedifferencesbetweenalternatives.(147,10)

FSResponse:FSResponse:Thiswasnotanissueraisedduringscoping;therefore,didnotdrivealterativedevelopmentnorwasitincludedasaneffectsindicator.Nonetheless,carbonreports,aswellas,estimatesontons/biomassperacreremovedand/orconsumedunderthemodeledtreatmentscenariosareintheForestVegetationSimulatoroutputreportslocatedintheProjectFile(ItemsM5‐29,M5‐32,M5‐35,M5‐38,M5‐41,andM5‐44).

60. “Onpage125undercumulativeeffects(Table16)thewildfireactivity,IthinkitwouldbeusefultoshowthepercentageoftheNFSpartofthelandscaperesultinginlessseverefirebehavior.Thedifferencesbetweenthethreeactionalternativesare31%,24%and20%forthewholelandscape,puttingthosepercentagesintothecontextoftheNFSlandswouldbemoreinsightful…thediscussionofAlternativeDisnotcleartothereaderastowhythe


A‐40

treatmentsacrossthelandscape(20%)is“whollyineffective”...thebriefdescriptionofAltAthatisexpressedinarcanefire‐speak.i.e.‘AlternativeAwouldnotimprovetheabilitytosuppressfireswithintreatmentsunits.Nocumulativebenefitswouldoccur.’…Thisblockneedstobearticulatedbetterforthegeneralreadertounderstandandcross‐referencedwiththehydrology,estheticandnoxiousweedssections.”(147,11)

FSResponse:Toclarify,theinformationpresentedinTable16,p.125iscumulativeimpacts,notdirectorindirectimpacts.Acumulativeimpactistheimpactontheenvironmentwhichresultsfromtheincrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtothepast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions(CEQ1508.7;EAAppendixD,p.D‐1).Directeffects,incontrast,arecausedbytheactionandoccuratthesametimeandplace.Indirecteffectsarecausedbytheactionandarelaterintimeorfartherremovedindistance,butarestillreasonablyforeseeable(CEQ1508.8).ThecommenterisreferencedtothedirectandindirecteffectssectionofAlternativeAintheFireandFuelssectionEApageEApp.129‐130,139‐146andassociatedspecialist’sreport.AsstatedinForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.4,“Withrespecttoforestedvegetation,theentireMarshallWoodsprojectareawasusedastheanalysisarea.”TheinformationinEATable16,p.125thatyoureferencewaspresentedbasedontheanalysisarea.AsstatedonEAp.122andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.44,“theMarshallWoodsprojectareawasusedforthecumulativeeffectsanalysisareaforforestedvegetationsinceitrepresentsawatershedscaleinwhichtoanalyzeadiversearrayofforestedcommunitiesandtheincrementalcontributionoftheproposalisnegligibleatthenextlargerwatershed.”Withrespecttocumulativeimpacts,thereisnocumulativeimpactofnoaction.WithrespecttoAlternativeD,again,thecommenterisreferredtothedirectandindirecteffectsintheEAandtheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport.Theterm“whollyineffective”istheanticipatedcumulativeeffectofAlternativeDwhenconsideredinconjunctionwithfuturewildfireoccurrence.EAp.100andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.24AlternativeD“failstoeffectivelyaddressthemostat‐riskstandsacrosstheprojectarearenderingitlargelyineffectiveatmeetingthepurposeandneedoftheproject”(ProjectFile,ItemsM5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,M5‐45).IntheeventofawildfireunderAlternativeD,themostatriskandhazardousconditionswouldremainandextremefirebehavior,intensityandseverityisprobableundermoderatetosevereburningconditionsrenderingitlargelyinfectivewhenconsideredinconjunctionwithawildfire.

61. ”TheEAandsupportingdocumentsarelargelypredicatedonthedesirabilityofmimickingpre‐settlementstandconditions.Astatedprojectgoalisfavoringretentionandrecruitmentoflarge,widelyspacedponderosapineandwesternlarchandexclusionofDouglasfir,generatingstandsthatareguestimatedtobefacsimilesofpre‐settlementconditions.Thisvisionishypotheticalversusbroad‐scaleon‐the‐groundscientificfindings”…byOdion,etal.(2014)andWilliamsandBaker(2012)…”historicconditionsmayserveasaguide,yetnumerousauthorshavecautionedthatpre‐settlementconditionscannotbereplicatedthroughrestoration(Reinhardt,etal.2008).”(162,16)


A‐41

FSResponse:Refertoresponsestocomment#s53,55and188.

62. “Manyresearchershaverecommendedthattreatmentsbespreadoutovertimeinapproximatelythree‐yearincrementsover20yearsormoretoincreasethelikelihoodofsuccess(Covington,etal.1997).Conversely,theEAatpage143assumesasingletreatmentwillbeeffectiveforupto20‐30years.”(162,19)

FSResponse:Covingtonandothers(1997)completedasequenceofrestorationtreatmentsin1993and1994.ThetreatmentsaresimilartothoseproposedunderAlternativeB(Units1‐5)andAlternativeC(Units1,4‐5).Thefirstyear,harvestandthinningwerecompletedfollowedbyslashremovalandprescribedburninginthesecondyear.Thestudyplanincludedmaintenanceprescribedburningatthree‐yearintervalsoverthenext24yearsfollowingtherestorationtreatmentcompletedoveratwo‐yearperiod(Covington,etal.1997).TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposemultiplemaintenanceprescribedburningtreatmentsafterprojectimplementation.SuchtreatmentswouldrequireadditionalanalysisunderNEPAandpublicinvolvement.AsdescribedintheEAtreatmentdescriptions,theproposedactionsinvolveaseriesoftreatmentstoachievethedescribedeffects.Theanalysisoftreatmenteffectivenesswasatthecompletionofstagedtreatmentswithinagivenproposedunit.Forexampleinthe‘thinandprescribedfire’treatment,thesequencingwouldoccurasfollows:1)harvestfollowedby;2)understorytreatment(i.e.smalltreethinning)inthenext3years;3)followedbyaprescribedburningafteranothertwo‐yearwaitingperiod.Tocompletethesequenceoftreatmentsinoneunititwouldtakeaminimumof5‐6years.AsdisclosedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.6‐7,thetemporalefficacyofthealternativetreatmentswasestimatedusingtheForestVegetationSimulator(ProjectFile,ItemsM5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐34,M5‐35,M5‐36,M5‐37,M5‐38,M5‐39,M5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,M5‐45).InEAAppendixF,anexampleimplementationscheduleisincludedtoprovideanunderstandingofthetimeframesfortheproject.Asdisplayedintheexample,aprojectsuchasthistakesaminimumof8‐10yearstocomplete.Inaddition,page1oftheFAQsaddressesimplementationtiming,“Theprojectincludesmanycomponentswhichwouldbeimplementedovera7to10‐yearperioddependingontheactivity.Activitieslikevegetationtreatmentunitlayoutcouldoccurin2015,whileactivitieslikeecosystemmaintenanceburningcouldoccurinyear10dependingonsiteconditionslikeweather,airquality/smokedispersion,fuelmoisture,etc.Someactivitieslikeweedsprayingcouldoccurcontinuallyovertheentire10‐yearperiodbutothersliketimberharvestwouldoccurovermuchshortertimeframes(e.g.,oneseason)tominimizeimpactstousers”(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11).

63. “TheEAdoesn'tdisclosetheaccuracy,orreliability,ofthesetsofdatauponwhichitsquantitativeanalysesarebased.Whendataofuncertainreliabilityisfedintoanalysismethodologyormodels,theoutputscanbewildlydeceiving.Also,thevalidityofthemodelingprocedureshavenotbeenestablishedforthewaytheForestServiceusesthem.Table19isaperfectexample.TheForestServiceusesthattabletosupporttheEA'sclaimthattheprojecttreatmentswill“improveresiliency,ecosystemfunctionandreducethepotentialforhighseverityfire1.”Wedoubtthatsuchaclaimwouldwithstandtheresultsof


A‐42

anindependentscientificpeerreview.Themodelinghasneverbeenvalidatedforsuchpurposes.

Moreover,thenumbersinthetable,beingadmittedly“approximations”,arenotaccompaniedbyanystatementsoftheiraccuracyandreliability.SoapparentdifferencesbetweenaCFIof24forAlternativeDvs,aCFIof41forAlternativeB,forexample,maybeexaggeratedbytheerrorsinherentintheapproximations.

Andfinally,whereastheEAclaimsthatTable19meansAlternativeD“leav(es)anevenlargerportionoftheareavulnerabletohighintensityfire”ascomparedtootheralternatives,there'snoindicationofifwhetherthis“largerportion”wouldreallybesignificantforanynumberoflikelyfirescenarios.”(182,9)

FSResponse:TheforestedvegetationeffectsanalysismethodsweredisclosedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportonpp.4‐7.Data,accuracyassessments,protocols,methodology,modelinputsandoutputsarelocatedintheProjectFile(ItemsM5‐6,M5‐8,M5‐9,M5‐10,M5‐11,M5‐12,M5‐13,M5‐14,M5‐15,M5‐16,M5‐17,M5‐18,M5‐20,M5‐21,M5‐22,M5‐23,M5‐24,M5‐25,M5‐26,M5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐34,M5‐35,M5‐36,M5‐37,M5‐38,M5‐39,M5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,M5‐45).AsdisclosedintheEApp.102and142,ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.26,andFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.28,“Itisimportanttoclarifythatthetreatmentsweredesignedtomeetthepurposeandneedoftheprojectandarenotbasedon…specificmeasures.Thesemeasuresareusedtoprovideaquantitativecomparisonbetweenthealternatives.TheyarebasedonFVSmodelingoftreatments,theyarenotabsolutes,butshouldbeviewedasrelativemeasurestoallowforreasonedquantitativecomparisonofthecurrentcondition,thefouralternatives,andthemagnitudeofchangeandtrendsovertime.”TheinformationinTable19displaysthefollowingeffectsindictors:crownfireindex,potentialmortalityandflamelengthunderthemodeledtreatmentscenarios.EAp.143andFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportpp.29‐30,theproposedaction“isdesignedtoimproveresiliency,ecosystemfunctionandreducethepotentialforhighseverityfire….AlternativeDaimstoachievetheseobjectiveson2,647acresor20.4%ofthelandscape;howeveritdoesnoteffectivelyaddressreducingthepotentialforhighintensityfirewithflamelengthsmodeledtoexceedthe4‐footthreshold.AlternativeDdoesnotsubstantiallyaddressthecanopybulkdensityinthemostat‐riskstands(Unit1‐6)intheprojectarearenderingitlesseffectiveatreducingthepercentmortalitytoanacceptablelevelandmeetingthepurposeandneedoftheproject.”

64. “’MuchoftheforestswithintheMarshallWoodsareaarepresentlyexperiencingextremephysiologicalcompetition…pinesstrugglewiththedemandsplacedontheirlimitedphotosynthaeandsuccumbtoinsects,disease,andcompetition.’…Then,theEAcontradictsitself,sayingthat‘Withoutactivemanagement,inthelongtermwildlifediversitycouldbedecreasedduetothelackofdisturbance...’Inotherwords,totheForestServicetheonlyacceptable“disturbances”arethestressesitsfiresuppressioncreates,andthemanagementactionsitthenimplementsinreactionaryfashion.Loggingkillingtreesisokay,bugskillingtreesisn't.”(182,11)


A‐43

FSResponse:ThefollowingparagraphfromForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.8states,“Naturaldisturbancesarenotdisruptionsinforestsrathertheyarethenorm,andwarm,drylowelevationforests,likethosethatoccupyMarshallWoodsarea,aredisturbancemediated.Thespeciesthatoccupytheseforestsevolvedwithandaremorphologicallyadaptedtoveryfrequentdisturbance,namelyfire.Theseforestsareever‐changinganddynamic;forestdevelopmenttypicallyfollowsaninitialfloristicpatternwherebyspeciesinvadeatapproximatelythesametimefollowingamajordisturbance,butassertdominanceatdifferenttimes(OliverandLarsen,1996).Thetype,size,scale,arrangement,duration,speciesaffected,etc.inadisturbanceeventdictatehowforestdevelopmentpatternsemergeafteritsoccurrence.”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.8‐9,“Withoutfrequentlowintensityfireasadisturbanceagent,overtime,theseforestedlandsshifttowardsoverstockedstandswithanincreasingshade‐tolerantDouglas‐fircomponent.Thisvastlyincreasessusceptibilitytorootdisease,sprucebudworm,andbarkbeetles.TheDouglas‐firresponseintheunderstoryhasresultedinconsiderableladderfuelaccumulations.Mortalityfromensuinginsectanddiseaselossesincreasessurfacefuelloadingandthepotentialforseverefirebehavior.Growingspacefreedbymortalitywouldbeoccupiedbyexistingcohortsonsiteor,dependingonthelevelofdisturbance,facilitatetheestablishmentofanewone.Theseconditionspredisposestandstostand‐replacingfireeventsandinsectanddiseaseepidemics(Grahametal.,2004).Shade‐tolerantspecies(i.e.,Douglas‐fir)intheInlandNorthwesttendtobemorepronetoavarietyofinsectsanddiseasesincludingsprucebudworm,Douglas‐firbeetle,rootdiseaseanddwarfmistletoe(Hessburgetal.,1994).Itiswellacceptedthatongoingclimatechangeshavepushedregionalclimatesbeyondtheboundsofthelastseveralcenturies.Warmerclimatesareexpectedtoalterstresscomplexesthataffectforestsrenderingthemvulnerabletoincreasedfrequency,severityandextentofdisturbances,namelyfireandinsectoutbreaks(Joyceetal.,2008).”Alsoseeresponsetocomment#56.

65. “’Large,healthyponderosapinetreeswouldbefavoredasleavetrees.Anylivetrees>21”dbhwouldberetained,regardlessofspecies,totheextentpracticablegivenprojectobjectivesandimplementationlogistics(Units1,4,5,6).”Wewonderhowmuchofaloophole“totheextentpracticable’is.Andwhyaretheotherloggingunitsnotalsolimited?”(182,17)

FSResponse:Pleaserefertoresponsetocomment#48above.

FIRE/FUELS

66. “Intermsofimplementation,Iwouldcautionagainstfallburning.Theconditionsaredriest,increasingriskofescapeandnight‐timeinversionswillincreaseprobabilityofsmokesettinginthevalley…considerrakingoutthedriplineoflargertreesyouwanttoretain.”(14,1)

FSResponse:Specificprescribedfireburnparameterswillbeidentifiedafteranactionalternativeisselected(and)asite‐specificprescribedfireplanispreparedtoaddresstheobjectivesinthesilviculturalprescriptionpreparedforeachtreatmentunit.Largetree


A‐44

driplinerakingwasaddressedonForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.28,“Wheredeemedappropriate,duffaccumulationsaroundthebaseoflarge(21”+dbh)treesmaybeamelioratedtoencouragefinerootstomigratedeeperinthesoilprofilebeforeapplyingstandlevelprescribedfire(i.e.,underburning).Kolbandothers(2007)concludedthatrakingduffaccumulationsmayincreasefinerootmortality.However,JainandGraham(inpress)studiedvarioustreatmentstoameliorateduffaccumulationsandfoundthattreatmentswhenfinerootsarenotactivelygrowingcanmitigateunintendedconsequencesassociatedwithremovingduffaccumulationsaroundthebaseoflargetrees(Jain,personalcommunication,2011).TheguidelinesdevelopedbyJainandGrahamcouldbeincorporatedintotreatmentswhereincidentaloldtreesarepresent.”AlsorefertotheProjectFile,ItemM5‐49,andresponsetocomment#67below.

67. “Isn'ttherealsotheriskthatthefiresyousetcouldgetoutofcontrolandcreatethehugefiretheyaredesignedtoprevent?”(19,5)

FSResponse:TheForestServiceadherestothe“InteragencyPrescribedFireImplementationGuide”and“ForestServiceFireandAviationQualificationsHandbook”standardsforPrescribedFireBurnBosseswhenconductinganddevelopingsitespecificprescribedfireplans.Fire,FuelsandAirSpecialist’sReportp.35andEAp.73discussesResourceProtectionMeasures.OnMarch18,2015atthepublicmeeting,powerpointslide34describedthatapprovedprescribedburnplansestablish:dispersionandventilationrequirements,temp/RH/maxwinds/fuelmoisture,predictedfirebehavior(flamelength,spotting,etc.),organizationalminimums,contingencyplan,andsafetyplan(ProjectFile,ItemE‐20).AdditionallyEA,p.142states,“Fueltreatmentsthatinvolveprescribedfirecarryrisksofescapeandofgreaterthanintendedfireeffectsincludingpost‐fireinsectattacksofresidualtrees(Ganzetal.,2003),consumptionoforganicsoils,andunwantedsmokeproduction.However,inmanycases,noactionmaycarrygreaterrisksfromeffectsofabnormallyseverefires(AgeeandSkinner,2005).Finneyetal.(2005)observedreductionsinwildfireseverityinportionsoftheRodeoandChediskiwildfiresontheleesideofareaspreviouslytreatedwithprescribedfire.Thesepositiveeffectscanbeexpectedtobemorefrequentastheportionofthelandscapethathasbeentreatedincreases(Reinhardt,etal.,2008).”

68. “TheEAdoesn’tevenmentionDr.Cohen’smethodstoreducetheriskthatwildfireswillburnhomesand/orkillorinjurethefamiliesthatlivethere.”(22,3)

FSResponse:EAp.17states,“TreatmentsonNFSlandsintheprojectareawouldreducepotentialfireintensityandcrownfirepotential,butmaynotdirectlyprotectallhomes.Wildfiremitigationfocusedonstructuresandtheirimmediatesurroundingmaybethemosteffectiveatreducingstructureignitions(Cohen,1999,2000,and2002;Scott,2003).”…Whileindividualhome‐by‐hometreatmentscanhelpreducetheriskofstructureloss,relyingsolelyonsuchtreatmentscouldforegostrategicopportunitiesforsuppressingwildfireswithintheWUI.Althoughhomesinthepathofwildfireareoftenthemostrecognizedvalue‐at‐risk,treatmentsneedtogobeyondtheareasimmediatelysurroundingindividualhomestoprotectotherresourcevaluesthatmakeuptheforestedsettingincludingsoilstability,wildlifehabitat,waterquality,timbervalue,andlandscapeaesthetics(Graham,2004).”

69. “Ifeelitisimportanttocallyourattentiontomushroombio‐pilesasacost‐effectivealternativetoconventionalslashtreatments(I.e.,pileandburn).Atlessthanthecostof


A‐45

burning,tonsofreducedcarbonaresequesteredforyears,andthisorganiclayerretains5timesitsweightinwater,whichisavailabletotreesandotherforestplants.”(172)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment,however,thiswasnotasuggestionraisedduringscoping;therefore,itwasnotconsideredinalterativedevelopment.FueltreatmentoptionsarereferencedinEA,pp.35‐36.Alsoseeresponsetocomment#105.Inaddition,mushroombiopileswouldnotbeconducivetotheNRAvaluesandmanagementapproachasdescribedintheLACandFPandmanagedasperAppendixJ–specialuses.

70. “FireandFuels,p.126—IwouldnotgettoocarriedawaywithwhatiswrittenintheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy(CohesiveStrategy)atthispointintime,especiallywhenitstillcontainsoverlyvaguelanguagelike“restorehealthyforestedconditions.”“Healthy”isclearlyatermborrowedfromindustrialforesterswholikenothingbutagreentree,andnotfromecologistswhounderstandthata“healthy”forestcontainsallthenativeinsects,deadtrees,diseases,birds,mammals,etc.”(124,6)

FSResponse:Fire,FuelsandAirSpecialist’sReport,pp.4‐5,“TheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy:PhaseIIIWesternRegionalScience‐BasedRiskAnalysisReportof2012setforthrecommendationsforreducingwildfirerisk,improvingforestandrangelandhealth,protectingcommunitiesfromwildfire,andenhancingfirefightingeffectivenessandfirefighterandpublicsafety.TheActionPlanbuildsupontheserecommendations‐‐detailingactions,tasks,suggestedleadandcollaboratingagencies,andthetimeframesinwhichthoseactionsandtasksshouldtakeplace.Therecommendationsfallintofourcategories–overarchingactions,actionstorestoreandmaintainlandscapes,actionstopromotefireadaptedcommunities,andactionstopromotefireresponse.”Alsoseeresponsetocomment#52.

71. “Fire,FuelsandAirSpecialist’sReport,secondbullet—Asstatedabove,thereisnoneedto

“restoreandmaintainresilientlandscapes”whentheyarewellwithinthenaturalrangeofvariationforasystembornofmixed‐severityfire.TheprojectareaisnotlikethepureponderosapineforestsurroundingFlagstaff,Arizona,andsotheprinciplesthatapplytheredonotapplyhere.AstheCohesiveStrategysays,wemustrecognize“…variabilityofthisissuefromgeographicareatogeographicarea!”Thelow‐severityfiremodelsimplydoesnotapplyhere.”(124,8)

FSResponse:Refertoresponsestocomment#s53and54above.

72. “Fire, Fuels and Air Specialist’s Report, p. 3—Icertainlyagreethat“allaspectsofwildlandfireshouldbeusedtorestoreandmaintainresilientlandscapes,”butthatappliesonlywhenitcanbedemonstratedthatthesystemisinneedofrestoration. Whichspecificevidenceareyouusingtoconcludethattheparticularstageofsuccessionthattheforestisinrightnowissomehow“outofwhack”withwhathasoccurredformillennia?”(124,9)

FSResponse:RefertotheexistingconditionsonForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.7‐21andEApp.86‐96(ExistingConditionsandDesiredFutureConditions),andFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportpp.12‐23andEApp.126‐138(ExistingConditionsandDesiredFutureConditions).


A‐46

73. “Fire,FuelsandAirSpecialist’sReport,p.9—ResilienceisNOTdefinedas“theabilityofaforestcommunitytoavoidalterationofitspresentstatebyadisturbance.”Wheredidthisdefinitioncomefrom?Thatisthedefinitionof“resistance”not“resilience!”Ourforestsmaynotbe(andshouldnotbe)resistanttofire;theyshouldberesilienttofire,andtheyarealreadyplentyresilient.”(124,10)

FSResponse:Thedefinitiononp.9wasaneditingerror.RefertoForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.5toseethedefinitioncorrectlylabeledasresistance.Refertoresponsetocomment#54aboveforadefinitionofresilience.

74. “Fire,FuelsandAirSpecialist’sReport,p.9—Ithinkifyouaregoingtoclaimthat“landscapesnearcommunities,andwithinthecommunitiesthemselves,canbemodifiedtoreducethelikelihoodthatdamagewilloccurtocommunitiesintheeventofawildlandfire,”thenyouneedtoprovidethedatatosupportthatcontention.”(124,11)

FSResponse:ThecommenterisreferringtotheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.12,whichdescribesthe“NationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy:PhaseIIIWesternRegionalScience‐BasedRiskAnalysisreport(2012)”.ThecontextofthisstatementinthespecialistreportisreferencingtheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy,whichisanationalpolicydocument(ProjectFile,ItemM2‐5).

75. “Fromafirefightingstandpoint,thetrailsthemselvesandvariousopenclearingswouldprovidefirebreaks,whilethecharacteroftheforestwouldnotbeimpaired.”(136,2)

FSResponse:Trailsandvariousopeningsarecommonlyusedasfirebreaks/fuelbreaks;however,tacticalfirefightingdecisionssuchaslinelocationaremadeduringinitialandextendedattackbyrespondingresourcesandtheincidentcommanderbasedonfirebehaviorandriskmanagement.

76. “Asforwildland/urbaninterface(deemedtheWUI),yourtextstatesonpage16thattheprevailingwindisfromsouthorsouthwesttothenorthandnortheast,orup‐slopeandupthedrainageofRattlesnakeCreek.Thiswouldindicatethatthemainfireriskistothenorthandnortheast,andnottowardsthestructures,whichareamileormoreawaytothesouth.”(136,4)

FSResponse:Therearemanyfactorsthatinfluencefirespreadbeyondprevailingwindsincludingtheignitionsitewhichcouldbewelltothesouthoftheprojectarea.TherearealsonumerousvaluesbeyondtheWUIthatarebeingaddressed.ThesearestatedintheEA,page16,withinthepurposeandneed,“Emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire.Promoteecosystemhealthwithprescribedfiretodistributebeneficialfireeffectstoareaswithinthewildland‐urbaninterface(WUI).IntegrateprojectobjectiveswiththeMissoulaCountyWildfireProtectionPlan(CWPP).Decreasehighintensitywildfirepotential;enhancefirefighterefficiencyandsafetywithintheWUI.Alsoseeresponsetocomment#52.AsstatedonEA,p/129“TheCWPPhasanoverallratingforcommunitiesbasedontwosubcomponents:wildfireriskandhumansafetyfactors.Wildfireriskisbasedoncriticalinfrastructure,watersupplies,transportationcorridors,fuels,slope,andfacilities.Humansafetyriskfactorsarebasedonpopulationdensity,criticalegress,andfireresponsecapabilities.Thecombinationofthesetworiskfactorsestablishestheoverallriskrating.


A‐47

TheoverallriskratingfortheRattlesnakeportionoftheMarshallWoodsProjectissecondoutofeightareasathighriskforwildfireimpacts.”

77. “Figure33onpage134regardingFireBehaviorFuelModelsisconfusing,especiallywhenreadingthelasttwoparagraphsonpage133.Red(TL3)ModerateLoadConiferlitterseemstoconformtoareas2and3,andyetthetextonpage133states"Proposedtreatmentsarefocusedonareaswithfirebehaviorfuelmodelsrepresentinghighintensityfirebehaviorduringtypicalfireseasonconditionsforthisarea."(136,5)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedintheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.11,weusedavarietyofdatasetstoestablishtheexistingcondition.Landfireisusedinthecontextofacoarselandscapescaleassessment(ProjectFile,ItemM2‐1).Alsoonp.11,dataatthestandlevelcontextisdiscussed,“Duringthespringof2011,approximately350acresofplot‐basedstatisticalstandexamsplotswereconductedtoquantifyforestconditionsinrepresentativeunitsproposedfortreatment.AllstandexamdatacollectedresidesintheFSVegdatabase.SurfacefuelloadswerequantifiedwithBrown’sPlanarintercept(Brown,1974)methodduringthesefieldvisitstoassistwithfuelmodeldetermination.Fieldsitevisitscoupledwithalltheaforementioneddataallowedforreasonedprofessionalextrapolationoftheexistingcondition.”AsdiscussedaboveFVSwasusedinthisanalysistosummarizecurrentstandconditions,modelfutureconditionsandstanddynamics,andmodelproposedtreatmentsandtheireffects.Inaddition,FVSwasusedinconjunctionwiththeFireandFuelsExtension(FFE)toanalyzetheeffectsofnoactionandtheproposedtreatmentsonfirebehaviorandfuelloading.Thetemporalscaleusedinthiseffectsanalysiswasfrompresentdayto2050.AllFVSkeywordanddetailedoutputfilesarelocatedintheProjectFile.RefertotheProjectFileforfuelloadingdataandestimates,byalternative,acrossthetemporalperiodusedintheanalysis(M5‐18,M5‐21,M5‐22,M5‐24,M5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐43,M5‐44,andM5‐45).Thestandlevelanalysisindicatedpotentialforhighintensityfirewithin“areas”(units)2and3.Alsoseeresponsetocomment#63.

78. “Ifoundthefirehistorymaponpage137nearlyunreadableinsomeways.Theconclusionsdrawnatthebottomofpage136regardingthismapdon'tseemtobesubstantiatedbythemap.”(136,6)

FSResponse:Thefirehistorymap(Figure35,p.137)hasmultipledatasetsshowingfirehistoryfortheareaoverlaidononemap.Fireperimetersinredshowthefiresfrom1980to2013withtheyearalsoinred.Fireperimetersinbluewithbluebackgroundsindicatefiresoccurringfrom1870to1979withtheyearalsoinblue.AllpointslabeledwithlettersA‐Gindicatefiresofvarioussizeclassesfrom1931‐2013.Themapisdesignedtoshowtheextensivenumberoffireeventsinandadjacenttotheprojectareaaswellastohighlightthefirehistoryoftheprojectarealendingtolargerfiregrowthprevioustofiremanagementsuppressionactivities.

79. “It'sunfortunatethatbudgetforfireseatsupfundsforprevention.Thatsaid,attheCarltonComplex<inWashingtonstatelastyear>,oneoftheprimarytownsaversandlifesaverswasairtankersthatshowedupjustinthenickoftime.Missoulashouldhavethiscapabilityinspadesforthateventuality,giventhegrowthofhomesoutintotheWUI.”(136,10)


A‐48

FSResponse:Aerialresourcesarelocatedapproximately5milesfromtheprojectarea;howeverthattheymaybeunavailable.Largeairtankersandmanyotherfirefightingresourcesareprioritizednationally.AvailabilityofnationalresourcesisnotdiscussedaspartoftheMarshallWoodsEA.Forfurtherinformationonfirefightingresources,andtheirprioritizationandmobilization,pleaserefertotheNationalInteragencyFireCenterwebpage(http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/mobguide/index.html)(ProjectFile,ItemM2‐47).

80. IsupportAlternativeBbecause…”commercialthinningandremovaloflargestemsandon‐sitedisposalthroughburningofsmallerstemsinpilesarenecessarytosafelyreintroduceunderburnsandrestorebiologicallydiversenativeplantcommunitiesinUnits2,3,70and71.”(144,2)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.

81. IsupportAlternativeBbecause…”lowelevationponderosapineandlarchforestsintheMissoulaareaarefire‐associatedecosystemsthatwerehistoricallyinfluencedbyfrequent(every10+/‐years)lowintensityfiresandoccasionalmixed‐severityfires.TheSalishwereanintegralcomponentofthisenvironmentandmanagedlowelevationforeststhroughspringburnsfor10‐12,000years.Thisissignificantformanyreasons”…including…”replicatinghistoricdisturbanceregimesimprovestheprobabilitythatnativefloraandfaunacanadaptasclimaticconditionschange”…and…”proposalstodonothing(AlternativeA)orsolittletheecologicaleffectsdescribedabovearenotachieved(AlternativesC&D)areradicalmanagementdecisionswithunknownlongtermimplicationsandwouldcontinuetoexcludeimportantecologicaldisturbanceswhichcreatedandmaintainedhealthyanddiverseforestsforthousandsofyears,renderthemincreasinglyvulnerabletointense,stand‐replacingfiresandinsectanddiseaseoutbreaks,andarefaroutsidethehistoricrangeofconditions.”(144,3)


82. AlternativeCisnotworkableasproposed,and“suffersfrominherent,practicallimitations.Thenuancesofthesearefrequentlynotunderstoodbyfolkswhoseexperiencewithforestryisnot“hands‐on”e.gisgainedmostlyfromreadingEIS/EAdocuments,plans,andattendingpresentations.Severalpracticalchallengesarisewithanytreatmentmixthatleanstooheavilyonprescribedburningandleavingthinnedmaterialinthewoods.Whilethisapproachis“moresellable”andsoundsgoodintheory,actuallygettingasufficientnumberofdaysmeetingtheprescribedfireprescriptioncanbeveryproblematic,particularlytakingintoaccountourwesternMontanaclimatologyandlocalair‐shed(andhumanhealth)constraints.Similarly,leavingtoomuchwoodybiomasson‐sitecanpromotebothinsectpathogens(andinselectareasroot‐rotpathogens)despitethegoalofwantingtominimizethese.Pileburningisanotherapproachwhoseefficacydependsonscale,scopeandtiming;largerpilestendtobemoreeconomical/efficient,yetpilesmadetoolarge(withthermalpulse/depthdamage)adverselyaffectcertainsoiltypes,aswellasadversehydrologicalimpacts.Ontheotherhand,ifalargevolumeofmaterialneedstobetreated,andifahand‐pilingapproachusedresultsinmany‘too‐small’piles,thiscantiplaborcostsinthewrongdirection.”(175,4)



A‐49

83. “Table19ishelpfulforseeingthefireeffectstradeoffsforunits1‐6betweenalternatives,butasimilartableisneededforalltheotherunitssoitispossibletoseethebenefitsofthevarioustreatmentsbetweenalternativesincludingtheNoActionalternative”….italso”doesanicejobofsummarizingthewithinunitbenefitsbutitdoesnotshowthelandscapeleveleffectsinrelationtofirebehavior…”(147,12)

FSResponse:Pleaseseetheresponsestocomment#s58and63.Refertopp.24‐25oftheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportorEA,Figure21andTable14forunitbenefitsrepresentedatalandscapescale.Table14providesaquantitativecomparisonofthefouralternativesandtheireffectivenessatmeetingelementsofthepurposeandneedwithintheMarshallWoodslandscape(EA,p.100).

84. “Inthethirdparagraphonp.143thepercentageoftreatmentonNFSlandsisprovidedas54.2%andthatisthesameforallalternatives.InthenextparagraphsforAlt.B,AltCandAltDthereisasmalleracreagenumberandthepercentageofthelandscapeisprovidedbutnotthepercentageoftheNFSlands.Itdoesn’texplainwhytheacreageandpercentagegoesdownotherthansaying,‘…wouldachievetheseobjectivesonxxxxacres…).‘…TheseobjectivesarelinkedtothelistinthedescriptionofAlt.B.Itisnotreadilyclearthatthesearelinkedorwhytheyarenotmet.”(147,13)

FSResponse:ThepercentageoftreatmentseffectingNFSlandisconsistentthroughouttheactionalternativesat54.2%ofNFSlandwithinthegreater13,000‐acreMarshallWoodsprojectareawhichincludesmultiplelandownerships.Ofthe13,000acres,56%isNFSlandsandthisprojectwouldtreat54.2%ofthoseNFSacres.PleaseseeEAp.12forlandownershipwithinprojectareaboundary(Table1).Throughoutalternatives,varyingtreatmentsandtheireffectivenessoccuronthat54.2%ofNFSlands.SubsequentparagraphsonEAp.143displaythepercentagesofthelandscapebytreatmentandeffectiveness.Inparagraph4onEAp.143,percentagesaretakenfromthegreaterprojectareabeinganalyzed(13,000acres).Ownershipsarenotaccountedfor.Theintentbehindthisdisplayistoarticulatetreatmentsandtheirinfluenceatalandscapescale.

85. “…morediscussionofthesafetyandproperty(valuesatrisk)fromawildfireonasevereday,whenresourcesarecommittedtootherpartsofthestateandcountryiswarrantedandhoweachofthealternativesaffectstheseimportantfactors...thetreatmentsmakethedifferencebetweenanICbeingabletodeploycrewstothegroundandmakedirectflankingattackofthefireorhavingtopullbackfromthefireandlookingatan“airshow”withindirectlineconstruction,burningoutoperationswhichwillresultinmorelandburned,moresitedisturbance,erosion,sedimentinthestreamsandwildlifehabitatlostandmorecostfortrailmaintenanceyearsintothefuture.”(147,14)

FSResponse:Treatmentsthroughouttheprojectareaaredesignedtoreducethesurfaceintensityofwildfireevents.PleaserefertoEApp.141‐143forfurtherdescriptionsofmeasurementindicatorsusedinthefireandfuelsanalysis.ThefireandfuelseffectsanalysismethodologycanbefoundonEApp.129‐130andFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportPP.8‐12.Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#79fornationalfirefightingresourcemobilizationpolicy.

86. “TheEAstretchesthedefinitionofWildland‐UrbanInterfacewellbeyondthelanguageorintentofWUI(HealthyForestsRestorationAct;SierraClub).Theprimarydefinitionisan


A‐50

areawithin0.5milesofresidentialareaswithintheintermixzone.SincetheLoloNationalForest,MissoulaRangerDistrictispartofacommunity‐based,multi‐entityFireManagementPlan,anareawithin1.5milesofacommunityandprimaryegressroutemaybeconsideredtobepartoftheWUI.ThestringofresidenceswithinthestripofprivatelandeastofRattlesnakeCreekandacrossfromthetrailheadsqualifies.YettheprojectboundaryandmapoftheWUI(page138)doesn’tmakesense…EvenapplyingthemoreliberaldefinitionofWUI,majorportionsoftheProjectArea,includingallofUnits2,3,66,81,63,84and200areoutsidetheWUI.PortionsofUnits1,4,62,80,82and101arealsooutsidetheWUI.”(162,12)

FSResponse:AsdiscussedonFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.5,“TheMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectiswithintheareaassessedintheMissoulaCountyCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan(CWPP).MissoulaCountyCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan(2005)isacountyleveldocumentemphasizingcollaborativeefforttoreducehazardousfuels.ThecountylevelCWPPeffortsaredirectlytiedtotheHealthyForestsRestorationActof2003(HFRA).TheHFRAeffortaskedcommunitiestoassumeagreaterroleinidentifyinglandsforpriorityfuelsreductiontreatmentandtreatmentrecommendations”.TheLoloNationalForestFMUmap(Figure36,EApage138)depictsFMU1‐thewildland‐urbaninterfaceataforestscale.BasedoncurrentforestFMUmaps,portionsofUnits2,62,63,66,82,101,200,andallofunits1,4,80,81,and84arewithinFMU1/WUI.UtilizingtheRegion1HFRAWildland‐UrbanInterfaceMap(2004),theentireMarshallWoodsProjectiswithinWUIwiththeexceptionofthenorthernmostportionsofUnits101,and3(ProjectFile,ItemM2‐2).

87. “Anotherissueinregardstothehealthyforestslawisthatprojectsshouldbefocusedonareaswith“high”burnprobability.TheEAdisplaysinFigure31thatMissoulaCountyhasa“moderate”meanburnprobability.Thefingerofstructureswithinthepubliclandcorridormayhavehigherburnrisk,butthiscanbeaddressedwithouta14,000acreprojectarea.”(162,15)

FSResponse:AlthoughthisisnotaprojectauthorizedundertheHealthyForestsRestorationActof2003,theMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectiswithintheareaassessedintheMissoulaCountyCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan(CWPP).TheMissoulaCountyCWPP(2005)isacounty‐leveldocumentemphasizingcollaborativeefforttoreducehazardousfuels.Althoughthecountyisratedas“moderate”,theprojectareacontainshigherfuelconditions.Thecountyratingisthereforeanaveragevalueandshouldnotbeappliedtotheprojectasawhole.Thecounty‐levelCWPPeffortsaredirectlytiedtotheHealthyForestsRestorationActof2003(HFRA).TheHFRAeffortaskedcommunitiestoassumeagreaterroleinidentifyinglandsforpriorityfuelsreductiontreatmentandtreatmentrecommendations(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.5).AsstatedinFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.12,“IntheMeanBurnProbabilityMapbelow(Figure31)thecountiesarecategorizedashigh,moderate,orlowaverageburnprobability.FirewassimulatedwithFSIMat270meterresolutionwithburnprobabilityaveragedacrossallthepixelswithinacounty.MissoulaCountyisratedatmoderateforMeanBurnProbability.TheMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectisentirelywithinMissoulaCounty.”


A‐51

88. “TheProjectWillIncreaseFuelLoading…Atpage30oftheSilviculturistsReport(SR)itstatesthatunderAlternativeB,manyunitswouldseeshort‐termincreasedfuelloads.Atpage9oftheSR,itstateshistoricaveragefuelloadingintons/acreindryponderosapineforestswasapproximately5‐10tons/acrewhileinDouglasfirstandswasapproximately11tons/acre.TheFire&FuelsSpecialists’Reportstatesthatcurrentfuelloadingintheprojectareaisapproximately12tons/acre,likelywithintheHistoricRateofVariation(HRV)forPonderosaandDouglasfirstands.ButtheProjectGoalof5‐25tons/acre,wherethelowerloadsarepresumablyongrassyareastobeunderburnedonlyandthehigherloadsonthinnedforestedareasrepresentsapotentialdoublingofthecurrentaveragefuelloading.Thismaybeahigh‐riskstrategywithintheWUIandelsewhere.”(162,17)

FSResponse:ThiscommentincorrectlycitestheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReport.Page30discussestheeffectsofthealternativesoninsectinfestations;itdoesnotdiscusstheeffectsonshort‐termfuelloadingunderAlternativeB.ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.9discussesHabitatTypeA,warmanddryforests,thedesiredfutureconditionsforthesesitesasdescribedonp.20isan“averagefuelloadinggenerallyrangingfrom5‐15tonsperacre.”Asstatedatp.10,“NearlyalltheareaproposedfortreatmentunderAlternativesB,C,andDisoccupiedbyHabitatGroupBincluding:themainRattlesnakecorridor,WoodsGulch,MarshallCreek,andSections31and33…Historicallyfiresweremixedwithvariableintensitiesrangingfromfrequent,lowintensity,non‐lethal,understoryfirestoinfrequent,highintensity,stand‐replacementfires.Downed,deadfuelloadsaveragedabout12tonsperacre,butmayhavebeenmuchhigherastheyrangedfrom1to74tonsperacre(FischerandBradley,1987).“Theprojectdoesn’tstateafuelloadinggoalperse;howeverthe(DFC)forHabitatTypeGroupBatp.21isan“averagefuelloadinggenerallyrangingfrom5‐25tonsperacre.”Furthermore,theSoilsSpecialist’sReportonp.16,“TheLoloNationalForestWoodyMaterialGuidelines(2006)andGrahametal.(1994)provideguidanceforevaluatinglargewoodymaterialwithinforestedstands.Afterprojectcompletion,allharvestandthinnedstandswouldmeettheLoloNFwoodguidelines.Largewoodmateriallevelsareincludedinbothsilvicultureandfuelprescriptions.”RefertotheProjectFileforfuelloadingdataandestimates,byalternative,acrossthetemporalperiodusedintheanalysis(ItemsM5‐18,M5‐21,M5‐22,M5‐24,M5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐34,M5‐35,M5‐36,M5‐37,M5‐38,M5‐39,M5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,andM5‐45).Additionally,refertoresponsetocomment#55aboveforadiscussionofdesiredfutureconditions.

89. “ithasoftenbeenreportedandcitedthatthinningcanincreasesurfacefirepotentialandseveritythroughincreasingthegroundfuelload,increasingwindspeedsatgroundlevelandincreasedsolarradiationresultingindrier,flashiersurfacefuels(Reinhardt,etal.2008;Wuerthner2014)…TheEAandsupportingdocumentsstatethegoalofproposedthinningtreatmentsisremovalof30‐60%oftheexistingcanopycoverage,throughremovalofsmallerdiameterladderfuelsintheunderstoryaswellaslargertreestoberemovedthroughcommercialmethods.Extensiveremovalinonetreatmentwilllikelyresultinanunmanageableamountofslash.”(162,18)

FSResponse:Reinhardtandothers(2008)state,“therearetwomainreasonswhyrateofspreadisnotanappropriatemetricwithwhichtoevaluatefueltreatments.First,spreadrateisonlyimportantinasuppressioncontext,andsecond,ecologicallyrobustfueltreatmentsmayoftenincreaserateofspreadorleaveitunchanged.”Wuerthner2014isnotascientificpaper,itisanopinion.


A‐52

Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#62above;slashwouldnotberemovedorconsumedinonetreatmentasyousuggest.Thethinningandprescribedfiretreatmentswouldinvolvethreestagedactivitiesandslashtreatmentsoveraperiodof5ormoreyears.

90. “CommercialremovalofmaterialfromMA28isnotallowed,sothisslashmustbeburnedonsite,presentingproblemsofincreasedfirerisk,unintendedmortalityoflargetreesandtheriskofan“escapefire.”TheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestry(calfire.org)ratesmoderateslashasoneofthehighestburnratingcategories,withestimatedflameheightsof8feetatstandardmodelingparameters.Thiswouldresultinexcessivescorchingandunintendedmortalityoflargerdiameter“leavetrees”andmorecrowningbehaviorandbebeyondtheabilityoffirefighterstousedirectattackmethods.Forexample,Table17(EApage13)showsthatat4‐8footflameheights,handlinecannotbereliedupon,requiringdeploymentofenginesandaircraft.Flameheightsabove8feetpresentseriouscontrolproblems.”(162,20)

FSResponse:Refertoresponsetocomment#1.

91. “Theaccompanyingriskstofirefighterscanbesubstantial.FoxandIngalsbee(1998):“…withintheU.S.ForestService,therehasbeenmoreofaninterestinmechanicalfuelsreductiontreatmentsusingcommercialthinningforfuelbreakconstructiontolowertheriskofcrownfires.Proponentsarguethatusingcommercialthinningtoreducecanopydensitieswouldincreasefirefightersafetyandprescribedfireefficiencyduringwildfiresuppression,andarenecessarytreatmentstoprepareforfutureprescribedburning.However,wesuggestthatthesekindsofmechanicaltreatmentscreatetheirownfirerisksandfuelhazardsthatcanpotentiallycauseproblemsforwildlandfirefightersafetyandprescribedfireefficacy.”Theyalsonotethat“Aftergeneratingabundantslashthroughmechanicalthinningandbeforedisposingofthatslash,theprogrammaybecomestalledduetolackoffunding,airquality,orotherpoliticalconcerns.Thisscenariowouldleavefirefightersworseoffastheyfaceboththeuntreatedhighriskfuelsandvastareasofnewslash.”Ingalsbee(2005)providesacogentanalysisanddiscussionontheefficacyandrisksassociatedwithcreationoffuelbreaksforfuturefiresuppression.”(162,21)

FSResponse:Theclassicdefinitionofafuelbreakis“astrategicallylocated,wideblockorstriponwhichacoverofdense,heavy,orflammablevegetationhasbeenpermanentlychangedtooneoflowerfuelvolumeandreducedflammabilityGreen(1977)Ingalsbee(2005)”TheMarshallWoodsprojectisarestorationbasedprojectdesignedinpartto“emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire”(EAp.16),theprojectdoesnotincludeany“fuelbreak”construction.Overall,thedesiredfutureconditionsaddressstandandlandscapescalechangesinfuelsconditionsspecifictocanopycharacteristicstoreducetheprobabilityofcrownfirebehavior,deadanddownfuelloadstoreducetheflamelength,andresultantleveloftreemortalityastandwillexperienceduringawildfire(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport,p.24).

92. “Wuerthner(2014):“…prescribedburningisrisky,andtheopportunityforagenciestosetfiresislimitedtoshorttimeframes.Manyforestmanagersareloathtookayaprescribedburnunlessconditionsareidealforcontainment.Noonewantstobethepersonwhosignedoffonaprescribedburnandthenhaditgetawayandburnhomestotheground.”Prescribedburnsareusuallycarriedoutduringtheearlyseason,whenplantsandshrubs


A‐53

arenothistoricallyadaptedtofireandwhenheavyfuelswillnotbeconsumed.Thereisalsotheissueofhavingtheproperfirestaffavailableattherighttime,astheymaywellbedeployedonfiresonotherdistricts,forestsorevenregions.”(162,22)

FSResponse:Wuerthner(2014)isnotapeer‐reviewedscientificpaper;itisanopinion.Seeresponsetocomment#67.

93. “TheProposedActionalsodepartsfromstandarddiameterrecommendationsfor“thinningfrombelow’(Brownetal.2004)whichisgenerallylimitedtostemslessthanorequalto8”diameteratbreastheight.Itraisesittolessthanorequalto10”dbh.Thiswillresultinalargerpercentageofstemsoflargersizethatwillbedowned,significantlyincreasingthefuelloadcomponentthatismoreresistanttorapiddecompositionduetoitsvolume.ThisincreasedfuelloadingmaymoveconditionsintheoppositedirectionofwhattheForestServiceclaimstobetryingtoachieve.”(162,23)

FSResponse:Nostandarddiameterrecommendationsexistfor“thinningfrombelow”,ratherasdisclosedintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.36andEApages36and114,“Thinningfrombelow(lowthinning)involvesremovingtreesfromthelowerpartoftheforestcanopy,leavingthelargest,healthiesttreestooccupythesite…Thinningfrombelowprimarilyremovesovertoppedandintermediatetrees,treesthatareshorterandreceivealimitedamountoflight.Brownandothers(2004)actuallystate,“Possiblestandardsforplacingboundariesonappropriatelowthinningincludediameterlimitsandpercentileapproaches.Diameterlimits,suchasrestrictingremovaltotrees<30cm(11.8”)or50cm(19.7”)isonewaytoapproachtheproblem,butthelimitshouldvarybysite.”Alsorefertoresponsetocomment#s53and58.

94. “Theevidenceisclearthatonetimethinningcreatesanoverwhelmingamountofslash.TheEAdoesnotincludeariskanalysisoftheeffectsoftheexcessiveslashloadingpredictedintheEA.Theserisksincluderaisingthecurrentfireriskaboveexistinglevelsandtheriskofanescapefiredoingmoreharmthangood.TheForestServicehaslimiteditsoptionstoaddressthisriskbytieringtheprojecttotheHealthyForestslaw,whichrequiresqualifyingprojectsbecompletedwithintwoyears.Withinthelifeoftheprojectfuelloadsarepredictedtoincrease.NEPArequiresa“hardlook”atallreasonablyforeseeablepotentialeffectsandacomprehensiveriskanalysisisrequired.”(162,24)

FSResponse:Refertoresponsetocomment#s62and88.RefertotheProjectFileforfuelloadingestimatesandpotentialfirereportsundermoderateandsevereconditions,byalternativetreatment,acrossthetemporalperiodusedintheanalysis(ItemsM5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐34,M5‐35,M5‐36,M5‐37,M5‐38,M5‐39,M5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,andM5‐45).ThisisnotaprojectanalyzedundertheHealthyForestsRestorationActauthorityof2003.

95. “ThinningandBurningforFireSuppressionisMisguidedBeyondtheStructure/WildlandFuelInterface…Someofthemajorgoalsoftheproposedprojectarethinningandburningofunderstoryvegetationtopromotefiresafety,aidinfuturesuppressionandhelppreventlargecatastrophicfireevents.Thisstrategyhasbeenshowntobeself‐defeatingbynumerousresearchers”…includingReinhardt,etal.(1999and2008)andWuerthner(2014).(162,25)


A‐54

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsprojectisarestorationbasedprojectdesignedinpartto“emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire”(EAp.16).“Overall,thedesiredfutureconditionsaddressstandandlandscapescalechangesinfuelsconditionsspecifictocanopycharacteristicstoreducetheprobabilityofcrownfirebehavior,deadanddownfuelloadstoreducetheflamelength,andresultantleveloftreemortalityastandwillexperienceduringawildfire”(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport,p.23).“Thinningstandstoreducecrownfirepotentialisaprimarymeansofreducingfirehazard”(Grahametal.,1999,2004;BrownandAplet,2000)(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport,p.24).“Thefundamentalgoaloffueltreatmentshouldnotbetoreducespreadratebuttoreduceburnseverity(Reinhardt,etall,2008).Burnseverityforthedesiredfutureconditionisrepresentedbyflamelength.Theobjectiveisthatwithreducedflamelengths,standswillexperiencelowerlevelsoftreemortalityduringwildlandfireeventswhethertheyarelargeorsmalleventinscale.Thelessenedfireintensityallowsforagreatermarginforfirefighterandpublicsafety.Resilientstandconditionscontributetoresilientcommunityconditions”(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport,p.23).Wuerthner(2014)isnotapeer‐reviewedscientificpaper;itisanopinion.

96. “TheEAdoesnotdisclosethecumulativeeffectsoffiresuppressionontheprojectarea.FromreadingtheEA,generaladverseimpactsoffiresuppressionaresuggested,buttheyarenotanalyzedintheproperspatialandtemporalcontext.NoneoftheregulatoryframeworkfortheFire/FuelsissuewasdevelopedinaNEPAprocessthatanalyzedtheforestwideimpactsoffiresuppressionimplicitandexplicitfromthebestavailableupdatedscienceonecosystems.ThisincludesnationalpoliciessuchastheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy,theForestPlanandthe2014LoloFireManagementPlan.”(182,6)

FSResponse:Table7onp.33oftheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportdepictsthecumulativeeffectssummaryforfireandfuels.Thefirstsectionofthistabledescribesfiresuppression.Treatmentswithintheprojectareawouldaffectecosystemfunctionbyreturningprescribedfiretothelandscapesincetherewillbelimitedopportunitiesforfiretoplayitsnaturalroleduetovaluesatrisk.Pages2‐8oftheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportoutlineregulatoryframeworksandpoliciesaddressingfiremanagement.

97. “Fuelreductionsaretemporary,buttheEAdoesnotdisclosewhatvegetationre‐growthwouldlooklike,orwhenvegetationre‐growthwouldneutralizethefuelreductiontreatmentssothattheagencywouldconsideritnecessaryforthenextroundoftreatments.TheEAstates,“theeffectivenessoftreatmentswouldspan20‐30years”asiftheeffectivenessis100%andthenallofasuddenit'snot.SothenyougetvaguetermsinplaceslikeTable20:“effectiveinthelongterm”...“shortterm”and“lesseffective.”Thisdoeslittletohelppeopletoevaluatethevalueoftheproposedtreatments.”(182,7)

FSResponse:ReducingbasalareareducescrownbulkdensitywhichdirectlyaffectsCFI,and%mortality.ThemoreBAisreduced,thelongerthetreatmentiseffective.Surfacefueltreatmentsreduceflamelengthwhichreducesintensity(pp.139‐142,EA).TimeframesforeffectivenessoftreatmentsweretakenfromFVSoutputsandarelistedbelow.


A‐55

ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReport,pp.5‐6,“TheForestVegetationSimulator(FVS),anindividual‐tree,distance‐independentgrowthandyieldmodel,wasusedinthisanalysistosummarizecurrentstandconditions,modelfutureconditionsandstanddynamics,andmodelproposedtreatmentsandtheireffects.Inaddition,FVSwasusedinconjunctionwiththeFireandFuelsExtension(FFE)toanalyzetheeffectsofnoactionandtheproposedtreatmentsonfirebehaviorandfuelloading.Thetemporalscaleusedinthiseffectsanalysiswasfrompresentdayto2050.”ThetreatmentsinAlternativeBweredesignedtofallbelowthresholdsofhighstandsusceptibilitytomountainpinebeetleforthetemporalperiodof20‐30years(ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.5‐6and26).Additionally,thinandprescribedfiretreatmentsinAlternativeBweredesignedtomaintainresilientstandswithlessthan15percentmortalityundermoderateandsevereburnconditionsthroughoutthetimeperiod.AlternativeBistheonlyalternativethatwouldaccomplishthis.Basedonmodeling,AlternativeCandDintheMainRattlesnakecorridorwouldresultinupto100%mortalityundersevereconditionsfollowingtreatment,renderingthetreatmentineffectiveandcomparabletonoactionundersevereconditions.AllFVSkeywordanddetailedoutputfilesarelocatedintheProjectFile(ItemsM5‐28,M5‐29,M5‐30,M5‐31,M5‐32,M5‐33,M5‐34,M5‐35,M5‐36,M5‐37,M5‐38,M5‐39,M5‐40,M5‐41,M5‐42,M5‐43,M5‐44,andM5‐45).

98. “TheEAalsodownplaystheshort‐termriskofslashlyingonthegroundinpilesoracrossunits.AndtheEAalsodoesn'tdisclosethatopeninguptheoverheadcanopywilldryupconditionsonforestfloorincreasingtheriskofmorerapidspreadonceafiredoesstart.”(182,8)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#s88and89.AsdiscussedonFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.23,“Thefundamentalgoaloffueltreatmentshouldnotbetoreducespreadratebuttoreduceburnseverity(Reinhardt,etal,2008).Burnseverityforthedesiredfutureconditionisrepresentedbyflamelength.Theobjectiveisthatwithreducedflamelengths,standswillexperiencelowerlevelsoftreemortalityduringwildlandfireeventswhethertheyarelargeorsmalleventinscale.Thelessenedfireintensityallowsforagreatermarginforfirefighterandpublicsafety.Resilientstandconditionscontributetoresilientcommunityconditions.”

99. “’(T)reatmentsneedtogobeyondtheareasimmediatelysurroundingindividualhomestoprotectotherresourcevaluesthatmakeuptheforestedsettingincludingsoilstability,wildlifehabitat,waterquality,timbervalue,andlandscapeaesthetics(Graham,2004).”TheEAhasnoscientificbasisforstatingthatloggingwillsignificantlyreducetheeffectsofthehigh‐severityfirethatwilleventuallyoccuranyway.Afterall,“inextremeweatherconditions,suchasdroughtorveryhighwinds,fueltreatmentsmaydolittletomitigatefirespreadorseverity(PolletandOmni,2002).’”(182,12)

FSResponse:AsstatedonEAp.17,“Studiesindicatethemostappropriatefueltreatmentstrategyforreducinghazardousfuelsincludesforestthinning(removingladderfuelsanddecreasingtreecrowndensity)followedbyprescribedburning,pilingandburningoffuels,orothermechanicaltreatments(e.g.,Peterson,2005).Otherresearchshowsthattreatingareasbeforefirebeginscandecreasetheseverityoffire(StromandFule,2007;Peterson,et.al,2005;OmniandMartinson,2004;AgeeandSkinner,2005;Graham,2004;PolletandOmni,2002;Fuleet.al2001).Ourfindingsindicatethatfueltreatmentsdomitigatefireseverity.Treatmentsprovideawindowofopportunityforeffectivefiresuppressionandprotectinghigh‐valueareas.


A‐56

Althoughtopographyandweathermayplayamoreimportantrolethanfuelsingoverningfirebehavior(BessieandJohnson1995),topographyandweathercannotberealisticallymanipulatedtoreducefireseverity.Fuelsarethelegofthefiretriangle(Countryman1972)thatlandmanagerscanchangetoachievedesiredpost‐firecondition”PolletandOmni(2002).”“Fueltreatmentsthatinvolveprescribedfirecarryrisksofescapeandofgreaterthanintendedfireeffectsincludingpost‐fireinsectattacksofresidualtrees(Ganzetal.,2003),consumptionoforganicsoils,andunwantedsmokeproduction.However,inmanycases,noactionmaycarrygreaterrisksfromeffectsofabnormallyseverefires(AgeeandSkinner,2005).”(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport,p.27).100. “AbigproblemwiththefuelsandfireanalysisisthattheEAfailstodisclosethe

implicationsoftheareasnottreatedbytheproposal.Theno‐actionalternativeisdescribedbasicallyadisasterwaitingtohappen,andtheactionalternativediscussions,bycontrast,failtoaddressthesignificanceofelevatedfuellevelsstillremainingafterprojectimplementationinuntreatedareas.Thisisasystematicfailuretoanalyzecumulativeeffects.”(182,13)

FSResponse:Cumulativeeffectsforfireandfuelsaredescribedonpp.33‐35oftheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport.Figure21onEAp.100describeseffectindicatorsasdisplayedbyacresoftreatment.Oneofthemeasurementindicators,withintheeffectsanalysismethodology,ishighintensitywildfirepotentialwhichisthemeasureofastand’shigherorlowerpotentialforcrownfireinitiationduringtypicalfireseasonweatherpatternsandfuelsconditions(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.9).Proposedtreatmentsarefocusedonareaswithfirebehaviorfuelmodelsrepresentinghighintensityfirebehaviorduringtypicalfireseasonconditionsforthisarea(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportp.18).Duetoecologicalandsocialconstraints,treatingtheentireprojectareaisnotpossible,however,“Thespatialarrangementofvegetationinfluencesthegrowthoflargefires.Patchesofvegetationthatburnrelativelyslowerorlessseverelythansurroundingpatchescanreducefireintensity,severity,orspreadrate,ormayforcethefiretomovearoundthembyflanking(atalowerintensity),whichlocallydelaystheforwardprogressofthefire.”Grahametal.2004).101. “TheEAdescribestheforestsoftheprojectareaashistoricallyopenduetofrequentlow‐

severityfire,implyingthatmixed‐severityorhighseverityfirewasoutsidethenorm.Thisisnotcorrect.Bakeretal.,2006state:(T)hevariable‐severitymodel,inwhichforeststructureswereshapedmainlybyinfrequentseverefires,isconsistentwiththeevidenceoffirehistoryandtreeagestructuresintheseforests.Onlylimitedareasofponderosapine–DouglasfirforestsintheRockyMountains,primarilyatlowelevationsandonxericsites,appeartohavebeenshapedprimarilybylow‐severityfires.Toassesswhichmodelmaybestfitapotentialmanagementarea,site‐specificinformationonfirehistoryandforestconditionsisrequired.”(182,14)

FSResponse:Refertoresponsestocomment#s53and55above.AssessmentsofwhichmodelsbestfittheprojectanalysiswascompletedanddocumentedonthefollowingEApp.:12‐13,16‐17,35‐39,86‐96,110‐125,131‐138,148‐149;ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.6‐21and33‐46;andFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReportpp.19‐22.


A‐57

102. TheEAstatesthat‘TheRattlesnakeandMarshalldrainagesruntothesouthandsouthwest.Thisistheinversedirectionoftheprevailingwinds…Thecombinedeffectsoftopography,prevailingwinds,anddaytimeup‐valleyandupslopewindscouldquicklyescalatefirebehaviorleadingtosignificantcontrolproblemsintheWUIintheMarshallWoodsprojectarea.’Sodoesn’tthismeanthatifwindblowsUPtheRSdrainageand“upvalleyandupslope”thenthewindwouldblowafireAWAYfromtheresidenceswhichareDOWNdrainageandDOWNslopeoftheRSdrainage?Andifthisisthecase,howwouldthisleadtosignificantfirecontrolproblemsintheWUI?IthoughtthismeansthewindwouldblowafireAWAYfromtheresidences.(153,1;162,13)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#76.

AIRQUALITY103. “Thissectiontreatsthesmokeemissionsasbeingthesamefromalltheactionalternatives.

Thisisflatlywrong.IftreesareremovedtherewillbelessPMfrompileburning/underburning.ThetypeoffirebehaviorwillbeverydifferentbetweenalternativesasyouhavedescribedinthefirefuelssectionthereforetheamountofParticulateMattergeneratedwillbesignificantlydifferentfromawildfirerunningthrougheachofthealternativelandscapes.”(147,15)

FSResponse:PleaserefertodescriptionsofAlternativesB,C,andDtobetterunderstandtheactivitiesproposed(EApp.33‐43).Astheproposedalternativesaredesigned,commercialmaterialwouldnotbeburned,itwouldeitherbehauledoutorleftstanding,eitherwayinfluencingsubsequentprescribedfireactivity.Wewouldcutmaterial8”dbhorless.PleaserefertoEApp.35‐39forvegetationtreatmentdescriptions.PleaserefertoFVSoutputsintheProjectFilewhichshowinsignificantdifferencesinemissionsbetweenalternatives.Allactionalternativesreduceemissionsinawildfireevent,whichistheonlyscenarioinwhichaNAAQSexceedanceismodeled.104. “Thesectiondoesn’taddressthegreenhousegasemissiondifferencesbetweenalternatives

fromwoodutilizationorfromwildfiresizeandintensity.Neitherdoesitaddresspost‐fireGHGemissionswhichareverydifferentbetweenalternativesbasedonthemortalityestimatedtooccur.”(147,16)

FSResponse:BasedontheCleanAirAct,andTheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards,theonlyemissionstandardsrequiredforanalysisarePM2.5andPM10.Nonetheless,carbonreports,aswellasestimatesoftons/biomassperacreremovedand/orconsumedunderthemodeledtreatmentscenariosareintheFVSoutputreportslocatedintheProjectFile(ProjectFile,ItemM2‐3).AlsopleaserefertotheForestCarbonCyclingandStorageReportintheProjectFile(ItemN‐25).105. “Nodiscussionoftheuseofanaircurtainburnerwasfoundinmyreview.Thiswould

substantiallychangethePMemissionsfrompileburning;itwouldalsochangethecostandwouldrequiretheuseofequipmenttohaultheburnerintothesiteandtoloaditwhileinoperation.Alsotobeeffectivetheslashwouldneedtobetransported(yarded)totheroadside.”(147,17)


A‐58

FSResponse:UseofanaircurtainburnerisaformofonsitemechanizeddisposalandcouldbeusedunderAlternativeB(Units1‐6and70‐71)orAlternativeC(Units4‐6).AnaircurtainburnerwouldnotbeusedunderAlternativeDorAlternativeC(Units1‐3)asthesealternativesdonotincludetheuseofmechanizedequipment.EApp.36and114andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.36state,“Biomassandslashdisposalmayincludeavarietyofmethodssuchasmechanicalremoval,mastication,haulingassawlogs,biomassutilization,disposalonsite,pilingandburning,burning,orchipping.Individualtreatmentsoracombinationoftreatmentsmayoccur.”PleaserefertoEAp.51forresourceprotectionmeasure#8whichspecificallyreferstotheuseofacurtainburner.106. “TheEAtalksaboutthepotentialfornuisancesmokebutnodifferentiationbetween

alternatives…Won’taltBandCgeneratelesssmokeifsawlogsandpulpwoodisremovedandnotputinthepilestobeburned?Thelesswoodgreaterthan3”indiainthepilesthequickertheywillburnandlessresidualsmolderingandthuslesssmoke.Italsoreducestheriskofescapes.Pileswithsmallmaterialarelesslikelytoharborhold‐oversmokesthatcouldbecomeawildfiretwoweeksafterthepilesareburnedandafallcoldfrontwithstrongwindsarrives.Thelesslargematerialthelesspatrollingofpileburningwillbeneededandthusthecostisreduced.Thesmallerthepilesandreducedtonnagemeanslessscorchedsoilandlesspotentialfornoxiousweedinfestationandtreatmentbeingneeded.”(147,18)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#s59,103,and104.Thiswasnotanissueraisedduringscoping;thereforedidnotdrivealternativedevelopmentnorwasitincludedasaneffectsindicator.

WILDLIFE107. “Thepicturethatwasshowntousdepictingthehealthyforestafterallthecutting,burning

andtimberharvestlookedmorelikeaparkthanaforest.Itwasdifficulttoimaginewildlife,assumingtheysurvivedtheinitialdestruction,beingabletoexistinthispristineparklikesetting.Withtheirhabitatdestroyed,theirfoodsupply,suchasberrybushesandbugsinrottedstumpsandtreesburnedhowwillthisstarkforestsustainthewildlife.Manyanimalsneedthecoveranddensityofthickbushesandsmalltrees.Hasanyconsiderationbeengiventothewildlife?Irealizethattheelkanddeerwillthriveonnewgrassesbutwhataboutalltheotherspecies?Manypropertyownersalreadypanicwhentheyseewildlifeintheiryards.Willtheanimalsbedrivenintotheseareas?”(19,1)

FSResponse:TheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportdetailstheconsiderationgiventowildlifespecies,includinganalysisofeffectsto21differentspeciesofmammals,birds,andamphibians.Theanalysisconsideredtheimpactsofdisplacement,aswellasotherhabitatmodifications,onthesespeciesandtheirhabitat.ResourceProtectionMeasuresweredevelopedforwildlife(seeEApp.63‐67,RPMs#32‐45).Thesemeasuresaddressconcernsaboutthecoverofthickbushesandsmalltrees,asdomanyoftheprescriptions.OtherResourceProtectionMeasuresweredevelopedtophaseimplementationofsomeoftheprojectactivitiestoaccountfordisplacementofwildlifespecies,andensureadequateun‐disturbedareaswouldbepresentwithintheprojectareaduringimplementationoftreatments.108. “Hasthewelfareofthewildlifebeenconsideredinregardstothetimeofyearthisproject

commences?”(19,4)


A‐59

FSResponse:Yes.Theeffectsanalysesforwildlifespeciesconsideredthetreatmentsaswellastimingofallactivitiesrelatedtotheproject.DetailscanbefoundintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,andinthewildlifeanalysissectionoftheEA(pp.150‐228).Wheredeemednecessary,timingofactivitieswouldberestrictedorphasedtoreduceoravoideffectstocertainwildlifespeciesduringcriticaltimesoftheyearforthembiologically(seeResourceProtectionMeasures,EApp.63‐43,RPM#s32,37,40,41,and43)

109. “Thepre‐decisionalEAdoesnotdiscusshowthetimbersale’sloggingandslash/RXburningactivitieswillbemitigatedtoassureprotectedbirdspecies’individualsandtheirhabitatarenotharmedinanyway…IdentifythebirdsthatexistinorneartheprojectareathatareprotectedbytheMigratoryBirdTreatyActanddiscusshowthesebirdswillbeprotectedduringburningandtimberharvestoperations.”(22,2)

FSResponse:MigratorybirdsarediscussedinmultiplepartsoftheEAandWildlifeSpecialist’sReport.Inparticular,p.16oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportexplainstheMOUbetweenUSFishandWildlifeServiceandtheForestServiceregardingmigratorybirds,andstates,“ThepartiesagreedthatthroughtheNEPAprocess,theForestServicewouldevaluatetheeffectsofagencyactionsonmigratorybirds,focusingfirstonspeciesofmanagementconcernalongwiththeirpriorityhabitatsandkeyriskfactors.Theneedsofmigratorybirdsareaddressedthroughoutthisanalysis,includingtheindividualsectionsonprojectimpactstobaldeagle,black‐backedwoodpecker,flammulatedowl,northerngoshawk,andpileatedwoodpeckers,aswellasothersectionsofthisreportthataddresshabitatdiversity.”Harlequinducks,whicharealsomigratorybirds,arealsodiscussed.Analysisofeachofthesespeciesinthereportdiscussedeffectstothespeciesofactivities,andanyproject‐specificprotectionmeasuresforthem(seeResourceProtectionMeasuresintheEA,pp.63‐67,particularlyRPM#32‐36,41).BirdspeciesintheprojectareaarediscussedintheAnalysisAreadescription(EAp.150,oronp.25oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport),aswellasintheindividualsectionsforflammulatedowls,harlequinducks,peregrinefalcons,baldeagles,black‐backedwoodpeckers,andnortherngoshawks.Inaddition,acommentduringscopingpointedouttheimportanceofwoodydrawsforsongbirds,andthisisaddressedintheEAonp.228,whichreferencesResourceProtectionMeasuresthatwouldprotectthosehabitatsfromdirectfire(seeResourceProtectionMeasure#s11and50).110. “Whilerare,grizzlieshavehistoricallyutilizedtheRattlesnakeNRAandwildernessfor

foraginganddenningpurposesandcommercialloggingwillundoubtedlyhaveanadverseeffectongrizzlybearsinthearea.”(163)

FSResponse:ItistruethatgrizzlybearsdousetheRattlesnakeNRAandwilderness(EAp.56).TheeffectsofallprojectactivitiestogrizzlybearswereanalyzedanddiscussedextensivelyintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport(pp.55‐68),andpresentedintheEAonpp.173‐185.ABiologicalAssessmentwillalsobepreparedandsubmittedtotheUSFishandWildlifeServiceinordertoconsultwithUSFWSontheeffectstogrizzlybears.111. IsupportAlternativeBbecause…“dense,heavilyshadedforestsnowoccupyahistorically

disproportionateandincreasing portionoftheRattlesnakewatershedandproviderelativelyfewresourcesfornativewildlife. In contrast,openforestsareincreasinglyrareandsupportarichdiversityofnativegrasses,forbsand shrubsofvaluetobirds,bears,ungulatesandsmallmammalsandtheirprey.”(144,2)


A‐60

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.Thewildlifeanalysisandprojectdesignconsideredthecurrentconditionsintermsofforeststructureanddiversityforavarietyofwildlifespecies.ConditionsarediscussedintheEAonpp.150‐153,withdetailsaboutthesuitabilityofforeststructuraltypescurrentlyandpost‐treatment(foreachalternative)onavarietyofThreatened,Sensitive,andManagementIndicatorSpecies(EApp.155‐232).112. FWPsupportscommercialoperationsinUnits1,4,5,and6asthesewouldhavelong‐term

benefitsforwinterrangeforelkintheseareaswhilemaintaininglong‐termelksecurity.Ifconditionsareamenable,wewouldpreferoperationstooccurinearlyspringorlatesummer/fall(outsideofflammulatedowlnestingperiod).Wealsorecommendmonitoringtheunitsrightbeforeharvest,especiallyforlatesummerwork,toensurethatanyflammulatedowlnestshavefledgedbeforefieldoperationsbegin.Ifoperationsaredeemednecessarytoconductduringwintermonths,thenFWPsuggeststryingtominimizedisturbanceofwinteringelkasmuchaspossibleduringharvestoperationswiththefollowingrecommendations:1)ConductalloperationsinUnit1,4,5,and6inonewinterseasontoavoiddisturbanceacrossmultipleyears;2)NotconductoperationsinUnits4,5,and6atthesametimeasoperationsinUnit1,inordertoreducedisturbanceacrossspace;and3)ConductandfinishoperationsinUnits4,5,and6firstbeforestartingUnit1,inordertopotentiallymitigatetheamountofvehicledisturbanceonthehaulroadlaterinthewinter,whenelkmaybecomemorefoodstressed.”(160,1)

FSResponse:Timingoftheproposedharvestwasabigconsiderationinprojectdesign,duetotheoccupancyofthoseunitsbybothelkandflammulatedowls.Whileearlyspringorfallwouldbetheleastimpactivetimestoflammulatedowlsandelktoconductloggingortodonon‐commercialtreatment,concernswithotherresources(suchassoilsandrecreation)andtheneedforflexibilityincontractsledustopotentiallyallowingwinterharvestinUnits1,4,5,and6.TheeffectsofdisturbancetoelkarediscussedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportintheElksectionandintheEA(pp.221‐225).ResourceProtectionMeasure#37addressestheneedtophaseimplementationofharvestinunitswithinelkwinterrange.Atthistimeanddependingonwhichalternativeisselected,wecannotguaranteethatUnits4,5,and6wouldbecompletedbeforeUnit1,orthatallfourunitswouldbecompletedinoneseason;howeverwewillcontinuetoconsiderthesuggestion,aswellasothers,aswaystominimizedisturbancetoelk.ResourceProtectionMeasure#32limitsharvestinUnits1,4,5,and6duringtheflammulatedowlbreeding,nesting,andfledgingseasons.113. “Themaponp.151,Figure37makesitlooklikeunit3andpartofunit2areinthe

wilderness.”(147,19)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourobservation.Thiswasanunintentionalerrorinthatmap.Figure1onEAp.11accuratelyshowsthewildernessareainrelationtotheprojectarea.114. “Onp.202indescribingtheeffectsofAlt.Aitindicateshabitatwoulddegradeovertimeas

forestsbecomedenser.Itdoesn’tmentionthepotentialforarapidlossofhabitatifaseverewildfirewastoburnthroughtheFlammulatedowloccupiedareasinthenearfuture.”(147,20)


A‐61

FSResponse:ThepotentialforseverewildfireandtheconsequencesofsucharecoveredinothersectionsoftheEA,includingFireandFuels(pp.139‐145)andForestedVegetation(pp.97‐102).Becausehighseverityfireisnotaplannedactivity,itwasnotspecificallyaddressedforflammulatedowls.Thedescriptionsofsuitableflammulatedowlhabitataregivenonpp.92‐93oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportandintheliteraturecitedtherein.Suitablehabitatforflammulatedisnotassociatedwithrecentseverelyburnedforests,particularlywiththe100%crownmortalitythatcouldoccurundercertainalternatives(seeTable19,EAp.143).115. “TheEffectsonElkFromLossofHidingCoverWasNotEvaluated…TheEAevaluatesthe

effectsa30‐60%lossofcanopycoverwouldhaveonelk,concludingtherewouldbenoeffectsonthermalcover.Yetthereisnoanalysisofakeycomponentofelkhabitat:hidingcoveratgroundlevel.”(162,41)

FSResponse:TheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportdetailstheanalysisconductedregardingelk.Itdoesnotconcludethattherewillbe“noeffectsonthermalcover,”assuggestedinthecomment,butratherthattheproposedtreatmentswouldstillmeettheForestPlanStandardsforcover:forageratioforMA23.TherearenoForestPlanStandardsthatrequireanalysisofhidingcoveratgroundlevel.Theelkanalysisconsiderstheeffectsoftheproposedtreatmentsonhabitatsuitabilityforelk.ThisanalysistookintoaccountthenumerousdesignfeaturesandResourceProtectionMeasuresthatwouldretainvegetativecoverintheformofthicketsofyoungdensetreesfollowingharvestandburning(ResourceProtectionMeasure#36)andthatwouldfeathervegetation,slash,orlargewoodydebriswithin100feetoftrailcorridorstoprovidescreening(ResourceProtectionMeasure#63).ThemainRattlesnakecorridorisnotwithinanyManagementAreaswithbiggamestandards,andisoutsideoftheprimarywinterrangeforelk.116. ”TheEA'swildlifeanalysesarelackinginthattheydon'taddressconsistencywithexplicit

applicableForestPlandirection.Conclusionsofpopulationviabilityarethereforenotproperlysupported,andfurthermoretheanalysesfailtoutilizethebestavailablescience.”(182,18)

FSResponse:ConsistencywithForestPlandirectionisaddressedatmultipleplaceswithintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport.Inparticular,pp.12‐15explicitlydetailtheForestPlanstandardsrelatedtowildlifethatareapplicabletothisproject.Table3onp.12detailsallofthestandardsandguidelinesrelativetowildlifeforManagementAreasdesignatedintheForestPlan,andTable4p.15detailsthewildlife‐relatedstandardsfortheLimitsofAcceptableChangeintheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationArea,andhowtheprojectmeetsthosestandardsandisthusconsistentwiththeForestPlan.ForestPlanrequirementsforspeciesviabilityisdiscussedindepthonp.17andagainonp.67oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,aswellasanassessmentofhowtheprojectactivitieswouldaffectviabilityforindividualspeciesthroughoutthereport(seealsotheresponsestocomment#s118and119below).ConsistencywithForestPlanStandardsisalsoaddressedforElkonpp.126‐132oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport.


A‐62

Thebestavailablescienceusedtosupporttheanalysisforeachspeciesiscitedthroughoutthereport,listedintheLiteratureCited,andprovidedintheProjectFile.117. “TheForestServicemustcompleteaprogrammaticconsultationwiththeU.S.Fish&

WildlifeServiceontheforestplan,inthecontextofforestwideCanadalynxCriticalHabitatdesignationandtheNorthernRockiesLynxManagementDirection(NRLMD).”(182,19)

FSResponse:TheForestwillconsultonbothlynxandlynxCriticalHabitatattheprojectlevel.BoththeBAandNEPAanalysisarewrittentoaddresscriticalhabitatattheprojectlevelbyperformingaqualitativeandquantitativeanalysisofprimaryconstituentelements(PCEs).ThisanalysisisindependentandtotallyseparatefromtheanalysisofimpactsbasedontheStandardsandGuidelinesfoundintheNRLMD.TheresultsofongoingfiresuppressionintheanalysisareaarecapturedinthedescriptionandquantificationofhabitattypesandPCEsthatispresentedintheExistingConditionforCriticalHabitat.Inparticular,theWildlifeSpecialist’sReportdetailstheexistingconditionofCriticalHabitatonpp.47‐48(EApp.166‐167),aswellasTable14intheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport(Table29intheEA)describesthecurrentconditionintheanalysisarea.ThecurrentconditionreflectsallpastactivitiesthathaveinfluencedtheelementsofCriticalHabitatinthepast,particularlythestructuralstagesofborealforestwithintheanalysisarea.118. “TheEAfailstodisclosethebestavailablescienceitisrelyinguponinmakingsureForest

Servicemanagementisnotimpedinggrizzlybearpopulationrecovery.Likewise,theanalysesforthewolverine,fisher,graywolf,elk,harlequinduck,borealtoad,pileatedwoodpecker,northerngoshawk,andTownsend'sbig‐earredbatdonotdisclosewhattheForestServiceisrelyinguponasbestavailablesciencetoassurepopulationviability.Theanalysesmustassurethatsufficientquantityandqualityofavailable,well‐distributedhabitatforeachspeciesisprovided,baseduponthebestavailablescience.”(182,21)

FSResponse:TheliteraturethatwasusedtoconsidereachofthesespeciesisincludedintheEAinthesectionsforeachspecies,isalsocitedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,andisincludedintheProjectFile.Inparticular:Grizzlybears—onp.54oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportitstatesthat“thecurrentLoloForestPlanhasbeenthoroughlyconsideredbyUSFWSanddeterminedtobesufficienttoprotectgrizzlybearsinoccupiedareasoutsidetheRecoveryZone,andthatincidentaltakeisaccountedforintheupdatedITS.”Theanalysisdiscussesmultipleaspectsofgrizzlybearecologyandtheeffectsoftheprojecttothosedifferentfactors,andoveralleffectstogrizzlybears.TheanalysisalsotierstothedraftGrizzlyBearConservationStrategy(GBCS)andtalksaboutadherencewithguidanceinthatdocument,whichincorporatesbestavailablescienceforgrizzlybearrecovery(seep.66ofWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,aswellastheGrizzlyBearConservationStrategy(ProjectFile,ItemO‐246andO‐341)).Graywolf,harlequinduck,andTownsend’sbig‐earedbat‐‐TheanalysesconcludedthattherewouldbeNoImpacttothesespecies.Viabilityforthesespeciesisnotrequiredattheprojectlevel,andthusiftheprojectishavingnoimpact,thennofurtherviabilityanalysisisneeded.


A‐63

Wolverine‐Theanalysisforwolverinestieredtothebestavailablesciencethatiscitedandsummarizedinthe2013ListingProposal(78FR7865)andinthe2014Finding(79FR47522),bothofwhicharecitedmultipletimesintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport(particularlyonpp.67‐69)andincludedintheProjectFile,ItemsM13‐12and17).Page71oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportspecificallyre‐iteratesthescientificbasisforassessingeffectstowolverines,andstatesthat,“TheFWSconcludedthatbecausewolverinehabitatisgenerallyinhospitabletohumanuseandoccupationandmostofitisalsofederally‐managed,wolverinesaresomewhatinsulatedfromimpactsofhumandisturbancesfromindustry(e.g.,logging),agriculture,infrastructuredevelopment,orrecreation.”Fisher—TheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportcitesanalysisbySamson(2006b)(ProjectFile,ItemO‐268)addressingfisherviabilityattheForestandRegionalscale,andshowsthathabitatissufficientattheForestleveltoprovideforaviablepopulationoffishers(p.76).Effectstofisherhabitatintheprojectareaarediscussedonp.78oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportandconcludetherewillnotbeareductioninfisherhabitatunderanyofthealternatives.BorealToad—ScienceusedtosupporttheanalysisiscitedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,pp.104‐107.Elk,Pileated,andGoshawk—ThesethreespeciesareManagementIndicatorSpeciesfortheForest.Assuch,thereisnorulestatingthattheForestmustmanageforpopulationviability,asthatruleisspecifictoSensitiveSpecies(seep.67ofWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,whichcitesFSM2670.32(viabilityofSensitivespecies)andForestPlanstandard27(atp.II‐14)directstheForesttomanageforpopulationviability(USDA‐FS1986).119. “DoestheLoloNationalForestassumethatadheringtotheForestPlan'smanagement

indicatorspecies(MIS)schemeassuresviabilityoftheSensitive,Threatened,andEndangeredspecies?”(182,21)

FSResponse:ViabilityofeachSensitiveandThreatenedspeciesintheprojectareawereaddressedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportinthesectionsoneachspecies(therearenoEndangeredterrestrialspeciesintheprojectorontheForest).Asstatedonp.67oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport,“Forspeciesidentifiedassensitive,theForestServiceshallavoidorminimizeimpactstospecieswhoseviabilityhasbeenidentifiedasaconcern(FSM2670.32).ForestPlanstandard27(atp.II‐14)directstheForesttomanageforpopulationviability(USDA‐FS1986).TheForestServiceisrequiredbytheNationalForestManagementAct(NFMA)anditsimplementationregulationstoprovideforadiversityofnativeplantandanimalcommunitiesbasedonthesuitabilityandcapabilityofthelandinordertomeetmultipleuseobjectives(16U.S.C.1604(g)(3)(B);36CFR219.10(b)(2005);andFSM2670.12).”Seeresponsetocomment#118forfurtherinformationonviabilityforvariousspecies.

120. “TheForestService’sSamson(2006)reportssaysthat110breedingindividuals(i.e.55pairs)arenecessaryforaviablegoshawkpopulationinRegion1.Attachment1isamapshowingtheresultsfromthe2005Region‐widegoshawksurveyusingthe“WoodbridgeandHargis”goshawkmonitoringprotocol,whichispublishedasaUSFSaForestServicetechnicalreport.That2005detectionmapsaystherewere40detectionsin2005inRegion1.SotheresultsofthissurveyessentiallyshowthatthepopulationinRegion1isnotviable


A‐64

accordingtotheagency’sownscience(only40insteadof55).Andsomeofthedetectionsmayhavebeenindividualsusingthesamenest,sothenumberofnests(andthereforenumberofbreedingpairs)couldbeevenlowerthan40.Whatiswrongwithouranalysis?”(182,25)

FSResponse:ThemapreferencedinthiscommentshowsdetectionsfromaRegionalgoshawksurveyeffortconductedin2005,themethodsandresultsofwhicharedetailedinKowalski2006(ProjectFile,ItemO‐215),andcitedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportonp.113.Thesurveyeffortsub‐sampledtheRegion,asitwouldbeinfeasibletosurveyeveryacreoflandintheRegionforgoshawks.ThusKowalskiusedasub‐setofPrimarySurveyUnits(PSUs)placedthroughouttheRegionforthesurvey,surveying114ofthe12,350PSUsthatcontainedNFSlandsintheRegion.Goshawksweredetectedin40ofthe114PSUssurveyed,leadingtoadetectionrateof0.39forPSUsintheRegion(alldescribedinKowalski).ExtrapolatingthisdetectionprobabilityacrossalllandsintheRegionwouldresultinmanymorethan40,oreven55,goshawkdetections.AsstatedinKowalski:IfweusetheaboveconfidencelimitstoextrapolatetotheentiresetofPSUswithintheaccessibleportionoftheNorthernregion,weobtainamaximumlikelihoodestimateof4,816PSUswithgoshawkpresenceand,basedona95%confidenceinterval,havingarangeof3,581to6,175PSUswithgoshawkspresent…sincegoshawkresearchershavefoundnoevidencethatgoshawksaredeclininginthewesternUnitedStates(Kennedy1997,SquiresandKennedy2006)andSamson(2005)demonstratedthatgoshawkhabitatwaswell‐distributedandabundantintheRegion,ourestimateofgoshawkpresencesuggeststhatgoshawksareabundantandwell‐distributedthroughouttheaccessibleportionsofRegionOneNationalForestSystemlandswithinMontanaandIdahoduringthebreedingseason.”ThegoshawkanalysisintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport(pp.112‐113)considersthisinformationintheexistingconditionforgoshawks,andintheanalysisofeffectstogoshawks(pp.119‐120).121. ”TheEAstatesthat“Nestingandforaginghabitatforthenortherngoshawkandpileated

woodpecker(detailedbelow)wouldremainabundantandwidespreadintheanalysisarea,Forest‐andRegion‐wide.“TheEAdoesnotdiscloseitscriteriafordeclaringanareatobenestingorforaginghabitatforeitherspecies.”(182,16)

FSResponse:Habitatforgoshawksisdescribedonpp.113‐114oftheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport.Inparticular,onp.114(EAp.212),itstates,“NestinghabitatforgoshawkswasestimatedusingthegoshawkhabitatmodeldevelopedbyLoloNFwildlifebiologists(ProjectFile,ItemM13‐13).ThemodelisbasedonvegetationattributescollectedfromnestsitesobservedintheNorthernRockyMountainEcoprovincethatencompassestheanalysisarea(Samson2006a),andthenqueryingR1VMapdatatoidentifyareasthatcouldprovidenestingandforaginghabitat.”ModelresultsfortheprojectareaareshowninFigure8intheWildlifeSpecialist’sReport(p.117,EAp.215).SimilarmethodsthattiertoSamson(2006)wereusedforpileatedwoodpeckerhabitatidentificationviaamodel.DetailsofthehabitatmodelcriteriaforbothspeciescanbefoundinthemethodspaperthatisincludedintheProjectFile(ItemM13‐13).

OLDGROWTH


A‐65

122. “’MonitoringdatacollectedontheLoloNFonsilviculturaltreatmentsdesignedtoprotectlarge,oldtreesindicatedmarkedsuccessovernotreatment.Datacollectedinoldgrowthstandsbetween1995and2005indicatethattreatmentsaresuccessfulatmaintainingoldgrowthstructurepost‐treatmentwhereitoccurred(Breweretal.,2008)..’HastheLoloNationalForestmonitoredthesestandstodeterminetheresponsetothesetreatmentsbywildlifespeciesofinterest?”(182,16)

FSResponse:Yes,theLoloNFhasmonitoredthehabitatconditionsanduseofoldgrowthstandsthatweretreatedorburned.Thismonitoringfocusedonflammulatedowls,pileatedwoodpeckers,andnortherngoshawks,andisdetailedinBreweretal.,2007and2009(ProjectFile,ItemO‐153and154).Theresultsofthismonitoringshoweduseoftreatedoldgrowthstandsbyallthreespecies.Inaddition,goshawkshavebeenobservednestinginoldgrowthstandsbothpre‐andpost‐treatmentontheLoloNFinatleasttwoareasinrecentyears—PatteeCanyonandDryGulch.ThisinformationisalsoavailableinBreweretal.,2014LoloForestPlanWildlifeMonitoringReport(ProjectFile,ItemM13‐26).

123. ”TheForestServiceapparentlyisoperatingundertheassumptionthatmaintainingaforestwideamountof8%oldgrowthwouldassurepopulationsofold‐growthMISandmaybeotherspecies.Whatisthe“bestscientificinformation”theForestServiceisrelyingupon?Lesica(1996)statesthatuseofeven10%asminimumold‐growthStandardmayresultinextirpationofsomespecies.Thisisbasedonhisestimatethat20‐50%oflowandmanymid‐elevationforestswereinold‐growthconditionpriortoEuropeansettlement.Ifthatisnot“bestavailablescience”,pleasecitewhattheForestServiceconsidersittobeintermsofamountanddistributionofhabitat.”(182,22)

FSResponse:TheprojectisnotproposingtotreatanystandsidentifiedasOldGrowth(seeresponsetocomment#125below,andstatedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportatp.112),andtherearenoareasdesignatedasManagementArea21withintheprojectarea(MA21hasgoalsofprovidingforold‐growthsuccession;seeWildlifeSpecialist’sReportpp.13‐14).TheprojectmeetsoldgrowthstandardsintheForestPlan.TheForestPlanstandardsrelatedtoOldGrowthweredesignedtoprotectOldGrowth‐associatedspecies(ProjectFile,ItemL‐4particularlypII‐61;alsotheForesthasconductedmonitoringtoassesshabitatforOldGrowth‐associatedspeciesontheForest,concludingthathabitatparametersarebeingmet(seeBreweretal.2007and2009;ProjectFile,ItemsO‐153and154)).Inaddition,speciesmonitoringforOldGrowth‐associatedspecies,suchasgoshawksandpileatedwoodpeckers,indicatesthespeciesarewell‐distributedacrosstheForest(seeWildlifeSpecialist’sReportatpp.112‐114and122‐123).Thismonitoringinformation,includingdataonthedistributionofpileatedwoodpeckers(ProjectFile,ItemM13‐17)andfromRegionalgoshawksurvey(seeKowalski2005,ProjectFile,ItemO‐215)isthebestavailablesciencethattheForestisrelyingupontodeterminewhetherforestmanagementisassuringpopulationsofold‐growthMIS.ThehistoryoftheForest’sOldGrowthpoliciesandscienceisdocumentedinBreweretal.,2008,particularlyinAppendix1.Itstatesonp.1ofAppendix1,“Asastrategyformeetingnon‐gamespeciesneeds,the1986Planallocated8%ofitslandareatooldgrowth,evenlydistributedwithintheForest’ssixhabitatgroups,andevenlydistributedwithineachoftheForest’s71majorwatersheds.The8%wasbasedoninterpretationoftheliterature


A‐66

availableatthetimeconcerningminimumhabitatneedsforvariousold‐growthassociatedspeciesincludingthepileatedwoodpecker,fisher,pinemarten,andnortherngoshawk.”124. “TheEAstates:UsingthedefinitionofoldgrowthintheLoloNFPlan(1986atpp.VII24‐

25)conservativeestimatesderivedfromFIAdatashowatleast14.4%oftheForestisoldgrowthorovermaturetimber(Bushetal.2003).Thisestimatefarexceedsthe8%standardintheLoloNFPlan.UsingtheRegionOnedefinitionofoldgrowth(Greenetal.1992),conservativeestimatesfromFIAdatashowtheLoloNFiscomprisedof9.6%oldgrowth(90%CI7.7to11.5%),slightlyabovethe8%standardinthePlanandfarabovethe2%allocatedinMA21(Bushetal.2007).

Whatexactlyarethedifferencesinthosetwoold‐growthdefinitionsthatleadtosuchdisparateestimatedamounts?Isthereaminimumstandsizebelowwhichastandcannotqualifyfortheoldgrowthinventory,andifso,whatisthescientificbasis?Also,doestheLoloNationalForestmaintainanyotherinventoryofold‐growthfortheforestbesidestheFIA?”(182,23)

FSResponse:TheprojectdoesnotproposetotreatanystandsthatareidentifiedasOldGrowthbyanydefinition.Thethreepaperscited,whichareavailableintheProjectFile(ItemsO‐158,159,and184),detailthedefinitionsandqueriesusedtodefineoldgrowthbytheForestPlanandhowitwasestimatedbyBushetal.(2003),andtheGreenetal.(1992)definitionandhowitwasestimatedbyBushetal.(2007).Pleaserefertothesepapersforthedetailsofthemethods(ProjectFile,ItemsO‐158and159).ThedefinitionofOldGrowthintheForestPlan(pageVII‐24)says“SeeOvermatureTimber.”OvermatureTimberisdefinedas“Individualtreesorstandsoftreesthatingeneralarepasttheirmaximumrateintermsofthephysiologicalprocessesexpressedasheight,diameter,andvolumegrowth.”TheRegionOnedefinitionofoldgrowthisdescribedinGreenetal.,1992(ProjectFile,ItemO‐184).OldgrowthisnotanissueintheMarshallWoodsproject(ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.27,EApp.104,212).OnForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.27andEAp.104,therecordstates,“Asdescribedintheexistingconditionsection,theMarshallWoodsprojectareahasanextensivehistoryofpastharvest,humanoccupation,human‐causedstand‐replacingfire,andextractiveuseallpriortoNFSownership.Giventhishistory,noknownoldgrowthstands,asdefinedbytheForestPlanandGreenandothers(1992),arepresentwithintheprojectarea.Remnant,individualoldand/orlargetreesareascarcitywithintheprojectareaaswell.”AsstatedinProjectFileItemM5‐27,“AForest‐wideoldgrowthanalysisusingForestInventoryandAnalysis(FIA)datavalidatesthattheLoloNFcontinuestomeettheoldgrowthstrategyoftheForestPlan.Bushandothers(2007)derivedstatisticalestimatesofthepercentoldgrowthusingFIAdataandthemorerestrictivedefinition(thantheFP(seeProjectFile,ItemM5‐27))providedbyGreenandothers(1992)onallforestedlandsontheLoloNF.The2007estimateis9.6percentoldgrowththatexceedsthe8percentstrategy(LoloForestPlanEIS,p.II‐61).ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.27,EAp.104,“Alltreatments,inallalternatives,aredesignedtoretainlarge,fire‐resistantponderosapineandwesternlarchwheretheyoccurwithinthelimitsofthetreatmentdesign.RefertoForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.27‐29,EApp.104‐106onfordetailsonhow,“thetreatmentswouldlikelyhasten


A‐67

diameteraccretionandstandsmaypotentiallyprovidethelargetreecomponentofoldgrowthhabitatinthefuture.“125. “TheEAalsodoesnotdisclosehowmucholdgrowthexistsinthewildlifeanalysisarea.”

(182,24)FSResponse:TheEAonp.104addressestheamountofoldgrowthintheprojectarea,andstates“noknownoldgrowthstands,asdefinedbytheForestPlanandGreenandothers(1992),arepresentwithintheprojectarea.”Nooldgrowth,thus,isproposedfortreatmentinanyofthealternatives,sinceitdoesnotexistintheprojectarea.TheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportonpp.27‐29addressesthecurrentvegetativeconditionsandforeststructuralstagesintheanalysisareaintermsofdiversityofhabitatsforwildlife.Inparticular,Table9onp.27detailsthestructuraldiversityandtreesizes,andshowsthat8,121acreswithintheanalysisareaarematureforest(treesizes>10”dbh)withmoderatetodensecanopy(40%+).Thusapproximately28%oftheanalysisareaconsistsofmatureforestwithdensecanopy.

FISHERIES126. “RattlesnakeCreek isprimehabitatforendangered bulltrout…acommercialtimber

operationwould clearly impactthecreekwithincreasedsiltation,etc.”(54,3)FSResponse:RattlesnakeCreekcontainsnativebulltrout,whicharelistedasathreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct,aswellasdesignatedcriticalhabitatforbulltrout(FisheriesSpecialist’sReportpp.3,7andFAQsp.5(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11)).AlternativeBistheonlyalternativethatwouldresultincommercialharvestandhaulintheRattlesnakeCreekcorridor.TheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportdisclosestheanticipatedeffectsofeachoftheactionalternatives,includingAlternativeB(pp.21‐35,andEApp.258‐268).NodirecteffectsonsedimentationareanticipatedfromcommercialvegetationtreatmentsduetoapplicationofBMPsandINFISHbufferretention(FisheriesSpecialist’sReportp.25andEAp.260).Haulroaduseisexpectedtoincreasesedimentproduction,butBMPswouldreducesedimentdelivery(seeHydrologySpecialist’sReportpp.25‐34orEApp.248‐252foranalysisofproposedhaul,roadwork,andassessmentofroadsedimentdelivery).ThehaulrouteforAlternativeB(ForestRoad#99/Trail515forunitsintheRattlesnakeCreekcorridor)wouldreceiveroadBMPimprovementsdesignedtobecommensuratewiththelevelofuse.TheBMPswouldprovidelonger‐termbenefitsbecausetheroad/trailsystemwillremainintothefuture,althoughitisrestrictedforadministrativeuseonly.127. “TheRattlesnakeRecreationAreaisoneofthemostimportantnaturalareasforthe

Missoulacommunity,andithastakenonsocialandculturalsignificanceinadditiontoitsecologicalvalue.Becauseofthesefactorsanditsheavyrecreationalusewecan'tjust“letnaturetakeitscourse.”…Thinningandburningunderstorytreesandshrubswillmaketheseforestsmoreresilientinthefaceofaseriousfire,sothatahigherproportionoftheirecological,recreationalandculturalvaluesarelikelytopersistafterthefire…particularlyconcernedaboutimpactsonnativefish,whosepopulationswouldlikelybeadverselyaffectedbywildfire(Riemanetal.,2012).Inaddition,theimmediateimpactsoffirefightingactivitiesandtheuseoffireretardantsonfishisatopicofcurrentconcern(USGS,n.d.).”(171,1)


A‐68

FSResponse:AsstatedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.24‐25)andEA(p.259),theeffectsofnaturalprocesseslikewildfirecannotbeaccuratelyassessed,asitcouldhavebothnegativeandpositiveeffectsonthestream.Firefightingactivitiesand/ortoolsusedintheeventofawildfirealsocannotbeaccuratelyassessedbecausetheywouldbedependentontheconditionsofthefireitselfandtheresourcesperceivedatrisk.TheuseoffireretardantisnotanticipatedfortheproposedMarshallWoodsproject.128. “…thestreamandriparianbufferzonesproposedwithintheProjectAlternativesaregood,

butmoreproactivemeasuresshouldbeconsideredtoimproveratherthanjustmaintainriparianvegetationandinstreamhabitat.Riparianbufferanalysisshouldincludesunanglecalculationstoensurepreservationandfutureinfillingofshade‐providingtrees.Astreesarecutinareasnearstreams,theremaybeopportunitiestoaddlargewoodydebriswithinthestreamchannels,inconsultationwithhydrologistsandfisheriesbiologists.”(171,6)

FSResponse:Theregulatoryframeworkapplicabletothisproject,includingdirectionforriparianareasisdiscussedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.3‐7),andconsistencywiththeregulatoryframeworkisalsodiscussed(p.33).AlternativeA(NoActionAlternative)isnotincompliancewiththeForestPlanasamendedbyINFISH.ThestandardandguidelineRF‐5wouldnotbemetbecauseculvertreplacementwouldnotoccuronFSRd#2122onMarshallCreek,awestslopecutthroattroutstream.However,alloftheactionalternatives(B,C,andD)analyzedfortheMarshallWoodsprojectareincompliancewiththeregulatoryframework.ResourceProtectionMeasureswereprescribedtoprotectriparianareasandaquaticresources(FisheriesSpecialist’sReport,Table2,pp.22‐23,andEA,pp.67‐72).Commercialharvestislimitedtoareasgreaterthan300feetfromstreams.Smallertreethinningwillonlyoccurbeyonda50‐footnoactivitybuffer.Althoughthereweresomeareaswherelargewoodydebriswaslessabundantthanothers,addinglargewoodydebristostreamchannelswasnotscopedaspartofthisproject,andtherearenofutureprojectsplannedatthistimetoaddlargewoodydebristostreamchannelsintheprojectarea.129. ”ProposedActionAlternativeBWouldViolatetheFederalEndangeredSpeciesActandthe

Act’sCriticalHabitatProvisions…TheProposedAction,AlternativeB,callsforcommercialloggingandassociatedtrailtoroadupgradeswithintheriparianzoneofRattlesnakeCreek.Theseactionswouldcreatefinesedimentsandposenegativeeffectstobulltroutandwestslopecutthroattrout.”(162,26)

FSResponse:Theregulatoryframeworkapplicabletothisproject,includingtheEndangeredSpeciesActandCriticalHabitatdirectionisdiscussedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.3‐7).TheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportdisclosestheanticipatedeffectsofeachoftheactionalternatives,includingAlternativeBonbulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitat(pp.21‐35,andEApp.258‐268).Consistencywiththeregulatoryframeworkisdiscussedonp.33oftheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,andAlternativeBisincompliancewiththeregulatoryframework.ResourceProtectionMeasureswereprescribedtoprotectriparianareasandaquaticresources(FisheriesSpecialist’sReport,Table2,pp.22‐23,andEA,pp.67‐72).AsdescribedintheResourceProtectionMeasures,INFISHdefaultRHCAsincludethoseareaswithin300feetofperennial,fish‐bearingstreams.Therefore,nocommercialtimberharvestwouldoccurwithin300feetofRattlesnakeCreek,andtheboundariesofallRHCAswouldbeflaggedpriortoonthegroundactivities.YoungstandthinningandprescribedfireareallowedtooccurtoacertainextentwithinRHCAs,beyond


A‐69

the50‐footno‐activitybufferasdescribedintheResourceProtectionMeasures.NodirecteffectsonsedimentationareanticipatedfromcommercialvegetationtreatmentsduetoapplicationofBMPsandINFISHRHCAbufferretention.ThethickvegetationthatmakesupRHCAbuffersactsasanexcellentfilteringsourceforoverlandsedimentflow.Retainingdownedwoodydebriswithintheharvestunitsalsoprovidesstructuresthatcapturesedimentandsloworstopitsmovementdowntheslope.Haulroaduseisexpectedtoincreasesedimentproduction,butBMPswouldreducesedimentdelivery(seeHydrologySpecialist’sReportpp.24‐32andEApp.248‐252foranalysisofproposedhaul,roadwork,andassessmentofroadsedimentdelivery).ThehaulrouteforAlternativeBforunitsintheRattlesnakeCreekcorridorisForestRoad#99/Trail515,whichwouldreceiveroadBMPimprovementscommensuratewiththelevelofuse.AsnotedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(p.14),“theroadisrestrictedforadministrativeuseonly,andhasalowimpactonsedimentorlargewoodydebrisandtemperature/shadingbecauseithasalowgradientandislocateduponthehighterracewithadequatebufferingdistancefromtheRattlesnakefloodplainformostofitslength(Figure2A).Still,thereareareasinneedofBMPs/drainageimprovements,particularlyinareaswheretheroadcurvesnearthestream(Figure2B).”BMPsaredesignedwiththepurposetoavoid,minimize,ormitigateadverseeffectstosoil,waterquality,andriparianresources(FisheriesSpecialist’sReportp.6).BMPswouldincreasedrainagefrequency,routewaterandsedimentofftheroadintovegetatedbuffers,andreducethepotentialforsedimentinputtostreams.AppendixAintheHydrologySpecialist’sReportcontainsinformationontheeffectivenessofBMPsandperformancecriteria.TheBMPsonRoad#99/Trail515wouldprovidelonger‐termbenefitsbecausetheroad/trailsystemwillremainintothefuture.Therearenoproposedtrail‐to‐roadupgradeswithintheriparianzoneofRattlesnakeCreek.AsstatedintheFAQ,(pg.7),“roadedaccess(intheRattlesnakecorridor)hasexistedsincetheareawashomesteadedintheearly1900s(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11).Additionally,themainRattlesnakecorridorhasprovidedroadaccesstoaccommodateheavyequipmenttoservicemunicipalreservoirsupstreamsincethe1950s.”Road99/Trail515iscurrentlyusedasaroad,althoughitisrestrictedforadministrativeuseonly,andthatdesignationwouldnotchangeasaresultofthisproject.BMPs,buffers,andotherResourceProtectionMeasureswouldreduceoreliminatepotentialnegativeeffectsfromthinningandprescribedburningactivities.DespitethelimitedscopeofproposedactivitieswithinRHCAs,theproximityofthoseactivitiestoexistingaquaticpopulations,andtheimplementationofallprescribedResourceProtectionMeasuresdescribedinTable2andwithintheEA,theFisheriesBiologistacknowledgesthatpotentialnegativeeffectsmayoccurasaresultoftheproposedactivities(FisheriesSpecialist’sReport,pp.21‐35,andEApp.258‐268).Therefore,theFisheriesBiologistmadethepreliminaryeffectscallsof“notlikelytoadverselyaffect”bulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitat(FisheriesSpecialist’sReportp.34andEAp.268).Ifoneoftheactionalternatives(B,C,orD)isselected,theFisheriesBiologistwouldprepareacombinedBiologicalAssessment(BA)andBiologicalEvaluation(BE)thataddressesthepotentialbiologicaleffectsoftheproposedprojectonbulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitat,westslopecutthroattrout,andwesternpearlshellmussel,tomeettherequirementsoftheEndangeredSpeciesActandNEPArequirementsforSensitiveSpecies(p.5oftheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportandp.268oftheEA).TheForestServicehashadearly,informalconsultationdiscussionswiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceregardingdesign,potentialactivities,andanticipatedeffectsassociatedwiththisproposedproject.ConsultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceandconcurrencewiththeeffectscallswouldbeobtainedbeforeproposedactivitieswouldoccur.Alsoofnote,theFisheriesSpecialist’sReportclearlydescribesthattheanticipatedeffectsoftheMarshallWoods


A‐70

Projectarelimitedtotheprojectareascaleandwouldnotchangethebaselineconditionforbulltroutatthe6thcodeHUCscale,eitherpositivelyornegatively(p.22,andTable3,p.32).130. “TheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportatpage34comestothesimpleanderroneousconclusion

thatAlternativeBwillhavenosignificanteffectsonbulltroutandthatallalternativeshavea“notlikelytoadverselyaffect”bulltroutortheirhabitat.Atpage33itstatesthattherewould“50footnoactivitybarriers”aroundRattlesnakeCreek.Thisistotallyinadequateaccordingtothebestavailablescientificinformation.WithinINFISHRHCAs,“ActivitiesthatretardtheattainmentoftheRMOsarenotallowedwithinthesedefaultRHCAs.”The300’oneithersideofthecreekis6timesthatproposedasthenoactivityzone.CommercialloggingUnits2and3includecommercialremovalintheriparianareabetweenTrail515andthecreekitself.TheseunitsalsofolloweverybendandturnofRattlesnakeCreek,substantiallyincreasingthelikelihoodthatfinesedimentswillbedeliveredintothestreambeditself.”(162,27)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#129.Inaddition,theFisheriesSpecialist’sReportatp.33states,“TheapplicationofBMPs,INFISHRHCAbuffers,a50‐footnoactivitybuffer,andotherspecificResourceProtectionMeasuresdescribedwithinTable2andtheEAwouldmaintainorimproveconditionswithinRHCAsoverthelongtermandwouldnotretardtheattainmentofINFISHRMOs.”WeareawarethatactivitiesthatretardtheattainmentoftheRMOsarenotallowedwithinthesedefaultRHCAsandhavedesignedtheprojectassuch.RationaleandsupportinginformationarefoundintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.21‐35),andtheEA(pp.258‐268).131. “Anytrailtoroadupgradetoaccommodatewhatmaybeupto200truckloadswouldhave

significantimpactsonfinesedimentdelivery,aswouldtheassociatedloggingandburning.Thereisnoliteratureshowingthatthesemethodswouldresultinlong‐termpositiveeffectsonbulltrout,asclaimed.”(162,28)

FSResponse:Seeresponsestocomment#s129and#130.UnderAlternativeB,itwasestimatedthat80‐90truckloadswouldbehauledusingRoad#99/Trail#515,not200(seeFAQ,p.7(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11),andEA,p.286).SeeadditionalliteraturecitationsintheForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportandtheFire,Fuels,andAirSpecialist’sReport.Inaddition,theHydrologySpecialist’sReportAppendixAdiscussestheeffectivenessofBestManagementPracticesandResourceProtectionMeasures(ProjectFile,ItemM7‐13).132. “Physicalconnectivityinthisareahasbeenimprovedsignificantlythroughremovalof

MilltownDamandinstallationofthefishpassagestructureonRattlesnakeCreek.However,theFisheriesReportshowsthatrisingstreamtemperaturesareaconcerninthelowersectionofRattlesnakeCreek.Theprojectareaiswithinthelower1/3ofthedrainage…TheFisheriesReportnotesRattlesnakeCreekistheonlysouth‐facingbulltroutspawningtributary,andincreasedwatertemperaturesareaconcern.Yetthereisnoanalysisoftheimpactofremovingcanopycoverandunderstoryvegetationonshadeorthepotentialforsitewarming.”(162,29)

FSResponse:Youarecorrectinnotingimprovementsinconnectivity,asdiscussedthroughouttheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,andthatwatertemperatureisaconcerninthelowersectionofRattlesnakeCreek,asdiscussedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(p.18).TheReportalsonotesthat“temperatureisalsoofconcernduetoclimatechange,andisa


A‐71

largerissueinthelowerwatershedduetodeforestationandprivatedevelopmentimpacts”(pp.20‐21).TheForestServicecannotcontrolactivitiesthatoccuronlandsdownstreamoftheprojectareathatmayhaveeffectsonstreamtemperature.However,theFisheriesSpecialist’sReportincludeseffectsanalysisforNFSlandsthatcouldbetreatedaspartoftheMarshallWoodsprojectandtakesintoaccountcumulativeeffectsofactivitiesonsurroundinglandswithinthewatershed(pp.21‐35,andEApp.258‐268).Effectsanalysisspecifictotemperatureforeachoftheactionalternatives(B,C,andD)isfoundintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(p.25,EApp.259‐260),withrationaleandsupportingscientificliterature.NoeffectsareanticipatedtostreamtemperatureunderAlternativeB,C,orD.133. “Duetoitslocationandrolewithinthesystem,effectsonbulltroutinRattlesnakeCreek

willhavefar‐reachingeffectsthroughoutthemiddlesectionoftheClarkForkRiverBasin.RattlesnakeCreekprovidesspawningopportunitiesforalargepercentageoftheadultbulltroutinthissectionoftheClarkFork.Theadversemodificationrequirementsexplainedaboveapply.ToproperlyassessthepotentialeffectspursuanttotheESAandINFISH,acomprehensivewatershedassessmentisrequired.”(162,30)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#s129and130.ResourceProtectionMeasureswereprescribedtoprotectriparianareasandaquaticresources(FisheriesSpecialist’sReport,Table2,pp.22‐23,andEApp.67‐72).ThesealsocorrespondwithdefaultINFISHRHCAs,andweredesignedtobeincompliancewithINFISHStandardsandGuidelinesandRMOs(USDA‐FS1995).AwatershedanalysisisonlyneededasrequiredbyINFISH(USDA‐FS1995)inordertoprovideabasisanddocumentationforanyspecificchangestodefaultRMOsorRHCAs,whichwearenotproposingforthisproject.Inaddition,theFisheriesandHydrologySpecialists’ReportsandjustificationfortheResourceProtectionMeasuresarebasedonsite‐specificdatacollectedandcompiledfortheRattlesnakewatershed.AsnotedintheFisheriesandHydrologySpecialists’Reports(pp.9‐10,andpp.11‐14,respectively),assessmentandeffectsanalysiswasbasedonavarietyofexistingsite‐specificinformationincludingbutnotlimitedtoPIBOdatasiteswithintheRattlesnakewatershed,GISdata,baselineassessmentinformation,fisheriessamplingandreddcounts,recreationmonitoring,personalcommunicationswithlocalFisheriesBiologists,andmultiplesitevisitstotheprojectareabyhydrologyandfisheriespersonnel.TheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.17‐18)alsousesinformationfromtheBullTroutConservationStrategy(USDA‐FSandUSDI‐FWS2013)whichprovidesdataonbulltroutpopulationandhabitatstatusattheMiddleClarkForkCoreAreascale.Allofthisinformation,aswellastheEAdocumentitselfprovidesthenecessarysite‐specificdatatoqualifyasawatershedanalysisfortheproject.Alsoofnote,theFisheriesSpecialist’sReportclearlydescribesthattheanticipatedeffectsoftheMarshallWoodsProjectarelimitedtotheprojectareascaleandwouldnotchangethebaselineconditionforbulltroutatthe6thcodeHUCscale,eitherpositivelyornegatively(pg.22,andTable3,pg.32),thustheeffectsofthisprojectwouldnothave“far‐reachingeffectsthroughoutthemiddlesectionoftheClarkForkRiverBasin.”134. “AcentralpurposeandgoalofmanagementintheNRAandWildernessisprotectionof

waterqualityandwatershedvalues.ThesignificantearthmovingandvegetationremovalwithintheRattlesnakeCreekcorridorwouldcertainlyhavenegativeeffects.InfacttheFisheriesReportatpage26states‘Effectstowaterqualitywouldarisefromshort‐termsedimentationinputsassociatedwithhaulroads…’RattlesnakeCreekisalsolistedasanA‐1“closed”watershed.TheFisheriesReportstatesatpage3thatagoalforForestwaterqualityis‘meetorexceedStatewaterqualitystandards,’andatpage4‘meetorexceedFederalandStatewaterqualitystandards.’Yetitalsostates:‘Ifduringcontructionstream


A‐72

turbidityandsedimentloadsareanticipatedtoexceedstatewaterqualitystandards,a3AauthorizationisacquiredfromtheMontanaDEQ.’”(162,31)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#129.ForestPlandirectionandtheregulatoryframeworkapplicabletothisprojectaredescribedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.3‐7).YouarecorrectinyourhighlightsoftheregulatoryframeworkfromtheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport.TheForestplanhasagoaltomeetorexceedstatewaterqualitystandards(II.A.8)(p.3),anditisalsoaForestPlanstandardtoapplyBestManagementPractices(BMPs)toassurethatwaterqualityismaintainedandtomeetorexceedFederalandStatestandards(II.E.15)(p.4).Thequotefrompage6oftheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,“Ifduringconstructionstreamturbidityandsedimentloadsareanticipatedtoexceedstatewaterqualitystandards,a3AauthorizationisacquiredfromtheMontanaDEQ,”waswithregardtotheMontanaStreamProtectionActwheretheLoloNationalForestwouldobtaina124permitfromtheMontanaDepartmentofFish,Wildlife&ParkswhenForestprojectsaffectanystreambedand/orbankareas.Thiswouldapplyonlytotheculvertremovals/replacementsandassociatedstreamrehabilitationproposedunderAlternativesB,C,andD.IntheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,theeffectsanalysisincludesadiscussionoftheanticipatedeffectsofsedimentationduringculvertremovals/replacement(pp.26‐27,andEApp.260‐261).Theeffectsareexpectedtobeshort‐termandlocalized,andarenotanticipatedtoexceedstatewaterqualitystandards,sotheywouldnotrequirea3AauthorizationfromtheMontanaDEQ.Consistencywiththeregulatoryframeworkisdiscussedonp.33oftheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,andAlternativeB,C,andDareincompliancewiththeregulatoryframework.Additionally,theHydrologySpecialist’sReportdiscussescompliancewiththestandardsforwaterqualityforthe“Aclosed”classification(pp.10‐11).135. “TheEAdoesnotcontainaneffectsanalysisontheremovalofextensiveamountsofforest

canopy(upto60%)andextensiveremovalofgroundcoveronairandstreamtemperaturesintheprojectareaanddownstreamtotheClarkForkRiver.ThelevelandgeographicscopeofriskandthepotentialtoviolatenumerousfederallawsandstandardsincludingNEPArequirespreparationofafullWatershedAnalysisattheEISlevel.TheForestServicealsoneedstore‐consultwiththeUSFWSonPACFISH/INFISHinbulltroutcriticalhabitatsincebulltroutcriticalhabitatwasdesignatedafterPACFISH/INFISHwassigned.”(162,32)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#s129,132,and133.TheproposedtreatmentsweredescribedindetailinEAChapter2,Alternatives.Theremovalofvegetationwouldnotaffectairtemperatures.EffectsonstreamtemperaturewereaddressedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport–seeresponsetocomment#132.TheForestServiceinitiatedtheMarshallWoodsProjectanalysisasanEnvironmentalAssessmentratherthananEnvironmentalImpactStatementbasedontheanticipatedeffectsofeachalternative.Eachoftheactionalternatives(B,C,andD)weredesignedtobeincompliancewithapplicableForestPlandirectionandregulations.AsdiscussedonEAp.10,“thepurposeoftheEnvironmentalAssessmentistocomplywiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)andtoprovidesufficientevidence,analysisandbasicconclusionsfortheDecidingOfficertodeterminewhethertoprepareanenvironmentalimpactstatement(EIS)orafindingofnosignificantimpact(FONSI)”.Seeresponsetocomment#133regardingthewatershedanalysis.TheForestServicewouldinitiateproject‐levelconsultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceonpotentialeffectstobulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitatfollowingselectionofthedesiredalternative,asdescribedintheresponsetocomment#129.


A‐73

136. “SomeoftheoutstandingnaturalvaluesfoundintheRNRAthatwouldbeharmedbytheproposedloggingnearRattlesnakeCreekarerepresentedbythebulltroutcriticalhabitat.TheloggingcannotgoforwardbeforetheForestServicecompletesitsconsultationwiththeU.S.Fish&WildlifeServicetodetermineifcompliancewiththeForestPlanwillavoidadverselymodifyingbulltroutcriticalhabitatonnationalforestlandsanddetermineifforestplanimplementationwillensurebulltroutrecovery.”(182,1)

FSResponse:TheForestServicewouldinitiateproject‐levelconsultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceonpotentialeffectstobulltroutandbulltroutcriticalhabitatfollowingselectionofthedesiredalternative,asdescribedintheresponsetocomment#129.137. “…speakingofnativefishandtheForestPlan,itappearsthattheEAhassubstitutedan

analysisof“Pathways:Indicators”forwhatit'slegallyrequiredtoincludeintheanalysis—compliancewithForestPlandirection.”(1822)

FSResponse:Asdescribedonpp.9‐10oftheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,“aspartofthelistingofbulltroutundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct,theUSFWSdevelopedasystematicprocessdefinedas“AFrameworktoAssistinMakingEndangeredSpeciesActDeterminationsofEffectforIndividualorGroupedActionsattheBullTroutSubpopulationWatershedScale”(USDI‐FWS1998b).Theframeworkwasdevelopedtoincludethebiologicalandhabitatelementsneededtoevaluatebaselineconditionsandeffectsofproposedandongoinglandmanagementactivitiesonthepersistenceandpotentialrecoveryofbulltrout.Itwasalsodesignedtofacilitateandstandardizedeterminationsofpotentialeffectsresultingfrommanagementactivities.Theframeworkinvolvesasystematicassessmentthroughamatrixofsevendiagnostics/pathwaysandaseriesoffourspeciesindicatorsand19habitatindicators…Analysisofthehabitatindicatorsalsoprovidesathoroughevaluationofthebaselineconditionandpotentialeffectsofmanagementactivitiesontheprimaryconstituentelements(PCEs)ofdesignatedbulltroutcriticalhabitat.AcrosswalkbetweenthebulltroutmatrixofpathwaysandindicatorsandPCEsofdesignatedcriticalhabitatisdisplayedintheEnvironmentalConsequencessectionasassociatedwithindividualindicators.”Thesystematicassessmentprocesswasusedtodocumentthebaselineconditionofbulltroutpopulationsandhabitatfollowingthebulltrout’slistingasthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.Duetothecomprehensivenatureoftheframeworkandthebaselineassessment,thesystematicprocessisalsousedtoassessthestatusandpotentialimpactsofmanagementactivities.Duetothesimilarityofhabitatrequirements,theprocessisalsousedforassessingeffectsonwestslopecutthroattroutandwesternpearlshellmussels.ThelevelofdetailprovidedintheanalysisofpathwaysandindicatorsisnotrequiredforNEPA;however,theFisheriesBiologistwouldanalyzetheanticipatedprojecteffectsusingthesystematicprocessforconsultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Therefore,thecomprehensiveanalysiswasprovidedintheEA(pp.258‐268)andtheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.21‐35)becauseitclearlyrevealstheanticipatedeffectswiththehighestlevelofdetail.TheregulatoryframeworkapplicabletothisprojectisdiscussedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport(pp.3‐7),andconsistencywiththeregulatoryframeworkisalsodiscussed(p.33).Alloftheactionalternatives(B,C,andD)analyzedfortheMarshallWoodsprojectareincompliancewiththeregulatoryframework.138. “Thewatershedandfisheriesanalysesfailtoprovideanycomparisontonatural,pre‐

settlementconditions,whichisabsolutelynecessaryforconductinganadequatecumulativeeffectsanalysis.”(182,3)


A‐74

FSResponse:Under36CFR220.4(f),theForestmustconductacumulativeeffectsanalysisthatconsiderstheincrementalimpactoftheactionwhenaddedtootherpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions.CumulativeEffectsonlyincludeadiscussionofcombined,incrementaleffectsofhumanactivities.Foractivitiestobeconsideredcumulative,theireffectsneedtooverlapinbothtimeandspacewiththoseoftheproposedactions.Thoseactionsthatcontributetocumulativelytoanticipatedwatershed/hydrologyandfisherieseffectsarediscussedinthoseSpecialists’Reports(pp.34‐36,andpp.28‐31,respectively).OngoingactionswithnofurthercumulativeeffectsarediscussedintheAffectedEnvironmentsectionsoftheHydrologyandFisheriesSpecialists’Reports(pp.14‐21,andpp.3‐21,respectively).139. “ViabilityofpopulationsbulltroutandWestslopecutthroattroutisnotbeingassured,and

monitoringaspertheForestPlanhasnotoccurred.Alsothereisinsufficientfielddatafortheretobeathoroughwatershedassessment,asMontanaForestRestorationPrinciplesenvision.”(182,4)

FSResponse:Asstatedonpage34ofthefisheriesreport:“ThepreliminaryeffectsdeterminationsforAlternativesA,B,C,andDwouldbe“notlikelytoadverselyaffect”bulltrout,“notlikelytoadverselyaffect”bulltroutcriticalhabitat,and“mayimpactindividualsorhabitat,butwillnotlikelyresultinatrendtowardfederallistingorresultinreducedviabilityforthepopulationorspecies”(MIIH)forwestslopecutthroattroutandwesternpearlshellmussels.”Alsoseeresponsestocomment#s129,130,and133whichhighlightthebreadthofinformationusedintheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportandeffectsanalysisandcontainadiscussionwithregardtoathoroughwatershedassessment.RegardingtheMFRCprinciples,Principle3saysthatweshouldusetheappropriatescaleofanalysistoprioritizeanddesignrestorationactivities.Inthiscase,weselectedtheprojectareabasedonthehighestpriorityrestorationneedsonNFSlands.Principle3doesnotsaythatwehavetodoawatershedassessmentatthelargerscale(alsoseeresponsetocomment#133forfurtherdiscussiononwatershedanalysis).WearealsofollowingPrinciple12withtheproject’sproposedstreamrestorationwork,andalreadycompletedotherstreamrestorationworkintheRattlesnakeandSpringCreekdrainagespriortothisproposedproject(FisheriesSpecialist’sReportpp.15‐16).Inaddition,theMFRCPrinciplesarediscretionaryandintendedtoidentifyazoneofagreementforcollaboration.TheForestPlanwasnotamendedtorequiremandatoryadherencetotheprinciples.

HYDROLOGY140. “…ifyouwerereallyconcernedaboutaquaticspecies’healthyouwouldindicateinthefinal

EAthatallnewlyconstructedtemporaryroadswillbeobliteratedafteruseandapplytheobliterationmethodthatreturnsthegroundtothenaturalangleofreposeandeliminatestherunningsurface.Notdoingsoclearlyindicatesyouhavenointentofusingtheroadtemporarily.”(22,6)

FSResponse:TheEnvironmentalAssessmentdoesstatethatnewlyconstructedtemporaryroadswillbeobliteratedafteruseonp.37.

141. “Thepre‐decisionalEAmentionsnothingabouttheneedtosecureNPDESpermitsforroads

plannedtobeconstructedforthistimbersale.”(22,7)


A‐75

FSResponse:Allnecessarypermitswillbeobtainedonceadecisionismadeandtheprojectisimplemented,asisourstandardpractice.RequirementsforpermitsarediscussedintheHydrologySpecialist’sReport(e.g.,MontanaStreamProtectionActSPA124permit,p.8).

142. Loggingis“notacceptableinWoodsGulch”…WoodsGulch“istoosteepandmechanical

loggingwouldscartheland”…”WoodsGulchalsofeedsQuastDitch.ThereisanoverflowspillwayintheditchattheculvertgoingunderRattlesnakeroad.Itis¼mileuptheroadfromWildcatRdturnoff.ThereispotentialforsilttogodownWoodsGulchCreekandendupinQuastDitchandRattlesnakeCreek.”(24,1)

FSResponse:Page34oftheHydrologySpecialist’sReportincludesasectionwhichaddressesfinesedimentdeliveryfromsilviculturalactivities.ResearchshowsthatcurrentforestharvestproceduresandBMPsarelargelyeffectiveatreducingrillingandsedimentsources.AppendixAoftheHydrologySpecialist’sReportdiscussestheeffectivenessofBestManagementPracticesandresourceprotectionmeasures,whichhavebeeninvestigatedinresearchstudiesandmonitoredbytheLoloNFaswellasbytheStateofMontana.143. “WoodsGulchCreekcouldaffectwaterrightsinQuastDitch.”(24,2)

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposetosecureanyin‐streamwaterrightsinWoodsGulch.Therefore,waterrightsinQuastDitchwouldnotbeaffected.144. “…it'smyunderstandingthatupuntilrecentlythiswatershedprovidedMissoula'sdrinking

water,andmaydosoagaininthefutureifneeded.ThestateofMontanahasclassifiedtheentirewatershedas"closed",whichmeansthatactivitiessuchascommercialloggingarenotallowed.”(54,2;103;117)

FSResponse:ThewatershedisclassifiedasA‐closedbytheState,whichmeansthatitisgiventhehighestlevelofwaterqualitystandards.TheA‐closedwaterclassificationisaddressedonpp.10‐11and37‐38oftheHydrologySpecialist’sReport.TheproposedactivitiesareexpectedtomeettheA‐closedwaterqualitystandardsbynotincreasingtemperature,sediment,pH,turbidity.etc.Page10oftheHydrologySpecialist’sReportsummarizesthespecificwaterqualitystandardsforRattlesnakeCreekandstates,inwaterqualitystandard#2that:“Publicaccessandactivitiessuchaslivestockgrazingandtimberharvestaretobecontrolledbytheutilityownerunderconditionsprescribedandordersissuedbythedepartment.”

145. “WehavewaterrightsfromQuastDitch.TheWoodsGulchcreekflowsintotheditch.

Sedimentdepositsfromthecreekcurrentlyimpedetheflowofwaterintheditch.TheredidnotseemtobemuchattentiontosedimentflowsfromWoodsGulchintheDraftAssessment.DisturbancesfromactivitiesinWoodsGulchwillfurtherexacerbatesedimentdepositsintheQuastDitch..ThepotentialrunofffromWoodsGulchisveryhigh,andnodoubt,exceedsthecapacityoftheculvertunderRattlesnakeDrivenearthenorthernterminusofWildcatRoad.ThereshouldbemorethoughtgiventoprotectingbothwaterqualityfromWoodsGulchandtheimpactonwaterrightsfromtheditch.”(59,1)


A‐76

FSResponse:TheHydrologySpecialist’sReportdiscussesthepotentialforsedimentationintoWoodsGulch.WoodsGulchisassessedaspartoftheLowerRattlesnakeWatershed.Sedimentmodellingindicatesthatthereisapotentialforslightsedimentincreaseswithproposedactivitiesinthiswatershedbutthereshouldbeaslightlong‐termreduction(pp.30‐33).ThemajorityofthiswillbeassociatedwithRattlesnakeCreek.ResearchshowsthatcurrentforestharvestproceduresandBMPsarelargelyeffectiveatreducingrillingandsedimentsources(p.34ofHydrologySpecialist’sReportandAppendixA).TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposetosecureanyin‐streamwaterrightsinWoodsGulch;therefore,waterrightsinQuastDitchwouldnotbeaffected.146. “WhentheForestServicerequiredthatafishscreenbeplacedonthehead‐gateofthe

QuastDitch,thehead‐gateitselfwasmovedsome8to10feetupintothefullforceofthecreek.Thiscontributedtotheweakeningofthestreambankandtheultimaterecentdiversionofthecreekaroundourhead‐gate.Loggingandfuelmanagementwillalsolikelyincreaserunoffinthecreekandincreasesedimentflows.TheForestServiceshouldrecruitlargewoodydebristostabilizethesteambanknorthoftheQuastDitchhead‐gate.Streambankstabilizationwillmaintainstreamflowsinthematuremainchannelratherthancontinuingtocutanewmoreerodiblestreamchannel.Thiswillreducesedimentflowsandprotectourwaterrights.”(59,2)

FSResponse:AnanalysisofwateryieldisincludedintheHydrologySpecialist’sReportasisdescribedonp.13.Itisnotanticipatedthattherewillbeanymeasureablechangeinrunoffduetoproposedactivities.Thankyouforrecommendingrecruitinglargewoodydebrisforstreamstabilization.Althoughthereweresomeareaswherelargewoodydebriswaslessabundantthanothers,addinglargewoodydebristostreamchannelswasnotscopedaspartofthisprojectandtherearenofutureprojectsplannedatthistimetoaddlargewoodydebristostreamchannelsintheprojectarea.TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposetosecureanyin‐streamwaterrightsinWoodsGulch;therefore,waterrightsinQuastDitchwillnotbeaffected.147. Idonotbelieve“theissueofwaterqualitycanbehandledaccordingtotherequirementsof

currentlawandregulations,consideringthemunicipaluse.”(99)FSResponse:MontanaDNRCforestryBMPauditsaswellasrecentresearch(seeHydrologySpecialist’sReport,AppendixA)supportthefactthatwaterqualitycanbeprotectedandmeetthewaterqualitystandardsoftheA‐closedwaterclassificationforthemunicipalwatershed.148. “TheEAdoesnotmentiontheexistingirrigationditchesthatdrawwateroutofRattlesnake

Creekandtheirinterests,similartoMountainWaterCo.”(147,21)FSResponse:TheHydrologySpecialist’sReportmentionsthewaterqualitystandardsoftheA‐closed(municipal)watershedonpp.10‐11and37‐38.Page10refersdirectlytotheabilityoftheutilityowner(MountainWater)torestrictuseinthiswatershed.TheQuastDitchissuppliedbyWoodsGulchandismentionedonp.17oftheHydrologySpecialist’sReport.TheFisheriesSpecialist’sReportalsodiscussestheexistingdiversions(pp.14‐16).


A‐77

149. “InTable43itwouldbegoodtoaddtheFSportiontotheRoaddensitycolumnasdoneintheothercolumns.SimilarlyinTable44forRoadCrossings.”(147,22)

FSResponse:Thankyoufortherecommendation.150. “Theanalysislacksadisclosureofeffectsduetoawildfireandhowthoseeffectswouldbe

differentbetweenalternatives.ThestatementinTable47under“Wildfire”isonesidedandunsubstantiated.Yes,largeeventwildfiresresultinpulseadditionsofsediment,nutrientandwateryieldsthatcanhavesomepositivelong‐termbenefitstostreamhydrology,buttosimplisticallysaytheyareallpositiveisunsupportable.Youneedtobackthatupwithsomereferences.Todiscountanypotentialnegativeeffectsondownstreamusers,suchasMountainWater,theirrigationditchwaterusersandresidencesalongthestreaminthelowerRattlesnake,cityroadsandbridgesisnegligent.Thesepeopleandinfrastructurecouldbemildlytoseverelyaffectedbydownstreampeakflows,debrisflows,increasedsedimentandnutrientloadsandhighflowwateryields.”(147,23)

FSResponse:Oneofthepurposeandneedsoftheproposedprojectistomitigatethepotentialforalarge‐scalewildfireinthewildland‐urbaninterfacewhichcouldpossiblyhavesomeoftheeffectsthatarementionedabove.PotentialwildfireeffectstothehydrologyandwatershedresourcesarenotroutinelyanalyzedthroughtheNEPAprocessduetotheuncertaintyoftheiroccurrence;however,wildfiresarementionedinEATable47CumulativeEffectsSummaryasapastandpotentialfuturedisturbanceonthelandscape.Intheeventofawildfireofthisnature,itwouldbeconsideredanemergencysituationandtheForestServicewouldhavetheabilitytoconductaBurnedAreaEmergencyResponse(BAER)assessment,asisourstandardpractice.ThisBAERassessmentwouldbeabletodrawconclusionsofpotentiallarge‐scalewildfireeffects,asdescribedabove,becausetheinformationsuchasacresburned,burnseverity,burnintensity,anddownstreamvalues‐at‐riskwouldbeknownatthattime.Thiscrucialinformationisnotcurrentlyknown.151. “Thissectiondoesnotmeshwiththecommentsinthefire/fuelssectionthatindicateforalt.

AandDinparticularandlessforalt.Ctheheavycrownfuelloadswilllikelyresultinmoreimpactivefiresuppressiontactics.Iknowthesewouldleadtogreaterpost‐fireerosionandsedimenteffectsthattheforestconditionscreatedbyalternativeBwherefirebehaviorandeffectswouldbesubstantiallymitigatedandlessimpactivetacticsrequired.”(147,24)

FSResponse:Thehydrology/watershedsectionofthisEnvironmentalAssessmentconsideredtheeffectsoftheproposedactivities,notthoseeffectsthatmaypotentiallyoccurfromalarge‐scalewildfire,dueprimarilytotheuncertaintyofalarge‐scalewildfire.EffectsfromtheproposedprescribedburningareanalyzedintheHydrologySpecialist’sReportpp.33‐34.

SOILS152. “IfoundnomentionoftheneedtoretaindesirableamountsofCoarseWoodyDebrison

treatedsites.TomeettheneedsofsiteproductivityandwildlifethatutilizeCWDadesirable


A‐78

goalisabouttons/acre.Howwillthisbeplannedforoverthelongterm?AresearchstudythatdiscussesthedesirableandundesirableaspectsofCWDis:Brown,JamesK.;Reinhardt,ElizabethD.;Kramer,KylieA.2003.Coarsewoodydebris:managingbenefitsandfirehazardintherecoveringforest.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS‐GTR‐105.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.16p.”(2,3)

FSResponse:TheForestServiceisrequiredtoretainCWDandForestPlanstandardsrequirethis.Existingdownwoodymaterialinformationisgatheredduringfieldqualityassessments.AssessmentscanbefoundinSoilFile2(ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐2,3,and5).CoarsewoodyDebrisisfurtherdiscussedintheSoilsSpecialist’sReport,p.15.AssessmentandrestorationoflargewoodymaterialintheMarshallWoodsprojectfollowsguidelinesprovidedintheLoloNFCoarseWoodyMaterialGuide(2006)andGrahametal.(1994).153. “Theharvestingoflargerdiametertreesthroughaloggingoperationwithheavyequipment

wouldbedetrimental.Thetrade‐offswouldn'tadequatelyoffsetthedestruction.Theuseofheavyfallingmachinerywouldcausescarringoftheforestfloor.Soilstherealreadyseemtobethin.”(136,1)

FSResponse:PerFSM2500R1SupplementNo2500‐99‐1,detrimentalsoildisturbanceisconsideredattheactivityareascale(definedasaharvestunit,activityunit,oraprescribedburnarea).Fieldsoilqualityassessmentsareconductedintheactivityareatodetermineexistingsoilconditions.FieldQualityAssessmentscanbefoundinSoilFile2(ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐2,3,and5)andadiscussionofexistingsoilconditionsintheprojectareacanbefoundbeginningonp.8oftheSoilSpecialist’sReport.Expectedsoildisturbancefromharvesteffectsisconsideredineachactivityarea,andispresentedintheSoilSpecialist’sReport(p.25andAppendixC).Cumulativedetrimentalsoildisturbanceconsiderstheexistingconditionofthesoilwithinaunitandestimatestheeffectsofprojectactivities,designstandards,appliedBMPs,andrehabilitationmeasuresonthesoilresource.UnitspecificestimationofdetrimentalsoildisturbancefromprojectactivitiescanbefoundinAppendixCoftheSoilSpecialist’sReportandSoilFile5(ProjectFile,ItemM8‐12).Estimatedsoildisturbanceisbasedonforestmonitoring(LoloNationalForest,2012/2013‐ProjectFile,ItemO‐83).InadditiontheeffectivenessofBestManagementPracticesonprotectingsoilandwaterresources(e.g.,preventingerosionandsedimentation)isdiscussedintheHydrologySpecialist’sReport,Appendixa(pp.43‐46).

154. “TheEAdoesn'tdisclosehowForestPlanandNFMAdirectionforprotectingsoil

productivityisbeingaccomplishedwiththisProject.Vegetativeconditionsaredirectlyrelatedtosoilproductivity,whichhasbeenhighlyalteredontheForestbypastmanagementactivities.TheLoloNationalForestutilizesanunvalidatedproxythatallowsupto15%detrimentalsoildisturbance(DSD)invegetationtreatmentunits,andpossiblyevenmoreinpreviouslydisturbedactivityareas.”(182,28)


A‐79

FSResponse:TheregulatoryframeworkwhichprovidesdirectionforprotectingthesoilresourcecanbefoundintheSoilSpecialist’sReportonpp.3‐5.Projectcompliancewiththisregulatoryframework,includingtheLoloNFPlanandNFMAissummarizedintheSoilSpecialist’sReportonp.33.Fieldsoilqualityassessmentsareconductedintheactivityareatodetermineexistingsoilconditions,includingvegetativeconditions.FieldsurveysanddatacollectionfollowtheNationalSoilConditionAssessmentprotocols(Page‐Dumroeseetal.2009–ProjectFile,ItemsO‐52and53).FieldQualityAssessmentscanbefoundinSoilFile2(ProjectFileItemsM8‐2,3,and5)andadiscussionofexistingsoilconditionsintheprojectareacanbefoundbeginningonp.8oftheSoilSpecialist’sReport.Expecteddetrimentalsoildisturbancefromharvesteffectsisconsideredineachactivityarea,andispresentedintheSoilSpecialist’sReport(p.25andAppendixC).Inordertoassessandquantifydetrimentalsoildisturbance,theLoloNFcomplieswithRegion1FSMSoilSupplement2500‐99‐1(Region1SoilQualityStandards–ProjectFile)whichrequiresthat“newactivitiesdonotcreatedetrimentalsoilconditionsonmorethan15percentofanactivityarea.Inareaswherelessthan15percentdetrimentalsoilconditionsexistfromprioractivities,thecumulativedetrimentaleffectofthecurrentactivityfollowingprojectimplementationandrestorationmustnotexceed15percent.”Cumulativedetrimentalsoildisturbanceconsiderstheexistingconditionofthesoilwithinaunitandestimatestheeffectsofprojectactivities,designstandards,appliedBMPs,andrehabilitationmeasuresonthesoilresource(SoilSpecialist’sReport,p.43).UnitspecificestimationofdetrimentalsoildisturbancefromprojectactivitiescanbefoundinAppendixCoftheSoilSpecialist’sReportandSoilFile5(ProjectFile,ItemM8‐12).Estimatedsoildisturbanceisbasedonforestmonitoring(LoloNationalForest,2012/2013‐ProjectFile,ItemO‐83).AsummaryofLoloForestmonitoringassessmentprotocolsandmonitoringresultscanbefoundinSoilFile4(ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10). Powers(1990)citesthattherationaleforthe15%limitofchangeinsoilbulkdensitywaslargelybasedonthecollectivejudgmentofsoilresearchers,academics,andfieldpractitioners,aswellastheabilitytodetectchangeinproductivitythroughcurrentmonitoringmethods.Thusthesoilqualityguidelinesaresettodetectadeclineinpotentialproductivityofatleast15%.ThisdoesnotmeanthattheForestServicetoleratesproductivitydeclinesupto15%;ratheritrecognizesproblemswithsoildisturbancedetectionlimits.Itisimportanttoconsiderthe15%asatriggerpointatwhichmorein‐depthsoilqualityevaluationswouldbeconductedandsoilameliorationplanswrittenandimplemented(SoilsSpecialist’sReport,p.6).155. “TheLoloNationalForestdoesnotrecognizeanythresholdamountofcoarseandfine

woodydebrisandotherorganicmatterformaintainingsoilproductivity.TheEAalsofailstoquantifyoranalyzeprojectareadeficitsinamountsofcoarseandfinewoodydebrisbelowamountsrecommendedbybestavailablescience,whichisnecessarytounderstandcumulativeeffectsonthesoilproductivity.”(182,29)

FSResponse:Existingdownwoodymaterialandorganicmatterinformationisassessedattheactivityunitlevelandisgatheredduringfieldqualityassessments.AssessmentscanbefoundinSoilFile2(ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐2,3,and5).CoarseWoodyDebrisandorganicmatterisfurtherdiscussedintheSoilsSpecialist’sReport(p.15).AssessmentandrestorationofwoodymaterialintheMarshallWoodsprojectfollowsguidelinesprovidedintheLoloNFCoarseWoodyMaterialGuide(2006)andGrahametal.(1994).Afterprojectcompletion,allharvestandthinnedstandswouldmeettheLoloNFguidelinesforwoodymaterial(SoilsSpecialist’sReport,p.36).


A‐80

156. “TheEAdiscloseshowheavilyloggedandotherwisedevelopedthenationalforestlandisintheprojectarea.Itfailstodisclosetheconditionsofsoilsoutsidetheprojecttreatmentunits.Thecumulativeamountofexistingsoildamageovertheentireprojectareahasimplicationsforeveryotherresourceincludingdevelopmentofold‐growthforestsandevensustainedyieldoftimber.Thepublicdeservestoknowthescaleofneededsoilrestorationina‘RestorationProject.’”(182,30)

FSResponse:Region1SoilQualityStandards(2500R1SupplementNo2500‐99‐1)definesthegeographicareaforsoilcumulativeeffectsanalysisasthe“landareaaffectedbymanagementactivity”(thevegetationorfueltreatmentunit).Sincesoilproductivityissite‐specific,itisnotassessedonawatershedscale(USDAFSMarch2009).Itisnotoperationallyfeasibletoassess,analyze,ormonitorsoilproductivityonlargeareasbecauseproductivityisspatiallystaticandproductivityinonelocationdoesnotinfluenceproductivityinanotherlocation(SoilSpecialist’sReportp.4andSoilFile4–ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10).Fieldsoilqualityassessmentsareconductedacrosstheprojectareatoassesstheexistingconditionofthesoilresourceinactivityunits.ThedataisanalyzedandpresentedintheSoilSpecialist’sReport(AppendixCandTableSoil4).157. “TheEAdoesnotdiscloseitsmethodologyfordeterminingDSD.Thisraisesquestionsof

datareliabilityandthevalidityofmodelingandotheranalysismethodology.”(182,31)FSResponse:MethodologyfordeterminingexistingDSDintheprojectareaisdiscussedintheSoilSpecialist’sReportinthe“DataSourcesandMethods”sectionbeginningonp.5.EstimationofDSDresultingfromprojectactivitiescanbefoundinAppendixCoftheSoilSpecialist’sReportandSoilFile5–ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8to12.Estimatedsoildisturbancefromprojectactivitiesconsiderstheeffectsofprojectactivities,designstandards,appliedBMPs,andrehabilitationmeasuresonthesoilresource(SoilSpecialist’sReport,AppendixC).Estimatedsoildisturbanceisbasedonforestmonitoring(LoloNationalForest,2012/2013–ProjectFile,ItemO‐83).AsummaryofLoloForestmonitoringassessmentprotocolsandmonitoringresultscanbefoundinSoilFile4(ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10).158. “…theEAfailstodisclosetheresultsofmonitoringthatevaluatetheeffectivenessofsoil

protectionmitigationmeasures.”(182,32)FSResponse:TheLoloNFhasanactivesoilmonitoringprogram;alistofpotentialsoildisturbancemonitoringsitesacrosstheForestismaintainedandupdatedannually(SoilFile4–ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10).AdiscussionofthemonitoringplanisfoundintheSoilSpecialist’sReportbeginningonp.21andincludesmethodologyusedforforestmonitoringandguidingliterature.ResultsfromtheLoloNFmonitoringprogramaredisclosedinbiannualreports(LoloForestPlanMonitoringReports2006/07,2009,2010/11,2012/13‐–ProjectFile,ItemO‐83).AsummaryofresultsfromthesereportsisfoundinSoilFile4–ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10.

NOXIOUSWEEDS159. “Howwilltreatmentsthatinvolveskiddingbescheduledtoavoidsoildisturbancethat

invitesweedproblems,whichunfortunatelywillbeabigchallenge?”(2,4)


A‐81

FSResponse:Groundconditionswoulddictatethetimingoftreatments.Resourceprotectionmeasure#s5and6wouldensureminimalgrounddisturbanceduringcommercialoperationsbyreducingdetrimentalsoildisturbancesthatwouldbeconducivetonoxiousweedspread(pp.47–49oftheEA).Inadditionaweedtreatmentplanwasdevelopedtobeimplementedbefore,during,andafterprojectactivities(WeedSpecialist’sReportpp.46–52).160. “Tellingthepublicthat‘nonegative,long‐termeffectsduetoherbicideapplicationon

workersorthepublicareexpected’ignoresthemanyrecent,independent,sciencepapersthatconcludeglyphosateisacarcinogen.”(22,5)

FSResponse:GlyphosatewasidentifiedbytheLoloNFasapotentialherbicidefornoxiousweedcontrol,specificallyeradicationwithknownofftargetimpacts,inthe2007IntegratedWeedManagementEIS.ItwasincludedinTable4(pp.11‐12oftheWeedSpecialist’sReport)basedonthe2007EIS.AppendixAoftheWeedSpecialist’sReport(pp.46–52)identifiespossibletreatmentsthatwouldbeusedtoreducethespreadofweeds;includingtheuseofherbicides.Theherbicidesidentifiedareaminopyralid,chlosulfuron,clopyralid,metsulfuron,imazapic,andpicloram.Atthistimethereisnoplantouseglyphosate.161. “Openingthecanopyanddisturbingsoilandloggingequipmentwillintroduceandspread

weedsintheprojectarea…Underburningwillalsoincreasethelikelihoodofweedspread…Whyareyouproposingactivitythatwillspreadmoreweedswhenyoucan’tkeepupwiththeexistingweeds?Doyouhaveanymoneyorpeopletotreattheexistingweedsintheprojectarea?WhatisyourcurrentplanandstrategytotreattheexistingweedsintheRattlesnake?(74,1)

FSResponse:TheEA(pp.240–242)andWeedsSpecialist’sReport(pp.17–33)acknowledgesthepotentialfornoxiousweedstospreadasaresultoftheproposedactivities.Fundingsourcesaresoughttotreatnoxiousweedsintheprojectareayearly.Treatmentsincludehand‐pulling,mowing,biologicalcontrolreleasesandherbicideapplicationonareaslessthanoneacreupto50acres.Implementationoftheprojectwouldincludetheweedtreatmentplanwhichwasdevelopedtobeimplementedbefore,during,andafterprojectactivities(WeedsSpecialist’sReport,AppendixA,pp.46–52).WeedtreatmentincludedinAlternativesB,C,andDwouldfarexceedtreatmentsinAlternativeA(NoAction).Workwouldbecompletedbyforceaccountandcontractors.162. “TheEAdoesnotdisclosethedegreetowhichtheproductivityofthelandandsoilbeen

affectedintheprojectareaandforestwideduetonoxiousweedinfestations,andhowthatsituationisexpectedtochangeinthecomingyearsanddecades.TheForest’snoxiousweedtreatmentprogramismitigationformanagementactivitieswhichexacerbatethespreadofnoxiousweeds.TheEAfailstodisclosetheeffectivenessofthismitigation.TheEAstates:Increasedmanagementandground‐disturbancelevelscouldresultinmoderateimpactstonoxiousweedestablishmentandexpansion.ResourceProtectionMeasurestomonitorandtreatnoxiousweedswoulddecreasethisimpacttominoriffullyimplemented.”(182,27)


A‐82

FSResponse:Sincesoilproductivityissite‐specific,itisnotassessedonawatershedscale(USDAFSMarch2009).Itisnotoperationallyfeasibletoassess,analyze,ormonitorsoilproductivityonlargeareasbecauseproductivityisspatiallystaticandproductivityinonelocationdoesnotinfluenceproductivityinanotherlocation(SoilSpecialist’sReportp.4andSoilFile4–ProjectFile,ItemsM8‐8and10).TheeffectsofnoxiousweedsonsoilproductivityisdiscussedintheSoilsSpecialist’sReportonp.30,whichconcludes:

“Forthemostpart,noxiousweedsarenotaffectingsoilproductivityintheproposedharvestunits since theirpopulation is currently restricted to the road systemorisolated patches. As canopy closure becomes greater than about 60%, shadingreducestheweed’scompetitiveadvantageandnativespecieswillslowlyestablish.Units64(EAChapter2,RPM#12)and200(EAChapter2,RPM#3)maybeseeingchanges in soil physical, chemical, and biological processes because of weedinfestations; restoration has been proposed. In addition there is a cooperativeweed treatmentprojectwith theCityofMissoulaandFish,Wildlife,andParks inSections1and12.Weedsarefoundinpasttreatmentareasandalongtheroadsinthese sections. Treating noxious weeds on the landscape would increase soilproductivityoverthelong‐term(greaterthan5years).“

The Lolo NF has a strong weed program, which goes far beyond just providingmitigation forproject activities, asdiscussed in theWeeds Specialist’sReport onpages8‐9,whichstates,“TheimplementationoftheIntegratedWeedManagementFEIS/ROD (USDAForestService2007)allows theLoloNF (including theMissoulaRD)totreatnoxiousweedsunderanadaptivemanagementstrategy;incorporatingmechanical, biological, and chemicalweed control alongwith educational effortsdirected at the prevention and management of noxious weeds (precedingenvironmental assessments have included sections of the project area prior the2007 IntegratedWeedManagement assessment).Analysis of the effectiveness ofnoxiousweed treatments is containedwithin theFEIS.Noxiousweed controlhasbeen ongoing since 1992 in the form of herbicide treatment, biological controlreleases,hand‐pulling,andeducationalefforts.Herbicidetreatmentshaveandwillcontinue to be applied to trails and openmeadows infested with variousweedspecies on a scheduled interval.Biological controls have andwill continue to bereleased on leafy spurge infestations as needed. Hand‐pulling methods willcontinueonhoundstonguepopulationsandincidentalsmallinfestationsdiscoveredin remote, relativelyweed‐freeareas.Treatmentofweedswithin theRattlesnakeNRA,MarshallCanyon,andWoodsGulchcanandhavebeenimplementedundertheauthorityandguidelinesofthe2007FEIS.Allmethodswillcontinueregardlessofthealternativeselectedinthisanalysisinordertomaintainpreviousnoxiousweedcontrolandsuppressionefforts.”

RECREATION163. “IwouldaskyoutoconsidernotloggingonthelowermaincorridoruptoPilcherCreek

fromlateDecemberthroughtheendofFebruary,ourshortcrosscountryskiseason.”(5,1;9,1;13,1;15,1;27,1;33,1)

FSResponse:ImpactstowinterrecreationarediscussedintheEAonpp.287–288(pp.36–37oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReport);theEAacknowledgeswinterharvestactivitiescouldimpactcross‐countryskiing.Snowshoeingandotheractivitieswouldstillbepossible.


A‐83

Roadplowinginthewintermayopenmoreopportunitiesforwinterrecreationincludingrunning,biking,andhiking/walking.Thedecisionmakerwillconsidertheseimpactsaswellasimpactstootherresourceareaswhendeterminingwhichalternativetoselectforimplementation.164. “…”traildevelopmentintheWoodsGulchareaisaprimeandaccessiblelandscape.For

instance,offtheSheepMtn.trailinSec.81&82,thereisasmalltrailthatconnectstotheproposed‘addtoproposedroadsystem’…justtothewestoftisisridge&standingforest(Sec.31)thatcouldpossiblysupportatrailsimilartothestartof3larchtrailandcouldconnectupwiththe3larchattheloggingroad.Thiswouldbeawonderfulextendlooppftheexistingtrailsystem.”(6,1)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.ThisactionwasnotconsideredintheMarshallWoodsprojectbecauseitdoesnotmeetthepurposeandneed.Ifadditionalactionsareproposedinthefuture,theagencymayconsiderthisrequestatthattime.165. “Concerningrecreationalclosures,weareconcernedwithweekdayrecreationalclosures

duringthecommercialthinningproposedinunits2and3.Giventheheavyyear‐roundrecreationaluseofTrail515/Road99,it'shardtoimaginehowweekdayrecreationalclosurescouldbeimplementedwithoutseverelyrestrictingrecreationalaccesstoamuchlargerportionofthenationalrecreationareaandwilderness.”(95,4)

FSResponse:Impacts(definedonEApp.274‐275)frompotentialtemporarytrailorareaclosuresaredisclosedonpp.276,278,281,and284‐286oftheEAandpp.24,26,32,and35‐37oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReport.AsstatedintheFAQsfortheproject(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11):

“Forpublic,crew,andoperatorsafety,wemayhavetoimplementtemporarytrail,road,and/orareaclosuresinportionsoftheproject.Temporaryclosurescouldbeineffectduringburning,harvesting,andorhaulingoperations.Thelevel,frequency,andifclosuresareevenneededwouldbedeterminedbytheprojectalternativethatisselected.

Inordertominimizeinconveniencetorecreationistsandprovidemaximumopportunities,projectimplementationwouldbecompletedinphases.Forexample,ifcommercialtreatmentsweretooccuralongTrail515/NationalForestRoad99(Rattlesnakemaincorridor)andaclosurewasneeded,wewouldensurethatSawmillGulch,WoodsGulch,andtheMarshallCanyonareawereopentothepublic.Wewouldalsoonlytemporarilyclosetheportionsoftrailsorareaswherethehazardexistedandprovidealternateopenroutesinthesameareawherepossible.”

Wewouldstrivetoensurethatimpactsareknowninadvanceandwell‐communicatedtothepublic.Temporaryinconveniencesarenecessaryinordertoreducetheriskoflong‐termimpactstotheareafromhighseverityfireandinsectsanddisease.

Thepubliccouldexpecttemporaryclosures;reroutingactivitiestoadjacenttrails,and–dependingonthetreatmentsapproved–smoke,heavyequipmentonpopularroads,andmachinenoise.

Wewouldtakemeasurestominimizetheimpactstothecommunity,asmuchaspossible,andcommunicatethesepotentialimpactsusingmultipleplatformssuchas:theLoloNationalForestwebpage,socialmediaoutlets,localnews,andthroughthehelpofourpartners.”


A‐84

166. “AlthoughIamnotfamiliarwiththeseparticulartrails,Iamquitefamiliarwiththeremoval

oftrailsfromtheofficialtrailsystem.Manygoodhistoricallyusedtrailsaredecommissionedornotmaintainedandprivateindividualsarenotallowedtomaintainthemfortheiruse.”(192,1)

FSResponse:Notrailsareproposedfordecommissioninginthisproject.167. “…weareadamantlyopposedtocommercialloggingunitsintheRattlesnakeNational

RecreationArea,includingwithinagencyidentifiedInventoriedRoadlessArea(IRA)–specifically,units2,34,5,and6.RoadbuildingandloggingwithintheRNRAand/orIRAandoutsidetheprivate/publiclandinterfaceisunacceptableandnotconsistentwithSierraClubpolicies.Theagencyshouldbelookingtoaddacrestoitsroadlessinventorynotremoveacres.”(189,1;162,2;162,2)

FSResponse:Noneofthe7,281acresofNFSlandintheMarshallWoodsprojectareaisinanIRA.ThenearestIRAisRattlesnake#1204whichincludes3,310grossacresand2,700non‐contiguousacresofNFSland.Rattlesnake#1204consistsofthreeseparatetracts.Theclosestofthethreetractsisoversevenmilesnorth‐northeastoftheMarshallWoodsprojectarea(ProjectFile,ItemM6‐2).ThereisalsonoMA10(smallroadlessblocks),MA11(largeroadlessblocks)orMA12(existingandproposedwilderness)intheMarshallWoodsprojectarea.PleaseseethepreviousresponsestocommentsregardingloggingandroadbuildingintheRattlesnakeNRA.168. ”Commercialloggingasproposedincuttingunits2,3,4,5,and6…mayinadvertently

negativelyaffectprimitiverecreationbyopeninguptheunderstorywhichcanleadtothecreationofnon‐systemrecreationroutesinadditiontoincreasingthespreadofweeds–bothofwhicharealreadyabigproblemintheRNRAandwouldrequiremorepublicresourcestorepair.ThereconstructionofTrail515tosupportproposedloggingalsoconflictswiththerecreationfocusandIRAdesignation.”(189,4)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsetocomment#167addressingIRAs.TheEAandRecreationSpecialist’sReportacknowledgestherewouldbeshort‐termimpactstorecreationingeneral(includingprimitive)andthepotentialofnon‐systemrecreationroutes/trailsbeingcreated(pp.275–290oftheEAandpp.23–39oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReport).Resourceprotectionmeasuresweredevelopedtoreducethepotentialofnon‐systemroutes/trailsfromdevelopingbyleavinga100‐footbufferaroundtrails(RPM#61and63,pg.76oftheEA)andarounddispersedcampsites(RMP#62,p.76oftheEA).ImpactsfromimprovementsonTR515/RD99arediscussedonpp.288–289oftheEA.

169. “TheEAContainsNoAnalysisontheEffectsonRecreationUseandPublicEnjoymentoftheArea.”(162,33)

FSResponse:Pleaserefertopp.7–12oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReportwherethemanagementdirectionfortheRNRAWisdescribedintermsofOpportunityClassesandthestandards(limitsofacceptablechange)andsettings(resource,social,andmanagement)tounderstandtheLNFguidelinesformanagingtheRNRAW.TheLACfortheRNRAWdefinesstandardsofacceptablechangeandindicatorsthatdeterminewhenthesestandardsarebeingexceeded.Pages15through22oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReportdescribecommon,recreationalusepatternsintheRNRAW.


A‐85

TheexperienceofthevisitoriscapturedinthesocialsettingofeachOpportunityClassandtheexpectationsthevisitormayencounter.TheLACwasdesignedtohandlehuman‐inducedchanges.Publicenjoymentcanbesubjectivebasedontheindividualrecreationistandtheirgoalsandexpectationforeachindividualday.GiventhattheRNRAreceivesover100,000trailentrancesandexitsatthemaintrailhead,evaluatingenjoymentwouldbeaninsurmountabletask.Pages23through39oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReportdescribethepossibleimpactstotherecreatingpublicasaresultoftheproposedprojectswithouttryingtoguesstheindividual’semotionalresponse.Definitionsforrecreationalimpactsareonp.23oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReport.170. “TheEAalsostatesAlternativeBwouldrequireaForestServiceamendmentallowing

changingthecurrentVisualQualityObjective“retention,”whichrequiresmaintainingtheNRAinanaturalappearingcondition.Leftoverstumps,slash,skidtrails,removalofvegetationincludinglargetreesalongTrail515toaccommodatelogtruckswouldhaveeffectslastingovermanyyears.Whateffectswouldthishaveonvisitoruseandenjoyment?”(162,34)

FSResponse:TheeffectsoftheproposedprojectactivitiesonVisualQualityObjectivesarediscussedintheSceneryResourcesSpecialist’sReportandonpp.290through295intheEA.Whiletheeffectsvarybyalternative,insummarythetreatmentswouldreducetheriskofdisease,insectinfestation,andhighseveritywildfirewhileincreasingvegetationdiversity,whichwouldincreasesustainabilityandhavesomebeneficiallong‐termimpactstothevisualqualityofthelandscape.171. “Whatcumulativeeffectswouldclosingtheareatopublicuseforseveralweeksfortwo

summershaveonthepublic?Whateffectswouldresultfromtransferringthisusetootherareasoftheforest?Whateffectswouldtherebeonprimitiveandwildernessrecreationalopportunities?ThenoiseanduglinessofcommercialloggingandlogtrucktrafficwouldbebothaudibleandvisiblefromawideareaoftheRNRAW.”(162,35)

FSResponse:ClosureswouldbetemporaryandtheForestServicewouldmakeeveryefforttoalertthepublictotheclosuressothoseseekingtorecreateintheRNRAWwouldbeabletoplanaccordingly(seeresponsetocomment#165).ThecumulativeeffectstootherareasoftheForestarediscussedonp.277oftheEA,specificallyinregardstootherrecreationareasintheimmediatevicinity(e.g.,PatteeCanyonandBlueMountain)andtheavailabilityofotherrecreationopportunitiesinMissoulaValley.Theeffectstotherecreatingpublicfromproposedactivitiesaredescribedonpp.279through289whichacknowledgetherewouldbesensoryimpacts(e.g.,sight,hearing,andsmell).172. “ThereisalsotheriskthattheTrail515upgradetoaloghaulroadwillleadtofutureuse

andfurtherseasonalclosures.Whataretheselong‐termrisks?”(162,36)FSResponse:Therearenoknownfuturemechanicaltimberharvestactivitiesplanned;howeverwewillcontinuetomaintainTrail515/Road99foradministrativeuse.Seeresponsetocomment#165andrefertoEAAppendixDforplanned,reasonablyforeseeablefutureactivities.173. “Thereisalsotheriskthattheclearedcorridorstoaccommodatehighlead‐lineand

skiddingoperationsmaybeconvertedtoillegaltrailsbymountainbikers,thuscreating


A‐86

seriousresourcedamageandenforcementproblems.TheEAcontainsnoanalysis.”(162,37)

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#168.Theseresourceprotectionmeasuresareexpectedtopreventthecreationonnon‐systemroutesandtrails.174. “TheEAFailstoRecognizetheWildland/WildernessSettinginWhichtheProjectis

Proposed…Theproposedaction,withitsextensiveproposalsformanagementinterventionsintothewildlandlandscape,couldsignificantlychangeboththesceneandtheexperienceforthosetravelingthroughtheNRAaspartoftheirRattlesnakeWildernessexperience.”(162,38)

FSResponse:Pleaserefertopp.7–12oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReportwherethemanagementdirectionfortheRNRAWisdescribedintermsofOpportunityClassesandthestandards(limitsofacceptablechange)andsettings(resource,social,andmanagement)tounderstandtheLNFguidelinesformanagingtheRNRAW.TheLACfortheRNRAWdefinesstandardsofacceptablechangeandindicatorsthatdeterminewhenthesestandardsarebeingexceeded.TheexperienceofthevisitoriscapturedinthesocialsettingofeachOpportunityClassandtheexpectationsthevisitormayencounter.TheLACwasdesignedtohandlehuman‐inducedchangesfromwithinaswellasoutsidetheWildernessboundary.Trailmaintenanceanduse(includingaccesstotheWilderness)isdescribedonpp.19through21oftheRecreationSpecialist’sReport.Impactsfromtheproposedproject,includingonWildernessandnon‐wilderness,aredescribedonpp.22through39intheRecreationSpecialist’sReportintermsofchangeswithineachOCastherecreationalusercontinuesnorthtotheWildernessboundary.175. EApg285states‘Overallthelong‐termimpactswouldbeseenasbeneficialtotheareafor

themajorityoftherecreatingpublic.’Pleaseprovideyoursourceandreferenceforthisstatement.(153,8)

FSResponse:Thesummationofoverallimpactsisbasedonfamiliaritywiththelandandknowledgeofthebenefitofmanagementactions.ItisassumedthemajorityofrecreationalusersintheRNRAcancomprehendthebenefitsoflandmanagementactivitiestoimproveresilienceandrestorelandscapes.ThisconclusionisbasedonfindingsresearchedbyMcFarlaneetal.2006,McFarlaneandWitson2008,Tahvanainenetal.2001,andWinter2007.Thesestudiesreviewedhowmanagementactionand/ornaturalresourcedamageimpacttheexperienceandenjoymentoftheoutdoorsbytherecreatingpublicastheyareoccurringandoverthelong‐term.EachofthesestudiesarecitedwithintheRecreationSpecialist’sReport(McFarlaneetal.2006(pp.22and34);McFarlaneandWitson2008(pp.22and34);Tahvanainenetal.2001(p.30);andWinter2007(p.22)).Inaddition,assatedonEAp.18,partofthepurposeandneedofthisprojectis“toprovideeducationalopportunities”tothepublic.176. “Pleasedisclosetheanticipatednumber,durationandfrequencyoffutureloggingactivities

intheRNRAandpublicrecreationclosuresthatmayresultfromthefuturelogging.”(153,19)

FSResponse:Pleaserefertotheresponsetocomment#172.

VISUALQUALITY


A‐87

177. “Onp.32‐33inthediscussionoftheForestPlanamendmentforVQO’sIamnotconvinceditisaccurate.WasasimilaramendmentneededfortheSawmillGulchworkperformedin2007?Atthebottomofp.32itsays,“Aportionoftheproposedtreatmentswouldcreateadecreaseinscenicintegritytothepublicviewshedforaperiodoftimegreaterthanoneyear.”IthinktheSawmillGulchworkwassubstantiallyrecoveredinoneyearandthus;units2and3shouldnotbeincludedintheamendment.Theestheticsareactuallyenhancedveryquicklywhentheforestisopenedupanditiseasiertoseethelargertrees.Icanseewhereunits4,5and6areusingtemporaryroadsitmaytake2‐4yearstorecovervisuallydependingonwhethertheroadsareusedoneortwoseasons.Ithinktheindicationthatmodificationwouldbefora10yearperiodisoverlyconservative.”(147,26)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.TheeffectsofthealternativesaredisclosedintheScenerySpecialist’sReportwhichfoundonpp.21‐22thatforAlternativeBtheVQOsforUnits1‐6wouldnotbemetandforAlternativeCtheVQOsforunits4‐6wouldnotbemetrequiringaForestPlanamendment.

TRAVELMANAGEMENT178. “Igenerallysupportthedecommissioningofroadsthatmaybecontributingsedimentto

nearbystreams.However,roadsthatmaybeneededforfuturemanagementactivitiesorfightingwildfireshouldnotberemoved.Instead,improvementsshouldbemadetosuchroads,includingBMPfeaturessuchasdraindips,slashfilterwindrowsorothertechniquesthatareproventoreducesedimentation.”(16,2)

FSResponse:TheproposedactionisbasedontheadviceprovidedbyatravelanalysisofroadrisksandbenefitsconductedbytheForest(EAAppendixE).Benefitsandrisksassociatedwitheachroadwereanalyzedtomakeroadmanagementrecommendationsthatbalancetheneedforaccess,theenvironmentaleffectsofroadsandtheavailablefundingforroadmaintenance.179. “InUnit200ofSection33,afterreforestation,I’dliketoseeRoads63235,63233,53033

decommissionedatlevel5aswellastheotherroadsscheduledfordecommissioninSection33.”(157,1)

FSResponse:TheproposedactionisbasedontheadviceprovidedbyatravelanalysisofroadrisksandbenefitsconductedbytheForest(EApp.29‐31andAppendixE). Benefitsandrisksassociatedwitheachroadwereanalyzedtomakeroadmanagementrecommendationsthatbalancetheneedforaccess,theenvironmentaleffectsofroadsandtheavailable fundingforroadmaintenance.

180. “InUnit63IwouldliketoseethefeatheringstopshortofTrail513sothatusersdon’thave

tolookintothetreatmentareasbelowtothesouthastheyhiketoandfromSheepMountain.Itwouldbenicetohaveabufferbetweenthetrailandtheold,uglyloggedarea.”(157,2)

FSResponse:Thisisnotacommercialunit.Thefeatheringeffectwouldbecausedbytheeffectsoftheprescribedburnandsubsequenttreemortality.Featheringwithfire,while


A‐88

targetedanddeliberate,doesnotcarrytheprecisionassociatedwithtreecutting.BothUnit200tothesouthandUnit63wouldbeburnedunderallactionalternativestorestorethesiteinthelong‐term;Unit200wouldsubsequentlybeplanted.

181. “Sincepracticallyallvegetationmanagementprojectsnowadaysincludeutilizationof

“temporary”roads,whatisneededisaprogrammaticlimitationontheuseoftemporaryroads,sotheireffectscanbeminimized.”(182,10)

FSResponse:Aprogrammaticlimitationtotemporaryroadsisoutsideofthescopeofthisanalysis. Theproposedactionisbasedontheadviceprovidedbya travelanalysisofroadrisksandbenefitsconductedbytheForest(EAAppendixE). Benefitsandrisksassociatedwitheachroadwereanalyzedtomake roadmanagementrecommendationsthatbalancetheneedforaccess,theenvironmentaleffectsofroadsandtheavailablefundingforroadmaintenance.Inaddition,ForestPlanStandards48to52providetheprogrammaticdirectionforconstructingandmanagingroadsontheLoloNationalForest.Standard49limitsthedevelopmentofroadstotheminimumnumberandstandard.Standard50addressestheminimizationofeffectsfromroadsincludingsoilmovement.

182. “TravelManagementRegulations(36CFR212)SubpartArequiretheForestServiceto

identifytheminimumroadsystemneededtosustainablymanagetheLoloNationalForest.IntheabsenceofacompletedforestwideTravelAnalysisProcess,theForestServicecannotdemonstratehowitisminimizingtheroadsystemincompliancewiththeForestPlanortheTravelManagementRegulationsandtheirrelatedDirectives.”(182,33)

FSResponse:TheLoloNationalForestiscurrentlyconductingananalysisofitsForest‐wideminimumroadsystem.Thisassessmentisexpectedtobecompletedfall,2015.Theregulationsat36CFR212.5(b)(SubpartA,discloserequirementsthattheForestServiceincorporatea“science‐basedroadsanalysis”whenidentifyingtheminimumroadsystemforeachnationalforest.ThetravelanalysiscompletedfortheMarshallWoodsproject(EAAppendixE)contributespositivelytothebroadersciencebasedassessmentcurrentlybeingdevelopedbytheForestinsupportoftherequirementsof36CFR212.5(b).183. “TheEAalsofailstodemonstrateconsistencywithTravelManagementRegulations

subpartsBandCandtheirrelatedDirectives.TheEAdoesnotdiscloseanyRoadManagementObjectives,whichwouldfollowfromdesignationsunderSubpartB.”(182,34)

FSResponse:RoadmanagementobjectivesaredisclosedintheEAinthemappingandlistingoftravelmanagementproposedfortheroadsegments(seeEAAppendixE).184. “TheEA'sfinancialanalysisfailstoconsiderthelong‐termbudgetshortfallsforroad

maintenanceintheProjectArea,andtheEAfailstoanalyzeanddisclosetheecologicalimpactsofthisongoingsituation.WeincorporatetheDecember18,2014letterfrom


A‐89

WildEarthGuardiansandtheFriendsoftheWildSwan'sDecember15,2014letterregardingtheLoloNationalForest'sNovember14,2014InterestedPublicletterandaccompanying“DraftStep4—AssessingBenefitsandRisksoftheExistingRoadSystem”ascommentsonthisEA.WealsoincorporateWildEarthGuardiansAugust23,2014lettertoForestSupervisorTimGarciaregardingtheLoloNationalForest’sresponsibilitiesunder36CFR§212SubpartA.”(182,35)

FSResponse:TheproposedactionisbasedontheadviceprovidedbyatravelanalysisofroadrisksandbenefitsconductedbytheForest(EAAppendixE).Benefitsandrisksassociatedwitheachroadwereanalyzedtomakeroadmanagementrecommendationsthatbalancetheneedforaccessandtheavailablefundingforroadmaintenance.The2014lettersthatthecommenterisreferringtowerepertinenttoForest‐levelanalysis,nottoprojectlevelwork.185. “WillmanagementundertheMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectbeconsistentwiththe

TravelManagementRegulationsat36CFR§212?”(182,36)FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#182.

CLIMATECHANGE186. “Itishighlylikelythatclimatechangewillcontinuetocreateconditionsinwhichwinter

snowflowsgraduallyincreaseandsummerflowsdecreaseassnowpacksmeltearlierandearlier.ThereispeerreviewedresearchinMontanashowingthatthinningofforeststandscanincreasesnowpackwaterandextendsnowmeltperiodswhichwouldincreasesummerstreamflowsandreducestreamtemperatures.Itwouldbeamistaketothinlessthan30%ofthebasalareaofanystandtreated,anda40‐50%reductionwouldlikelybetterachievemanyofthemultipleuseobjectives.”(126)

FSResponse:AForestCarbonCyclingandStorageReportaddressingclimatechangeisincludedintheProjectFile(ItemN‐25).Refertotheresponsetocomment#47.187. “GlobalclimatechangeissuesareignoredintheEAexcepttomentiontheForestService

RoadmapRespondingtoClimateChange(2010).”(142)FSResponse:AForestCarbonCyclingandStorageReportaddressingclimatechangeisincludedintheProjectFile(ItemN‐25).ItwasnotincludedintheEAitselfbecauseithadnotbeenbroughtupasduringpublicinvolvement.Seeresponsetocomment#188.188. “Despitetheever‐growingacknowledgmentandawarenessoftheeffectsofclimatechange

anditscauses,theEAfailstoaddressthisinitsanalyses.Neithertheeffectsofforestmanagementonclimatechange,northeeffectsofclimatechangeontheachievabilityofprojectobjectivesareconsidered.”(182,37)

FSResponse:AForestCarbonCyclingandStorageReportaddressingclimatechangeisincludedintheProjectFile(ItemN‐25).ThisreportwasnotincludedintheEAitselfbecauseithadnotbeenbroughtupduringpublicinvolvement;however,climatechangewasaddressedintheEAandthroughoutForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportaslistedbelow:


A‐90

EApp.21‐22andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.3,“ForestServiceManual(FSM)2020providesfoundationalpolicyforusingecologicalrestoration1tomanageNFSlandsinasustainable2manner.Theaimistoreestablishandretainecologicalresilience3ofNFSlandsandassociatedresourcestoachievesustainablemanagementandprovideabroadrangeofecosystemservices4.Healthy,resilientlandscapeswillhavegreatercapacitytosurvivenaturaldisturbancesandlargescalethreatstosustainability,especiallyunderchanginganduncertainfutureenvironmentalconditions,suchasthosedrivenbyclimatechangeandincreasinghumanuses(FSM2020.20).EAp.21andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.4,“TheForestServiceRoadmapforRespondingtoClimateChange(2010)identifiedtheagency’smanagementresponseasthreefold:(1)adaptation,(2)mitigation,and(3)sustainableconsumption.Theagencyisrespondingtoclimatechangethroughadaptiverestoration—byrestoringthefunctionsandprocessescharacteristicofhealthyecosystems,whetherornotthosesystemsarewithinthehistoricalrangeofvariation.Throughrestoration,conditioningandrepairingthekeyfunctionsofecosystemsacrosslandscapessothattheycanwithstandthestressesanduncertaintiesassociatedwithclimatechange.Adaptionstrategiesinclude:(1)Buildingresistancetoclimate‐relatedstressors5suchasdrought,wildfire,insects,anddisease;(2)Increasingecosystemresiliencebyminimizingtheseverityofclimatechangeimpacts,reducingthevulnerabilityand/orincreasingtheadaptivecapacityofecosystemelements;and(3)Facilitatinglarge‐scaleecologicaltransitionsinresponsetochangingenvironmentalconditions.Resistancestrategiesareforshort‐termprotectionofhigh‐valueresources.Resiliencestrategiesarelongertermandbroaderinscale,designedtohelpecosystemsreturntoahealthycondition,oftenwithinthehistoricpatternofstressors.Transitionsarethelongesttermapproach,respondingtochangesinenvironmentalconditionsandaconcomitantneedforecosystemstoadaptbymovingorchanging,oftenadoptingatrajectorybeyondthehistoricalconditions(USDA,2010).”Theeffectsindicatorsintheforestedvegetationare,inpart,basedonclimatechangeasitisastressortoforestedvegetation.EAp.97andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.22“Eachalternativewasanalyzedforitsabilitytoaddressthefollowingmeasuresofsuccesstomeetthepurposeandneed:resilience,resistance,speciescomposition,structureandfunction,andrestorationoffireasaprocess.Projectdesignemploysanadaptiveapproachtomakeadjustmentsintheapplicationofhistoricalconditionsasareferencepoint.Flexibilityisincorporatedtoaddressinherentuncertaintyaboutthelocaleffectsofclimate

1 The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions (FSM 2020.5). 2 Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (FSM 2020.5). Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield (FSM 1905). 3 The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (FSM 2020.5). 4 Benefits people obtain from ecosystems (FSM 2020.5). 5 Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response (Joyce et al., 2008).


A‐91

changebyenhancingtheresiliencyandresistanceoftheforests,andspecificaspectsofstructure,compositionandfunction(Joyceetal.,2008;Millaretal.,2007).”EAp.97andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.5,“Theeffectsanalysisisbasedonthefollowingmeasurementindicators:Resilience‐Evaluationofvulnerabilitytostressorsandabilityofstandstopersistthroughandreorganizeafterdisturbanceandmaintainbasicstructureandfunctionovertime.Measurementindicatorsincluderesiliencetofireandbarkbeetles(barkbeetlehazard)andundercurrentandfutureconditions.Resistance‐theabilityofaforestcommunitytoavoidalterationofitspresentstatebyadisturbance.Resistancepracticesseektoimproveforestdefensesagainsttheeffectsofrapidenvironmentalchanges.Resistancemeasuresareaimedatprotectinghighvalueresourcesthatarevulnerabletostressors.Function‐measuredbyfunctionsandprocessescharacteristicofhealthyecosystems,whetherornotthosesystemsarewithinthehistoricalrangeofvariation.Properlyfunctioningsystemscanaccommodateprocessesincludingfire,insects,disease,andclimatechangeandprovideasustainableflowofecosystemservices.Speciescomposition–measuredbypercentcompositionofat‐riskshade‐intolerantspecies(i.e.,ponderosapine,westernlarch,aspen).Measuresofspeciescompositionincludeestablishmentofshade‐intolerant,rootdisease‐resistantspeciesandspeciesdiversityatthestandandlandscapescale.Managingforavarietyofspeciesandgenotypesprovidesresiliencetoenvironmentalstressors(Joyceetal.,2008).”EAp.88andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.9,“Itiswellacceptedthatongoingclimatechangeshavepushedregionalclimatesbeyondtheboundsofthelastseveralcenturies.Warmerclimatesareexpectedtoalterstresscomplexesthataffectforestsrenderingthemvulnerabletoincreasedfrequency,severityandextentofdisturbances,namelyfireandinsectoutbreaks(Joyceetal.,2008).”ForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.20,“Thegeneraldesiredfutureconditions(DFC)arelistedbyHabitatTypeGroup.Theyprovidearangeofconditionstoguideactivemanagementbasedanunderstandingofhowecosystemsrespondtochangingconditionsgainedfromhistoricalconditions,aswellas,recognizethatcurrentandfutureconditionsareandwillbedifferent.Thefocusliesonanindeterministicapproachofdevelopingstructurallyandcompositionallydiverseforeststhataremediatedbyecologicalanddisturbanceprocesses.Theobjectiveistohedgebetsinthefaceofanuncertainfutureandstillenablecomparisonofcurrentconditions,andthetrendsordirectionofchangeofconditionstoassistmanagementdecisions.Overall,thedesiredfutureconditionsaddresslandscapesizeclassandstructuraldistributionsandtree‐stockinglevelsasastrategytominimizeforestvulnerabilitytostressorsconsistentwiththelong‐termdisturbancesexpectedundercurrentandfutureclimates(www.frcc.gov).Managinginthefaceofuncertaintyrequiresavarietyofapproachesandstrategiesthatarefocusedonenhancingecosystemresistanceandresilience.Thisinvolvesincreasedemphasisonecologicalprocessesandmanagingforchange,despiteuncertaintyaboutthedirectionormagnitudeofachangingclimate(Joyceetal.,2008).”EAp.98andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.22,“ThekeyissuerelatedtoforestedvegetationintheMarshallWoodsareaistheneedforhealthyandresilientforests.Indicatorsofaproperlyfunctioningconditionincludearesilientecosystemwithdiverse


A‐92

distributionofseralstages,withcomposition,structureandpatternthatisresilienttonaturalfireregimes,andinsectanddiseaseoccurrenceundercurrentandfutureclimates.EAp.98andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportpp.22‐23,“Managingforresilientspatialpatternrequirescombiningreferenceconditionswithclimatechangeadaptation(Churchilletal.,2013).Pre‐settlementforestsdevelopedfollowingcenturiesoffrequentdisturbancesandclimaticvariation,andserveasaguideformanagerstoincreaseresilienceyetmustbeconsideredinthecontextoffutureclimatestoprovidetargetsforrestoration(Keeneetal.,2009;Spiesetal.,2010;Stephensetal.,2011).Properlyfunctioningsystemscanaccommodateprocessesincludingfire,insects,disease,andclimatechangeandprovideasustainableflowofecosystemserviceswhetherornotthosesystemsarewithinthehistoricalrangeofvariation.Gilletteandothers(2014)concludedthat,‘Managingforbiologicallydiverseandresilientforestsisourbestandonlylong‐term,sustainableresponsetoamultitudeofstressors–insectsanddiseaseoutbreaks,firesthatareunprecedentedinseverity,anddrought–thatarelikelytoincreaseinfrequencyasclimatechanges.Inthecaseofbarkbeetlesandotherstressors,thiscallingforgreater,science‐baseduseofsilviculturaltreatmentsthat,paradoxically,requiresometreemortalityforthegreaterresilienceoftheentireforest.’”EAp.99andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.23,“AlternativeBistheonlyalternativedesignedtoreducestanddensitytominimizedroughteffects,reducetheimpactoflargewildfireevents,managethepotentialforincreasedinsectanddiseaseoutbreaks,andensureawidevarietyofspeciesandageclassdiversity,whilemanagingforprocessestofacilitateadaptationinthefaceofachangingclimateacrosstheanalysisarea(Joyceetal.,2008;Millaretal.,2007).“EAp.107andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.30,“Notably,warmertemperaturesassociatedwithclimatechangefacilitatebarkbeetleoutbreaksintwoprimaryways:(1)droughtstressmakestreesmorevulnerabletoattack,and;(2)populationsofbarkbeetlescanspeeduptheirreproductivecyclespotentiallyleadingtomorefrequentgenerations(Joyceetal.,2008).Drought‐inducedstressreducesthenumberofbeetlesnecessaryforasuccessfulmassattack,relaxingtheconditionsnecessaryforabarkbeetleoutbreaktooccur(Bentzetal.,2010).Nonetheless,barkbeetleresponsetoclimatechangeishighlycomplexanduncertainasbarkbeetlepopulations,communityassociates,andhosttreesareinfluencedbychangesintemperature(Bentzetal.,2010).IntheMarshallWoodsprojectarea,8outof10years(2001‐2010)receivedbelowaverageprecipitation;therecentdecadeofdroughtwilllikelycontinuetobeafactorcausingphysiologicalstressandpredisposingtreestosuccessfulMPBattack(SturdevantandEgan,2011;M5‐7).”EAp.109andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.32,“UndercurrentandfutureclimatesitislikelythattheimpactsofArmillariarootdiseasewillincreasesignificantly(Klopfensteinetal.,2009).Sturrockandothers(2011)concludedthatincidenceofArmillariarootdiseaseislikelytoincreaseastemperaturesincreaseandprecipitationdecreases(Shaw&Kile,1991;USOfficeofTechnologyAssessment,1993;LaPortaetal.,2008;Klopfensteinetal.,2009).Klopfensteinetal.(2009)demonstratedthattheareainwhichclimatesupportspersistenceofDouglas‐fir,amajorhostforA.solidipesintheinteriornorthwesternUSA,islikelytodecreaseby2060,andsuggestedthatstressedDouglas‐firwillalsobemoresusceptibletoArmillariarootdisease.Intheinteriornorthwest,spreadofArmallariaostoyaeoccursmostlythroughroot‐to‐rootcontactandbyrhizomorphs,withlimitedbasiodiosporeinfection(USDAForestService,1991,page117,


A‐93

WargoandShaw,1985).Therefore,infectionswillspreadonlyashortdistancefromtheedgeofaroot‐diseasecenter,viaroottorootcontact,orbyrhizomorphstravelingashortdistance.Armillariaisnotconsideredaprimarypathogenofmatureponderosapineorwesternlarch.Infact,ponderosapineandwesternlarcharetwoofthemostArmillaria‐resistantspecies.Theseverityofrootdiseaseisdependentonspeciespresent.Ifthesitehasbeenregeneratedtoarootdisease‐susceptiblespecies,thentheseverityofrootdiseasewilllikelyincrease(i.e.,Douglas‐fir).Conversely,ifthesitehasbeenregeneratedtoarootdisease‐resistantspecies,theseverityofthediseasewilllikelybelessenedovertime.Establishingandfavoringponderosapineandwesternlarchcanreducelossestorootdiseases(HagleandGoheen,1988).WhereArmillariaisidentifiedwithintheproposedtreatments,ponderosapineandwesternlarchofavarietyofageclasses,whereavailable,wouldbefeatured.ThisisthemostfrequentlyusedapproachtomanagingrootdiseaseproblemsinwesternNorthAmerica(USDAForestService,1991,p155).”EAp.113andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.36,“Inaddition,promotingadiverseageclassandspeciesmixandspatiallyheterogeneousandcomplexvegetationstructurewouldprovidealandscapethatismoreresilienttoclimatechangeinthelonger‐term(Joyceetal.,2008).”EAp.116‐117andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.39,“Restoringfireasaprocesswouldcontributetolandscape‐scaleageclassandstructuraldiversity;perpetuatelandscape‐scalenaturaldiversityofplantcommunities;andrestoresiteswithdisease‐resistantspeciesadaptedtocurrentandfutureclimates.”EAp.121andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.42,“Reforestationoffire,drought,anddisease‐resistantspecieslikeponderosapinewouldprovideincreasedresistanceandresiliencetopotentialfuturedroughtandwildfirethatmaybeassociatedwithachangingclimate(Joyceetal.,2008).”EAp.120‐121andForestedVegetationSpecialist’sReportp.4,3“TheplantingprogramintheNorthernRegionreliesonthemostsophisticatedseedtransferguidelinesforconifers,modelingpatternsofgeneticvariationinadaptivetraitsinthreedimensionstocapturepatternsofvariabilityandadaptation.Reforestationwithdesiredspeciescompositionandstockinglevelswouldensuretheproductivityofthesitesandenhanceecosystemresilienceandsustainability.Plantingponderosapineonthesitewouldestablishthemostdrought‐avoidantnativetreespeciestothissouthwesterlyaspecttoensureadaptabilityinachangingclimate(Scottetal.,2013).”

ECONOMICS189. “Table52onpage299concerningProjectFeasibilitywasdifficulttounderstand.Because

80loggingtruckloadswasoftenmentioned,laskedstaffhowmanyCCFswouldbeinaloggingloadandwastoldthatthefigurewasnine.Multiplyingninetimes80yielded720CCFs.AlternativeCshowsharvestedvolumeof2030CCFs.AlternativeBshows4645CCFs,oradifferenceof2615CCFswhichIassumedwasthevolumeofunits2and3intheRattlesnakeCorridor.The720amountwassofaroffofthat,Icouldn'tunderstandhowthefeasibilitynumberswerecalculated.Stafftoldmethatthesewerejustpaperestimates,andtherewassomeshrinkage,andthattheareashadnotbeentimbercruised.”(136,7)


A‐94

FSResponse:TheexactlocationsofindividualharvestunitboundarieshavenotbeenidentifiedinthefieldnorhasactualGPSdatabeencollected,asistypicalformostForestServiceprojectsduringtheplanningphase.Bothacresandassociatedtimbervolumearesimplyestimateswhichwilllikelyshrinkduringunitlayoutduetotopographicalrestrictions,equipmentlimitations,silviculturalprescriptions,identificationofwildlifetrees,bufferzones,etc.The80loadswasanestimatepreparedspecificallyfortheFAQs(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11)afterEATable52hadalreadybeendevelopedtomoreaccuratelydepictunitsizeandassociatedvolumeforUnits2and3aftertheseanticipatedreductions.190. “Theanalysisonpage299isincomplete,confusingandthefiguresdonotaddupcorrectly.”

(162,40)FSResponse:TheEconomicsProjectFeasibilityandFinancialEfficiencysectionsoftheEAdescribeandsummarizethecomponentsofTable52onp.299.AsstatedonEAp.298,“Table52summarizestheprojectfeasibilityandfinancialefficiency”andisnotmeantto“addup”.191. “TheProposedActionisFiscallyIrresponsible…TheeconomicanalysisofAlternativeB

projectsmaximumrevenueat$163,000againstexpensesof$2,282,000leavingatotallossof$2,119,000.”(162,42)

FSResponse:AsstatedonEApp.297‐298,“Financialefficiencyanalysisisnotintendedtobeacomprehensivebenefit‐costorPNVanalysisthatincorporatesamonetaryexpressionofallknownmarketandnon‐marketbenefitsandcoststhatisgenerallyusedwheneconomicefficiencyisthesoleorprimarycriterionuponwhichadecisionismade.Manyofthevaluesandcostsassociatedwithnaturalresourcemanagementarebesthandledapartfrom,butinconjunctionwith,amorelimitedbenefit‐costframework.Therefore,theyarenotdescribedinfinancialoreconomictermsforthisproject,butratherarediscussedinthevariousresourcespecialists’reports(e.g.,refertotheFireandFuels,Wildlife,andForestedVegetationSpecialists’Reportsforspecificbenefitsoftheproject).”AnegativePNV(wheremonetizedcostsexceedmonetizedbenefits)simplyimpliesthatagencyrevenuefromthepredictedhighbiddoesnotfullyoffsetitscostsofsalepreparation,saleadministration,forestregeneration,burning,andotherrestorationactivities.ManagementofNationalForestLandsisexpectedtoyieldpositivenetbenefitsfortheAmericanpublic–includingtheconsiderationofallothernon‐marketbenefitsandcosts.Thesemanagementactionsgiventhevalues‐at‐risk,however,mayormaynotyieldfinancialnetrevenues.

192. “Theeconomicsanalysisdoesnotincludeanitemizeddisclosureofcostsvs.benefits,anda

detailedPresentNetValue(PNV)discussion.Theperpetualfiresuppressionfollowedbyfuelreductionfollowedbyfiresuppressioncycleisnowhereshowntobeacost‐effectivewaytomanageaforest.TheEAshowsaverynegativePNVfortheactionalternatives,yetitdoesn’titemizeittothedegreethattheaveragepersoncoulddissecttheeconomicsofthisproposal.”(182,15)

FSResponse:AsstatedintheEconomics,FinancialEfficiencysectionoftheEA,“Thisanalysisisnotintendedtobeacomprehensivebenefit‐costorPNVanalysisthatincorporatesamonetaryexpressionofallknownmarketandnon‐marketbenefitsandcoststhatisgenerallyusedwheneconomicefficiencyisthesoleorprimarycriterionuponwhicha


A‐95

decisionismade.”Table53identifiesallactivitycostsassociatedwithtimberharvest,requireddesigncriteria,andrestorationactivities(EA,p.300).

EDUCATIONAL/INTERPRETIVE193. ”Ialsorecommendinstallingacoupleofpermanenteducationalexhibitswithphotosfrom

theearly1900stodocumenttheeffectofexcludingdisturbances.”(144,5)FSResponse:WhiletheactionalternativesdonotincludeinstallingpermanentexhibitstheForestconductspubliceducationthroughothermeans.Asdiscussedinresourceprotectionmeasure55,“additionalpermanentsignswillnotbepermittedwithoutpriorapprovalfromtheMissoulaRangerDistrictResourcesstaff.Educationalmaterialwillbeprovidedinbrochureorfieldtripform…”(EAp.73).194. Thereareanumberofeducational/interpretiveopportunitiesthatcouldbeexploredin

partnershipwiththeLoloRestorationCommittee,theUniversity,BackcountryHorsemen,SocietyofAmericanForesters,WildlifeSociety,NationalForestFoundation,andothers.“Aprojectthiscontroversialisawonderfulopportunitytoengagethepublicpro,con,andneutralonahugearrayofforestmanagementbenefits.”(147,2)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyoursuggestion;thatisdefinitelysomethingwecouldconsiderdoing.

IMPLEMENTATION195. …”willyoufavorlocalcontractorstodothework?...jobcreation/localcapture…shouldbe

viewedaspositive”(3,1)

FSResponse:AsdescribedthroughouttheEAandsummarizedintheFAQs(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11),“WorkmaybecontractedthroughpublicworksortimbersalecontractssolicitedthroughtheWesternMontanaAcquisitionZoneortheLoloNFTimberContractingoffice.Someprojectsmaybecompletedwithcontractsthatarealreadyinplace.AnynewpublicworkscontractsassociatedwiththisprojectwillbesolicitedintheFedBizOppswebsite.”IfStewardshipContractingAuthorityisused,preferencewillbegiventolocalcontractors(FSH2409.19).196. “Iwouldaskthatyoualsouseaprofessionalloggingcompanythatisexperiencedin

workinginthistypeofsettingtominimizedisruptionandtheamountoftimethetrailswillbeclosed.(5,1;9,1;15,1;27,1;33,1)

FSResponse:Thechoiceofloggingcontractorisbasedontheirprofessionalexperienceandqualifications,bidvalue,asuccessfultrackrecordofdoinggoodwork,andotherfactors.Inaddition,theResourceProtectionMeasuresweredevelopedspecificallytominimizeimpactstoallresources.197. “Weareinterestedinthepossibilityofpartneringwithyouinthinningtreesonthewest

sideofMarshallCanyonRd.onourproperty.”(7,1)


A‐96

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourinterest.Ifacontractisassigned,wecouldprovideyouwiththenameandcontactinformationofthesuccessfulrecipient.198. “Howlongwillthisprojecttake?FromoneemployeeIheard30daysandfromanother...10

years.”(19,2)FSResponse:AsdescribedthroughouttheEAandsummarizedintheFAQs(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11),“Theprojectincludesmanycomponentswhichwouldbeimplementedovera7to10‐yearperioddependingontheactivity.Activitieslikevegetationtreatmentunitlayoutcouldoccurin2015,whileactivitieslikeecosystemmaintenanceburningcouldoccurinyear10dependingonsiteconditionslikeweather,airquality/smokedispersion,fuelmoisture,etc.Someactivitieslikeweedsprayingcouldoccurcontinuallyovertheentire10‐yearperiodbutothersliketimberharvestwouldoccurovermuchshortertimeframes(e.g.,oneseason)tominimizeimpactstousers.”Additionally,seeEAAppendixF–ImplementationScheduleExample.199. “HowmanysuccessfulprojectsofthismagnitudehasthisForestServiceaccomplished?”

(19,3)FSResponse:TheForesthassuccessfullycompletednumerousprojectscontainingforestrestorationactivitiessimilartothoseproposedintheMarshallWoodsproject.RecentlycompletedandongoingexamplesincludetheCutoffProject,St.RegisFuelsReduction,Fishtrap,SouthForkFish,AuggieMountain,andMayoGulchFuelsReduction.200. “IhaveaTrilliumstudyalongSpringCreekthathasbeencontinuousfor14yearsnowandI

wouldliketobesurethatanyactivitywillnotharmtheplants,plotmarkersandplanttagsthatIhaveinplace.”(82)

FSResponse:YourscopingcommentonthismatterwasnotedandResourceProtectionMeasure#78(EAp.80)whichcallsfora200‐footbufferaroundtheresearchsitewasaddedtoaddressyourconcern.201. “AlthoughIsupportUSFSeffortstoimproveforesthealthandusage,Iamextremely

concernedabouttheincreasedvehiculartrafficinanareathatisheavilyusedbyresidentsaswellasrunnersandcyclistsfromalloverMissoula,andalreadyidentifiedasdangerousbytheRattlesnakeValleyTransportationSummitandRattlesnakefamilies…Nonmotorizedtransitinfrastructurehasbeenidentifiedasatopconcernforarearesidents.*Toaddloggingtruckstothealreadyexistingvehiculartrafficofneighboringresidentsaswellasotherresidentswhotraveltotheareatorecreate,isofextremeconcern.”(88)

FSResponse:Pleaseseeresponsestocomment#s9and16.202. “Smoothingtheroadandlimbingthecorridor,particularlytostandardsforloggingtruck

traffic,wouldrequiretemporaryclosuresoftheroadwhiletheworkistakingplaceand


A‐97

wouldforcerecreationiststohike,rideorbikethreemilesbeforethetrail/roadbecamemorelikeawidetrailandlesslikeanarrowroad.”(95,3)

FSResponse:TheroadmaintenanceandBMPworkincludedinallalternatives(includingNoAction)isdiscussedonEAp.27.Resourceprotectionmeasuresweredevelopedtokeepthepublicinformedandreducesafetyconcernsaswellastominimizebothshortandlong‐termimpactstorecreationuseandpublicsafety(EApp.73–74).Temporaryclosuresmaybenecessarydependingonwhichalternativeisselected.AsdiscussedintheFAQdocument,“Forpublic,crew,andoperatorsafety,wemayhavetoimplementtemporarytrail,road,and/orareaclosuresinportionsoftheproject.Temporaryclosurescouldbeineffectduringburning,harvesting,andorhaulingoperations.Thelevel,frequency,andifclosuresareevenneededwouldbedeterminedbytheprojectalternativethatisselected.

Inordertominimizeinconveniencetorecreationistsandprovidemaximumopportunities,projectimplementationwouldbecompletedinphases.Forexample,ifcommercialtreatmentsweretooccuralongTrail515/NationalForestRoad99(Rattlesnakemaincorridor)andaclosurewasneeded,wewouldensurethatSawmillGulch,WoodsGulch,andtheMarshallCanyonareawereopentothepublic.Wewouldalsoonlytemporarilyclosetheportionsoftrailsorareaswherethehazardexistedandprovidealternateopenroutesinthesameareawherepossible.”(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11).TheseimpactsarediscussedinmoredetailintheRecreationSpecialist’sReport.

203. “Idon'tfeelthatthetransportationaspecthasbeenstudiedenough.Itisfrequently

mentionedthatthereisaproposedmovementof160loggingtrucks(80trucksloadedand80trucksempty)goingdowntheroadsandthroughneighborhoodsandpast,otherroadusers(cyclists,pedestrians,cars,ridersonhorseback).Manyhomeshavebeenbuiltinrecentyears.OneofthebusiesttimesofuseonRattlesnakeDrive,inadditiontothemorninghours,isnoon‐time.SchoolbusesleavetheRattlesnakeSchoolbefore3PM,andreturnaround3:30.We'vebeentoldbycityofficialsthatthepickupanddeliveryofkidsattheschoolisadangeroustime.Thenyouhavereturningcommutersafterthistime.”(136,8)

FSResponse:Resourceprotectionmeasuresweredevelopedtokeepthepublicinformedandreducesafetyconcernsaswellastominimizebothshort‐andlong‐termimpactstorecreationuseandpublicsafety(EApp.73–74).AsdiscussedintheFAQs(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11),“DuringsummermonthsandforcommutersalongMarshallCanyonRoadandoldHighway200,haultrucksshouldbeexpectedbutshouldnotinterferewithcommutingtimes.Wewouldmakeextraeffortstokeepthepublicinformedabouthaulactivitiestoreducesafetyconcerns….Whenschoolisinsession,loghaulingwouldbeprohibitedbetween6:00a.m.and8:00a.m.MondaythroughFridayintheRattlesnaketomitigateimpactstoschoolbusroutesandriders.”204. “Theupperroadisinextremelypoorcondition,andnarrow‐lanesbarelythewidthofa

loggingtruck,withnoshoulderswhatsoeverinmanyplaces.Visibilityispoor,particularlyonsharpcurves.An8O‐thousand‐poundloggingtruckwouldnotimprovethealreadystressedsurface.”(136,9)


A‐98

FSResponse:TheroadsthatareplannedforuseintheMarshallWoodsprojecthavebeenusedpreviouslyandsuccessfullyforlogginghaulandequipment.Roadmaintenanceisplanned;brushing/limbingtoimprovesightdistanceandreducedamagetotheroadsidetreesandthevehicles;anddrainageimprovementstoreducethepotentialforerosion/sedimentation.Surfacingisnotpartoftheplan,althoughtherearesomeareasofRattlesnakeroadthatwillhavematerialaddedtoimprovedrainage.205. “…believethatthere'sastrongmajorityofcommunitysupportforactionsthatrestore

natural,healthyandhistoricallymoreopenforestconditions,andforactivitiesthatdonotinvolvewideningroadcorridors,useofheavymachinery,sellingtimberandbuildingnew(albeittemporary)roads…MarshallWoodsworkshouldbephasedin,beginningwiththelesscontroversialprojectelementslikeroaddecommissioning,hand‐thinning&burning,meadowrestorationandnoxiousweedtreatments.”(171,2)

FSResponse:AlternativeDwasdevelopedtoaddressthesedesires/concerns.206. “Ifanalternativeisselectedthatinvolvescommercialremovaloftimber,pleaseconsider

workingwithsmallercontractorswhomaybeabletocost‐effectivelytakeoutlesstimberwithsmallerimpacts.WeareparticularlyconcernedbytheneedtoremovetreesalongthemainRattlesnakeroad(“Rd99/TR515”)toprovideaccessbylargetrucks—thismodificationwouldhaveimportantlong‐termconsequencesonthecommunityofRattlesnakeusers.”(171,3)

FSResponse:Contractors,includingsmallercontractors,wouldbenotifiedofthisprojectandallwouldhavethesameopportunitytosubmitabid.TheroadmaintenanceandBMPworkincludedinallalternatives(includingNoAction)isdiscussedonEAp.27andstates,“ingeneral,treeslargerthan6‐inchdbhwithin3feetfromthedrivingsurfacewouldnotbecut.”207. “ThefinalMarshallWoodsplanshouldincludeascheduletoinvolvecommunitygroupslike

RCWG,ClarkForkCoalition,LoloRestorationCommitteeandothers,alongwithusergroupssuchashorsemenandmountainbikers,tomonitorandmapweeddistributionsbeforeworkcommences,andatregularintervalsafterthetreatments…Thesameprinciples…alsoapplytoproblemsoferosion,wildlifehabitatandothernaturalvalueswithintheprojectarea.”(171,4)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyoursuggestion;monitoringwouldoccuriftheprojectisimplemented.Wewelcometheformationoforassistancefromestablishedgroupsthroughourcurrentvolunteerandpartnershipprogramstohelpcompletethemonitoring.208. “Theprojectbudgetshouldidentifyexpectedoutlaysformonitoringoverthelifeofthe

project,whichcouldbetenyearsorlonger,andthefinalplanshouldalsoaddresstheexpectedopportunitiesforfurthermonitoringbeyondthisproject'stimeframe.ThebudgetcurrentlyoutlinedinTable53doesn'texplicitlyaddressmonitoring,althoughtherearepresumablymonitoringelementswithinseveralofthebudgetcategories.Thebudgetforthefinalplanshouldincludemoredetailedbreakdownswithincategories.”(171,5)

FSResponse:AsstatedonEAp.299,“Table53liststhecostsincludedinthePNVanalyses,whichincludesallestimatedprojectcostsexceptforthosealreadyincludedonthetimber


A‐99

appraisal.Planningcosts(NEPA)arenotincludedinanyofthealternativessincetheyaresunkcostsatthepointofalternativeselection.”Similartotheplanningcosts,thecostsassociatedwithpost‐implementationmonitoringarealsonotincludedinthePNVanalysis.EAp.81explains,“theForestconductspost‐projectimplementationmonitoringperguidanceintheForestPlan.”209. “Ithinkallofusinthepublicneedtorealizethistemporarylossorreductioninaccessto

theprojectareaiswellworththelongertermbenefits;Ifinditdiscouragingthatformany,acceptingthissortofeventemporarydelayedgratificationisimpossible.Ihopetheeducational/outreachpartofthisprojectcansuccessfullytacklethesegapsinpublicacceptanceofrealworldimpacts.”(175,3)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.210. “TheEAContainsNoAnalysisofImpactstoTraffic,NeighborhoodSafetyorNoise…TheEA

containsscantinformationrelatedtoprojectedeffectsofloggingtrucktraffictravelingseveralmilesupanddownanarrowroadthrougharesidentialneighborhoodwithroadsideschools.Itsimplysaysthattrafficwillbestaggeredtoavoidschoolbusdrop‐offandpick‐uptimes.Whenorhowitdoesnotsay…theProposedActionwouldrequireover100logtrucksfullyloadedwithlogsupto35‐40’inlength,representingheavyandlongloads.Noraretheeffectsofnoiseanddustgeneratedbythistrafficestimatedorrevealed.”(162,39)

FSResponse:Pleaseseetheresponsetocomment#9above.AsdiscussedintheFAQs(FAQsathttp://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/marshallwoods;ProjectFile,ItemE‐11),“Thepubliccouldexpecttemporaryclosures;trailreroutes,and–dependingonthetreatmentsapproved–smoke,heavyequipmentonpopularroads,andmachinenoise.”MoreinformationabouttheseimpactsisdescribedintheEAonpp.286‐287.AlsonoteResourceProtectionMeasure#57whichstatesthatdustabatementwouldoccurasnecessary“orifconditionswereexceedinglybadandcouldnotbemitigated,workwouldbestopped”(EAp.287).211. “Pleasedisclosehowyouproposetofundandstaffthefollowupworkthatwillbeneeded

torepairthedamagetotherecreationresourceintheRNRAWevenIFalltheMWmitigationsmeasuresareperformedandhowmanyyearsthatwilltake.´(153,2)

FSResponse:TheForestServiceisallocatedannualfundingandoftenthereareopportunitiestoapplyforcompetitivefundingforhighpriorityprojectslikeMarshallWoods.Forexample,theLoloNFrecentlyreceived$150,000tosupplementfundingfortheplanningforthisimportantproject.Itisexpectedthatthisprojectwouldcontinuetocompetewellfortargetedimplementationfundswhichwouldincludesupportfortherecreationresourceandrelatedresourceprotectionmeasures.

212. “PleasedisclosehowlongtheloggingwassupposedtotakeinPatteeCanyon,howlongit

actuallytookanddisclosethelikelihoodofsimilardelaysandassociatedimpactsforthelogginginMWalternativesBandC.”(153,20)


A‐100

FSResponse:Itisunclearwhatthecommenterisreferringto.LogginghasoccurredinPatteeCanyonnumeroustimesoverthelastcentury,includingmostrecentlyforthePatteeBlueproject(2005)andPeppermintPatty(2014).

GENERALSUPPORT213. GeneralSupportforForestManagement(noalternativespecified)(1;10;17;60;71;72;

76):

SampleStatements:

“Ifavoranyefforttoharvestexcesstimberandleanuptheforestbedssothatforestrestorationcantakeplace.”(1)

“IhavelivedinornearmountainouswoodedareasformostofmyadultlifeandhaverecreatedintheRattlesnakeRecreationareaforover20years.Ilovethatarea.Ihavealsopersonallyexperiencedthedamagethatfirecandointheforest.AlthoughIwouldmuchpreferthattheRattlesnake RecreationareaandWoodsGulchremainunchanged,Iamconcernedaboutthepotentialforfiretoravage theareawithouttheproposed"maintenance"project.Ithinktheconsequencesofuncontrolledfirewouldbeworsethantheproposedproject.Therefore,Iamwritinginsupportoftheproposedproject.”(60)

“WehavelivedonWoodsRoadformanyyearsandhavemademuchuseoftheRattlesnakerecreationarea. WethinktheForestServicehasdoneanexcellentjobofstewardship;thethinningeastofRattlesnakeandinSpringGulcharemuchappreciated. Westronglysupportyourplannedfuelreductionandtrailimprovementprograms.”(72)

“FromrecentMissoulianreadercommentsitseemthatwhenthepublichears"timbersale"regardingtheNRA,theypicturepastloggingonNat.ForestLandswithclearcuts,soildisturbance,hugeslashpiles,etc...Somehowthepublicseemstobemissingthepointthatthisisaveryselectivetreecuttingprojectthatismerelyusingacommercialloggingcompanytodotheworkthathand‐crewscannotdo.Thepurposeisnottoselltimber,orsetaprecedentforlayingouttimbersales,butmerelyhaveprofessionalsassistinimprovingfiresafetyandwildlifehabitat,andreturningtheareatowhatitlookedlikeintheearly1900's,beforefiresuppression.”(76)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.214. SupportforManagementAction–SuggestedAlternative(184)

“WewouldliketheMissoulaRangerDistricttoconsideramodifiedalternativethatwouldencompassthecurrent“zoneofagreement”ontheprojectandtocontinuelookingfornew,creativewaystoachieveitsecologicalgoals….<include:>

AlltherestorationtreatmentsandroaddecommissioningactivitiesinSections31&33. Improvementstotheroadandtrailsystems.


A‐101

Focusonthemoststrategicvegetativepriorities.Don’tdoineffectualtreatmentsfromanecologicalperspectiveandconcentrateonareaswherefuelsreductioncanbemaintainedovertime.

CommercialthinninginUnit1. PrescribedburningonStrawberryRidge. AspenrestorationinPoeMeadowsandmeadowrestorationnearSpringGulch Daylighting(reducedensityaround)largeponderosapines(18”+diameter). Nottiedtodiameterlimits;moreinterestedinsupportingvigorous,multi‐ageforeststands

andestablishingclumps/skipsinamosaicpattern. “Hotter”prescribedburnfollowingthinningwithinthemaincorridortocreatemosaic

conditionsandachievenaturalthinninginforestedareasoffofmaintrail. Recommendestablishingamaintenancescheduleforallnon‐commercialunits. Clearlyexplainthehistory/uniquenessofthisareatothepublicandtakeadvantageofthis

opportunityforaneducationaldisplay(forexample,asignatthetrailheadaboutthepinesavannahsoiltypesandhowtherespectivetreatmentswillaffectdrysiteconifers).

Perhapssomeofthewoodcouldbeusedlocallyinthecommunityasademonstrationofwoodby‐products.

Considerincludingarequirementofthecontract(s),acertainnumberoffieldtourstohelpeducatethepublicaboutmechanicaltreatment,prescribedburning,andotherrestorationandfuelreductiontreatments.

Setupannualphotopointsforeducation(maybetheLRCcanhelptheagencywiththis,orincludeitincontract).

Reduceladderfuelsandfuelloadsneartrailhead. MaintainashadedfuelbreakfortheWUIintheupperRattlesnake Keepthescaleinbalancewiththeworkloadandtheassociatedcostsofmaintainingthe

UpperRattlesnakeWUI. Showcaseexamplesofrestorationinahigh‐visibilityarea(Butrecognizethisislimited

becauseofthelackofsociallicenseforcommerciallogging.) Considerdemounitstoshowcreative,socially‐acceptablewaysoflogremoval;horse

logging?Smallequipment?Useofaforwarderinsteadofalogtruck?In‐woodssawmill? Iforwhenadecisionismade,providetheLRCtheopportunitytoprovideinputonhow

contractorsarechosenandhowtheworkiscarriedouttomaximizelocalbenefitandpublicunderstanding/support.

Focusonhighprioritytargetsforhandworkforcostefficiency ContinuetoworktoidentifythezonesofagreementonthisprojectwithintheLRC,larger

stakeholdergroupsandthecommunity. ConsiderLRCinvolvementtosponsoravolunteerday/interpretationeventandalsoin

monitoring–photopoints.FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.Thedecision‐makermayconsiderandselectfromwithintherangeofalternativesanalyzedbytheEA.


A‐102

215. SupportforManagementAction–SuggestedAlternative(153,21)

FocusonSection31upWoodsGulch.DostandimprovementandfuelsreductioninSection31.

CommerciallylogUnit1andareasoutsidetheNRAwhereyouhavegreaterpublicsupportandconsensus.

Commerciallyand/ornoncommerciallylog(dependingonmerchantablelogsavailable)downontheNRAboundariesrightinthebackyardsofthehomesandresidentsatriskofwildfiredamage–limitthatto0.25milesor1600feet(likeSawmillGulch)–workwiththeresidentswhohavethemostatriskforaccessandloghaulroutes.

Accomplishthefuelsreductionnexttohomes…workwithMissoulaRuralFireandothercooperatorstogetgrantstohelptheLNFandlandownersdoandpayforthework.Godoortodoor…tobuildsupport…Ifthat’stoomuchworkforyouoryoudon’tknowhowtodoit,pay<somone>to…puttogetheraprogram…oratleastadviseyouhowto...

Nocommercialloggingorroadimprovementtoaccommodatelogtrucksinthemaincorridor

Trythe“WildernessLight”managementapproachinthemaincorridorashasbeenusedforthelast35years.

Designatethemaincorridorasaplacetothinkoutsidetheboxandtrydifferentand/ornewwaystocutdowntheoffendingtreeswithoutcommerciallogging.

Sinceyou’veloggedalltheotherrecreationareasaroundMissoula(Pattee,BlueandRockCr),leavejustonedrainageunloggedtoprovideaspectrumofrecreationopportunityandexperienceontheNFlandsaroundMissoula–aplaceavisitorcangotoseethe“WildernessLight”managementphilosophy…

Makethemaincorridora“WilderenssLight”demonstrationareaforUMresearchdemonstratingnon‐commercialloggingwaystotreatforestfuelsthatarenotlimitedtothecurrentstateofourknowledge.

Conveneacommunitybrainstorminggrouptohelpyouthinkoutsidetheboxandtrydifferentwaystodealwiththetreesyoudon’tlikeinthemaincorridor.

UseaMissoulaapproachwhereweinnovateabitmoreandthinkfurtheroutsidetheboxratherthanapplythesamecookiecutterapproachusedingeneralforestrecreationareaslikePattee,BlueandRockCreek.”

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.Thedecision‐makermayconsiderandselectfromwithintherangeofalternativesanalyzedbytheEA.216. GeneralSupportforAlternativeB(4;8;16,1;18;20;32;34;40;45;51;55;57;64;66;110;

111;112;122;126;130;133;134;147,1;151;164;165;167;180;183;190;193;204):SampleStatements:“IamwritingyouincompetesupportoftheMarshallWoodsRestorationProject…Myonlyregretsaresuch.Firsttheprojectsizeshouldhavebeenbiggertoaddressalltheforesthealthissuesion


A‐103

theRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaandadjoiningcityandprivateforestlands.Iguessbabystepsareinorderregardingactiveforestmanagementwithinthishighvisibilitypublicrecreationlandsuseare.”(18)“IamwritinginsupportoftheMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectincludingtheunitsproposedforcommerciallogging.IamaMissoularesidentandfrequentlyrecreateintheRattlesnake.IsupporttheprojectfromthestandpointofimprovedforesthealthandreducedfuelloadingandwildfirerisktotheMissoulavalley,watershed,andairshed.Isupporttheproposedcommercialloggingasthemostexpedient,costeffectiveandcommonsenseapproachfortheproject.IurgetheUSFStorejectargumentsagainstcommercialloggingandproceedwiththisproject.”(20)“TheMarshallWoodsprojectalignsverywellwithGovernorBullock'sForestsinFocusInitiative,fromwhichIquote:"WithmuchofMontana'sforestsinfederalownership,it'sincumbentuponelectedofficials,state,federalandtribalforesters,andMontananstosupportlandmanagementactivitiesaimedatrestoringforestsandwatersheds,reducingfirerisk,improvinghabitatandwaterquality,andtheotheramenitieswerelyuponourforeststodeliver".Theprojectareaisalsopartiallywithinandimmediatelyadjacenttothe2014FarmBillPriorityLandscapeareanominatedbyGovernorBullockanddesignatedbytheChiefoftheForestService.ThePriorityLandscapeareasareofhighimportanceforrestorationduetotheirthreatfrominsectanddiseaseandwildfirerisk.”(190)“Theencroachingladderfuels,mainlyDouglas‐firtrees,havebecometoolargetobeeffectivelyremovedbyhand,andtheresultingfuelloadremainingonthegroundafterthetreesarecutwouldbeunacceptable,bothfromafiredangerandaestheticperspective.Ifthisprojecthadbeenproposed25yearsagowhentheencroachingladderfuelsweremuchsmaller,handcuttingandon‐sitedisposalwouldhavebeenafeasiblealternative,butatthispointitisnot.”(193)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.SupportforAlternativeBwithChanges217. “IsupportAlternativeB,eventhoughI’dliketoseemore!”(11)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.218. “IdosupportcommerciallogginginthemainRattlesnakecorridorasitisfairlyflatand

commercialextractioncouldbedonewithoutcausingmuchharm...Iamopposedtocommercialloggingin<units>4,5,and6.Buildingtemporaryroadsandloggingonsteeperslopeswillleavescarsforamuchlongertimethanwouldbethecasein<unit>2…Iaminfavorofdoingthebestthinningyoucanin<units>4,5,and6withoutresortingtocommerciallogging.”(148)



A‐104

219. “Iamsupportiveofthecommercialharvestbecauseitistherightthingtodoecologically.However,Iamnotsureitisworththeagency’seffortunlesssomemoresociallyacceptablemeasuresaretakensuchashavingtruckhaulatnight,usetempbridgessuchasasmartlambridgetokeepfromdoingmajorworkonthebridgeoraroundSpringCreek,orhaulinglogssomenon‐conventionalway.”(159)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.220. “IamaforesterandeducatorandIhavespentmycareerinvolvedwithandexperiencedin

forestecologyandmanagement.IsupportAlternativeB;withsomeexception…treatmentshouldcontinueallthewayupthemainRattlesnaketrailcorridorasthisareaisalsoinneedofmanagement.Itwouldbebettertodotheentiredrainageatonetimeratherthandoingapatchworkofmanagementandleavingtheresttodecline.Managementofthecorridorwouldalsoproduceanaturalbreakinthecrowns,creatingabreakbetweenthehillsideswhenthereisafire.”(192,2)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.NoneoftheMarshallWoodsalternativesincludetreatmentfurtherupthemainRattlesnakecorridor;thatwouldhavetoaddressedinafutureprojectproposal.221. “Istronglysupportcommercialthinning”…especiallyinunits2and3…“buttheproposed

alternativeslackcreativity.Considerhandthinningfollowedbyaratherhotprescribedburn.Aburnthatwouldkillabout30%ofthetrees.Thiswouldmeetyourobjectivesandperhapsbesociallyacceptable,asyouarenotsellingaproduct.Irecognizethehazardsnagsrepresenttorecreationists.Considercontractingateamofforesterswithsmall,light‐on‐the‐landmachinestoslowlyworktheseunits.Bringinaportablesawmilltoproduceroughcutboardsandbeams.”(202)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.222. “InanyoftheAlternatives,butparticularlyinB,Iwouldliketoseemuchmorediscussionof

thepotentialrolethatsmall‐scale,low‐impactlogging(viahorse/mule)andnewerlighter‐impactmechanical(millon‐site,etc.)approachescouldplay.Ithinkthatmoreemphasisonthesecoulddramaticallyenhancesupportforatleastthethinningcomponentsoftheproject…Ithinkthescaleofunitlevelentriescouldbere‐considered,topotentiallybreakuplargertreatmentareas(ordurationofloggingentries)tofurthermitigateimpacts.Also,onthe(14foot)roadwidthrequirement,Ithinkthiscouldbere‐consideredtoadoptaslightlynarrowerwidth,whichcouldworkifsmallerscaleequipmentcouldbeutilized…”(175,2)

FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.223. GeneralSupportforAlternativeC(27,1;39;47;65;68;80;96;130;138;168):


A‐105

SampleStatements:“Iamopposedtotheuseoftrucksandheavyequipmenttoharvestandremovecommercialtimber…ForthisreasonIurgeyoutochooseAlternativeC.”(39)“IhavebeenaMissoulacitizenforoverthirtyyears,activeintheconservationofsomeofourmosticoniclandscapes.TheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreasisoneofthoseiconicplaces.WhileIcompletelyunderstandandappreciatethevalueof"thinning"theRattlesnakeNRAcorridorisnottheplaceforit.Instead,IwouldurgeyoutochooseAlternativeC,whichasIunderstanditwouldallowsomesmalltreestobecutwithachainsawandpiledandburnedbutwon'trequireheavyequipmentandloggingtraffic.”(47)“Idon’tobjectparticularlytotheproposedlogging/thinningproject.IDOstrenuouslyobjecttousingheavyequipmenttodoit.Thereisnosensiblereasonnottouselightertechnology.Ideally,bowsawsandhorseswouldbeused.However,IbelieveAlternativeCwouldbetolerable.”(68)“IamvoicingmysupportforAlternativeCintheMarshallWoodsRestorationProject.AlternativeCwillallowthinning,butwon’trequireheavyequipmentandloggingtraffic.”(80)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.224. GeneralSupportforAlternativeD(35;69;73;89;101;125;128;130;140;143;145;146;

155;157;158;169;200;203):SampleStatements:“IsupportAlternativeD.Itisveryimportantthatfireanddiseaseriskmitigationbeimplementedinthisarea–becauseofNationalRec.Areastatusandthearea’sheavyrec.use,itisalsoimportantthatthemanagementtoolsnotbesoheavyhanded,ascommercialloggingis.”(35)“Aslongtimeresidents,backcountry&frontcountryusers(horse,bike,hike)oftheRattlesnakeNRA,IwouldsupportALTERNATIVED.Thereisabsolutelynoneedforamajorloggingoperationinourbackyard.Saveyourmoneyandutilizeitforanother"new"steptoapplythissmallcuttingandunderstoryburnsintoWoodsGulchandMarshallafteryoufinishtheMainCorridorwork.”(69)“RegardingtheproposaltodosomeloggingontheRattlesnakeRecreationArea,IpreferAlternativeD,whichincludessmall‐treecuttingandprescribedfireonlytotreatforestfuelswithnocommercialharvest.”(73)“IamwritingtourgetheForestServicenottoincludecommercialloggingintheMarshallWoodsProject.IattendedthefieldtriponApril18,andhavereadyourmaterials,andamimpressedwithmostofwhatisproposedforfiremitigation,streamandculvertimprovement,etc.Asidefromthecommercialloggingcomponent,thisseemslikeawell‐consideredandnecessaryproject.Hand‐


A‐106

thinningandcarefulburningareexcellentmethodsforreducingthethreatofmajorwildfireintheNationalRecreationAreaandMarshallWoods/WoodsGulchareas.”(146)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.225. SupportforAlternativesCorDwithChanges

“IfoppositiontoAlternativeBissogreatthatitthreatenstheentireproject,IwouldsupportAlternativesCorD,butrecommendnoactionatallinUnits2&3.TheactivitiesproposedbyAlternativesC&Dinthoseunitswillnotremoveenoughlargeunderstorytreestorealizesignificantecologicalbenefitandwillbeextremelycostly.”(144,4)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.

GENERALOPPOSITION226. GeneraloppositiontocommercialloggingintheRattlesnakeNRA(AlternativesBandC)

(21;25;26;28;29;30;31;38;41;48;50;54,1;58,61;62;67;75;77;78;79;84;85;86;87;91;92;93;94;97;99;100;102;105;106;107;108;109;113;114;115;118;119;120;121;123;127;128;129;132;135;137;139;149;152;154;161;166;170;177;178;179;181;185;187;196;197;199;201;205;206;207):

SampleStatements:

“AsaresidentofMissoulaandafrequentvisitortotheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaIamappalledattheproposaltoincludecommercialloggingaswaytomanagetheforestasdefinedintheMarshallWoodsProjectproposal.Theareahasbecomemuchtooprecious,wildandwellusedtoevenconsidersuchanoperation.Meandmyfamilystronglyencourageothermethodsofforestmanagementforthissensitiveandmuchlovedproperty.Pleasedevelopaplanthatworksforeverybodyanddoesnotincludeacommercialloggingoperation.”(21)“CommerciallogginginsidetheRNRAisnotpermissiblebasedonboththelanguageandthespiritofthelegislation,andmayviolatethebulltroutcriticalhabitatdesignationsandalsothreatenstheintegrityofmunicipalwatersupply,theRattlesnakeCreek'swatershed,so,whilelogginginsimilarforesttypesisecologicallyappropriate,themaincorridoroftheRattlesnakeisnotaplacetobedoingcommercialactivities.TherestoftheMarshallWoodsRestorationProjectisfine.”(25)“PleasebecertaintonotpermitcommercialloggingontheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationArea.Notonlywouldsuchloggingbeillegalitwouldalsobeheartbreaking.”(50)“BeeninMissoulaallmylifeandworkedinthelumbermills.Ihavenoproblemwithloggingifitisdonerightandenhancesthehealthoftheforest.ButIamnotinfavorofanyloggingontheRattlesnakeWildernessarea.Thatisaspecialwatertributarythatrunscleareveninhighwaterperiods.Thatwillchangewiththeloggingofthisarea.”(75)


A‐107

FSResponse:AlternativesAandDdonotincludeanycommercialharvest;nodecisionhasbeenmadeastowhichalternativewillbeselectedandthereisno“PreferredAlternative”.TheproposalsincludedinAlternativesBandC,whichincludecommercialloggingintheRattlesnakeNRA,arenotillegal.Nologging,oranyotheractivitiesinthisproject,areproposedintheRattlesnakeWildernessarea.227. GeneraloppositiontoAlternativesB,CandD–supportforAlternativeA(42;43;56,2;63,

2;81;83;103;104;116;117;141;142;150;156;173;174;176;188;191;195;198):

SampleStatements:

“IhavebeenaMissoularesidentandaresidentoftheRattlesnakeValleyfor25yearsnow.IattendedthepublicopenhouseonthematteroftheMarshallWoodsRestorationProject.lfeelthatthereisadelicatebalanceinthehabitatofthisareaandwouldliketotellyouthatlamfora"NoAction"stanceonthecurrentMarshallWoodsRestorationProject…Ibelievethatasaresident,Ihavemadeachoicetoliveinaforest,withits'inherentdangers.”(43)“SelecttheNo‐ActionAlternativeA.”(56)“IaminfavorofAlternativeAfortheproposedloggingintheRattlesnake.Iamopposedtoanyloggingoflargetreesandtoanyprescribedburning.Iwouldconsidersomecleanupwithclearingbrush,butIamdefinitelyagainstanyburningofwaste.TheMissoulaValleyisplaguedwithwildfiresmokeinthesummersotoprescribeburnintheoffseasonistotallyunthinkable.Thereareotherwaysofdealingwithforestwastesuchaschippingwheretheproductcanbeusedascompostorpaperproducts.”(81)“AlternativesB‐CandDareunacceptable,theUSFS’sonlychoiceistoselectA‐NoAction.AlternativeAistheonlyonethatwilldonoharm.ThenextactionshouldbetopulltheProjectandre‐think.”(150)FSResponse:Thankyouforyourcomment.


A‐108

REVIEWOFREFERENCESCITEDINCOMMENTS‐DICKARTLEYATTACHMENT#3

“Bestscienceshowsloggingtoreducefuelsisnotonlyineffectiveatreducingfireintensityandrateofspreadbutsometimesexacerbatesfirebehavior.SincefuelsreductionisafavoriteUSFSexcusetolog

publiclanditsemployeesaretaughttoignoreanddenythisinformation.”

1 Agee, James K. Ph.D. “The Severe Weather Wildfire‐Too Hot to Handle? Northwest Science, Vol. 71, No. 1, 1997

“large, severe wildfires are more weather‐dependent than fuel‐dependent,”

Forest Service Response: The above quotation was taken out of context. The author says that this statement identified in the provided quotation should not be generalized to all forest types. Fire behavior is a function of fuel, weather, and topography. The author suggests that weather is likely the most influential factor in fire behavior for subalpine forests and moist coastal forests of Douglas‐fir and western hemlock which are historically characterized by a high‐severity fire regime. However, the author

2 Barry, Glen. 2002. Commercial Logging Caused Wildfires. Portland Independent Media Center, August 2002. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/08/17464.shtml

“ThebiggestecologicalconjobinyearsisbeingwagedbytheU.S.Republicanpartyandtheirtimberindustrycronies.TheyareblamingtherecentWesternwildfiresonenvironmentalists,andassuringthepublicthatcommercialloggingwillreducetheriskofcatastrophicwildfires.”

FSResponse:Thecitedarticleisa10‐yearoldcommentaryopposedtothethenBushadministration’ssupportforfuelsreductionundertheNationalFirePlan.TheMarshallWoodsEAdisplaysthatharvest,thinning,andprescribedburntreatmentswilleffectivelymodifyfirebehaviorwithintreatedareasandreduce the intensity of a potential wildfire under normal summer conditions (EA page 143) Harvest

3 Berry, Alison Ph.D., 2007. “Forest Policy Up in Smoke: Fire Suppression in the United States.” A PERC publication.

“One reason that fuels reduction treatments should be limited is that they may not address the important effects of climate and weather on fire behavior. Some studies suggest that it is drought and warmer temperatures—not fuels accumulations—that are the major explanatory factors for large fires (O’Toole 2002‐2003, Pierce et al. 2004). It is an unrealistic goal to return all forests to historical states, in light of the fact that agencies have no control over drought or temperature.” (pgs. 15–16)

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary about fire suppression policies on the federal lands and recommends changes in funding for suppression efforts to curb spending. The author also recommends that efforts should be focused on fuels reduction and restoring fire‐adapted ecosystems, as appropriate for local conditions (page 19). The Marshall Woods vegetation treatments are within warm, dry forest types characteristic of low to mixed severity fire regimes. However, field surveys indicate that tree densities and species composition are outside their historical range (EA, pages 86‐91). A combination of prescribed burning and mechanical treatments is prescribed to restore stand structures and compositions more likely to support low and mixed severity wildfire so the landscape as a whole can experience the full spectrum of wildfire intensities as it did in the past. These stand structures and compositions also reduce susceptibility to bark beetles.

It is well established that potential fire behavior (intensity) and severity (effect) are dependent on the interaction between fuel, weather, and physical setting (Jain and Graham 2004; Graham et al. 2004). Any particular wildfire’s growth and behavior are unique because of the infinite combinations of these factors that can occur over spatial and temporal scales (Graham et al. 2004). Of these three factors, the only thing humans can alter through management is fuel.


A‐109

4 Bessie, W. C. Ph.D. and E. A. Johnson Ph.D. “The Relative Importance of Fuels and Weather on FireBehavior in Subalpine Forests” Ecology, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Apr., 1995) pp. 747‐762. Published by: Ecological Society of America

“Fire intensity was correlated to annual area burned; large area burned years had higher fire intensity predictions than smaller area burned years. The reason for this difference was attributed directly to the weather variable frequency distribution, which was shifted towards more extreme values in years in which large areas burned. During extreme weather conditions, the relative importance of fuels diminishes since all stands achieve the threshold required to permit crown fire development. This is important since most of the area burned in subalpine forests has historically occurred during very extreme weather (i.e., drought coupled to high winds). The fire behavior relationships predicted in the models support the concept that forest fire behavior is determined primarily by weather variation among years rather than fuel variation associated with stand age.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article suggests that weather is the primary factor affecting wildfire size in subalpine forests near the boreal forest ecotone in Alberta, Canada. The title of the article clearly states that it focuses on subalpine forests. The Marshall Woods project vegetation treatments are located within an entirely different forest type of dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir.

5 Bird, Bryan “Fires Normal Part of Ecology ‐ Fear of fires ungrounded”Mountain View Telegraph, December20, 2007

“Climatic conditions drive all big fires— not fuels. All substantial fires occur only if there is extended drought, low humidity, high temperatures and, most importantly, high winds. When conditions are "ripe" for a large blaze, fires will burn through all kinds of fuel loads. For this reason, most fires go out without burning more than a few acres; approximately 1 percent of all fires are responsible for about 95 percent to 99 percent of the acreage burned.”

“Under severe conditions, fires burn through all kinds of fuel loads including thinned/logged forests. Contrary to what the U.S. Forest Service has stated about the Ojo Peak Fire, local witnesses have said the fire blew right through the hotter, drier thinned forests where the cooling effect of forest canopy had been removed.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary published in a newspaper in response to another person’s previously published viewpoint. In the cited article, the author opposes the construction of a biomass plant near Estancia, New Mexico and criticizes the previous commenter’s statements regarding wildfire risk. The articles themselves are irrelevant to the Marshall Woods project in Montana.

In response to the provided quotation above, it is well established that potential fire behavior (intensity) and severity (effect) are dependent on the interaction between fuel, weather, and physical setting (Jain and Graham 2004; Graham et al. 2004). Any particular wildfire’s growth and behavior are unique because of the infinite combinations of these factors that can occur over spatial and temporal scales (Graham et al. 2004). Of these three factors, the only thing humans can alter through management is fuel. “Severe” or extreme weather conditions can create fire behavior that would burn through or breach most fuel treatments. Thus, realistic objectives for fuel treatments include reducing the likelihood of crown fire and other fire behavior that would lead to undesirable future conditions.


A‐110

6 Forests.org. 2002. Bush Fire Policy: Clearing Forests So They Do Not Burn. Forest Conservation News Today, August 27, 2002. http://forests.org/archived_site/today/recent/2002/tiporefl.htm

“TheForestServiceisusingthefearofwildfirestoallowloggingcompaniestoremovemedium‐andlarge‐diametertreesthattheycansell,ratherthanjustthesmalltreesandbrushthatcanmakefiresmoresevere.Thereislittleevidencetoshowthatsuchloggingwillpreventcatastrophicfires;onthecontrary,loggingroadsandindustrialloggingcausewildfires.Bushisawell‐knownsupporterofthetimberindustryandhasacceptedhugesumsofmoneyfromwealthytimbercompanyleaders.Heispromotingmisinformationaboutforestfiresinordertobenefittimberindustrycampaigncontributors.”

FSResponse:Thecitedarticleisopinioncommentarywritten2002criticizingthenPresidentBushandhisadministration’ssupportforfuelsreduction(HealthyForestsInitiative).Thisisdatedopinionnotapplicabletothecurrentadministration.

7 Coe, Nathan J. “Forestry shouldn’t be an ‘industry’ “ Durango Herald, February 12, 2011

“As someone with first‐hand experience in fire hazard reduction and first‐hand knowledge of the forest management field, as well as someone with lifelong roots in the Durango community, I am abhorred by the destruction, nearly amounting to clear cutting, that is taking place around our community under the guise of “fire hazard reduction.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary published in a Colorado newspaper criticizing what appears to be ongoing timber harvest near Durango, Colorado for the purpose of fuels reduction. This article is irrelevant to the Marshall Woods project in Montana. Clearcutting is not included in the Marshall Woods project. A combination of prescribed burning and mechanical treatments is prescribed to restore stand structures and compositions more likely to support low and mixed severity wildfire.

8 Forest Policy Research paper 2008 “Montana: Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Proposal is all aboutselling out to Pyramid lumber”

“First, most large fires are climatic/weather driven events, not fuels driven. Extended drought, high winds, high temperatures and low humidity enable fires to burn through all fuel loadings. Many of the large Western fires in recent years were in forests that had been previously logged and/or thinned, with little apparent effect on fire spread or severity.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary that questions the effectiveness of thinning to reduce fire hazard. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 9. Fuel modeling suggests the reduction of surface and ladder fuels along with the separation of tree crowns prescribed in the Marshall Woods vegetation treatments will decrease the risk of high severity crown fire (EA, page 143).

9 Forest Policy Research paper 2008 “California: Too often thinning treatments tend to increase fire hazards”

“most large fires are climatic/weather driven events, not fuels driven. Extended drought, high winds, high temperatures and low humidity enable fires to burn through all fuel loadings.”

Forest Service Response: The provided quotation is not contained within the cited article. This article cites a study that suggests that mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels is effective in creating stands that are more resistant to severe fire effects. The article emphasizes the importance of treating surface fuels with prescribed fire following thinning activities to reduce future fire severity and spread. The Forest Service agrees. The Marshall Woods project includes thinning from below followed by prescribed burning to reduce surface fuels.


A‐111

10 Frey, David “Logging Won’t Halt Beetles, Fire, Report Says” NewWest.net, 3‐03‐10

“The primary driver of fire is not beetle kill. It’s climate,” said Barry Noon, a wildlife ecology professor at Colorado State University and an author of the report. “It’s drought and temperature.”

“The report was authored by Noon; Clark University professor Dominik Kulakowski ; Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Center for Invertebrate Conservation and Dominick DellaSala, president and chief scientist for the National Center for Conservation Science and Policy.”

Forest Service Response: This article cites a report entitled, “Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences, and Management Alternatives” issued by a conservation group that specifically addresses a proposal to exempt National Forest roadless areas in Colorado from protections under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The authors suggest that mechanical treatments in roadless areas will not likely reduce forest susceptibility to beetle outbreaks or reduce the risk of fires, especially the risk of fires to communities. The Marshall Woods project does not include salvage of dead and dying trees, nor does it include timber harvest or road construction in roadless areas. Please also see responses to 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8.

11 Gable, Eryn “Battling beetles may not reduce fire risks – report” The Xerces Society Land Letter, March 4,2010

“Extensive areas of dead trees have understandably led to widespread concern about the increased risk for forest fires,” said Dominik Kulakowski, one of the report’s authors and a professor of geography and biology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “This is a logical concern, but the best available science indicates that the occurrence of large fires in lodgepole pine and spruce‐fir forests is mainly influenced by climatic conditions, particularly drought.”

Forest Service Response: This article cites the same report as does the article in #10 above – please see above response. The article is not applicable to the Marshall Woods project. Marshall Woods vegetative treatments are proposed in dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forest types, not the lodgepole pine and spruce‐fir forest types discussed in the cited report and identified in the supplied quotation.

12 Gorte, Ross W. Ph.D. “Wildfire Damages to Homes and Resources: Understanding Causes and ReducingLosses” A CRS report for Congress, June 2, 2008

“Reducing burnable biomass, however, does not eliminate wildfires, because fuel reduction does not directly alter the dryness of the biomass or the probability of an ignition.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is a report prepared for Congress that provides an overview of the nature of wildfires followed by a discussion of the options for protecting structures, wildlands, and natural resources from wildfires. Some of the options discussed include those prescribed in the Marshall Woods project (e.g. thinning and prescribed burning). In response to the quotation provided, elimination of wildfire is not an objective. At the beginning of the paragraph where this quotation is found, the author states that the principal goal for land and resource protection is to reduce the damages caused by wildfire, which he says can be best achieved by reducing burnable biomass.


A‐112

13 GAO.1999.WesternNationalForests:Acohesivestrategyisneededtoaddresscatastrophicwildfirethreats.ReporttothesubcommitteeonForestsandForestHealth,CommitteeonResources,HouseofRepresentatives.April.Availableatwww.gao.gov.60p.

Citedinattachmentas:

Government Accounting Office “Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats” GAO/RCED‐99‐65 "Most of the trees that need to be removed to reduce accumulated fuels are small in diameter and have little or no commercial value." "Mechanically removing fuels (through commercial timber harvesting and other means) can also have adverse effects on wildlife habitat and water quality in many areas. Officials told GAO that, because of these effects, a large‐scale expansion of commercial timber harvesting alone for removing materials would not be feasible. However, because the Forest Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used this program to address the wildfire problem. The difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards." FS Response: The literature citation is a report to Congress from the Government Accounting Office that recommends the development of a cohesive strategy for reducing and maintaining accumulated fuels on national forests of the interior West at acceptable levels. The quotes provided by the commenter are describing what the GAO identifies as some of the barriers to the effective action of addressing catastrophic wildfire (page 7). This literature reference is not relevant to the Marshall Woods project because it recommends a National policy for addressing wildfire and fuel conditions across the interior West, which is not within the scope of this project. The Marshall Woods project proposes various site‐specific vegetation treatments including prescribed burning, timber harvest, and non‐commercial thinning to improve forest stand resilience and reduce hazardous fuels.

14 Hanson,Chad,“CommercialLoggingDoesn'tPreventCatastrophicFires,ItCausesThem.”PublishedintheNewYorkTimes,May19,2000

“InApril1999,theGeneralAccountingOfficeissuedareportthatraisedseriousquestionsabouttheuseoftimbersalesasatooloffiremanagement.Itnotedthat"mostofthetreesthatneedtoberemovedtoreduceaccumulatedfuelsaresmallindiameter"‐‐theverytreesthathave‘littleornocommercialvalue.’“

“Asitofferstimberforsaletologgers,theForestServicetendsto‘focusonareaswithhigh‐valuecommercialtimberratherthanonareaswithhighfirehazards,’thereportsaid.Itssalesinclude‘morelarge,commerciallyvaluabletrees’thanarenecessarytoreducetheso‐calledaccumulatedfuels(inotherwords,thetreesthataremostlikelytoburninaforestfire).”

“Thetruthisthattimbersalesarecausingcatastrophicwildfiresonnationalforests,notalleviatingthem.TheSierraNevadaEcosystemProjectReport,issuedin1996bythefederalgovernment,foundthat‘timberharvest,throughitseffectsonforeststructure,localmicroclimateandfuelaccumulation,hasincreasedfireseveritymorethananyotherrecenthumanactivity.’ThereasongoesbacktothesameconflictthattheG.A.O.found:loggerswantthebigtrees,notthelittleonesthatactasfuelinforestfires.”

“Aftera‘thinning’timbersale,aforesthasfarfewerofthelargetrees,whicharenaturallyfire‐resistantbecauseoftheirthickbark;indeed,manyofthesetreesarecenturiesoldandhavealreadysurvivedmanyfires.Withoutthem,thereislessshade.Theforestisdrierandhotter,makingtheremaining,smallertreesmoresusceptibletoburning.Afterlogging,forestsalsohaveaccumulationsofflammabledebrisknownas"slashpiles"‐‐unsalablebranchesandlimbsleftbyloggingcrews.”

FS Response: The Sierra Nevada Framework is specific to more dry (xeric) forest communities in California and not the inland Northern Rockies. The Marshall Woods project is not intended to “prevent catastrophic fires” but to minimize the probability of extreme fire behavior within the treated areas, among other purposes.


A‐113

15 Hermach, Tim. “The Skinny on Thinning, Should we save the forest from itself?” Published by the Eugene Weekly Viewpoint, 11/1/07

“Emerging science demonstrates that the real culprit for creating more wildfires — including southern California's blazes — is not "fuels" but climate and weather. Climate change simply means we must learn to live with more wildfires.

Humankind can be pretty smart (we made it to the Moon), but we can also be pretty stupid (we're destroying the lungs of the planet for profit). One thing, however, is certain: Mother Nature knows best. So let's be responsible and stop logging the publicly owned forests, let them recover and let God and nature back in.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary written by the executive director of the Native Forest Council in opposition to fuels reduction treatments that involve commercial tree removal. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 8.


A‐114

16 Huff, Mark H.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Alvarado, Ernesto; Vihnanek, Robert E.; Lehmkuhl, John F.; Hessburg, Paul F.; Everett, Richard L. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐GTR‐355. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.).

“Ingeneral,rateofspreadandflamelengthwerepositivelycorrelatedwiththeproportionofarealogged(hereafter,arealogged)forthesamplewatersheds.Correlationcoefficientsofarealoggedwithrateofspreadwere>0.57forfiveofthesixriverbasins(table5).RateofspreadforthePendOreilleandWenatcheeRiverbasinswasstronglyassociated(r‐0.89)witharealogged.Correlationofarealoggedwithflamelengthwere>0.42forfourofsixriverbasins(table5).TheDeschutesandMethowRiverbasinsshowedthestrongestrelations.Allharvesttechniqueswereassociatedwithincreasingrateofspreadandflamelength,butstrengthoftheassociationsdifferedgreatlyamongriverbasinsandharvestingmethods.”(pg.9)

“Asaby‐productofclearcutting,thinning,andothertree‐removalactivities,activityfuelscreatebothshort‐andlong‐termfirehazardstoecosystems.Thepotentialrateofspreadandintensityoffiresassociatedwithrecentlycutloggingresiduesishigh,especiallythefirstyearortwoasthematerialdecays.Highfire‐behaviorhazardsassociatedwiththeresiduescanextend,however,formanyyearsdependingonthetree.Eventhoughthesehazardsdiminish,theirinfluenceonfirebehaviorcanlingerforupto30yearsinthedryforestecosystemsofeasternWashingtonandOregon.”

FSResponse:Thepaperreferenced(Huffetal.1995)abovewasanattempttocomparethepotentialfirebehaviorandsmokeproductionofhistoricalandcurrenttimeperiodsforforty‐nine5,100to13,500hectarewatersheds.Itwasalandscape‐levelmodelingexercisebaseduponvegetationtypeandtimberharvesttypeclassificationfromaerialphotointerpretationofhistoric(1938‐1959)andcurrent(1985‐1992)aerialphotos.Theauthorsusedfuelbehaviorphotoseriestoassignfuelloadingbyvegetationtypefornon‐harvestedareasandbyharvest‐typeinharvestedareas.Duetolackofsite‐specificinformation,theyassignedafirebehaviorphotoseriesthatmatchedolderloggingslashtotheharvests,assumingintheprocessthatnopost‐treatmentfuelsreductiontreatmentshadevertakenplace.Theyalsoonlymodeledsurfaceandmoderate‐tolow‐intensityunderstoryfiresandconstantweatherandtopographicconditions.

ThisstudyhaslittlerelevancetotheMarshallWoodsprojectthatproposesvariousvegetationtreatmentsincludingthinningfrombelowandshelterwoodcuttingfollowedbyprescribedburningtoreducenaturalandactivity‐generatedfuels.ThefuelsandfirebehaviorconditionscreatedbytheprojectwilldiffergreatlythanthatmodeledbyHuffetal.(1995).Itisimportanttonotethattheauthorsofthisstudyrecommendthat“prescribedfire,alongwithmechanicalmeasuresifhazardousburningconditionsexist,canbeusedforrestorationpurposestoregulatestandcomposition,reduceplantcompetition,andmodifyfuelstoachieveadesiredstructure.Overtime,prescribedfires,naturalfires,selectivetreeharvesting,oracombinationthereofcanbeusedtomaintaindesiredconditionsandprocesses”(page36).TheMarshallWoodsprojectproposestouseacombinationofmechanicaltreatmentsandprescribedburningtomeetvegetationobjectivesdescribedwithintheEA.

17 Ingalsbee, Timothy. 2000. Commercial Logging for Wildfire Prevention: Facts Vs. Fantasies. Unpublished paper Western Fire Ecology Center.

“Thenotionthatcommercialloggingcanpreventwildfireshasitsbelieversandloudproponents,butthisbeliefdoesnotmatchupwiththescientificevidenceorhistoryoffederalmanagementpractices.Infact,itiswidelyrecognizedthatpastcommerciallogging,road‐building,livestockgrazingandaggressivefirefightingarethesourcesfor"foresthealth"problemssuchasincreasedinsectinfestations,disease


A‐115

outbreaks,andseverewildfires.”

“Howcanthesourcesoftheseproblemsalsobetheirsolution?Thisinternalcontradictionneedsmorethanpropagandatoberesolved.Itistimeforthetimberindustryandtheirsupporterstoheedthefacts,notfantasies,anddevelopforestmanagementpoliciesbasedonscience,notpolitics.”

FSResponse:Thecitedarticleisopinioncommentary.“Commerciallogging”cannotpreventwildfireswhichtheForestServicehasneversaiditwould.To“prevent”wildfires,onewouldhavetostopallhumanandnatural(i.e.lightning)ignitionsources.However,vegetationtreatmentsofallkindsareaccomplishedtomodifyfirebehaviorwithintreatedareas.Ampleevidencesuggeststhatfuelstreatmentscanbeusedtomodifyfireintensityandseverity.Examplesofthisevidenceare:

•Ageretal.2007.Asimulationstudyofthinningandfueltreatmentsonawildland‐urbaninterfaceineasternOregon,USA.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning80(2007)292‐300.

•Carey,Henry,Schumann,Martha.2003.ModifyingWildfireBehavior–TheEffectivenessofFuelTreatments.NationalCommunityForestryCenter.SouthwestRegionWorkingPaper2.

•Cram,D.S.,T.T.Baker,andJ.C.Boren.2006.WildlandfireeffectsinsilviculturallytreatedversusuntreatedstandofNewMexicoandArizona.USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation.RMRS‐Rp‐55.

•Daileyetal.2008.FirebehaviorandeffectsinfuelstreatmentsandprotectedhabitatontheMoonlightFire.USDAForestService,PacificSouthwestResearchStation.

•Finneyetal.2005.Standandlandscape‐leveleffectsofprescribedburningontwoArizonawildfires.CanadianJournalofForestResearch.35:1714‐1722

•Fitesetal.2007.Firebehaviorandeffectsrelatingtosuppression,fueltreatments,andprotectedareasontheAntelopeComplexWheelerFire.USDAForestService,PacificSouthwestResearchStation.

•Fuleetal.2001.Potentialfirebehaviorisreducedfollowingforestrestorationtreatments.Vance,ReginaK.;Edminster,CarletonB.;Covington,W.Wallace;Blake,JulieA.comps.2001.Ponderosapineecosystemsrestorationandconservation:stepstowardstewardship;2000April25–27;Flagstaff,AZ.ProceedingsRMRS‐P‐22.Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.

•GrahamR.T.,Harvey,A.E.,Jain,T.B.,Tonn,J.R.1999.TheEffectsofThinningandSimilarStandTreatmentsonFireBehaviorinWesternForests.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.USDIBureauofLandManagement.GeneralTechnicalReportPNW‐GTR‐463.

•GrahamR.T.,McCaffrey,S.lJain,T.B.2004.ScienceBasisforChangingForestStructuretoModifyWildfireBehaviorandSeverity.USDAForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐120.

•Hanson,C.T.,Odion,D.C.2006.FireseverityinmechanicallythinnedversusunthinnedforestsoftheSierraNevada,California.In:Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalFireEcologyandManagementCongress,November13‐17,2006,SanDiego,CA.

•Hunter,M.E.;Shepperd,W.D.;Lentile,J.E.;Lundquist,J.E.;Andreu,M.G.;Butler,J.L.;Smith,F.W.2007.AcomprehensiveguidetofuelstreatmentpracticesforponderosapineintheBlackHills,ColoradoFrontRange,andSouthwest.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS‐GTR‐198.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.93p.


A‐116

•Jermanetal.2004.Slashcompressiontreatmentreducedtreemortalityfromprescribedfireinsouthwesternponderosapine.WesternJournalofAppliedforestry.19(3)

•Johnson,MorrisC.;Peterson,DavidL.;Raymond,CrystalL.2007.GuidetofueltreatmentsindryforestsoftheWesternUnitedStates:assessingforeststructureandfirehazard.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW‐GTR‐686.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.322p.

•KeyesandO’Hara.2002.Quantifyingstandtargetsforsilviculturalpreventionofcrownfires.WesternJournalofAppliedforestry.17(2)

•Murphyetal.2007.Anassessmentoffueltreatmenteffectsonfirebehavior,suppressioneffectiveness,andstructureignitionontheAngoraFire.USDAForestServiceSouthwestRegion.R5‐TP‐025

•Omi&Martinson.2004.Effectivenessofthinningandprescribedfireinreducingwildfireseverity.USDAForestServiceGen.Tech.Rep.PSW‐GTR‐193

•Omi,PhilipN.,Martinson,ErikJ.,Chong,GenevaW.2006.EffectivenessofPre‐FireFuelTreatments.SubmittedtotheJointFireScienceProgramGoverningBoard.FinalReportJFSPProject03‐2‐1‐07.

•Peterson,D.L.,Johnson,M.C.,Agee,J.K.,Jain,T.B.,McKenzie,D.,Reinhardt,E.2005.ForestStructureandFireHazardinDryForestsoftheWesternUnitedStates.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,GeneralTechnicalReportPNW‐GTR‐628.

•Pollet&Omi.2002.Effectofthinningandprescribedburningoncrownfireseverityinponderosapineforests.InternationalJournalofWildlandFire.11:1‐10

•Roccaforteetal.2008.Landscape‐scalechangesincanopyfuelsandpotentialfirebehaviorfollowingponderosapinerestorationtreatments.InternationalJournalofWildlandFire.17:293‐303

•Schroeder.2006.Effectivenessofforestfuelmanagement:acrownfirecasestudyintheNorthwestTerritories,Canada.ForestResearchInstituteofCanada.

•Skinneretal.Effectsofprescribedfireandthinningonwildfireseverity;theConeFire,BlacksMountainExperimentalForest.Proceedings:25thVegetationManagementConference.

•StephensandMoghaddas.2005.Experimentalfueltreatmentimpactsonforeststructure,potentialfirebehavior,andpredictedtreemortalityinaCaliforniamixedconiferforest.ForestEcologyandManagement.215:21‐36

•StephensandMoghaddas.2005.Silviculturalandreserveimpactsonpotentialfirebehaviorandforestconservation;25yearsofexperiencefromSierraNevadamixedconiferforests.BiologicalConservation.125:369‐379

•Stephens.1998.EvaluationoftheeffectsofsilviculturalandfuelstreatmentsonpotentialfirebehaviorinSierraNevadamixed‐coniferforests.ForestEcologyandManagement.105:21‐35

•StromandFule.2007.Pre‐wildfirefueltreatmentsaffectlong‐termponderosapineforestdynamics.InternationalJournalofWildlandFire.16:128‐138

• Strom. 2005. Pre‐fire treatment effects and post‐fire forest dynamics on the Rodeo‐Chediski burn area, Arizona. Master’s Thesis. Northern Arizona University.


A‐117

18 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D. 2000. “Money to Burn: The Economics of Fire and Fuels Management,Part One: Fire Suppression”. An American Lands Alliance publication.

"Problems exist with over‐generalizing the effects of fire exclusion, and misapplying data derived from short‐interval forest ecosystems (e.g. ponderosa pine stands) to long‐interval forest ecosystems that have not missed their fire cycles yet and are still within their historic range of variability for stand‐replacing fire events (e.g. high elevation lodgepole pine or fir stands)."

Forest Service Response: The provided quotation is not found within the cited article. It instead comes from another of Mr. Ingalsbee’s articles, entitled, “Ecological Assessments Should Be Required Prior to Fuels Reduction or Restoration Projects”. In the next sentence the author writes, “Fire/fuels management prescriptions should reflect current conditions, and there should be no treatments without prior collection of site‐specific field data.” The Marshall Woods project is consistent with the author’s recommendations. Site‐specific assessments have been completed for each treatment area. Silvicultural prescriptions have been tailored to address the existing conditions to meet site‐specific objectives. The Marshall Woods project addresses the restoration needs in the dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forest types. The author also suggests that fuels reduction should be recognized as a means of attaining the goals of ecosystem restoration and protection. The Marshall Woods project is consistent with this assessment as it uses fuels reduction actions to restore forest stand resilience (see EA, Appendices D and E).

19 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D., “National Fire Plan Implementation: Forest Service Failing to Protect Forests andCommunities” American Lands Alliance, March 2002

“Congress should prohibit the use of commercial timber sales and stewardship contracts for hazardous fuels reduction projects. Commercial logging removes the most ecologically valuable, most fire‐resistant trees, while leaving behind highly flammable small trees, brush, and logging debris. The use of "goods for services" stewardship contracts also encourages logging larger, more fire‐resistant trees in order to make such projects attractive to timber purchasers. The results of such logging are to increase fire risks and fuel hazards, not to reduce them. The financial incentives for abusive logging under the guise of "thinning" must be eliminated.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is 12‐year old opinion commentary that suggests Congress and the Forest Service adopt the author’s fire policy recommendations. Modifying national policies is outside the scope of the Marshall Woods project. However, the Marshall Woods vegetation treatments would retain the largest, most fire‐resistant trees as well as the fire‐resistant species (EA, page 36). Natural and activity‐generated fuels would be treated through prescribed burning.

20 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D. “The wildland fires of 2002 illuminate fundamental questions about our relationship to fire.” The Oregon Quarterly, Winter 2002

“Thus,theuseofcommercialloggingforfirehazardreductionposesyetanotherparadox:Loggingremovesthetreesthatnormallysurvivefires,leavesbehindthetreesthataremostoftenkilledbyfire,increasesflammablefuelloads,andworsensfireweatherconditions.”(pg.5)

FSResponse:Inthearticle,immediatelyfollowingthequoteabove,theauthorcomments:“Thereisaroleforstrategicthinningofsmall‐diameterunderstorytreesandbrush,butthinningshouldfocusongenuinelythintrees,notthethick,tall,mature,andoldtreesmostvaluabletowildlifeandwatersheds.Moreover,thinningproposalsshouldnotbefalselyadvertisedasameansofpreventingwildfires,butrather,asameansofpreparingforestsforprescribedandwildlandfires.”

The article is an opinion piece in which the author provides no supporting material for his conclusions. In the article, he assumes that all “commercial logging for fire hazard” would be “from above” and would leave small trees and slash, increasing fuel loads. The author supports strategic thinning of small‐diameter trees as a preparation for prescribed burning. The Marshall Woods treatments would thin‐from‐below, removing


A‐118

small trees and less fire tolerant species of conifers. The thinning activities would be followed by fuels treatments. The article supports the intent of the Marshall Woods project more than it opposes it.

21 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D. "Fanning the Flames! The U.S. Forest Service: A Fire‐Dependent Bureaucracy." Missoula Independent. Vol. 14 No. 24, June 2003

"Inthefaceofgrowingpublicscrutinyandcriticismoftheagency'sloggingpoliciesandpractices,theForestServiceandtheirenablersinCongresshavelearnedtomasktimbersalesasso‐called'fuelsreduction'and'forestrestoration'projects.Yet,theneteffectoftheseloggingprojectsistoactuallyincreasefirerisksandfuelhazards."

"Decadesofencouragingprivateloggingcompaniestotakethebiggest,oldest,mostfire‐resistanttreesfrompubliclands,whileleavingbehindavolatilefuelloadofsmalltrees,brush,weeds,stumpsandslashhasvastlyincreasedtheflammabilityofforestlands."

"Inadditiontopost‐firesalvagelogging,theForestServiceandtimberindustryadvocatesinCongresshavebeenpushingpre‐firetimbersales,oftenfalselybilledashazardousfuelsreductionor'thinning'projects,tolowertheriskorhazardoffuturewildfires.Intoomanycases,theseso‐calledthinningprojectsareloggingthick‐diameterfire‐resistantoverstorytreesinsteadoforinadditiontocuttingthin‐sizedfire‐susceptibleunderstorytrees.Theresultingloggingslashandtheincreasedsolarandwindexposurecanparadoxicallyincreasethefuelhazardsandfirerisks."

FS Response: This article is opinion commentary and the points made are essentially the same as those in the above cited articles written by the same author. Please see the responses to #25 to #27.

22 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D. 2007. “A Reporter's Guide to Wildland Fire.” Published by the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSE), January 2007 “More than any other recent human activity, the legacy of commercial timber extraction has made public forests more flammable and less resilient to fire. Firstly, clearcut and high‐grade logging have historically taken the largest, most fire‐resilient, most commercially‐valuable trees, and left behind dead needles and limbs (logging debris called "slash"), along with smaller trees and brush that are less commercially valuable but more flammable than mature and old‐growth trees. The net effect is to increase the amount of available hazardous fuel.” “Secondly, the removal of large overstory trees also changes the microclimate of logged sites, making them hotter, drier, and windier, which increases the intensity and rate of spread of wildfires. Third, the creation of densely‐stocked even‐aged plantations of young conifers made sites even more flammable since this produced a solid mass of highly combustible conifer needles within easy reach of surface flames. These changes in the fuel load, fuel profile, and microclimate make logged sites more prone to high‐intensity and high‐severity wildfires.” FS Response: The first opposing view is not applicable to the Marshall Woods project as all timber harvest activities would include appropriate slash disposal methods. These methods, such as mechanical piling and subsequent burning of the piles during the right weather conditions, reduce the amount of available hazardous fuel to levels well below those amounts prior to the timber harvest activities. The EA demonstrates how fuel model types are changed from the pre‐ to post‐treatment conditions. In some situations, fuels are indeed temporarily created that would burn at a faster rate of spread, but these fuels are also much easier to control with standard firefighting techniques as the duration and intensity of the burn is so much less than the large, heavy fuels found in the pre‐treatment areas.


A‐119

23 Ingalsbee, Timothy Ph.D. and Joseph Fox, Ph.D. “Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology(FUSEE): Torchbearers for a New Fire Management Paradigm” A poster presentation at the Third International Fire Ecology and Management Congress, Association for Fire Ecology November 13‐17, 2006

“For example, use of taxpayer dollars and resources on deficit timber sales that remove fire‐resilient old‐growth trees and leave behind untreated logging slash, violate federal environmental laws in planning or implementation, or are deceptively labeled as “fuels reduction” or “forest restoration” projects when they actually increase fuel hazards or degrade ecological integrity, is an ethical as well as an ecological issue. These kind of anti‐ecological, unethical forest management projects also adversely affect firefighter and community safety by diverting limited federal dollars away from genuine hazardous fuels reduction activities, and by degrading ecological conditions in ways that increase wildfire rate of spread, intensity, or severity.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article provides an overview of the FUSEE organization and its mission. The Marshall Woods project would not harvest old growth trees. Large, fire‐resistant trees would be retained. Activity generated slash would be treated by prescribed burning.

24 Keene, Roy “Logging does not prevent wildfires” Guest Viewpoint, the Eugene Register Guard January 11, 2009 “History, not science, refutes the claim that logging helps to prevent forest fires. The forests of the West are far more vulnerable to fire due to a century of industrial logging and fire suppression. Logging has removed most of the older, fire‐resistant trees from the forests. Fire suppression has encouraged many smaller and more flammable trees, brush and dense plantations to fill the holes. Logging has set the forests of the West up to burn big and hot. FS Response: The article is opinion commentary that was written in response to a guest viewpoint published in an Oregon newspaper. Please see responses to #25, #26, and #27. As stated in #25, logging cannot prevent wildfires and the Forest Service has never said it would. However, vegetation treatments of all kinds are done to modify fire intensity and severity within treated areas, which is supported by numerous studies (see literature citations listed in response to #25. Marshall Woods project would retain the larger, fire resistant trees and fire‐resistant tree species.

25 Keene, Roy. Restorative Logging? “More rarity than reality” Guest Viewpoint, the Eugene Register Guard March 10, 2011 “Fear of wildfire is heavily used to sell these forest “restoration” schemes. Logging has not been proven, in practice, to reduce fire frequency or intensity. Historically, the largest, most destructive blazes, like the Tillamook conflagration, were caused from logging or fueled by slash. Unlogged forests, cool and shaded, are typically more fire resistant than cut over, dried‐up stands choked with slash and weeds. Large‐scale logging (by any name) has devalued our forests, degraded our waters, damaged soils, and endangered a wide variety of plants and animals. How will the current round of politically and environmentally propelled ‘restorative’ logging proposals differ, in practice, from past logging regimes?” FS Response: The article is opinion commentary that was printed in an Oregon newspaper. The Tillamook Burn that the author refers to was a series of large forest fires in the northern Oregon Coast Range mountains 50 miles west of Portland. It began in 1933 and struck at six‐year intervals through 1951, burning a combined total of 355,000 acres. The largest of the four fires started in August 1933 within a logging operation. Near record weather conditions with a 104º temperature and relative humidity of about 20 percent combined with dry fuel conditions contributed to the rapid growth and high intensity and severity of the fire. The subsequent fires in 1939, 1945, and 1951 primarily reburned the area affected by the first fire. The harvest proposed in the Marshall Woods project differs greatly from the logging that occurred in the Pacific Northwest in the 1930s. In the 1930s, it is likely that slash was rarely, if ever, treated. The Marshall


A‐120

Woods project would treat the natural and activity generated slash. The larger, fire‐resistant trees would be retained.

26 Kelly, Steve Ph.D. 2007. “Cheap Chips, Counterfeit Wilderness: Greenwashing Logging on Montana'sBiggest National Forest.” Published by the World Prout Assembly

“There is a gathering body of evidence that large wildfires are not determined by “unnatural” fuel loading. Lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and aspen depend on infrequent, stand‐replacing, high intensity fires. Most of the B‐D NF is well within the natural range of variability. In fact, dense forest stands may not be caused by fire exclusion, but by a series of consecutive wet years that boosted seedling survival and expanded the local range.

Drought, wind, and low humidity, not fuels loads, drive large wildfires. Weather and climatic conditions are also the driving force behind expanding insect populations.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary criticizing the then proposed Beaverhead‐Deerlodge Conservation, Restoration and Stewardship Act of 2007. This bill did not pass into law and has no relevance to the Marshall Woods project on the Lolo National Forest. The Marshall Woods vegetation treatments are located within dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forest types that typically experienced low to mixed severity fires on a moderately frequent basis. This is a very different forest type than the subalpine forest described in the quotation. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 8.

27 Laverty, Lyle, USDA Forest Service and Tim Hartzell U.S. Department of the Interior “A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000”, September 8, 2000. “The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently addressed the effect of logging on wildfires in an August 2000 report and found that the current wave of forest fires is not related to a decline in timber harvest on Federal lands. From a quantitative perspective, the CRS study indicates a very weak relationship between acres logged and the extent and severity of forest fires. To the contrary, in the most recent period (1980 through 1999) the data indicate that fewer acres burned in areas where logging activity was limited.” “Qualitative analysis by CRS supports the same conclusion. The CRS stated: "[T]imber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products, but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles. The concentration of these fine fuels on the forest floor increases the rate of spread of wildfires." Similarly, the National Research Council found that logging and clearcutting can cause rapid regeneration of shrubs and trees that can create highly flammable fuel conditions within a few years of cutting.” FS Response: The cited paper is a report prepared in response to then President Clinton’s request for recommendations on how to best respond to the 2000 wildfires, reduce the impacts of the wildland fires on rural communities, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. The quotes provided by the commenter were made in response to critics of the President’s proposal to protect roadless areas. These critics expressed concern that the roadless policy could increase wildfire risks. On the next page, the report supports thinning stands to reduce small diameter trees, underbrush, and accumulated fuels. It cites a study that demonstrated fuel reduction treatments (which included thinning) were effective in mitigating fire severity. In the Marshall Woods project, thinning and other harvest activities would be used to modify fire behavior as well as meet other vegetation objectives. The large, fire‐resistant trees would be retained and the natural and activity generated slash would be treated.

28 Lawrence, Nathaniel, NRDC senior attorney “Gridlock on the National Forests” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health (Committee on Resources) December 4, 2001 “I will turn first to forest thinning aimed at reducing fire risks. There is surprisingly little scientific information about how thinning actually affects overall fire risk in national forests. How can it be that thinning could increase fire risks? First, thinning lets in sunlight and wind, both of which dry out the forest interior and increase flammability. Second, the most flammable material ‐ brush, limbs, twigs, needles, and saplings ‐ is difficult to remove and often left behind. Third, opening up forests promotes brushy, flammable undergrowth. Fourth, logging equipment compacts soil so that water runs off instead of filtering in to keep soils moist and trees healthy. Fifth, thinning introduces diseases and pests, wounds the trees left behind, and generally disrupts natural processes, including some that regulate forest health, all the more so if road construction is involved.”


A‐121

FS Response: The first statement may have been incorrect in 2001 when it was made, and is certainly incorrect now. A number of studies and reports have been made over the years investigating the effect of thinning on fire behavior and effects (refer to the list of some of these studies and reports in the response to #25 above). Because wind exposure may be increased within timber harvest units and surface fuels could be drier as a result, fire researchers indicate it is critical that surface fuels be treated to minimize fire intensity (Graham et al. 1999; Agee and Skinner 2005; Graham et al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2005). Slash reduction would be conducted following harvest. The quotation given above also says that “logging equipment compacts soil so that water runs off instead of filtering in to keep soils moist.” It is true that logging equipment, particularly ground‐based equipment) can compact soils, but project design, resource protection measures, and best management practices effectively minimize soil disturbance. The Marshall Woods project would meet Region 1 soil quality standards (EA page 243). No runoff or erosion is expected because forest floor, ground cover, and soil organic matter would be retained. The quotation says that “thinning introduces diseases and pests, wounds the trees left behind.” The vegetation treatments proposed in the Marshall Woods project would have the opposite effect on insects and disease (EA pages 106‐110). Treatments would leave a more robust stand of residual trees that are more resistant to insects and would also convert stands of species susceptible to disease to those species that are more resistant. Careful logging and contract administration keeps the amount of residual tree damage (i.e. wounds) to a minimum.

29 Leitner, Brian. “Logging Companies are Responsible for the California Wilfires.” The Democratic Underground, October 30, 2003.

“Thosewhowouldarguethatthisformoflogginghasanypositiveeffectsonanecosystemareclearlymisinformed.Thistypeoflogginghassideeffectsrelatedtowildfires,firstandforemostbeingthatthelumbercompaniesaren'tinterestedinhaulingoutallthesmallertrees,branches,leaves,pineneedles,sawdust,andotherdebrisgeneratedbycuttingallthesetrees.Allthisdebrisisleftonsite,quicklydriesout,andisfarmoreflammablesittingdeadonthegroundthanitwaslivinginthetrees.Smaller,non‐commerciallyviabletreesareleftbehind(dead)aswell‐creatingevenmorehighlyflammablefuelontheground.”

FS Response: The “form of logging” that the author is referring to is not a component of the Marshall Woods project. The “smaller trees, branches, leaves, pine needles, sawdust, and other debris generated by cutting all these trees” is specifically treated by either mechanical means or broadcast burning to meet the State of Montana standards for slash treatment. Meeting these standards leave the treatment areas in a fuels conditions that a wildland fire can effectively be suppressed with a minimal amount of resources.

30 “More Large Forest Fires Linked To Climate Change” Adapted from materials provided by the University of Arizona ScienceDaily, July 10, 2006

“Almost seven times more forested federal land burned during the 1987‐2003 period than during the prior 17 years. In addition, large fires occurred about four times more often during the latter period.”

“The increases in fire extent and frequency are strongly linked to higher March‐through‐August temperatures and are most pronounced for mid‐elevation forests in the northern Rocky Mountains.

The new finding points to climate change, not fire suppression policies and forest fuel accumulation, as the primary driver of recent increases in large forest fires.”

Forest Service Response: The article is a brief summary of a 2006 publication entitled “Warming and Earlier Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity” written by Westerling et al. In their study, the authors compiled a database of large wildfires in the western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydro‐climatic and land‐surface data. Their study indicates that large wildfire activity increased markedly in the mid‐1980s, with higher large‐wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, which they suggest is strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt. The authors do not discount the effect of fuels: “In some forest types, past land uses [including


A‐122

fire suppression] have probably increased sensitivity of current forest wildfire regimes to climatic variabilitythrough effects on the quantity, arrangement, and continuity of fuels.” They further state, “The overall importance of climate in wildfire activity underscores the urgency of ecological restoration and fuels management to reduce wildfire hazards to human communities and to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change in forests that have undergone substantial alterations due to past land uses.”

As described in the Marshall Woods EA, field surveys indicate the warm, dry forest types have higher tree densities than historic conditions and a lower quantity and proportion of fire‐resistant tree species likely due to extensive timber harvest, settlement, and occupation of the Rattlesnake Valley, a large‐scale human‐caused fire in 191, and subsequent timber harvest in the 1950s and 1960s (EA, page 13). The Marshall Woods project would use a combination of prescribed burning and mechanical treatments to lower stand densities and favor fire and disease‐resistant tree species. These treatments would increase the likelihood of supporting low and mixed‐severity wildfires and decrease the likelihood of supporting high‐severity wildfires by reducing crown continuity to limit crown fire spread, reducing understory and mid‐story conifers that act as ladder fuels capable of carrying surface fires into the crowns, and reducing ground fuel accumulations to reduce the heat intensity on the tree boles and roots . Resulting stand structures and compositions would also reduce susceptibility to bark beetles.

31 Morgan, Penelope Ph.D., Emily K. Heyerdahl Ph.D., and Carly E. Gibson 2008 "Multi‐season climatesynchronized forest fires throughout the 20th century, Northern Rockies", Ecology, 89, 3: 717‐728.

“We inferred climate drivers of 20th‐century years with regionally synchronous forest fires in the U.S. northern Rockies. We derived annual fire extent from an existing fire atlas that includes 5038 fire polygons recorded from 12070086 ha, or 71% of the forested land in Idaho and Montana west of the Continental Divide. The 11 regional‐fire years, those exceeding the 90th percentile in annual fire extent from 1900 to 2003 (>102314 ha or ~1% of the fire atlas recording area), were concentrated early and late in the century (six from 1900 to 1934 and five from 1988 to 2003). During both periods, regional‐fire years were ones when warm springs were followed by warm, dry summers and also when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was positive. Spring snowpack was likely reduced during warm springs and when PDO was positive, resulting in longer fire seasons. Regional‐fire years did not vary with El Nino‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or with climate in antecedent years. The long mid‐20th century period lacking regional‐fire years (1935‐1987) had generally cool springs, generally negative PDO, and a lack of extremely dry summers; also, this was a period of active fire suppression. The climate drivers of regionally synchronous fire that we inferred are congruent with those of previous centuries in this region, suggesting a strong influence of spring and summer climate on fire activity throughout the 20th century despite major land‐use change and fire suppression efforts. The relatively cool, moist climate during the mid‐century gap in regional‐fire years likely contributed to the success of fire suppression during that period. In every regional‐fire year, fires burned across a range of vegetation types. Given our results and the projections for warmer springs and continued warm, dry summers, forests of the U.S. northern Rockies are likely to experience synchronous, large fires in the future.”

Forest Service Response: The citation is a research study conducted in Idaho and western Montana to compare fire scars to tree ring reconstructions of climate. The results suggest that regional fire years occurred when spring‐summers were significantly warm and summers were significantly warm‐dry, Years when fire was recorded at only a few of the study sites appear to have occurred under a broad range of climate conditions.

It is unclear what the commenter’s point was in including this citation as it contains no discussion of land management actions. It has long been established that weather is a principal factor in fire behavior.

32 Okoand Ilan Kayatsky, Dan. “Fight Fire with Logging?” Mother Jones, August 1, 2002 “Still, forestry experts warned in the 2000 plan that logging should be used carefully and rarely; in fact, the


A‐123

original draft states plainly that the "removal of large merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk.” “Now, critics charge that the Bush administration is ignoring that warning. Neil Lawrence, a policy analyst with the Natural Resource Defense Council, claims that Washington has taken a far more aggressive approach to incorporating commercial logging in its wildfire prevention plans. Moreover, critics claim the administration's strategy, far from protecting the lives and homes of those most at risk, could actually increase the likelihood of wildfires” FS Response: The cited article is opinion commentary written over 11 years ago about the implementation of the National Fire Plan, which has little relevance to the Marshall Woods project. Please see responses to #25 to #27 above.

33 Oregon State University Research Science Centric, July 9, 2009

“Fuel reduction treatments should be forgone if forest ecosystems are to provide maximal amelioration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the next 100 years,' the study authors wrote in their conclusion. 'If fuel reduction treatments are effective in reducing fire severities in the western hemlock, Douglas‐fir forests of the west Cascades and the western hemlock, Sitka spruce forests of the Coast Range, it will come at the cost of long‐term carbon storage, even if harvested materials are used as biofuels.’ ”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is a review of a published study entitled ”Forest Fuel Reduction Alters Fire Severity and Long‐term Carbon Storage in Three Pacific Northwest Ecosystems” written by Stephen Mitchel, Mark Harmon and Kari O’Connell. The authors of the study used a forest ecosystem simulation model to examine the effects of fuel reduction on fire severity and the resulting long‐term carbon storage among three Pacific Northwest ecosystems: the east Cascades ponderosa pine forests, the west Cascades western hemlock‐Douglas‐fir forests, and the Coast range western hemlock‐Sitka spruce forests. Their results suggest that if fuel reduction treatments are effective in reducing fire severities in the western hemlock‐Douglas‐fir forest of the west Cascades and western hemlock‐Sitka spruce forests of the Coast Range, it will come at the cost of long‐term carbon storage even if harvested materials are utilized as biofuels. However, they suggest that the application of fuel reduction treatments may be essential for ecosystem restoration in forests with uncharacteristic levels in the ponderosa pine forest ecosystems of the east Cascades. The Marshall Woods vegetation treatments will be conducted in dry forest types where stand densities are high, which is similar to the ponderosa pine forest types of the east Cascades described in the study.

34 O'Toole Randal. “Incentives, Not Fuels, Are the Problem” Published by the Thoreau Institute

“While top officials blame recent fires on fuels, all the on‐the‐ground reports I've read focus on the weather.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary that claims that the Forest Service exaggerates wildfire and forest fuels concerns to leverage Congress for a bigger budget. The author also claims the reason for increased fire suppression and fuel reduction costs is due to Congress providing the Forest Service a ‘blank check’, which he suggests offers no incentive to control costs. How Congress funds the Forest Service is outside the scope of the Marshall Woods project.

In the sentence following the provided quotation, the author writes, “I am not saying there is no buildup of fuels, just that the buildup isn’t as important as the popular story has led us to believe.” It is well established that potential fire behavior (intensity) and severity (effect) are dependent on the interaction between fuel, weather, and physical setting (Jain and Graham 2004; Graham et al. 2004). Of those three factors, the only thing humans can alter through management is fuel. Please also see response to #3.


A‐124

35 O’Toole, Randal. 2002. “Reforming the Fire Service: An Analysis of Federal Fire Budgets and Incentives.”The Thoreau Institute.

“This paper will show that built‐up fuels are not the main reason, or even a major reason, for recent severe fires or high fire suppression costs. The weather is the prime reason for widespread fires this year as well as in 2000, 1999, and other recent years. But the major reason for increased costs is institutional: The federal land agencies, and especially the Forest Service, have a blank check to put out fires and thus have no reason to control their costs. If fuels are not the problem, then it isn’t necessary to spend $400 million a year treating them.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary that is a longer version of the article cited in #34 above. Please see response to #34.

36 O’Toole, Randal. “Money to Burn?” Regulation, Winter 2002 ‐ 2003

“Post‐fire reports on individual fires make little or no mention of excess fuels. Instead, fire scientists agree that drought is the cause of the severe fires in recent years. This year’s Rodeo‐ Chedisky Fire, the largest fire in Arizona history, was on heavily managed and thinned federal lands, not an untouched wilderness brimming with excess fuels.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is opinion commentary that is essentially the same as what is contained in the articles of #34 and 35 above. Please see response to #34.

37 Partridge, Arthur Dean Ph.D. Testimony to the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee UnitedState Senate. Hearing to Review Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HR 1904 June 26, 2003

“The current focus on ‘fuels’ is, in itself, misguided because almost anything in a forest will burn, given the right conditions. Any fire specialist will tell you that the principal factors affecting fire are temperature and moisture, not fuels. No legislation will prevent or even reduce fires in the vast areas of the national forests and to pretend so is fraudulent.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is testimony submitted in opposition to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The Marshall Woods project is not proposed under this legislation. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 8. The Marshall Woods vegetation treatments are not intended to prevent or reduce fires, but instead to modify fire behavior to reduce the likelihood of high severity crown fires in treated areas through the restoration of forest structure and composition in the dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forest types.

38 Peters, R.L., E. Frost, and F. Pace. “Managing for forest ecosystem health: A reassessment of the foresthealth crisis.” Defenders of Wildlife. April 1996.

“A number of studies have shown that for some ecosystems, the major factor determining fire intensity and size is weather and not the amount of fuel (Baker 1989, Flannigan and Harrington 1988, Haines and Sando 1969, Rothermel 1995). For example, Bessie and Johnson (1995) found that fire spread and intensity were strongly related to weather conditions and only weakly related to fuel loads in the southern Canadian Rockies. Similarly, many hundreds of the thousands of acres of forests that were intensely burned in the 1994 Tyee Fire on the Wenatchee National Forest had very low fuel loads. The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that weather patterns and terrain ‐‐ not fuels ‐‐ were the major reasons why this large fire burned the way it did (U.S. Forest Service 1995, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1994). Such case studies provide little evidence that salvage logging of dead and dying trees will significantly reduce wildfires.”

Forest Service Response: The Forest Service was unable to access the cited reference, thus the response is to the provided quotation. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 26, and 30. The Marshall Woods project


A‐125

will not salvage dead and dying trees.39 Peterson, Mike testimony to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee concerning the

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HR 1904. June 26 2003

“H.R 1904 does not include any specific measures to protect homes or communities. It is also inconsistent with the Western Governors' Association 10‐Year Comprehensive Strategy, which does not call for any changes in existing laws. The only proven method to protect homes and communities is to reduce flammable materials in the immediate vicinity of structures, yet the definitions in H.R. 1904 would not require any activities to be near homes. Instead, the bill seeks to further subsidize the timber industry and eliminate obstacles to logging large, fire‐resistant trees miles away from the nearest home. The country's top forest scientists, including the Forest Service's own scientists, have found that this kind of logging can actually increase fire risk and make fires larger and more intense.”

Forest Service Response: The cited testimony is opinion commentary opposing the Healthy Forests Restoration Act as written for various reasons. This article is not relevant to the Marshall Woods project because the project is not proposed under this legislation.

40 Platt, Rutherford V., Thomas T. Veblen, and Rosemary L. Sherriff. Are Wildfire Mitigation and Restoration of Historic Forest Structure Compatible? A Spatial Modeling Assessment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 2006, pp. 455–470 “We question the validity of thinning as a means both to reduce the threat of wildfire and to restore historic forest structure in the absence of site‐specific data collection on past and present landscape conditions.” FS Response: The paper discusses the historical role of fire in the ponderosa pine ecosystems of the Colorado front. The authors describe the fire regime as “mixed,” a designation that includes stand‐replacing fire. They conclude that not all ponderosa pine forests should be returned to a “nonlethal” state if the goal is to create historical conditions. This, therefore, was the basis for the conclusion in paragraph 2. Contrary to the conclusions made regarding Boulder County, Colorado, the fire regimes and vegetation/fuel conditions in northwest Montana that are in need of restoration to historical forest structures are not limited to the lower elevations or away from the National Forests. Analysis for the Marshall Woods project included collecting site‐specific data on both past and present landscape conditions. Past and current data collection was used to help design the proposed vegetation and fuels treatments.


A‐126

41 Power, Thomas Ph.D. ”The Politics of Forest Fires ‐‐ The Abuse of Other People's Hard Times.” 8/15/2000

“While most of us have suffered with the unavoidable fire‐related anxieties, we have also been impressed by the hard work and heroism of both neighbors and anonymous firefighters. But others have tried to profit from the fires and the primordial fears they evoke. The forest products industry has been in the lead in this exploitation of other people's hardtimes.

The forest products industry wants access as cheaply as it can get it to as much wood fiber as possible. It once had privileged access to forested public lands. As the frontier economy has faded and government give‐aways have fallen out of political favor, the forest products industry's privileged grip on public resources has begun to slip. The current forest fires offer them an opportunity to try to regain some of their lost clout.

The fires, timber industry spokespersons claim, are the result of restrictions on commercial logging on public lands. If all of these lands had been logged, they assert, the fires would not be burning. It is the federal government and the environmentalists they are in cahoots with who have caused the fires that now threaten us. As one timber industry advocate baldly said, "I never saw a clearcut burn."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course clearcuts burn. When long, hot summers dry out the grasses, brush, and logging wastes, they can flare explosively. When they grow thick with closely packed young trees, they present exactly the fire danger we are wrestling with now. The logging roads provide human access that is the source of the vast majority of forest fires.

If roading and logging eliminated the threat of wildfire, most of the fires that threaten us now would not be burning. Look at where these fires are: They are largely burning on the forest‐urban interface in areas adjacent to intense human activity. In Western Montana, for instance, the fires are burning in the forests adjacent to some of the rapidly growing residential areas in the nation, the Bitterroot, Helena, and Clark Fork Valleys. These are not roadless areas that have never been logged. Quite the contrary, they are areas that were roaded and logged in the past. Those roads often have then provided access for the human activity that now dominates these areas, including the home building, residential settlement of the last two decades, and recreational activity. The trees now burning are usually second growth that followed past logging.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is 14‐year old opinion commentary. The objective of the Marshall Woods vegetation treatments is not to eliminate the threat of wildfire. Treatments are intended to restore forest structure and composition in the dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forest types to improve forest stand resilience. As part of the restoration focus, treatments would modify fire behavior to increase the likelihood that future fires would remain on the ground and burn at a low to mixed severity, which is more characteristic of historic conditions. Resulting stand structures and compositions will also reduce susceptibility to bark beetles.

42 Roberson, Emily B. Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst, California Native Plant Society. August 12, 2002 letter to Chief Dale Bosworth

“Itiswellestablishedthatloggingandroadbuildingoftenincreasebothfuelloadingandfirerisk.Forexample,theSierraNevadaEcosystemProject(SNEP)ScienceTeam(1996)concludedthat“timberharvest….hasincreasedfireseveritymorethananyotherrecenthumanactivity”intheSierraNevada.Timberharvestmayincreasefirehazardbydryingofmicroclimateassociatedwithcanopyopeningandwithroads,byincreasesinfuelloadingbygenerationofactivityfuels,byincreasesinignitionsourcesassociatedwithmachineryandroads,bychangesinspeciescompositionduetoopeningofstands,bythespreadofhighlyflammablenon‐nativeweeds,insectsanddisease,andbydecreasesinforesthealthassociatedwithdamagetosoilandresidualtrees(DellaSalaandFrost,2001;Grahametal.,2001;


A‐127

Weatherspoonetal.,1992;SNEPScienceTeam,1996).IndeedarecentliteraturereviewreportedthatsomestudieshavefoundapositivecorrelationbetweentheoccurrenceofpastloggingandpresentfirehazardinsomeforesttypesintheInteriorColumbiaBasin(DellaSalaandFrost,2001).”

FSResponse:Concernsidentifiedinthequotationwillbemitigatedthroughprojectdesignandresourceprotectionmeasures(EA,pages44‐80).Naturalandproject‐generatedslashwillbetreatedfollowingharvestactivitiestomitigatefirehazard.

The cited letter also says, “Like most in the scientific and conservation community, California Native Plant Society is neither in favor of or opposed to logging per se. Instead we advocate forest, fire and fuels management practices that minimize danger to lives and property; create and maintain sustainable, productive forest ecosystems dominated by viable plant species; conserve rare and imperiled species through their natural ranges; and protect water quality and supply, soils and other forest ecosystem services and resources.” The Marshall Woods project will maintain sustainable productive forest ecosystems, conserve rare plants, and protect water quality and supply, soils, and other forest resources.

43 Schoennagel, Tania Ph.D., Thomas T. Veblen Ph.D., and William H. Rommie Ph.D. “The Interaction ofFire, Fuels, and Climate across Rocky Mountain Forests”

“No evidence suggests that spruce–fir or lodgepole pine forests have experienced substantial shifts in stand structure over recent decades as a result of fire suppression. Overall, variation in climate rather than in fuels appears to exert the largest influence on the size, timing, and severity of fires in subalpine forests (Romme and Despain 1989, Bessie and Johnson 1995, Nash and Johnson 1996, Rollins et al. 2002). We conclude that large, infrequent standreplacing fires are “business as usual” in this forest type, not an artifact of fire suppression.” (Pg. 666)

“Variation in daily area burned was highly correlated with the moisture content of 100‐hour (2.5‐ to 7.6‐ cm diameter) and 1000‐hour dead fuels (Turner et al. 1994). Once fuels reached critical moisture levels later in the season, the spatial pattern of the large, severe standreplacing fires was controlled by weather (wind direction and velocity), not by fuels, stand age, or firefighting activities (Minshall et al. 1989,Wakimoto 1989, Turner et al. 1994).” (Pg. 666)

Forest Service Response: The cited article is a case study of large wildfires in the Rocky Mountains to assess the potential effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments across a range of major forest types. The authors discuss the differences between high, mixed, and low severity fire regimes and the different forest types characteristic of each one. They conclude that fire regimes, climate, fuel type and abundance, and stand structure vary significantly across the Rocky Mountain region and thus suggest that a “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach to reducing wildfire hazards in the Rocky Mountain region is unlikely to be effective.

The quotations provided by the commenter refer to subalpine forests characterized by high severity fire regimes. These quotations are not applicable to Marshall Woods project because vegetation treatments are focused in the dry ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir habitat types which are characterized by low to mixed severity fire regimes. Within low‐severity fire regimes, the authors suggest that “reduction of ladder fuels through mechanical thinning and prescribed fire can effectively reduce the unprecedented occurrence of extensive crown fires and restore the historical fire regime in dry, low‐elevation ponderosa pine forests”. Within mixed severity fire regimes, the authors conclude, “fuel reduction treatments (mechanical thinning and prescribed burning) may effectively reduce fire severity under moderate weather conditions, but these treatments may not effectively mitigate fire behavior under extreme weather conditions.” The fuel modeling conducted for the Marshall Woods project suggests that treatments will be effective at modifying fire behavior to reduce the potential for high severity crown fire within treated areas under normal summer conditions.

44 Strickler, Karyn and Timothy G. Hermach, “Liar, Liar, Forests on Fire: Why Forest Management


A‐128

Exacerbates Loss of Lives and Property” Published by CommonDreams.org, October 31, 2003

“Fire,justlikeinsectsanddisease,areanaturalandbeneficialpartofforestecosystemsandwatersheds.Withoutthesenaturalprocessestheforestecosystemsquicklydegrade.Excessiveloggingremovesandreducescoolingshadeaddingtothehotter,drierforestsalongwithloggingdebriscreatingamoreflammableforest.Current"forestmanagement"practices,roadbuildinganddevelopmentcauseforestfirestorageforhundredsofmiles.”

FS Response: The cited article is opinion commentary written nearly 10 years ago criticizing the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The Marshall Woods project is not being proposed under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (H.R. 1904). Please see responses to #4, #10, #16, #25, #26, #31, #32, #36, and #48.

45 Taxpayers for Common Sense. “From the Ashes: Reducing the Harmful Effects and Rising Costs of Western Wildfires. Washington DC, Dec. 2000

“Commercialloggingandloggingroadsopentheforestcanopy,whichcanhavetwoeffects.First,itallowsdirectsunlighttoreachtheforestfloor,leadingtoincreasedevaporationanddrierforests.5Asaconsequence,groundfuels(grass,leaves,needles,twigs,etc.)dryoutmorequicklyandbecomesusceptibletofire.Second,anopencanopyallowsmoresunlighttoreachtheunderstorytrees,increasingtheirgrowth.6Thiscanleadtoweaker,moredensely‐packedforests.”(pgs.19‐20)

“CongressandtheForestServicecontinuetorelyonthecommercialloggingprogramtodosomethingitwillneveraccomplish–reducefirerisk.Thecommercialloggingprogramisdesignedtoprovidetreestoprivatetimbercompanies,nottoreducetheriskoffire.”(pg.20)

FSResponse:ThispapermadesweepinggeneralizedstatementsaboutmanagementoftheNationalForestsasawhole.TheEAperformedsitespecificanalysisofasmallwatershedinMontanaandmadeinformeddecisionsregardingappropriatemanagementactions.ManyoftherecommendationsinthepaperareforNationalpolicychangesthatarenotrelevanttoprojectplanningattheRangerDistrictlevel.

Planned piling and burning and underburning would effectively limit logging slash, reducing the intensity of follow‐up burns and natural fires. Harvest prescriptions would emphasize retention of the larger, old trees. Even though the rate of fire spread may increase in treated stands (due to drying of fast‐burning fuels), fire intensity and fire severity would be reduced. The risk of uncharacteristic fire would be reduced.

46 Thomas, Craig. “Living with risk: Homeowners face the responsibility and challenge of developing defenses against wildfires.” Sacramento Bee newspaper, July 1, 2007. “Indiscriminate logging is not a viable solution to reducing wildfire risk. Logging can actually increase fire danger by leaving flammable debris on the forest floor. Loss of tree canopy lets the sun in, encouraging the growth of brush, increases wind speed and air temperature, and decreases the humidity in the forest, making fire conditions even worse.” FS Response: The cited article is opinion commentary written in the aftermath of the 2007 Angora fire that destroyed numerous homes near Lake Tahoe, California. The author suggests that a good fuels management plan focuses on reducing the fuels that ignite and spread wildfire while keeping the large, older trees that are resistant to fire. He cautions against a one‐size‐fits‐all fuels reduction prescription. The definition of “indiscriminate” is “haphazard; random; confused; not properly restrained.” There is nothing indiscriminate about the vegetation and fuels management activities in the Marshall Woods project. Site‐specific assessments were completed to determine appropriate treatments to achieve desired conditions. Planned piling and burning and underburning would effectively limit logging slash, reducing the intensity of follow‐up burns and natural fires. Modeling suggests that following all treatments fire intensity will be reduced under normal summer conditions (EA, page 143).


A‐129

47 University of California; SNEP Science Team and Special Consultants 1996 “Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress” Volume 1, Chapter 4 – Fire and Fuels "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity."(pg.62) FS Response: The quote is from the 1996 “Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress” Chapter 4 (Fire and Fuels) in a list of “Critical Findings”. The comment was made by the authors specifically in context of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. They discuss the finding in the body of the chapter on page 64, describing the historic timber harvests as: “The rapid influx of settlers into California following the discovery of gold, however, initiated more profound changes in the role of fire in Sierra Nevada ecosystems. Logging was undertaken initially to supply the mines and later to support the growing population of the new state. Timber volumes harvested in the Sierra Nevada continued to increase into the twentieth century, reaching a peak in the 1970s and 1980s. Typically, loggers harvested fire‐resistant species and large trees, and these were replaced by greater numbers of much more fire‐susceptible smaller trees. This pattern of biomass removal contrasted markedly with that of presettlement surface fires, which tended to kill (and later consume) small trees and leave many large trees to survive. Large quantities of debris left after logging led to severe fires, establishing vegetation patterns still evident today. A new pattern of ignitions, characterized in part by careless and indiscriminate burning, was introduced by miners, sheepherders, settlers, and loggers.” The historic logging practices described above, and its effects, bears little relationship to the vegetation and fuels treatments which would be followed by fuels reduction activities for the Marshall Woods projectAdditionally, the fire regimes in California described in this article are substantially different from those found in the Marshall Woods project area. As a result, this opposing view has no relevance to the Marshall Woods project.

48 USDA Forest Service Bald Angel Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment. La Grande Ranger District, Wallowa‐Whitman National Forest December 2006

“Why is the natural fire regime in most Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine–Douglas fir forests variable in severity? Extended droughts and high winds can lead to exceptional fire spread across a broad spectrum of fuel loads and forest structures. For example, almost 25,000 ha of ponderosa pine– Douglas fir forest burned on a single day (9 June 2002), driven by strong winds (Finney et al., 2003). Yet, brief episodes when the winds declined and fuel moisture rose, led to low‐severity fire in the same landscape (Finney et al., 2003), suggesting that extreme weather, not fuels, was the chief cause of high‐severity fire under those conditions. Even during summer, ponderosa pine–Douglas fir landscapes in the Rocky Mountains are subject to rapid increases in wind speed and changes in direction from jet streams or cold fronts (Baker, 2003).” (pg. 5)

Forest Service Response: The provided quotation is from the 2006 publication, “Fire, Fuels and Restoration of Ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir Forests in the Rocky Mountains, USA” written by William Baker, Thomas Veblen, and Rosemary Sherriff. This article was included in the Bald Angel EA cited above. The authors suggest that fires in ponderosa pine‐Douglas‐fir forests in the Rocky Mountains historically varied in severity and that fire exclusion has not clearly and uniformly increased fuels or shifted fire types from low to high severity. The Marshall Woods EA acknowledges that, historically, the warm dry forest types within the project area burned at varied severities with some areas of underburning and other areas resulting in moderate to high tree mortality. In response to the provided quotation above, please see responses to #5 and 43.

49 Voss, René “Getting Burned by Logging,” July 2002 The Baltimore Chronicle

“Ironically,thisverytypeoflogging,expertsinformus,islikelytoincrease,notdecrease,thefrequencyandseverityofwildlandfires.

IntheForestService'sownNationalFirePlan,agencyscientistswarnedagainsttheuseofcommercialloggingtoaddressfiremanagement.Thereportfoundthat‘theremovaloflarge,merchantabletreesfromforestsdoesnotreducefireriskandmay,infact,increasesuchrisk.’“

FS Response: The cited article is opinion commentary written over 10 years ago in support of the National


A‐130

Forest Protection and Restoration Act, which would eliminate commercial logging on Federal public lands. This bill did not pass into law. Large, mature trees will be retained in the silviculture prescriptions. All stands that meet accepted old growth definitions will be reserved. Natural and activity generated slash will be treated.

50 Walsh, Jeremy “Scientist: Money to fight beetles as fire mitigation not productive” Durango Herald, April23, 2010

“The federal assistance could include funding to help state and local governments mitigate the beetle infestations, the presence of which increases the risk of forest wildfires that endanger surrounding communities and infrastructure, said supporters of the bill.”

“Kulakowski, a former research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and current professor at Clark University in Massachusetts, discounted this notion during his testimony. He said climate, not insects, plays the most important role in forest fires, as wildfires are more likely to occur during droughts.”

Forest Service Response: The Forest Service could not access this article thus the response is to the quotation provided. The quotation does not appear applicable to the Marshall Woods project because there is no proposal to control beetle infestations in order to reduce wildfire risk.

51 Westerling, Anthony Ph.D., “Does Global Warming Increase Forest Fires?” NPR, Talk of the Nation, July 7,2006

“New research published this week in the journal Science says that global warming may be causing more intense wildfires in the western United States. The researchers found that increases in large wildfire activity in the western United States over the past 25 years is ‘strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.’ "

Forest Service Response: Please see response to #30 above.

52 Wuerthner, George “The Climate Factor ‐ Forest thinning won't deter the coming large fires” Eugene Weekly, December 6, 2007

“Indeed, climatic conditions drive all big fires — not fuels. All substantial fires occur only if there is extended drought, low humidity, high temperatures and, most importantly, high winds. Wind, in particular, is critical. Wind increases fire spread exponentially.

When conditions are "ripe" for a large blaze, fires will burn through all kinds of fuel loads. By contrast if the forest is wet like Oregon's coastal forests, you can have all the fuel in the world, and it won't burn.

For this reason, most fires go out without burning more than a few acres. By contrast, when you have drought, low humidity, high temperatures and wind, a few blazes will grow into huge fires. For this reason, approximately 1 percent of all fires are responsible for about 95 to 99 percent of the acreage burned.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary. Please see responses to #1, 3, 4, 5, and 8.


A‐131

53 Wuerthner, George. “Logging, thinning would not curtail wildfires” The Eugene Register‐Guard, December 26, 2008

“Anothersurprisingfindingisthatmechanicalfuelstreatment,commonlyknownasloggingandthinning,typicallyhaslittleeffectonthespreadofwildfires.Infact,insomecases,itcanincreasewildfires’spreadandseveritybyincreasingthefinefuelsontheground(slash)andbyopeningtheforesttogreaterwindandsolarpenetration,dryingfuelsfasterthaninunloggedforests.”

FS Response: The citation is opinion commentary that was written in response to another guest viewpoint printed in an Oregon newspaper. Ample evidence suggests that thinning followed by treatment of the surface fuels can be used to modify fire intensity and severity (please see response to #25 above). Modeling described in the Fire and Fuels section of the EA suggests that following all treatments fire intensity and severity would be reduced under normal summer conditions over the pre‐treatment condition.

54 Wuerthner, George “Forest Service misses education opportunity” Published in NewWest, June 2010

“For example, the Forest Service justifies the Elliston Face timber sale on the basis of reducing what they call “hazardous” fuels (which as an ecologist I call woody biomass). To quote the FS, “This project would reduce wildland fire risk and help protect lives, communities, and ecosystems from the potential consequences of a high‐intensity wildland fire within treatment areas.” “

“The Forest Service makes these assertions even though the statement is full of falsehoods, misleading and/or unproven assumptions.”

“even the Forest Service’s own analysis concludes that logging of the Elliston Face will have some adverse impacts on soils, watersheds, wildlife, scenery and recreation. So we need to ask whether the potential effects of a fire that may not occur for a century or more is worth the negative impacts created by the logging process now?”

“The Forest Service’s own analysis has six indicator species— including pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, martin, northern goshawk. These species depend on dead snags and down wood that pine beetles and wildfire create. But the FS treats beetles and wildfire as unwelcome events.”

“the FS exploits the fears of misinformed citizens. One can only conclude the agency is still the handmaiden to the timber industry rather than a public servant working on behalf of all citizens of the country.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary criticizing a fuels reduction project on the Helena National Forest, which is irrelevant to the Marshall Woods project (refer to the purpose and need discussion in the Marshall Woods EA on pages 13‐18).


A‐132

55 Wuerthner, George “Pine Beetle Fears Misplaced” Helena Independent Record, March 25, 2010

“Ultimately, fuels do not control fires. If the climate/weather isn’t conducive for fire spread, it doesn’t much matter how much dead wood you have piled up, you won’t get a large fire. As an extreme example, think of all the dead wood lying around on the ground in old‐growth West Coast rainforests — tons of fuel, but few fires — because it’s too wet to burn.

Large blazes are driven by a combination of extreme drought, low humidity, high temperatures and, most importantly, wind. These conditions do not occur in the same place at the same time very frequently — which is why there are often decades to centuries between major blazes and most fires go out without burning more than a few acres.”

Forest Service Response: The cited article is unsupported opinion commentary stating that bark beetle‐induced tree mortality creates new ecological opportunities, increases biodiversity, improves ecosystem health, and reduces fire risk. This article is irrelevant to the Marshall Woods project because salvage of dead and dying trees is not proposed. In response to the quotation provided, please also see responses to #5 and 43.

56 Wuerthner, George. 2009. “Why the National Fire Plan is a Trojan Horse for Logging‐‐Burning Questions” Published by CounterPunch, June 12‐14, 2009. http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/06/12/burning-questions/

“Inthelastanalysis,thepoliticsofforestthinningpromotesmorelogging.Thetimberindustryhassuccessfullysoldtheideathatfuelreductionsworkandithasgreatinfluencewithpoliticianswhobuyintotoitsassurancethatloggingreduceslargefires.”

“Soisthereanyplaceforforestthinning/fuelreductions?Thereis.Butitshouldbelimitedtotheareasimmediatelysurroundinghomesandcommunities.Sinceonecan’tpredictwhereafirewillstartandburn,thinningforestwilly‐nillyisawasteofeffort.Notonlyaremostthinningprojectsdoneimproperly,mostaredoneforthewrongreasonsandlosetaxpayermoneytoboot.”

“Thinning trees/shrubs near homes, combined with a reduction in home flammability by installation of metal roofs, removal of flammable materials adjacent to homes, and other measures can virtually guarantee a home will survive even a severe high intensity forest fire.” FS Response: This article is applicable to the project as it supports the purpose and need to reduce fuels in the WUI and near private residences. The Marshall Woods project includes many acres of designated WUI lands. Timber harvest and other vegetation treatment activities in other parts of the project area support reduced wildland fire severity but also accomplish the other purposes of the project.

57 Egan, Timothy, “Fires Not Caused by Reduced Logging, Congressional Report Finds” Published in the New York Times: September 1, 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/01/us/fires-not-caused-by-reduced-logging-congressional-report-finds.html

“Ifanything,heavyloggingfromearlieryearsmayhavecontributedmoretotheconditionsthathavemadeWesternforestsripeforbigfires,becausemoreflammablesmalltreesandheavybrushareoftenleftintheforestafterthelargerstandsoftimberhavebeentakenout,saidthereport,bytheCongressionalResearchService,whichanalyzespolicyforCongress.”

FS Response: This is a newspaper article arguing whether “Clinton era logging reductions” increased or decreased wildlife risk. It asserts that, Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood and leaves behind the small material thus increasing the rate of spread of wildlifes.” In the Marshall Woods project planned piling and burning and underburning would effectively limit logging slash, reducing the intensity of follow‐up burns and natural fires. Harvest prescriptions would emphasize retention of the larger, old trees. Even though the rate of fire spread may increase in treated stands (due to drying of fast‐burning fuels), fire intensity and fire severity would be reduced. The risk of uncharacteristic fire would be reduced.

58 Hanson, Chad, “The Big Lie: Logging and Forest Fires”. Published in the Earth Island Journal, Spring 2000.


A‐133

http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art6.html

“Thefactis,commercialloggingdoesn'tpreventcatastrophicfires;itcausesthem.Inthelatterpartofthe19thcentury,thiswascommonknowledge.RelentlessclearingofforestsintheGreatLakesregionlefthugeareaslargelydevoidofthecoolingshadeoftrees,replacingmoistnaturalforestmicroclimateswiththehotter,drierconditionscharacterizedbystumpfields.Flammablelogging"slashdebris"coveredthelandscape.”

“Notlongago,CongresscommissionedastudyofCalifornia'sforeststhatcametobeknownastheSierraNevadaEcosystemProject(SNEP)report.ProducedjointlywiththeUSForestServicein1996,thereportconfirmedwhatpeoplehaveknownforoveracentury:"timberharvest,throughitseffectsonforeststructure,localmicroclimate,andfuelaccumulation,hasincreasedfireseveritymorethananyotherrecenthumanactivity"“

FS Response: This is an opinion piece that has not been published in a scientifically peer‐reviewed outlet. The Earth Island Institute is not a recognized scientific outlet with known and replicated quality assurance and control processes. It contends that logging doesn’t reduce catastrophic fires; it causes them. See response to #17.

59 “Logging can 'greatly increase' fire severity for 50 years, researchers say”. Broadcast on ABC News Australia, August 3, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-04/logging-greatly-increases-fire-risk-black-saturday-study/5646220

“ResearchersfromtheAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)andMelbourneUniversityexaminedhundredsofthousandsoftreesburntinthe2009bushfiresinVictoria,whichclaimedthelivesof173peopleonadayofextremetemperaturesandhighwinds.

Theyfoundthattheincreasedfireriskbeganaboutsevenyearsafteranareahadbeenloggedandlastedforanother50years.

ProfessorDavidLindenmayer,fromtheANU,saidtheresultsshowedthefiresaroundKinglakeandMarysvillewereabout25percentmoresevereduetotheclear‐fellingofforestinthearea.”

FS Response: This is an Australian newspaper article that alleges clearcutting increases fire risk. It has no bearing on the Marshall Woods project in Montana, which is not proposing to clearcut forests.

60 Campbell, James, “Study finds logging increased intensity of Black Saturday fires”. Published in the Herald Sun, August 03, 2014. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/study-finds-logging-increased-intensity-of-black-saturday-fires/story-fni0fit3-1227012027799

“ThescientistssaythestudyshowedconclusivelythatlogginginthedecadespriortoBlackSaturdaymadethedeadlyblazemuchmore¬extreme.

Theyalsowarnthatincreasedfiredangerinforestslastsforupto70yearsafteranareaislogged,withtheriskpeakingbetween10and50years.”

FS Response: See response to #59 above; this is a similar article on the same subject, published on the same day but in a different Australian newspaper.


A‐134


The Natural Resources in the Forest Benefit from Fire

Comment:Therearenegativeeffectscausedbynearlyallactions…thisincludestheactionsthatmanipulateandchangethelandscapeafterafire.Whensuchmanipulationisproposedonpublicland,thepublicownersdeservetoknowtheprosandconsoftheproject.Theonlytimeawildfireshouldbeconsidered‘catastrophic’iswhenitburnshomes.Thefollowingstatementsdescribedwhypost‐firelandscapesshouldbeleftaloneandnevermanipulatedformoney.”

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsprojectisnotproposingactivitiesonalandscapethathasrecentlyexperiencedwildfire.

Author/Date/Title Responsetoliteraturecitedinopposingviews

Campbell,JohnL.Ph.D,DanC.Donato,JoeB.FontaineJ.BooneKauffmanPh.D.,BeverlyE.LawPh.D.,andDougRobinson."BiscuitFireStudy."OregonStateUniversityDepartmentofForestScience.TerrestrialEcosystemResearchandRegionalAnalysis.2003.http://zircote.forestry.oregonstate.edu/terra/biscuit.htm

OpposingView#1‐"Recentlyburnedareasrepresentanimportanttypeofhabitatthatmanyspeciesofanimalshaveevolvedtoutilize.Snags(standingdeadtrees)providecriticalnestingandforaginghabitatforbirdsandsmallmammals,andastheydecayandfall,createadditionalhabitatforsmallmammalsandterrestrialamphibiansascoarsewoodydebris.”

FSResponse:Thisscientificpaper,inpart,studiedpost‐fireloggingeffectsonsmallmammals.TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposepost‐firelogging.

ChronicleStaff,“Yellowstonefireshavepotentialtogrowmuchlarger”.BozemanDailyChronicle.com,September24,2009.http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/09/25/news/70fires.txt

OpposingView#2‐“Yellowstoneisa‘fire‐adaptedecosystem,’whichmeanswildfirehelpsmaintainthehealthofthearea’swildlifeandvegetation.Mostparkfiresarecausedbylightningand,wheneverpossible,monitoredandmanaged,butnotnecessarilyextinguished.”

FSResponse:ThisisanewspaperarticleabouttwofirestartsinYellowstoneNationalParkin2009.ThecommenterdoesnotidentifyanyrelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject.


A‐135

CongressionalResearchServiceReport

“ForestFire/WildfireProtection”.February14,2005.http://www.coloradofirecamp.com/congressional_research/forest‐fire‐wildfire‐effects.htm

OpposingView#3‐“Finally,asmentionedabove,wildfirescanalsogeneratebenefits.Manyplantsregrowquicklyfollowingwildfires,becausefireconvertsorganicmattertoavailablemineralnutrients.Someplantspecies,suchasaspenandespeciallymanynativeperennialgrasses,alsoregrowfromrootsystemsthatarerarelydamagedbywildfire.Otherplantspecies,suchaslodgepolepineandjackpine,haveevolvedtodependonstandreplacementfiresfortheirregeneration;fireisrequiredtoopentheirconesandspreadtheirseeds.Oneauthoridentifiedresearchreportingvarioussignificantecosystemsthreatenedbyfireexclusion—includingaspen,whitebarkpine,andPonderosapine(westernmontaneecosystems),longleafpine,pitchpine,andoaksavannah(southernandeasternecosystems),andthetallgrassprairie.[57]Otherresearchersfoundthat,ofthe146rare,threatened,orendangeredplantsinthecoterminous48statesforwhichthereisconclusiveinformationonfireeffects,135species(92%)benefitfromfireorarefoundinfire‐adaptedecosystems.”[58]

“Animals,aswellasplants,canbenefitfromfire.Someindividualanimalsmaybekilled,especiallybycatastrophicfires,butpopulationsandcommunitiesarerarelythreatened.Manyspeciesareattractedtoburnedareasfollowingfires—someevenduringorimmediatelyafterthefire.Speciescanbeattractedbythenewlyavailablemineralsorthereducedvegetationallowingthemtoseeandcatchprey.Othersareattractedintheweekstomonths(evenafewyears)following,tothenewplantgrowth(includingfreshandavailableseedsandberries),forinsectsandotherprey,orforhabitat(e.g.,snagsforwoodpeckersandothercavitynesters).Afewmaybehighlydependentonfire;theendangeredKirtland’swarbler,forexample,onlynestsunderyoungjackpinethatwasregeneratedbyfire,becauseonlyfire‐regeneratedjackpinestandsaredenseenoughtoprotectthenestlingsfrompredators.”

FSResponse:Thisreportspeakstoboth,theecologicalbenefitsoffireandthedamagetoresources.TheMarshallWoodsprojectisconsistentwiththisscience.

“DeadTreesandHealthyForests:IsFireAlwaysBad?”.TheWildernessSociety,March2003.http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/Dead‐Trees‐and‐Healthy‐Forests.pdf

OpposingView#4‐“Forestedlandscapesmaybethoughtofasliving“crazyquilts,”withpatchesformedoccasionallythroughtheactionofnaturalandhuman‐causeddisturbanceslikefire,windstorms,andlogging.Priortotheadventofmodernloggingtechnology,virtuallyeveryNorthAmericanforestexperiencedoccasionalrenewalthroughtheactionoffire.Insomeplaces,firewasafrequentvisitor,killingveryfewlargetreesasitburnedharmlesslythroughtheforestlitterandgrass.Inmostplaces,though,fireburnedonlyoccasionally,creatingpatchesofseverelyburnedforestasitracedthroughthecanopyunderextremeweatherconditions.Inthesepatches,oldforestswerekilled,soontobereplacedbyyoung,rejuvenatedstands.Thiscycleofforestmaturation,death,andreplacementwascriticaltomaintainingthediversityandvitalityoftheecosystem.”

FSResponse:ThisarticleisnotfromapeerreviewedscientificpublicationandrepresentsapositionstatementfortheWildernessSociety.Thisarticlediscusseshowfireandotherdisturbancesareessentialprocessesofforestrenewalandthatsalvageharvestandthinningarenotalwaysappropriateornecessary.TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposesalvageharvest.Itproposestomovetheareatowarddesiredfutureconditionswithvegetationmanagement,roadandtrailtreatmentsandnoxiousweedtreatments.


A‐136

Duncan,SallyPh.D."PostfireLogging:IsitBeneficialtoaForest?"USDAForestService.PNWScienceFindings.issue47.October2002.http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi47.pdf

OpposingView#5‐“Treeskilledbywildfireandleftstandingtakeonrolesthatchangetheecologicalservicestheypreviouslyprovidedascomponentsofagreen‐treesystem.Theystilloffersomeshade,whichinaburnedenvironmentcanslowtheheatingofsurfacewatersandthesoilsurface.Theymayalsoprovidemorerapidrecruitmentoflargewoodintostreams.Decomposingfallentreesprovidenutrients,shelter,andearlystructureforarejuvenatingforestfloor.”

“Burnedforeststypicallysupportsignificantlydifferentbirdcommunities,withmanyspeciesdependentonstand‐replacementfirestomaintaintheirpopulationsacrossthelandscape.Usuallythere’sanincreaseincavity‐nesting,insectivorousbirdssuchaswoodpeckersandcertainspeciesofflycatchers.”

FSResponse:Thisarticlediscussescontroversyoverbenefitsofpost‐firelogging.TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesnotproposepost‐firesalvagelogging.

“Fightingfireintheforest”CBCNews,June17,2009.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/17/f‐forest‐fires.html

OpposingView#6‐“Sincethoseearlydays,millionsofdollarshavebeenspentoncampaignstopreventforestfires.Butresearchersnowknowthatfireisnotnecessarilybad.Itcanbeanaturalpartofahealthygrasslandorforestecosystem.

Firereducesthebuildupofdeadanddecayingleaves,logsandneedlesthataccumulateontheforestfloor.Itreducesoreliminatestheoverheadforestcanopy,increasingthesunlightthatstimulatesnewgrowthfromseedsandroots.

Manyplantsandanimalshaveadaptedtofire.

Bothlodgepolepineandjackpinehaveresin‐sealedconesthatstayontreesformanyyears.Theheatoffiremeltstheresinandtheconespopopen.Thousandsofseedsthenscattertothegroundandgrowintonewstandsofpine.

Woodpeckersfeastonbarkbeetlesandotherinsectsthatcolonizeinnewlyburnedtrees.

Andso,20yearsago,ParksCanadadecidedthatitwouldn'tinterfereinnaturalprocessessuchasfire,insectsanddiseaseunlessithadto—thatis,unlesspeopleorneighbouringlandswerethreatened.”

FSResponse:ThisisamediastorythatdiscussesfirefightinginCanadaaswellasCanadianpolicy.

“ForestFires”.TheEnvironmentalLiteracyCouncil,2008.http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/46.html

OpposingView#7‐“Wildfiresareanaturaloccurrenceandserveimportantecosystemfunctions.Forestlandscapesaredynamicandchangeinresponsetovariationsinclimateandtodisturbancesfromnaturalsources,suchasfirescausedbylightningstrikes.Manytreespecieshaveevolvedtotakeadvantageoffire,andperiodicburnscancontributetooverallforesthealth.Firestypicallymovethroughburninglowerbranchesandclearingdeadwoodfromtheforestfloorwhichkick‐startsregenerationbyprovidingidealgrowingconditions.Italsoimprovesfloorhabitatformanyspeciesthatpreferrelativelyopenspaces.”

FSResponse:Thisarticlediscusseswildfiresroleandhowcurrentpracticesuseacombinationofcontainmentmeasuresinanattempttobalancetheimportanceofperiodicfirestoecosystemhealthandthedangerofuncontrolledburnstohumancommunities.Itisconsistentwithliteratureusedintheanalysis.


A‐137

“ForestFire/WildfireProtection”CongressionalResearchServiceReportforCongress,February14,2005.http://www.coloradofirecamp.com/congressional_research/forest‐fire‐wildfire‐effects.htm

OpposingView#8‐“Animals,aswellasplants,canbenefitfromfire.Someindividualanimalsmaybekilled,especiallybycatastrophicfires,butpopulationsandcommunitiesarerarelythreatened.Manyspeciesareattractedtoburnedareasfollowingfires—someevenduringorimmediatelyafterthefire.Speciescanbeattractedbythenewlyavailablemineralsorthereducedvegetationallowingthemtoseeandcatchprey.Othersareattractedintheweekstomonths(evenafewyears)following,tothenewplantgrowth(includingfreshandavailableseedsandberries),forinsectsandotherprey,orforhabitat(e.g.,snagsforwoodpeckersandothercavitynesters).Afewmaybehighlydependentonfire;theendangeredKirtland’swarbler,forexample,onlynestsunderyoungjackpinethatwasregeneratedbyfire,becauseonlyfire‐regeneratedjackpinestandsaredenseenoughtoprotectthenestlingsfrompredators.

Insummary,manyoftheecologicalbenefitsofwildfirethathavebecomemorewidelyrecognizedoverthepast30yearsaregenerallyassociatedwithlightsurfacefiresinfrequent‐fireecosystems.Thisisclearlyoneofthejustificationsgivenforfueltreatments.Damageislikelytobegreaterfromstandreplacementfires,especiallyinfrequent‐fireecosystems,butevencrownfiresproducebenefitsinsomesituations(e.g.,forthejackpineregenerationneededforsuccessfulKirtland’swarblernesting).”

FSResponse:Thisreportspeakstoboth,theecologicalbenefitsoffireandthedamagetoresources.TheMarshallWoodsprojectisconsistentwiththisscience.

Franklin,JerryF.Ph.D.andJamesK.AgeePh.D."ForgingaScience‐Based.NationalForestFirePolicy."IssuesinScienceandTechnologyFall2003.http://inr.oregonstate.edu/download/forging_a_science_based_national_forest_fire_policy.pdf

OpposingView#9‐"Naturalforestdisturbances,includingfire,killtreesbutremoveverylittleofthetotalorganicmatter.Combustionrarelyconsumesmorethan10to15percentoftheorganicmatter,eveninstand‐replacementfires,andoftenmuchless.Consequently,muchoftheforestremainsintheformoflivetrees,standingdeadtrees,andlogsontheground.Also,manyplantsandanimalstypicallysurvivesuchdisturbances.Thisincludeslivingtrees,individuallyandinpatches."

"Thesesurvivingelementsarebiologicallegaciespassedfromthepre‐disturbanceecosystemtotheregeneratingecosystemthatcomesafter.Biologicallegaciesarecrucialforecologicalrecovery.Theymayserveaslifeboatsformanyspecies,provideseedandotherinocula,andenrichthestructureoftheregeneratedforest.Largeoldtrees,snags,andlogsarecriticalwildlifehabitatand,onceremoved,takeaverylongtimetoreplace."

FSResponse:Inthisarticle,amulti‐disciplinarygroupofscientistsdiscussecosystembasedmanagementapproachestokeepwatershedsandforestsfunctioningproperly.TheMarshallWoodsprojectactivitiesareconsistentwiththeapproachesdiscussed.Itisnotafiresalvageproject.Sufficientamountsofdown,woodymaterialwouldbelefttosustainsoilproductivity.

Gorte,RossW.Ph.D.fromaCRSreportforCongress,January18,2006.http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/06Feb/RL30755.pdf

OpposingView#10‐“Researchhaddocumentedthat,insomesituations,wildfiresbroughtecologicalbenefitstotheburnedareas—aidingregenerationofnativeflora,improvingthehabitatofnativefauna,andreducinginfestationsofpestsandofexoticandinvasivespecies.”(pg2)

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsprojectactivitiesareconsistentwiththeFPdirectionforthisarea;itdoesnotincludepost‐firelogging.


A‐138

Gregory,LisaDalePh.D.“WildlandFireUse:AnEssentialFireManagementTool”AWildernessSocietyPolicyandScienceBrief.December2004.http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/ScienceBrief‐WildlandFireUseEssentialTool.pdf

OpposingView#11‐“Ecologistsandfireexpertsunanimouslyagreethatfirehasservedanessentialroleincertainecosystemsformillennia.Theecologicalbenefitsoffireinclude:thecreationofcriticalwildlifehabitatinstandingdeadtrees,increasednutrientsandproductivityinsoilsystemswhenburnedmaterialdecomposes,improvedconditionsforsurvivingoldgrowthtreeswhenasurfacefiremovesthroughasystem,andtheregenerationofsomefiredependenttreeslikelodgepolepine(Pinuscontorta).Firealsoincreasesavailabilityofotherfundamentalbuildingblocksofecosystemssuchasmoistureandsunshinebyopeningupthecanopyandreturningnutrientstothesoil.Naturalfirecyclesmaintainthediversityofhabitatsavailabletoallthespeciesintheecosystem,fromwildlifetowildflowerstofungi.”

FSResponse::TheMarshallWoodsprojectactivitiesareconsistentwiththeFPdirectionforthisarea;itdoesnotincludepost‐firelogging.

Hanson,ChadPh.D.February2,2010“NewReportDebunksMythof‘CatastrophicWildfire’“http://johnmuirproject.org/documents/Myth%20of%20Catastrophic%20Wildfire%20Media%20Release.pdf

OpposingView#12‐“Wedonotneedtobeafraidoftheeffectsofwildlandfireinourforests.Fireisdoingimportantandbeneficialecologicalwork,”saidthereport’sauthor,Dr.ChadHanson,aforestandfireecologistandDirectoroftheJohnMuirProject.“Itmayseemcounterintuitive,butthescientificevidenceistellingusthatsomeoftheverybestandrichestwildlifehabitatinwesternU.S.forestsoccurswherefirekillsmostorallofthetrees.Theseareasarerelativelyrareonthelandscape,andthemanywildlifespeciesthatdependuponthehabitatcreatedbyhigh‐intensityfirearethreatenedbyfiresuppressionandpost‐firelogging.”

FSResponse:Thisopinionpieceisnotapeerreviewedscientificdocument.

Hutto,RichardL.Ph.D.“TheEcologyofSeverelyBurnedForests”Counterpunch,July19/20,2008.http://www.counterpunch.org/hutto07192008.html

OpposingView#13‐“AssummerwildfireseasonbeginsinearnestthroughoutmuchoftheWest,it'simportantforthepublicandpolicymakerstorecognizetheimportantrolethatseverelyburnedforestsplayinmaintainingwildlifepopulationsandhealthyforests.Severelyburnedforestsareneither"destroyed"nor"lifeless."

Frommyperspectiveasanecologist,Ihavebecomeawareofoneofnature'sbest‐keptsecrets‐therearesomeplantandanimalspeciesthatoneishard‐pressedtoseeanywhereoutsideaseverelyburnedforest.”

“AnappreciationofthebiologicaluniquenessofseverelyburnedforestsisimportantbecauseifwevalueandwanttomaintainthefullvarietyoforganismswithwhichwesharethisEarth,wemustbegintorecognizethehealthynatureofseverelyburnedforests.Wemustalsobegintorecognizethatthosearetheveryforeststargetedforpostfireloggingactivity.Unfortunately,postfireloggingremovestheveryelement‐densestandsofdeadtrees‐uponwhichmanyfire‐dependentspeciesdependfornestsitesandfoodresources.”

FSResponse:TheMarshallWoodsprojectisnotapost‐fireloggingproject.


A‐139

Karr,JamesR.Ph.D.,"Naturedoesn'tBenefitfromLoggingFire‐DamagedLands".Op‐EdTacomaNewsTribune.December8,2005.http://www.docstoc.com/docs/122585663/Nature‐doesn%EF%BF%BDt‐benefit‐from‐logging‐fire‐damaged‐lands

OpposingView#14‐"Treesinaburnedlandscape,bothdeadandalive,continuetoprovidehomesforwildlifeafterafireandformthebuildingblocksofnewforests."

FSResponse:ThisletterisarebuttaltotheForestServiceChief’stestimonyregardingthe“Beschtareport”whichpertainstopost‐firesalvagelogging.TheMarshallWoodsprojectisnotapost‐firesalvageproject.

Mark,Jason“MissionImpossible”.EarthIslandJournal,winter2009.http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/mission_impossible/

OpposingView#15‐“ForPyneandmanyotherswhostudywildfires,theconventionalunderstandingoffirefightinghasledustothemisguidedconclusionthatthisisastrugglewecanwin.InmuchoftheWest,fireisanordinarypartofthelandscape,afeatureasessentialtomanyecosystemsasriversandgrasses.Periodicfiresarenothingmorethanregulardisturbances;itisuswhohavemadethemintodisasters.”

FSResponse:Thisisanopinionpiece.

Marks,Raissa.FishandWildlifeHabitatManagementLeafletnumber37.PublishedbytheNaturalResourcesConservationService,USDA,April2006.ftp://ftp‐fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/ecs/Wild/ImportofDisturbInHabMgt.pdf

OpposingView#16‐“Firereleasesnutrientsanduncoversbaresoil.Theblackened,baresoilwarmsquickly,whichstimulatessoilmicrobialactivity,nutrientcycling,andplantgrowth.Inforests,fireopensuppartofthecanopytosunlight,whichallowssun‐lovingplantspeciestorecolonizethesite.”

“Followingfires,plantcommunitiesgothroughsuccessionalchanges.Manynativewildlifespeciesandpopulargamespecies,suchasbobwhitequail,white‐taileddeer,andwildturkey,aredependentonperiodicfiretocreateandmaintainsuitablehabitat.Surfacefirescanstimulatethegrowthofherbaceousfoodsfordeer,elk,moose,andhares,andcanenhanceberryproductionforblackbearsandotherwildlife.Smallmammalpopulationsgenerallyincreaseinresponsetonewvegetationgrowth,providingafoodsourceforcarnivores.Firecanalsoreduceinternalandexternalparasitesonwildlife.”(pg.2)

“naturaldisturbancesuchasfires,floods,andherbivoryarecriticalinmaintainingvaluableecosystemfunctionsandcreatingandrestoringwildlifehabitat.”(pg.7)

FSResponse:Thisarticledescribespost‐fireplantcommunityprocesses.Thecitedexcerptsexplaintheprocessesandimportanceofdisturbanceinhabitatmanagement.Thisappearstobefocusedonpost‐fireactivitiesandeffects.TheMarshallWoodsprojectisnotapost‐firesalvageproject.

Martinez,Lori“ApplicationsofTree‐RingDating.

LaboratoryofTree‐RingResearchattheniversityofArizona.February,2000.

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/apps.html

OpposingView#17‐"Duringrecentdecades,ecologistshavelearnedthatforestfireswereapervasivephenomenoninpracticallyallforestsoftheworld,eventherainforests.Humanshaveseverelydisruptedthenaturalpatternoffireacrossthelandscape,especiallyduringthelast100years.Therefore,ifforestsaretobereturnedtotheirmore'natural'state,firewillhavetobereintroduced."

FSResponse:Thisdocumentusesastudyoftreeringstoexploretheeffectsoffireontreegrowth.


A‐140

Nappi,AntoinePh.D.,PierreDrapeauPh.D.,Jean‐FrançoisGirouxPh.D.andJean‐PierreSavardPh.D.“Snagusebyforagingblack‐backedwoodpeckers(Picoidesarticus)inarecentlyburnedeasternborealforest.”TheAuk120(2):505‐511.2003.http://www.borealcanada.ca/research_arc_hot_e.cfm

OpposingView#18‐"Contrarytowhatyoumaythink,aforestfiredoesnotreduceeverythingtoalifelessash.Instead,itleavesbehindalandscapeofblackenedtreesinterspersedwithremnantsofgreen,intactforest.Post‐firespecialistssuchaswood‐boringinsectsquicklycolonizethedeadtrees(snags),attractinganarrayofwoodpeckers."

"Identifyingtheecologicalvalueofapost‐firestructureandthecharacteristicsthatmakeitattractivetowildlifeisimportant.”

FSResponse:Thisisnotapost‐burnproject.TheprojectwasdesignedtomeetForestPlansnagguidelines.Black‐backedwoodpeckerhabitathasbeenanalyzedforthisproject.

Noss,ReedF.Ph.D.,JerryF.FranklinPh.D.,WilliamBaker,Ph.D.,TaniaSchoennagel,Ph.D.,andPeterB.Moyle,Ph.D.“EcologicalScienceRelevanttoManagementPoliciesforFire‐proneForestsoftheWesternUnitedStates”SocietyforConservationBiology,February24,2006.http://www.nifc.gov/fuels/downloads/planning/EcologicalScience.pdf

OpposingView#19‐“Treesthatsurvivethefireforevenashortperiodoftimearecriticalasseedsourcesandashabitatthatwillsustainmanyelementsofbiodiversitybothaboveandbelowground.Thedeadwood,includinglargesnagsandlogs,issecondonlytolivetreesinoverallecologicalimportance.”

FSResponse:ThisisgeneralinformationandisconsistentwiththeMarshallWoodsproject.

Reice,Seth,Ph.D.fromapressconferencewithSenatorRobertTorricelli,April28,1998.http://www.saveamericasforests.org/news/ScientistsStatement.htm

OpposingView#20‐“Disturbances,fromwindthrowntreestofires,arenaturalinforestsandareessentialforforestecosystemwellbeing.Forexample,fireisadisturbanceinforests,butitisalsobeneficial.Whiledisturbanceskillsomeindividuals,theyalsoopenupecologicallivingspaceforrecolonizationbymanypreviouslyexcludedspecies.”

“Withoutfire,naturalsuccessionisupset.Inaforestwherefirehasbeenunnaturallysuppressedformanyyears(50ormore),fireintoleranttreesgrowunchecked,suppressingandoutcompetingthenormallydominantfireresistanttrees.Overallbiodiversityisreduced.Asthetreediversitydeclines,thehabitatbecomesunsuitableforalargeportionoftheforestspecies.Animalspeciesarelost,sincetheanimalsusethefiretolerantvarietyoftreespeciesforfood,shelterandnestsites.”

FSResponse:ThisisapressconferencestatementconcerningtheActtoSaveAmerica‘sForests.Thisopinionpiecediscussestheeffectsofloggingandroadbuildingonstreamsandterrestrialbiodiversityandcallsforabanonclearcutting.


A‐141

“Risingfromtheashes:Forestfiresgivewaytonewgrowth”ScienceBuzz,May2007(supportedbytheNationalScienceFoundation).http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/rising_from_the_ashes_forest_fires_give_way_to_new_growth

OpposingView#21‐“Asaruleofthumb,timberexpertssaythatanyparticularchunkofgroundintheforestshouldbetouchedbyintensefireevery50to100years.

Butthepowerofthefireisjustthefirststepinforestregrowth.Weatherpatternsintheaffectedareaoverthenestyearwillplayabigroleinhowthenewforestsdevelop.Asummerofdroughtcouldkillthenewlyreleasedseedsandshort‐circuitanynewgrowth.Thatcouldgivenewspeciesoftreesachancetogrowinthearea.Normalrainsmixedwiththenutrientsleftonthegroundfromthefirecouldbeagreatboostershottogettingtheseedsofftoaflyingstart.

Othernaturalbenefitscanbeseenfromfires.Forinstance,theonce‐rareblack‐backedwoodpeckerisnowaregularsiteintheBWCAwiththeabundanceofdeadtreesfromrecentsmallerfiresandthe1999windblowdownoftrees.Newshrubsandgroundvegetationisappealingtodifferentkindsofwildlifetosnackon.”

FSResponse:Thispaperdiscussesthe2007Minnesotafiresandtheresourcebenefitsfromthisdisturbance.

“RottingWoodandhowitaffectstheEnvironment”MamasHealth.com.http://www.mamashealth.com/saveearth

OpposingView#22‐“Rottinglogsareaverycommonfeatureofwildecosystems.Rottinglogsrecyclesnutrientsbackintothesoilandprovidesahealthyhabitatforawiderangeofinsects,plants,andanimals.Rottinglogprovideshomesforsmallmammals,insects,worms,andspiders.Therich,organicsoilprovidesauniquehabitatforfungi,treeseedlings,wildflowers,mosses,andferns.”

FSResponse:Thisisgeneralinformation.MarshallWoodsprojectdesignmeasures,includingretentionofdownedwoodymaterialandstandingtreesintreatmentareas,wouldassuretheprojectwouldmaintainsoilstabilityandproductivityandmeetRegionalsoilstandardsforcoarsewoodymaterial.

Schneider,Gary“Deadtrees(they'restillfulloflife!)”2008MacphailWoodsEcologicalForestryProject.http://www.macphailwoods.org/wildlife/deadtrees.html

OpposingView#23‐“Moreandmorewoodlotownersaretakingabroaderviewoftheirforests.Theylookforvaluesotherthantheimmediatereturnonwoodharvested.Thesevaluesincludeotherforestproductssuchasgroundhemlockandmushrooms;carbonstorage;waterpurification;leavingalegacyfortheirchildren;andhealthywildlifepopulations.

Wildlifetrees(deadordyingtreesusedfornesting,feeding,denningandroosting)gothroughseveralstagesthatcanstartwithantstunnelingintotherottingcentretoflycatchersperchingonthebarebranches.Forcavity‐nestingbirdstheyarecriticalhabitat.Somespeciesexcavatecavitiesfortheirnests,whileotherstakeoverandenlargeexistingholes.Manyofthesebirdsinturnhelptheforest,eatinginsectswhichcandamagetrees.”

FSResponse:Thisisgeneralinformation.MarshallWoodsprojectdesignmeasures,includingretentionofdownedwoodymaterialandstandingtreesintreatmentareas,wouldassuretheprojectwouldmaintainsoilstabilityandproductivityandmeetRegionalsoilstandardsforcoarsewoodymaterial.

Smith,JaneKapler,ed."WildlandFireinEcosystems:EffectsofFireonFauna"USDAForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐42‐volume1.January2000.http://nps.gov/fire/download/fir_eco_wildlandfireJan2000.pdf

OpposingView#24‐"Speciesthatbreedexclusivelyinthefirst30yearsafterfiremaybedifficulttomaintainintheecosystemwithoutfire.Fireexclusionandpost‐firesalvageofdeadtreesafterfiremayreducepopulationsofthesespeciesoverlargegeographicareas."

FSResponse:Thisisgeneralinformation.TheMarshallWoodsprojectwasdesignedtoemulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingusingprescribedfire.


A‐142

Tanner,G.W.Ph.D.,W.R.MarionPh.D.,andJ.J.MullaheyPh.D.“UnderstandingFire:Nature'sLandManagementTool”AFloridaCooperativeExtensionServicepublication,July,1991.http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW124

OpposingView#25‐“Ecologicalbenefitsoffire:

Promotesfloweringofherbaceousspeciesandfruitproductionofwoodyspecies.

Improvesnutritionalqualityofplantsforbothwildanddomesticanimals.

EnhancesnutrientcyclingofsomeelementsandelevatessoilpH. Maintainsrequiredhabitatconditionsforfire‐adaptedplantand

animalspecies. Resultsinamoreheterogenousanddiversehabitat‐‐ifnaturalfires

arepatchy‐‐leavingpocketsofunburnedareas. Prohibitswildfireconditionsfromdeveloping(i.e.,vastaccumulation

ofhighly‐flammable,deadvegetation.)”

FSResponse:ThisquotationisfromapamphletproducedbytheFloridaCooperativeExtensionServicediscussingfireecologyinFlorida.TheMarshallWoodsprojectisontheLoloNationalForestinMontana.FireecologyinFloridaisnotrelevanttotheMarshallWoodsproject.However,localfireecologywasconsideredandimpactstovegetation,soils,wildlifewereanalyzed.

Thomas,JackWardPh.D.,USForestServiceChief"DeadWood:FromForester’sBanetoEnvironmentalBoon".Keynoteaddressatthesymposiumonecologyandmanagementofdeadwoodinwesternforests,Reno,Nevada.1999.http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr‐181/003_Thomas.pdf

OpposingView#26‐"Inretrospect,itisamazingthatforestmanagersdidnotrealizethatdeadwoodwasacriticalhabitatcomponentforvertebrateandinvertebratewildlifeandfortheforestitself."

FSResponse:MarshallWoodsprojectdesignmeasures,includingretentionofdownedwoodymaterialandstandingtreesintreatmentareas,wouldassuretheprojectwouldmaintainsoilstabilityandproductivityandmeetRegionalsoilstandardsforcoarsewoodymaterial.

Vernetti,Toni“AreYouWildfireAware?”June07,2005.http://www.googobits.com/articles/p0‐547‐are‐you‐wildfire‐aware.html

OpposingView#27‐“Wildfireshavebeenanaturalpartofourenvironmentsincetimebegan.Undertherightcircumstancesthesewildfirescanbebeneficialtoanecosystem.”

“Wildfiresconsumevegetationthatwouldotherwisebecomeovergrown,creatingidealconditionsforacatastrophicwildfire.Wildfiresallowmoreopenspacesfornewanddifferentkindsofvegetationtogrowandreceivesunlight.This,inturn,providesfreshnutrientsandshelterforforestplantsandanimals.Wildfiresalsokeepourforestshealthybyconsumingharmfulinsectsanddiseases.”

FSResponse:Thisisanarticlediscussingwildfirecauses,benefits,types,suppressionandprevention;thecommenterdoesnotidentifyitsrelevancetotheMarshalWoodsproject.

Voss,René,Ph.D.“GettingBurnedbyLogging,”July2002.TheBaltimoreChronicle.http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/firelies_jul02.shtml

OpposingView#28‐"Fireisanessential,naturalandnecessarypartofWesternforestecology.Manyspeciesoftreescanonlyreproduceafterfiresoccur.Wildlandfiresburnunderbrushandreturnimportantnutrientstothesoil."

FSResponse:Thisisanopinionpiece;notascientificpeer‐revieweddocument.


A‐143

“WildfireinBritishColumbia”BCForestFacts,September2003.http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/364421/wildfire_bc.pdf

OpposingView#29‐“WildfireisanaturalpartofmostecosystemsacrossBritishColumbia.Ithelpstorenewtheforest,maintainthediversityofplantandanimallife,andkeepinsectsanddiseaseincheck.Itopensupdenseforesttoallowthegrowthofshrubsandgrasses,creatingbrowsefordeer,moose,elkandotheranimals.Itreleasesnutrientslockedinslowlydecayinglogs.”

FSResponse:ThisisanopinionpiecespecifictoBritishColumbia.

Woodford,Riley“RegenerationFollowingFireCreatesFertileHabitatforWildlife”AlaskaFishandWildlifeNews,August2003.http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&issue_id=5&articles_id=60

OpposingView#30‐“"Peoplearebombardedwiththenegativeaspectsoffire,"Paragisaid."Youheartermslike'destroyedthousandsofacresofforest,'andthethoughtofdestructiongetsembeddedinthepublicmind.Butfireisanaturalpartoftheecosystemanditisactuallyveryimportant."“

“Fireopensuptheforestcanopyandallowssunlighttoreachtheground,stimulatingtheorganismsthatdecomposeorganicmatterandmakenutrientsavailabletoplants.Fireburnsofftheinsulatinglayerofmossandduff,allowingsunlighttofurtherwarmthesoil.Theashcanreleasenutrientsbackintothesoilandchangesoilchemistry,promotingplantsgrowth.”

FSResponse:ThisisanopinionpieceonprescribedfireinAlaskaandthebenefitsitbrings.

Wuerthner,George.“Logging,thinningwouldnotcurtailwildfires”TheRegister‐Guard(EugeneOre.),December26,2008.http://wuerthner.blogspot.com/2008/12/logging‐thinning‐would‐not‐curtail.html

OpposingView#31‐“Healthyecosystemsburn,andoftenburnbythetensofmillionsofacres.Thespateoflargewildfiresweareexperiencingnowarenot“abnormal”oranindicationof“unhealthy”forest.Rather,weareseeingthenaturalresponseofahealthyforestecosystem.

Giventhatwildfirewassocommonforthousandsofyears,itisnotsurprisingthatrecentresearchshowsthatwildfires,particularlyseverewildfires,increasebiodiversity.

Ifanything,weprobablyneedmorewildfire,notless.Withglobalwarmingwewillprobablygetit,asvegetativecommunitiesadapttonewclimaticrealities.”

FSResponse:Thisisnotapeerreviewedarticle.Itcontendsthatmechanicaltreatmentscanincreasewildfires’spreadandseveritybyincreasingthefinefuelsontheground(slash)andbyopeningtheforesttogreaterwindandsolarpenetration,dryingfuelsfasterthaninunloggedforests.Thisprojectproposestreatmentofactivityfuelsfollowingtimberharvest.

PublishedbytheCenterforBiologicalDiversityandtheJohnMuirProject,January2014.http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/black‐backed_woodpecker/pdfs/Nourished_by_Wildfire.pdf

OpposingView#32‐“TheRimfirewasnotecologicallydamaging,butratherbiologicallyrestorative.Withoutfire,includinghigh‐intensityfire,thebiologicaldiversityoftheSierraswouldnotexistasweknowit.IncontrasttotheRimfire,theForestServicesalvageloggingplanswouldcauserealandtangibleharmtotheecologicallyimportanthabitatscreatedbythefireaswellasthefuturebiologicaldiversityoftheregion.”(page9)

FSResponse:Thisreportdiscussespost‐firetreatmentsintheRimFireinCalifornia.TheMarshallWoodsprojectdoesincludeactivitiesinarecentlyburnedarea.


A‐144

REVIEWOFREFERENCESCITEDINCOMMENTS‐DICKARTLEYATTACHMENT#9A

HerbicidesContainingGlyphosateshouldNeverbeAppliedtoAreaswhere

Mammals(includinghumans),Fish,orBirdsMightbePresent

ResearchshowsEvenCasualContactwiththeChemicalCausesSeriousHealthProblems

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#1‐“ChronicEffectsofGlyphosateversusFormulations:Throughoutthisstudyglyphosateitselfshowednochroniceffectsondevelopingtadpoles.ThetadpolesrearedintheformulationsRoundupOriginal®andTransorb®didshowsignificantphysicalabnormalities.AbnormalitieswerealsofounduponexposuretothesurfactantPOEA.ForallendpointsPOEAshowedpracticallyidenticalresultstotheRoundupOriginal®formulationwhereasthesamecannotbesaidfortheTransorb®formulation.ThesurfactantusedintheTransorbformulationisnotknown(beingprotectedas“TradeSecret”),buthasbeendescribedasa“surfactantblend”.This“surfactantblend”mayberesponsibleforinhibitionofmetamorphosis,aswellastheskewedsexratiotowardsfemaleseeninthepresentstudy.

DevelopmentalabnormalitiesinducedbyRounduparelikelyaresultofendocrinedisruption.Thethyroidaxiscanbegreatlyaffectedbycorticoidsandsexsteroidswhichinfluencehypothalamicandpituitarycontrol(SeeDoddandDodd,1976,andHayes,1997forreview).Corticoids,sexsteroidsandprolactinhavecauseddelayedmetamorphosisanddecreasedsizebybothantagonizingandinhibitingthyroidaction(Hayes,1997).Sexsteroidcaninducedsexreversalandintersexinamphibiansandmammals,whilelowthyroidlevelsinterferewithvitellogenesis.Aconcentrationatwhichtheanimalswerenoteffected(NOEC)byTheRoundupformulationswasnotdeterminedbythisstudy.

Howe,ChristinaPh.D.,MichaelBerrillPh.D.,andBruceD.Pauli

2001“TheAcuteandChronicToxicityofGlyphosate‐Based

PesticidesinNorthernLeopardFrogs”

http://www.trentu.ca/biology/berrill/Research/Roundup_Poster.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#2‐“Afterspraying,glyphosateherbicidescanremaininsoilsforlongperiods.Theherbicidecandriftontoneighbouringfields,streamsorhedges.Roundupkillsbeneficialinsects.Itwipesouthabitatforbirdsandanimals.Glyphosatecausesgeneticdamagetofish.Itis"extremelylethaltoamphibians",accordingtoassistantprofessorofbiologyRickRelyeaattheUniversityofPittsburgh.Itishazardoustoearthworms.Glyphosatereducesnitrogenfixation.Roundupreducesthegrowthofmycorrhizalfungi.Roundupcanincreasethespreadandseverityofplantdiseases(seeWRMBulletinno.18).”


A‐145

“Glyphosateherbicidescanhavearangeofimpactsonhumanhealth,includinggeneticdamage,skintumours,thyroiddamage,anaemia,headaches,nosebleeds,dizziness,tiredness,nausea,eyeandskinirritation,asthmaandbreathingdifficulties.Severalstudieshaveindicatedalinkbetweenglyphosateherbicidesandnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma,atypeofcancer.”

Lang,Chris“Glyphosateherbicide,thepoisonfromtheskies”

WRM'sbulletinNº97,August2005

http://chrislang.org/2005/08/28/glyphosate-herbicide-the-poison-from-the-skies/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#3‐“InCalifornia,wherethereisamandatorysystemofreportingpesticidepoisoning,Glyphosateisthethirdmostcommoncauseofpesticideillnessinfarmworkers.Itisthemostcommonformofreportedpesticidepoisoninginlandscapegardeners.”

“TwoseparatestudiesinSwedenhavelinkedexposuretoGlyphosatetoHairyCellLeukemiaandNonHodgkinsLymphoma.Thesetypesofcancerswereextremelyrare,howevernon‐HodgkinslymphomaisthemostrapidlyincreasingcancerintheWesternworld.Ithasrisenby73%intheUSAsince1973.AnotherstudyhasfoundahigherincidenceofParkinsondiseaseamongstfarmerswhousedherbicides,includingglyphosate.”

“OtherstudiesshowthatGlyphosateandcommercialherbicidescontainingGlyphosatecausearangeofcellmutationsanddamagetocellDNA.Thesetypesofchangesareusuallyregardedasprecursorstocancerandbirthdefects.”

“StudiesshowthatexposuretoGlyphosateisassociatedwitharangeofreproductiveeffectsinhumansandotherspecies.ResearchfromOntario,Canadafoundthatafather'sexposuretoGlyphosatewaslinkedtoanincreaseinmiscarriagesandprematurebirthsinfarmfamilies.”

“Glyphosatecausedadecreaseinthespermcountofratsandanincreaseinabnormalanddeadspermsinrabbits.PregnantrabbitsexposedtoGlyphosatehadadecreaseintheweightoftheirbabies.”

Leu,Andre“Monsanto'sToxicHerbicideGlyphosate:A

ReviewofitsHealthandEnvironmentalEffects”

OrganicProducersAssociationofQueensland,May15,2007

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5229.cfm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#4‐“Symptomsofexposuretoglyphosateincludeeyeirritation,blurredvision,skinrashes,burningoritchyskin,nausea,sorethroatanddifficultybreathing,headache,lethargy,nosebleedsanddizziness.

Inlabtests,glyphosateandherbicidescontainingglyphosatecausedgeneticdamagetohumanandanimalcells.


A‐146

Studiesoffarmersandotherpeopleexposedtoglyphosateherbicideslinkthisexposuretoincreasedrisksofcancer,miscarriagesandattentiondeficitdisorder.Additionallaboratorytestshaveconfirmedtheresultsofthesestudies.

Laboratoryevidenceindicatesthatglyphosateherbicidescanreduceproductionofsexhormones.

Studiesofglyphosatecontaminationofwaterarelimited,butnewresultsindicatethatitcaneasilycontaminatestreamsinbothagriculturalandurbanareas.

Glyphosateherbicidescausemoreoff‐targetdamageincidentsthanallbutoneotherherbicide—2,4‐D.

Glyphosateherbicidescausegeneticdamageandharmtotheimmunesysteminfish.Infrogs,glyphosateherbicidescausegeneticdamageandabnormaldevelopment.”

Long,Cheryl.“HazardsoftheWorld’sMostCommonHerbicide”

MotherEarthNews,October/November2005

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/2005-10-01/Hazards-of-the-Worlds-Most-Common-Herbicide.aspx

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#5‐“VerylowdosesofsometypesoftheherbicideRoundupcanendocrinedisruptortheformulations'toxicitymaybetiedtotheir"inactive"ingredientsratherthantheactiveweed‐killingingredientglyphosate.

FrenchscientistsreportthatanumberofRoundupformulationstestedatverydiluteconcentrationscanalterhormoneactionsandcausehumanlivercellstodiewithin24hoursoftreatment.

Thetoxicityofsomeoftheformulationswasindependentofhowmuchglyphosate‐theactiveherbicideinRoundup‐theycontained,suggestingitisother"inert"ingredientsthatmayalone‐orincombinationwitheachotherand/ortheweedkiller‐assaultthecells.Thisstudy'sresultsaresimilartopriorstudies‐asreportedinarecentEnvironmentalHealthNewsarticle‐thatfindhumanembryocellsareaffectedmorebytheRoundupformulationsandaninertingredientthanbytheactiveingredient.

ThelevelsofRoundupusedinthisstudyaresimilartowhatistypicallyfoundinfoodcropsoranimalfeedtreatedwithRoundup.Becauseofthis,itispossiblethatpeople,livestockandwildlifemaybeexposedtolevelsoftheherbicidemixthatcandamagecells.”

Martin,NeginP.Ph.D.“Monsanto'sRoundupMore

DeadlytoLiverCellsthanGlyphosateAlone”

OrganicConsumersAssn.,August18,2009



A‐147

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#6‐“It'sshamefulhowfewAmericanmediaoutletshavewrittenaboutthelatestscientificstudieslinkingRoundup,theworld'smostpopularandprofitableweedkiller,andcancer.MightitbebecauseMonsanto,makersofRoundupandasweallknowagenerallybadcorporatecitizenwithalitanyofallegedcrimesagainsthumanity,spendsbillionsinadvertisingandmarketinganddedicatesagoodportionofthatbudgettoprintandtelevisionads?

Monsantospent$1.28billiononitsvariousmarketingprogramsinfiscal2012,accordingtothecompany’sannualreport.Allthatmoneyseemstohavehadanimpact.Iamonlyspeculating,ofcourse.ButwhyelsewouldtheAmericanmediaignorethemountingevidenceoflinksbetweenRoundupandcancer?

Thelatestisagroundbreakingstudyshowingthattheactiveingredientinthehugelypopularherbicidefuelsbreastcancerbyincreasingthenumberofbreastcancercellsthroughcellgrowthandcelldivision.Thisshouldbefront‐pagenews.”

Reno,Jamie,“BREAKINGNEWS:America'sFavoriteWeedKillerLinkedtoCancer”

RenoDispatch,July1,2013

http://therenodispatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/breaking-news-americas-favorite-weed.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#7‐“Anewreviewofhundredsofscientificstudiessurroundingglyphosate—themajorcomponentofMonsanto’sRoundupherbicide—shedslightonitseffectswithinthehumanbody.Thepaperdescribeshowalloftheseeffectscouldworktogether,andwithothervariables,triggerhealthproblemsinhumans,includingdebilitatingdiseaseslikegastrointestinaldisorders,diabetes,heartdisease,obesityandAlzheimer’sdisease.

GlyphosateimpairsthecytochromeP450(CYP)genepathway,whichcreatesenzymesthathelptoformandalsobreakdownmoleculesincells.TherearemyriadimportantCYPenzymes,includingaromatase(theenzymethatconvertsandrogenintoestrogen)and21‐Hydroxylase,whichcreatescortisol(stresshormone)andaldosterone(regulatesbloodpressure).OnefunctionoftheseCYPenzymesisalsotodetoxifyxenobiotics,whichareforeignchemicalslikedrugs,carcinogensorpesticides.GlyphosateinhibitstheseCYPenzymes,whichhasripplingeffectsthroughoutourbody.

BecausetheCYPpathwayisessentialfornormalfunctioningofvarioussystemsinourbodies,anysmallchangeinitsexpressioncanleadtodisruptions.Forexample,humansexposedtoglyphosatehavedecreasedlevelsoftheaminoacidtryptophan,whichisnecessaryforactivesignalingoftheneurotransmitterserotonin.Suppressedserotoninlevelshavebeenassociatedwithweightgain,depression,andAlzheimer’sdisease.

Reed,Genna“NewReviewPointstoGlyphosate’sDangerousHealthEffects”

Food&WaterWatch,April30,2013

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/new-review-points-to-glyphosates-dangerous-health-effects/


A‐148

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#8‐“Thecarcinogenicpotentialofglyphosatehasbeenknownsincethe1980s.AnexcellentreviewonglyphosatetoxicitywrittenbyCarolineCoxofNorthwestCoalitionforAlternativestoPesticides,Eugene,OregonintheUSpublishedin1995showedthatmostifnotallthetoxiceffectsofglyphosatehadalreadybeendemonstratedinlaboratorystudies[7].Glyphosatewasnotonlyacutelytoxictoanimalsandhumanbeings;subchronicstudiesshowedthatfeedingglyphosatetoanimalsforthreemonthscaused“reducedweightgain,diarrhea,andsalivaryglandlesion.”Lifetimefeedingcaused“excessgrowthanddeathoflivercells,cataractsandlensdegeneration,andincreaseinthefrequencyofthyroid,pancreasandlivertumors.”Alsodocumentedwereeffectsonfertility:reducedspermcountsinmalesandlengtheningoftheoestruscycleinfemales.

Butthepublicwerekeptinthedarkthroughalitanyofoutrightfraudcommittedbytestingcompaniesworkingforthecorporations,deception,andhalf‐truths.

Oncarcinogenicity,Coxwrote[8]:“Thepotentialofglyphosatetocausecancerhasbeenacontroversialsubjectsincethefirstlifetimefeedingstudieswereanalyzedintheearly1980s.Thefirststudy(1979‐1981)foundanincreaseintesticularinterstitialtumorsinmaleratsatthehighestdosetested(30mg/kgofbodyweightperday)[9],aswellasanincreaseinthefrequencyofathyroidcancerinfemales[10].Thesecondstudy(completedin1983)founddose‐relatedincreasesinthefrequencyofararekidneytumorinmalemice[11].Themostrecentstudy(1988‐1990)foundanincreaseinthenumberofpancreasandlivertumorsinmaleratstogetherwithanincreaseofthesamethyroidcancerfoundinthe1983studyinfemales[12].

ButtheUSEnvironmentProtectionAgency(EPA)explainedallthataway.Coxcontinued[8]:“Alloftheseincreasesintumorincidenceare“notconsideredcompound‐related”[12]accordingtoEPA.Ineachcase,differentreasonsaregivenforthisconclusion.Forthetesticulartumors,EPAacceptedtheinterpretationofanindustrypathologistwhosaidthattheincidenceintreatedgroups(12percent)wassimilartothoseobservedinothercontrol(notglyphosate‐fed)ratfeedingstudies(4.5percent)[13].[Thisisablatant,illicituseofcontrols.]Forthethyroidcancer,EPAstatedthatitwasnotpossibletoconsistentlydistinguishbetweencancersandtumorsofthistype,sothattheincidencesofthetwoshouldbeconsideredtogether[aquestionablemanipulationofdata].Thecombineddataarenotstatisticallysignificant[10].Forthekidneytumors,theregistrantsreexaminedslidesofkidneytissue,findinganadditionaltumorinuntreatedmicesothatstatisticalsignificancewaslost.ThiswasdespiteamemofromEPA’spathologiststatingthatthelesioninquestionwasnotreallyatumor[11][andhenceamountstoafalsificationofdata].Forthepancreatictumors,EPAstatedthattherewasnodose‐relatedtrendandnoprogressiontomalignancy[thisisfrequentlythecaseinendocrinedisruptingchemicals].Forthelivertumorsandthethyroidtumors,EPAstatedthatpairwisecomparisonsbetweentreatedanduntreatedanimalswerenotstatisticallysignificantandtherewasnoprogressiontomalignancy[12].”(Commentsbetweensquarebracketsadded).

Ho,MaeWanPh.D.“GlyphosateandCancer”

TheInstituteofScienceinSociety,Report26,March2014


A‐149

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_and_Cancer.php

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#9:

“Pesticides,includingherbicides,insecticides,andfungicidesareusedextensivelytoimprovecropyieldsandasaresult,theyaccumulateintheenvironmentandhumansunavoidablyexposedtothem[1].Pesticidestendtobeveryreactivecompoundsthatcanformcovalentbondswithvariousnucleophiliccentersofcellularbiomolecules,includingDNA[2–4].Becauseoftheirbiologicalactivity,theindiscriminateuseofpesticidesmaycauseundesiredeffectstohumanhealth.Forinstance,theinductionofDNAdamagecanpotentiallyleadtoadversereproductiveoutcomes,theinductionofcancer,andmanyotherchronicdiseases[5–8].Epidemiologicalstudiesdemonstratedthatoccupationalexposuretosomepesticidesmayberelatedtoseveralkindsofcancer,includingleukemia[9],bladder[10],andpancreaticcancers[11].”

Prasad,Sahdeo,Ph.D.,Smita SrivastavaPh.D.,

Madhulika SinghPh.D.,andYogeshwer ShuklaPh.D.

“ClastogenicEffectsofGlyphosateinBoneMarrowCellsofSwissAlbinoMice”

JournalofToxicology,December15,2008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809416/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#10‐“PITTSBURGH‐‐TheherbicideRoundup®iswidelyusedtoeradicateweeds.ButastudypublishedtodaybyaUniversityofPittsburghresearcherfindsthatthechemicalmaybeeradicatingmuchmorethanthat.

PittassistantprofessorofbiologyRickRelyeafoundthatRoundup®,thesecondmostcommonlyappliedherbicideintheUnitedStates,is"extremelylethal"toamphibians.Thisfieldexperimentisoneofthemostextensivestudiesontheeffectsofpesticidesonnontargetorganismsinanaturalsetting,andtheresultsmayprovideakeylinktoglobalamphibiandeclines.

Inapapertitled"TheImpactofInsecticidesandHerbicidesontheBiodiversityandProductivityofAquaticCommunities,"publishedinthejournalEcologicalApplications,Relyeaexaminedhowapond'sentirecommunity‐‐25species,includingcrustaceans,insects,snails,andtadpoles‐‐respondedtotheadditionofthemanufacturers'recommendeddosesoftwoinsecticides‐‐Sevin®(carbaryl)andmalathion‐‐andtwoherbicides‐‐Roundup®(glyphosate)and2,4‐D.

RelyeafoundthatRoundup®causeda70percentdeclineinamphibianbiodiversityandan86percentdeclineinthetotalmassoftadpoles.Leopardfrogtadpolesandgraytreefrogtadpoleswerecompletelyeliminatedandwoodfrogtadpolesandtoadtadpoleswerenearlyeliminated.Onespeciesoffrog,springpeepers,wasunaffected.”

Hoffmann,Karen,“Roundup®highlylethaltoamphibians,findsUniversityofPittsburghresearcher”

UniversityofPittsburghNewsServices,March31,2005


A‐150

http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/roundup%C2%AE-highly-lethal-amphibians-natural-setting-finds-university-pittsburgh-researcher

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#11‐“Forallninespeciesoflarvalanurans,theKruskal‐Wallisanalysesdetectedsignificanteffectsofpesticideconcentrationonmortality(p#0.002;Fig.1).Thesubsequentmeancomparisons,usingDunnett’stests,indicatedthelowestconcentrationsthatcausedsignificantlygreatermortalitythanthecontrol(p,0.05).Fortwospecies(bullfrogsandspringpeepers),1mga.e./Lofglyphosatecausedsignificantlygreatermortalitythanthecontrol.Fortheremainingsevenspecies(greenfrogs,leopardfrogs,woodfrogs,Cascadesfrogs,Americantoads,westerntoads,andgraytreefrogs),2mga.e./Lofglyphosatewasthelowestconcentrationtocausesignificantlygreatermortalitythanthecontrol.Basedontheprobitanalyses,theestimatedLC5096‐hvaluesfortheninespeciesoflarvalanuransrangedfrom0.8to2.0mga.e./L(Table2).”

Relyea,RickA.Ph.D.andDevinK.Jones“TheToxicityofRoundup

OriginalMaxto13SpeciesofLarvalAmphibians”

EnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry,Vol.28,No.9,pp.2004–2008,2009

http://www.pitt.edu/news2009/Roundup.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#12‐“ArecentstudyofRounduppresentsnewevidencethattheglyphosate‐basedherbicideisfarmoretoxicthantheactiveingredientalone.Thestudy,publishedintheJune2005issueofEnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,reportsglyphosatetoxicitytohumanplacentalcellswithinhoursofexposure,atlevelstentimeslowerthanthosefoundinagriculturaluse.TheresearchersalsotestedglyphosateandRoundupatlowerconcentrationsforeffectsonsexualhormones,reportingeffectsatverylowlevels.ThissuggeststhatdilutionwithotheringredientsinRoundupmay,infact,facilitateglyphosate'shormonalimpacts.”

“Theevidencepresentedintherecentstudyissupportedbyearlierlaboratorystudiesconnectingglyphosatewithreproductiveharm,includingdamagedDNAinmiceandabnormalchromosomesinhumanblood.Evidencefromepidemiologicalstudieshasalsolinkedexposuretotheherbicidewithincreasedriskofnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma,andlaboratorystudieshavenowbeguntohoneinonthemechanismbywhichthechemicalactsoncelldivisiontocausecancer.ACanadianstudyhaslinkedglyphosateexposureinthethreemonthsbeforeconceptionwithincreasedriskformiscarriageanda2002studyinMinnesotaconnectedglyphosateexposureinfarmfamilieswithincreasedincidenceofattentiondeficitdisorder.”

“RethinkingRoundup”

PesticideActionNetworkNorthAmerica(PANNA)Update,August5,2005

http://www.panna.org/node/466

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#13‐“OurstudiesshowthatglyphosateactsasadisruptorofmammaliancytochromeP450aromataseactivityfromconcentrations100timeslowerthanthe


A‐151

recommendeduseinagriculture,andthisisnoticeableonhumanplacentalcellsafteronly18hr,anditcanalsoaffectaromatasegeneexpression.Italsopartiallydisruptstheubiquitousreductaseactivitybutathigherconcentrations.Itseffectsareallowedandamplifiedbyatleast0.02%oftheadjuvantspresentinRoundup,knowntofacilitatecellpenetration,andthisshouldbecarefullytakenintoaccountinpesticideevaluation.ThedilutionofglyphosateinRoundupformulationmaymultiplyitsendocrineeffect.Roundupmaybethusconsideredasapotentialendocrinedisruptor.Moreover,athigherdosesstillbelowtheclassicalagriculturaldilutions,itstoxicityonplacentalcellscouldfavorsomereproductionproblems.”

Richard,SophiePh.D.,SafaMoslemiPh.D.,HerbertSipahutar,NoraBenachourandGilles‐EricSeraliniPh.D.,2005“DifferentialeffectsofglyphosateandRounduponhumanplacentalcellsandaromatase”

Mindfully.org

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Glyphosate-Roundup-Placental24feb05.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#14‐“Thereareserioushealthimplicationsfromtheuseofthispesticide.ThereisalonglistofreportedtoxiceffectsfromglyphosateexposureandthisSwedishstudyprovidescompellingevidenceofthelinksbetweenglyphosateandcancer.”

“Swedishstudyshowslinksbetweenglyphosateandcancer”

TheEuropeanNGONetworkonGeneticEngineering,1999

http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Jun/msg00018.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#15‐“Thisreviewsuggeststhatthesilviculturaluseofglyphosateneedstobere‐evaluatedwithrespecttonon‐targetimpactsonamphibiansinB.C.Inaddition,knowledgegapshindereffectiveandrealisticassessmentoftheseimpacts.Glyphosateimpactscanbespecies‐specificinamphibians,butacutetoxicityvaluesareknownforonlytwonativeB.C.amphibians(theWoodFrog,Ranasylvatica,andtheLeopardFrog,R.pipiens).Theimpactofglyphosateherbicidesonsalamanderspeciesandonterrestrialstagesofamphibiansisnotwellunderstood.Thereisinsufficientinformationonthelevelsofglyphosatecontaminationinsmallephemeralwetlands,whicharefavouredhabitatsofamphibians,andwhichmaybeexposedtodirectoversprayingwithherbicideundercurrentuseguidelines.Althoughthesurfactantinglyphosateherbicides,POEA,hasbeenidentifiedaspotentiallytheprimaryingredientcausingtoxicitytoamphibians,theoptionofusingsurfactantsoflowertoxicityhasnotbeenassessed.Theseknowledgegapsneedtobeaddressedsothatbestmanagementpracticescanbedevelopedtominimizenon‐targetimpactsonamphibiansfromtheuseofglyphosateherbicidesinforestry.”(Pg.iii)

Govindarajulu,PurnimaP.Ph.D.“Literaturereviewofimpactsofglyphosateherbicideonamphibians:WhatriskscanthesilviculturaluseofthisherbicideposeforamphibiansinB.C.?”

BritishColumbiaMinistryofEnvironment,WildlifeReportNo.R‐28,June2008


A‐152

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/442206/finishdownloaddocument.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#16‐“E.Widerecologicalconcernsofthegeneticallyengineeredsoyabeans

1.Glyphosateisabroad‐spectrumherbicidewhichwillhavemajorimpactsonbiodiversity(seeGreenpeaceReport,1998,andreferencestherein).Itkillsallplantsindiscriminately.Thiswilldestroywildplantsaswellasinsects,birds,mammalsandotheranimalsthatdependontheplantsforfoodandshelter.Inaddition,Roundup(Monsanto'sformulationofglyphosate)canbehighlytoxictofish.Glyphosatealsoharmsearthwormsandmanybeneficialmycorrhizalfungiandothermicroorganismsthatareinvolvedinnutrientrecyclinginthesoil.Itissogenerallytoxicthatresearchersareeveninvestigatingitspotentialasanantimicrobial(Robertsetal,1998).”

AffidavitsubmittedbyMae‐WanHoPh.D.,August12,1998

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/greenpeace.php?printing=yes

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#17‐“Glyphosatewasformerlyconsideredrelativelynon‐toxichoweverthereisnowaconsiderablebodyofevidencefordeleteriouseffectsofRoundup,glyphosateanditsadjuvantsonawiderangeofnon‐targetspecies,includinghumans.

In2003theDanishGovernmentannouncedunprecedentedrestrictionsonglyphosatefollowinganalyseswhichdemonstratedthatithadbeenpercolatingthroughthesoilandpollutingthegroundwateratarate5‐timesthatallowablefordrinkingwater.Subsequently,anotherstudyconfirmedthatbothglyphosateanditsdegradationproductamino‐methylphosphonicacid(AMPA)canleachthroughstructuredsoilstherebyposingapotentialrisktotheaquaticenvironment(5).Morerecently,ananalyticalmethodforglyphosateandAMPAbasedonliquidchromatographycoupledtoelectrospraytandemmassspectrometryhasbeenappliedtowatersamplespreviouslyfoundtocontainglyphosate(6).Theglyphosateconcentrationsinthere‐anaylzedsampleswerefoundtobe2–14–foldhigherthanpreviously(6)suggestingthatcontaminationofgroundwaterandotheraquaticsystemsbyglyphosatemaybeevengreaterthanpreviouslythought.”

Brennan‐Rieder,DenisePh.D.June,2008“PROPOSEDCOSMETICPESTICIDEBANINPROVINCEOFONTARIOSCIENTIFICBASISFORBANNINGBOTHSALEANDUSEOFSYNTHETICPESTICIDES”

http://www.pesticidereform.ca/RoundupDrBrennan-Rieder.PDF

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#18‐“1.GlyphosatewasrankedthirdworstamongallpesticidescausingseverehealthproblemsamongthoseworkinginagricultureintheStateofCalifornia.

2.Theapplicationofglyphosatecausestheproductionofphyto‐oestrogensinlegumes.Thesephyto‐oestrogensmimictheroleofhormonesinthebodiesofmammalswhoingestthem.Hence,theymaycauseseverereproductivesystemdisruptions.Thedataonestrogen‐contentoftheplantssubmittedbyMonsantodoesnotreflecttherealscopeofthisproblem,becausethetestedplantsweregrowninaglyphosate‐freeenvironment(seeabove).”

Tappeser,BeatrixPh.D.andChristinevonWeizsacker“Possible


A‐153

humanhealthimpactsofMonsanto'stransgenicglyphosate‐resistantsoybeans”

ThirdWorldNetwork

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/weiz-cn.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#19‐“ArecentlypublishedstudybyItalianresearchers[3]examinedthetoxicityoffourpopularglyphosatebasedherbicideformulationsonhumanplacentalcells,kidneycells,embryoniccellsandneonateumbilicalcordcellsandsurprisinglyfoundtotalcelldeathofeachofthesecellswithin24hours.Theresearchersreportedseveralmechanismsbywhichtheherbicidescausedthecellstodieincluding:cellmembraneruptureanddamage,mitochondrialdamageandcellasphyxia.Followingthesefindings,theresearcherstestedG,AMPAandPOEAbythemselvesandconcludedthat,‘ItisveryclearthatifG,POEA,orAMPAhasasmalltoxiceffectonembryoniccellsaloneatlowlevels,thecombinationoftwoofthematthesamefinalconcentrationissignificantly’deleterious’.

Althoughpreviousresearchershaveproposedthatthesupposed‘inertingredients’altertheroleofcellmembranedisruptorsinfish,amphibians,microorganisms[4]andplants[5],independentofG,thisstudyisthefirstofitskindtoreportsimilarfindingsinhumancells.Theresearchersconcludedthat,“theproprietarymixturesavailableonthemarketcouldcausecelldamageandevendeatharoundresiduallevelstobeexpected,especiallyinfoodandfeedderivedfromR[Roundup]formulation‐treatedcrops”whicharepervasiveinGM‐soya.”

“ToxicityofGlyphosate”

NaturalCommunitiesmagazine,July16th,2009

http://naturalcommunitiesmag.com/2009/07/16/gm-soy-destroy-the-earth-and-humans-for-profit/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#20‐“AstudyreleasedbyanArgentinescientistearlierthisyearreportsthatglyphosate,patentedbyMonsantounderthename"RoundUp,"causesbirthdefectswhenappliedindosesmuchlowerthanwhatiscommonlyusedinsoyfields.

Thestudywasdirectedbyaleadingembryologist,Dr.AndresCarrasco,aprofessorandresearcherattheUniversityofBuenosAires.Inhisofficeinthenation'stopmedicalschool,Dr.Carrascoshowsmetheresultsofthestudy,pullingoutphotosofbirthdefectsintheembryosoffrogamphibiansexposedtoglyphosate.Thefrogembryosgrowninpetridishesinthephotoslookedlikesomethingfromafuturistichorrorfilm,creatureswithvisibledefects—oneeyethesizeofthehead,spinalcorddeformations,andkidneysthatarenotfullydeveloped.”

Trigona,Marie“StudyReleasedinArgentinaPutsGlyphosateUnderFire”

Znet,July28,2009

http://www.zcommunications.org/study-released-in-argentina-puts-glyphosate-under-fire-by-marie-trigona


A‐154

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#21‐“Controversyexistsaroundtheuseofherbicidesmorecommonlyusedbyhomegardeners,suchas,2,4‐DandRoundup.AmanufacturersupportedreviewofstudiesfoundRoundupsafeforusearoundhumanswhileanti‐herbicidegroupscitestudiesthatfinditaffectinghumanembryonic,placental,andumbilicalcellsinvitroaswellastestosteronedevelopmentinmice.”

Vinje,Eric,“ChemicalQuandary:TheProblemwith

Pesticides,HerbicidesandChemicalFertilizer”

PlanetNatural

http://www.planetnatural.com/site/garden-chemicals.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#22‐“AccordingtoMr.Carrasco’sresearch,eventinyquantitiesofglyphosatecouldcauseembryonicmalformationsinfrogsandthus,byextrapolation,mayhaveimplicationsforhumans.

“Isuspectthetoxicityclassificationofglyphosateistoolow...insomecasesthiscanbeapowerfulpoison,”MrCarrascotoldtheFinancialTimesinaninterview.Hesaysresidentsnearsoya‐producingareasbeganreportingproblemsfrom2002,acoupleofyearsafterthefirstbigharvestsusinggeneticallymodifiedseeds,whichwereapprovedforuseinArgentinain1996.

ResearchbyotherArgentinescientistsandevidencefromlocalcampaignershasindicatedahighincidenceofbirthdefectsandcancersinpeoplelivingnearcrop‐sprayingareas.Onestudyconductedbyadoctor,RodolfoPáramo,inthenorthernfarmingprovinceofSantaFéreported12malformationsper250births,wellabovethenormalrate.”

Weber,JudeandHalWeitzman“ArgentinaPressedtoBanCropChemical”

TheFinancialTimes,UK,May29,2009

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#23‐“FishandaquaticinvertebratesaremoresensitivetoRoundupthanterrestrialorganisms.[24]Glyphosateisgenerallylesspersistentinwaterthaninsoil,with12to60daypersistenceobservedinCanadianpondwater,yetpersistenceofoverayearhavebeenobservedinthesedimentsofpondsinMichiganandOregon.”[9]

“TheEUclassifiesRoundupasR51/53Toxictoaquaticorganisms,maycauselong‐termadverseeffectsintheaquaticenvironment.”[25]

“AlthoughRoundupisnotregisteredforaquaticuses[26]andstudiesofitseffectsonamphibiansindicateitistoxictothem,[27]scientistshavefoundthatitmaywindupinsmallwetlandswheretadpoleslive,duetoinadvertentsprayingduringitsapplication.Arecentstudyfoundthatevenatconcentrationsone‐thirdofthemaximumconcentrationsexpectedinnature,Roundupstillkilledupto71percentoftadpolesraisedinoutdoortanks.”[28]


A‐155

“In1996,Monsantowasaccusedoffalseandmisleadingadvertisingofglyphosateproducts,promptingalawsuitbytheNewYorkStateattorneygeneral.[42]Monsantohadmadeclaimsthatitsspray‐onglyphosatebasedherbicides,includingRoundup,weresaferthantablesaltand"practicallynon‐toxic"tomammals,birds,andfish.”[43]

“EnvironmentalandconsumerrightscampaignersbroughtacaseinFrancein2001forpresentingRoundupasbiodegradableandclaimingthatitleftthesoilcleanafteruse;glyphosate,Roundup'smainingredient,isclassedbytheEuropeanUnionas"dangerousfortheenvironment"and"toxicforaquaticorganisms".InJanuary2007,Monsantowasconvictedoffalseadvertising.[44]Theresultwasconfirmedin2009.”[45]

“Ontwooccasions,theUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyhascaughtscientistsdeliberatelyfalsifyingtestresultsatresearchlaboratorieshiredbyMonsantotostudyglyphosate.[46][47][48]InthefirstincidentinvolvingIndustrialBiotestLaboratories,anEPAreviewerstatedafterfinding"routinefalsificationofdata"thatitwas"hardtobelievethescientificintegrityofthestudieswhentheysaidtheytookspecimensoftheuterusfrommalerabbits".[49][50][51]Inthesecondincidentoffalsifyingtestresultsin1991,theownerofthelab(CravenLabs),andthreeemployeeswereindictedon20felonycounts,theownerwassentencedto5yearsinprisonandfined50,000dollars,thelabwasfined15.5milliondollarsandorderedtopay3.7milliondollarsinrestitution.[32][52][53]Cravenlaboratoriesperformedstudiesfor262pesticidecompaniesincludingMonsanto.”

“Monsantohasstatedthatthestudieshavebeenrepeated,andthatRoundup'sEPAcertificationdoesnotnowuseanystudiesfromCravenLabsorIBT.MonsantoalsosaidthattheCravenLabsinvestigationwasstartedbytheEPAafterapesticideindustrytaskforcediscoveredirregularities.”[54]

Wikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia,April10,2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#Toxicity_2

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#24‐“Inthestudypublishedinthe15March1999JournalofAmericanCancerSociety,theresearchersalsomaintainthatexposuretoglyphosate‘yieldedincreasedrisksforNHL.’Theystressthatwiththerapidlyincreasinguseofglyphosatesincethetimethestudywascarriedout,‘glyphosatedeservesfurtherepidemiologicstudies.’“

DaSilva,GuyMD,“NewStudyLinksMonsanto'sRounduptoCancer”

daSilvaInstitute‐Antiaging&FunctionalMedicine

http://www.dasilvainstitute.com/article.asp?artid=18&areacode=ITN

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#25‐“TheselateststudiesconfirmawealthofevidenceonthetoxicitiesofglyphosateandRoundupformulations[2](Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse ,SiS26),andpinpointthedifferentsitesofaction,allofwhichresultincelldeath.Epidemiologicalstudieshavepreviouslylinkedglyphosatetospontaneousabortions,non‐Hodgkinlymphoma,andmultiplemyeloma.Laboratorystudiesshowedthatglyphosateinhibitstranscriptioninseaurchin


A‐156

eggsanddelaysdevelopment.Briefexposurestoglyphosateinratscausedliverdamage,andaddingthesurfactantinRounduphadasynergisticeffect,causinggreaterliverdamage.Roundupwasalsofoundtobemuchmorelethaltofrogsthantoweeds,andcouldhavecontributedtotheglobaldemiseofamphibianswithinthepastdecades,”[3]

HoMae‐WinPh.D.andBrettCherry“Deathby

MultiplePoisoning,GlyphosateandRoundup”

anInstituteofScienceinSocietynewsreleasesubmittedtotheUSDA

November2,2009

http://current.com/146im4c

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#26‐“Terrestrialtoxicity:

Anumberofspeciesofbirds,mammalsandbeneficialinsectssufferpopulationlosesthroughhabitatand/orfoodsupplydestructionresultingfromtheuseofglyphosate.Therearealsodirectlethalandsublethaleffects.

‐BirdsLD50(mg/kgbodyweight)>3851

‐BeneficialInsectsoralLD50>100ug/bee.(Cox1995b;IPCS1994)

ExposuretofreshlyappliedRoundupkilledmorethanhalfofthreespecies‐aparasitoidwasp,alacewing,andaladybug‐andmorethan80percentofapredatorybeetle.Carabidbeetlepopulationshaveshownsignificantdeclineandslowrecoveryafterglyphosateapplication(Asterarkietal.,1992;Brust,1990;Hassan1988)

Glyphosateadverselyaffectsanumberofsoilandplantfauna,suchasthebeneficialpredatorymites.However,itprolongedlarvalsurvivalofthefoliar‐feedingnematodeNothanguineaby50%thusincreasingthedamagedonebythispest.(Carlisle&Trevore,1987;Eijsackers1985)

Glyphosatemayinhibitanumberoffungithatdecomposedeadplantmaterial.Roundupappliedtothesoilinrepeateddoseshadasubstantialadverseeffectonthegrowthrateofearthworms.Thereproductivecapacityandthetotalpopulationinthesoilcouldbeexpectedtofallfollowingrepeatedlowdosesofbiocides.IPCS,however,classifiesglyphosateashavinglowtoxicitytoearthwormswithaNoObservedEffectsConcentrationof158mg/kg.(Grossbard1985;IPCS,1994;SpringettandGray,1992)

Laboratorystudiesshowsignificanteffectsonnitrogenfixation,denitrificationandnitrification.(IPCS1994)

Watts,MerielandRonaldMacfarlane,“Glyphosate”

APesticideActionNetwork‐AsiaandthePacificpublication,1999

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/pest/pe-gly.htm


A‐157

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#27‐Regardingyourarticle,Mystery of Disappearing Honeybees(SiS34),IamaDutchbeekeeperintheeastoftheNetherlandsnearGermany,andweseethesameproblemwithbees,asinBelgium,Germany,FranceandthewholeofEurope.IntheNetherlandsthegovernmentissettogivepermissionforgrowingGMOs,eveninsuchaverysmallcountry.Itwillcausealotofdamage:badforbiodiversity,theearth,water,air,drinkingwaterandfood.

Ijustlost68percentofmybees,andIblamethecityworkerswhosprayedglyphosatetwiceattheendofOctoberlastyear.Mybeehiveswere4metresfromthespray,whereasthelegaldistanceis200metres.BythebeginningofJanuary2008,thebeesstartedtodie.Themunicipalauthoritiesinvillagesandsmallcitiessprayglyphosateonweedsinpublicplaces,gardensandfootpaths.Inbigcities,theywouldusesteaminsteadofweedkillers.

Idida‘test’inSeptember2007withabitofglyphosate,andwithinthreeorfiveminutes,thebeesweredead.Itisveryimportantforthecityworkerstogivepeoplewarningwhentheyspray,buttheyneverdo.

WemuststudythetoxiceffectsofGMOsandglyphosate,forthesakeofthenextgeneration,ourchildren,aswellasthesickandoldpeople.

Broek,Hansvanden,“Glyphosatekillsbees”

TheInstituteofScienceinSociety

ScienceinSociety#38,summer2008

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SIS38lettersToTheEditor.php

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#28‐“Glyphosateherbicidescanhavearangeofimpactsonhumanhealth,includinggeneticdamage,skintumours,thyroiddamage,anaemia,headaches,nosebleeds,dizziness,tiredness,nausea,eyeandskinirritation,asthmaandbreathingdifficulties.Severalstudieshaveindicatedalinkbetweenglyphosateherbicidesandnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma,atypeofcancer.

Notsurprisingly,consideringtheamountofmoneythatMonsantomakesfromsalesofglyphosateproducts,thecompanyplaysdownthehealthrisksofglyphosate.Monsantoclaimsthatglyphosateherbicidesposeonlya"lowrisktohumanhealth"aslongasglyphosateisused"accordingtolabeldirections".“

Lang,Chris,“Glyphosateherbicide,thepoisonfromtheskies”

WRM'sbulletinNº97,August2005

http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/97/Glyphosate.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#29‐“A1999study,ACase‐ControlStudyofNon‐HodgkinLymphomaandExposuretoPesticides,(AmericanCancerSociety,1999),foundthatpeopleexposedtoglyphosateare2.7timesmorelikelytocontractnon‐HodgkinLymphoma.


A‐158

AFinnishstudyshowsthatglyphostatedecreasesthedefensesofenzymesoftheliverandintestines.18RoundUp,asamixtureofallitsingredients,hasbeenshowntoshutdownapowerfulantioxidantintheliverthatdetoxifiesharmfulcompoundssotheycanbeexcretedthroughbile.ApaperpublishedinAugust2000showsthatRoundUpaltersgeneexpressionandinhibitsnecessarysteroidproductionbydisruptingaparticularproteinexpression.In2002,apapershowsthatRoundUpcanalsoaffectearlycelldivisionprocessesinembryos.19”

“chemicalWATCHFactsheet”

PublishedbyBeyondPesticides,August2009

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Glyphosate.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#30‐“TheUSDAfirstderegulatedRoundupReadyalfalfain2005.Internalemailsrecentlyobtained by TruthoutshowthatMonsantoworkedcloselywithregulatorstoedititsoriginalpetitiontoderegulatethealfalfa.OneregulatoracceptedMonsanto'shelpinconductingtheUSDA'soriginalenvironmentalassessmentofthealfalfa.

FarmersandbiotechopponentssoonfiledalawsuitagainsttheUSDAtochallengetheinitialderegulation.In2007,afederalcourtruledthattheUSDAdidnotconsiderthefullenvironmentalimpactsofRoundupReadyalfalfaandvacatedtheagency'sdecisiontoderegulatethealfalfa.Monsantoanditsalliesappealedthedecision,andlastyear,theSupremeCourtreversedthelowercourt'sruling,butorderedtheUSDAtoproduceanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)onthealfalfabeforeallowingitbackintoAmerica'sfields.

TheUSDAreleasedafinalEISonRoundupReadyalfalfainlate2010,andtheGEalfalfawasfully deregulatedonJanuary27.TheUSDAwentontoapprovetwomoreGEseedswithinweeksofthealfalfadecision.

RoundupReadyalfalfawasderegulatedjustweeksafterUSDASecretaryTomVilsackwaspressedbyRepublicanCongressmen,someofwhomrecentlyreceivedcampaigncontributionsfromMonsantoandthebiotechindustry,todumpaproposaltogeographicallyisolateRoundupReadyalfalfafromorganicandconventionalalfalfaand,instead,legalizetheGEseedwithoutanygovernmentoversight.

ThelatestlawsuitfiledbyCFSanditsalliesarguesthatthefinalEISignoresordownplaysthethreatsRoundupReadyalfalfaposestoconventionalalfalfafarmsandtheenvironment.”

Ludwig,Mike“FarmersSueUSDAOverMonsantoAlfalfa–Again”

Truthout,March25,2011

http://www.truth-out.org/farmers-sue-usda-over-monsanto-alfalfa-again68656

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#31‐“JH:Yousaidyouhadfoundthatverylowdosesofglyphosatehadcausedtheseeffectsonaromatase.AretheythekindofdosesthatwouldbeusedinpracticalagricultureintheEuropeanUnion?”


A‐159

“GE‐S:Theyareabouttento100timeslessthanthedosesusedbyagriculturalworkers.Onehastobecautiousbecausetheseareinvitroresultsbutwedonotwanttowaitfordeathwhentheprecautionaryprinciplesuggestsaneedformeasurestoavoidanyharmfuleffectsonfoetusesandchildren.”

“Glyphosatedisruptsofhumanhormones”

AninterviewwithProfessorGilles‐EricSeraliniPh.D.

Publishedbyecochem

http://www.ecochem.com/ENN_glyphosate(2).html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#32‐“TheDecember/January2010issueofTheOrganic&Non‐GMOReportfeaturedaninterviewwithRobertKremer,anadjunctprofessorintheDivisionofPlantSciencesattheUniversityofMissouri,whoseresearchshowednegativeenvironmentalimpactscausedbyglyphosate,themainingredientinMonsanto'sRoundupherbicide,whichisusedextensivelywithRoundupReadygeneticallymodifiedcrops.”

“Thewidespreaduseofglyphosateiscausingnegativeimpactsonsoilandplantsaswellaspossiblyanimalandhumanhealth.ThesearekeyfindingsofDonHuber,emeritusprofessorofplantpathology,PurdueUniversity.”

Roseboro,Ken“Monsanto'sGlyphosateProblems:ScientistWarnsofDireConsequenceswithWidespreadUse”

TheOrganicandNon‐GMOReport,PostedJune14,2010


Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#33‐“Thereis,indeed,directevidencethatglyphosateinhibitsRNAtranscriptioninanimalsataconcentrationwellbelowthelevelthatisrecommendedforcommercialsprayapplication.Transcriptionwasinhibitedandembryonicdevelopmentdelayedinseaurchinsfollowingexposuretolowlevelsoftheherbicideand/orthesurfactantpolyoxyethyleneamine.Thepesticideshouldbeconsideredahealthconcernbyinhalationduringspraying[4].”

“Newresearchshowsthatabriefexposuretocommercialglyphosatecausedliverdamageinrats,asindicatedbytheleakageofintracellularliverenzymes.Inthisstudy,glyphosateanditssurfactantinRoundupwerealsofoundtoactinsynergytoincreasedamagetotheliver[5].”

Ho,Mae‐WanPh.D.andProf. Joe CumminsPh.D.“GlyphosateToxic&RoundupWorse”

AnInstituteofScienceinSocietypublication,07/03/05

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php


A‐160

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#34‐“Incontrasttomalathion,Rounduphadstrongdirecteffectsonthetadpoles.Roundupcauseda40%reductionintotaltadpolesurvivalandbiomass.TheimpactofRoundup(withPOEA[polyethoxylatedtallow‐amine]surfactant)isconsistentwithpreviouslaboratorystudiesinavarietyofspecies.MannandBidwell(1999)estimatedLC5048hat3.9to15.5mgactiveingredient(AI)/LinfourspeciesofAustraliantadpoleswhilePerkinsetal.(2000)estimatedLC5096hvaluesof12.4mgAI/LintheAfricanclawedfrog(Xenopuslaevis).Inbothstudies,itwasclearthatthehightoxicityofRoundupwascausedbythePOEAsurfactantandnotfromtheactiveingredient(glyphosate).Lajmanovichetal.(2003)examinedtheimpactofKleeraway(anotherformulationofglyphosatethatcontainsthePOEAsurfactant)onaSouthAmericantadpole(Scinaxnasicus)andfoundanLC5048hof1.74mgAI/L.InNorthAmericantadpoles(Bufoamericanus,Ranapipiens,andR.clamitans),Edgintonetal.(2004)foundLC5096hof1.5–4.7mgAI/lusingVision(aformulationthatalsoincludesthePOEAsurfactant).Forthethreespeciesusedinourmesocosmexperiment,Relyea(2005b)foundLC5016dvaluesof1.4mgAI/Lforgraytreefrogs,2.5mgAI/LforAmericantoads,and2.5mgAI/Lforleopardfrogs.AllofthissuggeststhatRoundupwiththePOEAsurfactantcancausesubstantialmortalityinlarvalamphibians.”

Relya,RickA.Ph.D.,NancySchoeppnerandJasonT.Hoverman,“PesticidesandAmphibians:TheImportanceofCommunityContext”

EcologicalApplications,15(4),July1,2005,pp.1125–1134

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Roundup-Amphibians-Community1jul05.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#34‐“Thedeclineinamphibiansacrosstheglobehassparkedasearchforthecauses,andrecentevidencesuggestsaconnectionwithpesticides.However,formostpesticides,testsonamphibiansarerareandconductedonlyforshortdurations(1to4days)andwithoutnaturalstressors.Recentstudieshavediscoveredthatthestressofpredatorcuesinthewatercanmakeinsecticidesmuchmorelethaltolarvalamphibians,butitisunknownwhetherthisphenomenoncanbegeneralizedtoothertypesofpesticides.UsingsixspeciesofNorthAmericanamphibianlarvae(Ranasylvatica,R.pipiens,R.clamitans,R.catesbeiana,Bufoamericanus,andHylaversicolor),Iexaminedtheimpactofagloballycommonherbicide(Roundup)onthesurvivaloftadpolesfor16dayswithandwithoutthechemicalcuesemittedbypredatorynewts(Notophthalmusviridescens).LC5016‐destimatesvariedfrom0.55to2.52mgofactiveingredient(AI)/L,whichwasconsiderablylowerthanthefewpreviousstudiesusingRoundup(1.5to15.5mgAI/L).Moreover,inoneofthesixspeciestested(R.sylvatica),theadditionofpredatorystressmadeRounduptwiceaslethal.Thisdiscoverysuggeststhatsynergisticinteractionsbetweenpredatorystressandpesticidesmayindeedbeageneralizablephenomenoninamphibiansthatoccurswithawidevarietyofpesticides.”

Relyea,R.A.Ph.D.“TheLethalImpactsofRoundupandPredatoryStressonSixSpeciesofNorthAmericanTadpoles”

ArchivesofEnvironmentalContaminationandToxicologyv48,n.3,April1,2005

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Roundup-Tadpoles-Relyea1apr05.htm


A‐161

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#35‐“Speciesrichnesswasreducedby15%withSevin,30%withmalathion,and22%withRoundup,whereas2,4‐Dhadnoeffect.Bothinsecticidesreducedzooplanktondiversitybyeliminatingcladoceransbutnotcopepods(thelatterincreasedinabundance).Theinsecticidesalsoreducedthediversityandbiomassofpredatoryinsectsandhadanapparentindirectpositiveeffectonseveralspeciesoftadpoles,buthadnoeffectonsnails.Thetwoherbicideshadnoeffectsonzooplankton,insectpredators,orsnails.Moreover,theherbicide2,4‐Dhadnoeffectontadpoles.However,Roundupcompletelyeliminatedtwospeciesoftadpolesandnearlyexterminatedathirdspecies,resultingina70%declineinthespeciesrichnessoftadpoles.Thisstudyrepresentsoneofthemostextensiveexperimentalinvestigationsofpesticideeffectsonaquaticcommunitiesandoffersacomprehensiveperspectiveontheimpactsofpesticideswhennontargetorganismsareexaminedunderecologicallyrelevantconditions.”

Relyea,R.A.Ph.D.“TheImpactofInsecticidesandHerbicidesontheBiodiversityandProductivityofAquaticCommunities”

EcologicalApplicationsv15,n.2,April1,2005

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Roundup-Aquatic-Communities1apr05.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#36‐“HeisjoinedinhisconclusionsbyRobertBellé,fromtheNationalCenterforScientificResearch(CNRS)biologicalstationinRoscoff(Finistere),whoseteamhasbeenstudyingtheimpactofglyphosateformulationsonsea‐urchincellsforseveralyears.ThisrecognizedmodelforthestudyofearlystagesofcancergenesisearnedTimHuntthe2001NobelPrizeinmedicine.In2002,theFinisterianteamhadshownthatRoundupactedononeofthekeystagesofcellulardivision.

TheBretonteamhasrecentlydemonstrated(ToxicologicalScience,December2004)thata"controlpoint"forDNAdamagewasaffectedbyRoundup,whileglyphosatealonehadnoeffect."Wehaveshownthatit'sadefiniteriskfactor,butwehavenotevaluatedthenumberofcancerspotentiallyinduced,northetimeframewithinwhichtheywoulddeclarethemselves,"theresearcheracknowledges.Asprayeddropletcouldaffectthousandsofcells.Ontheotherhand,"theconcentrationinwaterandfruitsislower,whichisratherreassuring."

Morin,Herve“RoundupDoesn’tPoisonOnlyWeeds”

LeMonde(France)March12,2005

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Roundup-Poison12mar05.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#37‐“Wehaveevaluatedthetoxicityoffourglyphosate(G)‐basedherbicidesinRoundup(R)formulations,from105timesdilutions,onthreedifferenthumancelltypes.Thisdilutionlevelisfarbelowagriculturalrecommendationsandcorrespondstolowlevelsofresiduesinfoodorfeed.TheformulationshavebeencomparedtoGaloneandwithitsmainmetaboliteAMPAorwithoneknownadjuvantofRformulations,POEA.HUVECprimaryneonateumbilicalcordveincellshavebeentestedwith293embryonickidneyandJEG3placentalcelllines.AllRformulationscausetotalcelldeathwithin24h,throughaninhibitionofthemitochondrial


A‐162

succinatedehydrogenaseactivity,andnecrosis,byreleaseofcytosolicadenylatekinasemeasuringmembranedamage.Theyalsoinduceapoptosisviaactivationofenzymaticcaspases3/7activity.ThisisconfirmedbycharacteristicDNAfragmentation,nuclearshrinkage(pyknosis),andnuclearfragmentation(karyorrhexis),whichisdemonstratedbyDAPIinapoptoticroundcells.Gprovokesonlyapoptosis,andHUVECare100timesmoresensitiveoverallatthislevel.ThedeleteriouseffectsarenotproportionaltoGconcentrationsbutratherdependonthenatureoftheadjuvants.AMPAandPOEAseparatelyandsynergisticallydamagecellmembraneslikeRbutatdifferentconcentrations.TheirmixturesaregenerallyevenmoreharmfulwithG.Inconclusion,theRadjuvantslikePOEAchangehumancellpermeabilityandamplifytoxicityinducedalreadybyG,throughapoptosisandnecrosis.TherealthresholdofGtoxicitymusttakeintoaccountthepresenceofadjuvantsbutalsoGmetabolismandtime‐amplifiedeffectsorbioaccumulation.ThisshouldbediscussedwhenanalyzingtheinvivotoxicactionsofR.ThisworkclearlyconfirmsthattheadjuvantsinRoundupformulationsarenotinert.Moreover,theproprietarymixturesavailableonthemarketcouldcausecelldamageandevendeatharoundresiduallevelstobeexpected,especiallyinfoodandfeedderivedfromRformulation‐treatedcrops.”

Benachour,NoraandGilles‐EricS ralini“GlyphosateFormulationsInduceApoptosisandNecrosisinHumanUmbilical,Embryonic,andPlacentalCells”

Chem.Res.Toxicol.,2009,22(1),pp97–105DOI:10.1021/tx800218n

PublicationDate(Web):December23,2008

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#38‐“WeexposedhumanliverHepG2cells,awell‐knownmodeltostudyxenobiotictoxicity,tofourdifferentformulationsandtoglyphosate,whichisusuallytestedaloneinchronicinvivoregulatorystudies.Wemeasuredcytotoxicitywiththreeassays(AlamarBlue®,MTT,ToxiLight®),plusgenotoxicity(cometassay),anti‐estrogenic(onERα,ERβ)andanti‐androgeniceffects(onAR)usinggenereportertests.WealsocheckedandrogentoestrogenconversionbyaromataseactivityandmRNA.Allparametersweredisruptedatsub‐agriculturaldoseswithallformulationswithin24h.Theseeffectsweremoredependentontheformulationthanontheglyphosateconcentration.First,weobservedahumancellendocrinedisruptionfrom0.5ppmontheandrogenreceptorinMDA‐MB453‐kb2cellsforthemostactiveformulation(R400),thenfrom2ppmthetranscriptionalactivitiesonbothestrogenreceptorswerealsoinhibitedonHepG2.Aromatasetranscriptionandactivityweredisruptedfrom10ppm.Cytotoxiceffectsstartedat10ppmwithAlamarBlueassay(themostsensitive),andDNAdamagesat5ppm.Arealcellimpactofglyphosate‐basedherbicidesresiduesinfood,feedorintheenvironmenthasthustobeconsidered,andtheirclassificationsascarcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxicsisdiscussed.”

Gasnier,CélinePh.D.,CoralieDumontPh.D.,NoraBenachourPh.D.,EmilieClairPh.D.,Marie‐ChristineChagnonPh.D.andGilles‐EricSéraliniPh.D.“Glyphosate‐basedherbicidesaretoxicandendocrinedisruptorsinhumancelllines”

Availableonline17June2009


A‐163

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-4WJBC0R-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F21%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1591140451&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2adfd01803a911a1ff1eda15564d337e&searchtype=a

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#39‐“Inthestudypublishedinthe15March1999JournalofAmericanCancerSociety,theresearchersalsomaintainthatexposuretoglyphosate‘yieldedincreasedrisksforNHL.’Theystressthatwiththerapidlyincreasinguseofglyphosatesincethetimethestudywascarriedout,‘glyphosatedeservesfurtherepidemiologicstudies.’“

"NewStudyLinksWorld'sBiggestSellingPesticidestoCancerSwedishStudyFindsExposuretoGlyphosateandMCPAIncreasesRiskforNon‐Hodgkin'sLymphoma"

PressReleasePANAP,June21,1999

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Glyphosate.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#40‐“Thereis,indeed,directevidencethatglyphosateinhibitsRNAtranscriptioninanimalsataconcentrationwellbelowthelevelthatisrecommendedforcommercialsprayapplication.Transcriptionwasinhibitedandembryonicdevelopmentdelayedinseaurchinsfollowingexposuretolowlevelsoftheherbicideand/orthesurfactantpolyoxyethyleneamine.Thepesticideshouldbeconsideredahealthconcernbyinhalationduringspraying[4].”

Newresearchshowsthatabriefexposuretocommercialglyphosatecausedliverdamageinrats,asindicatedbytheleakageofintracellularliverenzymes.Inthisstudy,glyphosateanditssurfactantinRoundupwerealsofoundtoactinsynergytoincreasedamagetotheliver[5].

Threerecentcase‐controlstudiessuggestedanassociationbetweenglyphosateuseandtheriskofnon‐Hodgkinlymphoma[6‐8];whileaprospectivecohortstudyinIowaandNorthCarolinathatincludesmorethan54315privateandcommerciallicensedpesticideapplicatorssuggestedalinkbetweenglyphosateuseandmultiplemyoeloma[9].MyelomahasbeenassociatedwithagentsthatcauseeitherDNAdamageorimmunesuppression.”

Ho,Mae‐WanPh.D.andProf. Joe Cummins“GlyphosateToxic&RoundupWorse”

InstituteofScienceinSocietyreport07/03/05

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#41‐“NewscientificstudieslinkRoundup(glyphosphate),themostwidelyusedherbicideintheworld,toahostofhealthrisks,suchascancer,miscarriagesanddisruptionofhumansexhormones.”

Long,Cheryl“HazardsoftheWorld’sMostCommonHerbicide”

MotherEarthNews,October/November2005


A‐164

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/2005-10-01/Hazards-of-the-Worlds-Most-Common-Herbicide.aspx

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#42‐“Aseriesofstudieshasfoundthatfarmersdevelopnon‐Hodgkin'slymphomamoreoftenthanotherpeopledo,butuntilnowithasbeendifficultforscientiststoexplainwhythisincreaseoccurs.Newresearch,however,showsthatexposuretotheherbicideglyphosate,commonlysoldasRoundup,isoneexplanation.Thestudywaspublishedin2003byresearchersattheNationalCancerInstitute,theUniversityofNebraskaMedicalCenter,KansasUniversityMedicalCenter,andtheUniversityofIowaCollegeofMedicine.”

StudyLinksHerbicideuseandCancer

ANorthwestCoalitionforAlternativestoPesticidespublication,2010

http://www.pesticide.org/the-buzz/study-links-herbicide-use-and-cancer

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#43‐“5.SUMMARYOFGLYPHOSATEIMPACTSONAMPHIBIANS

Thissummaryisderivedalmostentirelyfromtoxicologicalstudiesontadpolesandlate‐stageanuranembryos.Theimpactofglyphosateherbicidesonotheramphibiansandotherlifestagesisvirtuallyunknown.

•Recentstudieshaveshownthattadpolesareoneofthevertebrategroupsmostsensitivetothetoxicityeffectsofmostcommercialformulationsofglyphosateherbicides,includingVision.

•TheestimatedLC50valuesforsomespeciesofamphibiansareatorbelowtheexpectedenvironmentalconcentration(EEC)of1.43mga.e./LofVision(Table1).MostLC50valuesarecalculatedfromexperimentaldurationsof24to96hours,butatlowconcentrationsdeathmaynotoccuruntilafter96hours.ThissuggeststhatamphibiansmaybeevenmoresensitivethanthepublishedLC50valuessuggest.

•AlthoughLC50valueshavetraditionallybeenusedtosethazardquotients,recentriskanalysismethodologysuggeststhatLC10valuesarebetterforjudgingpopulation‐levelimpactsofenvironmentalcontaminants(SolomonandThompson2003).Inatleastonepublishedstudy,allNorthAmericanamphibianlarvaetestedtodatehadLC10valuesestimatedatorbelowtheEECforVision,especiallyatpHhigherthan7.0.

•Inadditiontodirectmortalityeffects,glyphosateherbicidesalsocausesublethaleffects,includingreducedgrowthanddevelopmentrates,behaviouralimpairment,andgenomiceffects.Thepopulation‐levelconsequencesofthesesublethaleffectshavenotbeentestedunderfieldconditions.Forexample,reducedgrowthanddevelopmentrates,whichhavebeendocumentedunderlaboratoryconditions,couldtranslateintoincreasedmortalityifamphibianlarvaeareunabletometamorphosebeforetheendoftheseason.Similarly,impairedbehaviouralresponsetoproddingunderlaboratoryconditionscouldtranslatetoincreasedsusceptibilitytopredatorsunderfieldconditions.


A‐165

•Impactshavebeenshowntobesynergisticallyenhancedbyinteractionwithsomeenvironmentalfactors.OfparticularconcernisthattheeffectsofglyphosateherbicidemaybegreaterwhenpondpHis7orhigher(Edgintonetal.2004a).Amphibiansingeneralavoidacidicconditions,preferringtobreedinpondswithhigherpH,whichcouldincreasetheirvulnerabilitytoglyphosateherbicideimpacts.

•Moredetailedtoxicologicalstudiesindicatethatthetoxicityofglyphosateherbicidesarisesnotfromtheactiveingredient,glyphosate,butfromthesurfactant,POEA.

•POEAisthoughttointerferewiththesynthesisofcollagenandtoreducethebranchialcartilageinthegillsoftadpolesandtocauselysisofgillepithelialcellsinfish.Thiscouldresultinlossofosmoticstabilityandasphyxiation.Thetoxicmodeofactioninterrestrial,postmetamorphicamphibiansisnotknownatformulationswithoutPOEAsurfactants,suchasRodeo,andformulationswithothersurfactants,suchasRoundupBiactive,havereducedtoxicitytoamphibians.(pg.31)

Govindarajulu,PurnimaP.Ph.D.,“Literaturereviewofimpactsofglyphosateherbicideonamphibians:WhatriskscanthesilviculturaluseofthisherbicideposeforamphibiansinB.C.?”

BritishColumbiaMinisteryoftheEnvironment,WildlifeReportNo.R‐28,June2008

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/442206/finishdownloaddocument.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#44‐“ChronicEffectsofGlyphosateversusFormulations:Throughoutthisstudyglyphosateitselfshowednochroniceffectsondevelopingtadpoles.ThetadpolesrearedintheformulationsRoundupOriginal®andTransorb®didshowsignificantphysicalabnormalities.AbnormalitieswerealsofounduponexposuretothesurfactantPOEA.ForallendpointsPOEAshowedpracticallyidenticalresultstotheRoundupOriginal®formulationwhereasthesamecannotbesaidfortheTransorb®formulation.ThesurfactantusedintheTransorbformulationisnotknown(beingprotectedas“TradeSecret”),buthasbeendescribedasa“surfactantblend”.This“surfactantblend”mayberesponsibleforinhibitionofmetamorphosis,aswellastheskewedsexratiotowardsfemaleseeninthepresentstudy.DevelopmentalabnormalitiesinducedbyRounduparelikelyaresultofendocrinedisruption.Thethyroidaxiscanbegreatlyaffectedbycorticoidsandsexsteroidswhichinfluencehypothalamicandpituitarycontrol(SeeDoddandDodd,1976,andHayes,1997forreview).Corticoids,sexsteroidsandprolactinhavecauseddelayedmetamorphosisanddecreasedsizebybothantagonizingandinhibitingthyroidaction(Hayes,1997).Sexsteroidcaninducedsexreversalandintersexinamphibiansandmammals,whilelowthyroidlevelsinterferewithvitellogenesis.Aconcentrationatwhichtheanimalswerenoteffected(NOEC)byTheRoundupformulationswasnotdeterminedbythisstudy.”

ChristinaHowe,Ph.D.,MichaelBerrillPh.D.,andBruceD.Pauli“TheAcuteandChronicToxicityofGlyphosate‐BasedPesticidesinNorthernLeopardFrogs”

AmphibianEcologyandPathobiology,August14,2002


A‐166

http://www.trentu.ca/biology/berrill/Research/Roundup_Poster.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#45‐“Concern#1:Roundupisonlyintendedforterrestrialuse,notaquaticuse.

Whileitmaybeintendedforterrestrialuse,thereisoverwhelmingevidencethatRoundupgetsintoaquatichabitats,typicallythroughinadvertent(orunavoidable)aerialoverspray(Newtonetal.1984,GoldsboroughandBrown1989,Fengetal.1990,Thompsonetal.2004).Todeterminetheeffectonamphibians,Relyea(2005a)simulatedadirectoversprayofasmallwetlandusingpondmesocosms(1000‐litertanks).TheresultwaswidespreaddeathformanyspeciesandthedeathratewasmuchhigherthanexpectedbasedonpreviousstudiesofRoundup.ItisrelativelycommonknowledgethatRoundupshouldnotbeappliedtolargepondsandlakes,butitseemstobemuchlesscommonlyappreciatedthatmanyamphibiansarenotproducedinlargepondsandlakesduetopredationbyfish.Instead,smalltemporarywetlandsthatmayappeartobeunimportantandonlyhave6"ofwatercan,infact,producethousandsoftadpoles.Thesesmall,temporarypoolsareeithernotavoidedornotavoidablebyaerialpesticideapplications.

Moreover,Roundupisnotonlylethaltoamphibianlarvae.NewstudieshavefoundthatRoundupcanbehighlylethaltoterrestrialamphibiansaswell(Relyea2005c).”

“Concern#2:TheapplicationrateofRoundupwas7timestoohigh

Theapplicationrateof6ouncesper300squarefeetcamedirectlyfromthelabelofMonsanto's"RoundupWeedandGrassKiller".WhatMonsantoisclaimingisthattheapplicationrateforthisRoundupishigherthantheirlistedapplicationrateforotherformsofRoundup.However,bothapplicationratescomefromMonsanto.Moreover,itiswellacceptedbyMonsantoandtheapplicatorsofRoundupthatsometypesofweedsrequireuptofourtimestherecommendedapplicationratetobeeffective.”

“Concern#4:ApastriskassessmenthasshownthatRoundupposesminimalrisktoamphibians

TheriskassessmentwasconductedbyGiesyetal.(2000),incooperationwithMonsanto,andtheassessmentwasbasedontheavailabledataatthattime.Foramphibians,dataonlyexistedforfourspeciesofAustraliantadpolesandonespeciesofAfricanfrog.Fromthesestudies,theLC50estimates(theamountofpesticideneededtokill50%oftheanimals)were4to16mga.i./L(MannandBidwell1999,Perkinsetal.2000).

MorerecentLC50laboratorydataforNorthAmericanamphibiansdemonstratethatNorthAmericanamphibiansaremuchmoresensitive;LC50valuesrangefrom0.5to4.7mga.i./L(Edgintonetal.2004,Relyea2005b).AccordingtoU.S.FishandWildlifeclassifications,thismeansthatRoundupcannolongerbeconsideredslightlytomoderatelytoxic,butrathermoderatelytohighlytoxictoNorthAmericanamphibians.”

Relya,RickPh.D.“RoundupisHighlyLethal”

Dr.RelyaRespondstoMonsanto’sConcernsRegardingRecentPublishedStudy


A‐167

Mindfully.org,April1,2005

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Relyea-Monsanto-Roundup1apr05.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#46‐“Basedonthebestavailableinformation,theAgencymakesaLikelytoAdverselyAffectdeterminationfortheCRLFfromtheuseofglyphosate.Additionally,theAgencyhasdeterminedthatthereisthepotentialformodificationofCRLFdesignatedcriticalhabitatfromtheuseofthechemical.

Thisassessmentindicatesthatdirecteffectstotheterrestrial‐phaseCRLFeatingbroadleafplants,smallinsectsandsmallherbivorousmammalsonadietary‐basismaybeatriskfollowingchronicexposuretoglyphosateatapplicationratesof7.5lba.e./Aandabove(forestry,areaswithimpervioussurfacesandrightsofway).Inaddition,foroneparticularformulation(RegistrationNo.524‐424),mediumandlarge‐sizedCRLF’seatingsmallherbivorousmammalsonadose‐basismaybeatriskfollowingacuteexposureatanapplicationrateof5.5lbformulation/A(industrialoutdooruses).Atthelowestapplicationrateof1.1lbformulation/A,thereispotentialrisktomedium‐sizedCRLF’seatingsmallherbivorousmammalsonadose‐basis(ornamentallawnsandturf).”(Pg.173)

Carey,Stephen,TanjaCrk,ColleenFlaherty,PamelaHurley,JamesHetrick,KearaMoore,andSilviaC.Termes“RisksofGlyphosateUsetoFederallyThreatenedCaliforniaRed‐leggedFrog(Ranaauroradraytonii)‐‐PesticideEffectsDetermination”

AReportbytheEnvironmentalFateandEffectsDivisionOfficeofPesticideProgramsWashington,D.C.20460,October17,2008

http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/glyphosate/determination.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#47‐“Glyphosateistheposterchildfortheglobalpesticidecontroversyduetoitsplaceintheongoingdebateovermega‐farmingandgeneticallyengineeredcrops.Industryscientistssayit'soneofthesafestherbicidesintheworld,whileindependentscientistshavediscoveredpotential links amongthewidespreaduseofglyphosate‐basedherbicidesandnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma,birthdefectsandevenattentiondeficitdisorder.ResearchalsoshowsthatadditiveslikesurfactantsinglyphosateinherbicideslikeRounduparemoretoxicthanglyphosateitselfandcanincreasethetoxicityofglyphosate.”

“Thewaroninvasivespeciesisawaronafactoflife.Humanshavecausedorexacerbatedthesespecies"invasions"bychanginghabitatsandintroducingspeciestonewareas,andnowwearetryingtoturnbacktheclockinanattempttopreventnaturefromtakingitsnewcourse.Aslongaspeopleattempttodominatetheland,extractitsresourcesandshapeittotheirliking,therewillbemoneytobemadeanddramaticconsequencesforotherlivingsthings.Thesearchforabalancebetweensupportingourcollectivedesiretoprosperandahealthynaturalworldissuretosparkmoreheateddebatesforyearstocome.”

Ludwig,Mike“SpecialInvestigation:ThePesticidesandPoliticsofAmerica'sEco‐War”

PublishedbyTruthout,June9,2011


A‐168

http://www.truth-out.org/pesticides-and-politics-americas-eco-war/1307539754

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#48‐“Wealsoobservedagraduallossofther3andr5domainsinembryostreatedwithGBH(compareFigure5E,FwithD),whichresemblestheresultsobservedinfrogembryosinthekrox‐20domains(Figures1Band2E).Hybridizationwiththec‐shhprobeshowedthat,asinXenopus,theprechordalmesodermdomainispreferentiallylostinGBH‐treatedchickembryos(compareFigure5GwithH,I).AstheGBHconcentra‐tionincreases,theexpressionalongtheembryonicdorsalmidlinealsograduallydisappears(Figure5H,I).Therefore,ourexperimentswithchickembryosfurtherextendconclusionsfromstudiesabouttheteratogeniceffectsofGBHinamphibianstoothervertebratespecies.DiscussionTheresultspresentedabovearguethatbothGBHandglyphosateitselfinterferewithkeymolecularmechanismsregulatingearlydevelopmentinbothXenopusandchickenembryos,leadingtocongenitalmalformations.Sublethaldosesoftheherbicide(430µMofglyphosatein1/5000dilutionsofGBH)andinjectionsleadingtoafinalconcentrationof8to12µMofglyphosateintheinjectedsideoftheembryoweresufficienttoinduceseriousdisturbancesintheexpressionofslug,otx2,andshh.Thesemolecularphenotypeswerecorrelatedwithadisruptionofdevelopmentalmechanismsinvolvingtheneuralcrest,embryonicdorsalmidlineformation,andcephalicpatterning.Becauseglyphosatepenetrationthroughthecellmembranerequiresfacilitationbyadjuvantspresentincom‐mercialformulations(5,6),wetestedtheeffectsofglyphosatealonebydirectlymicroinjectingitintoXenopusembryos.ThesimilarityofthephenotypesobtainedinbothsituationssuggeststhattheyareattributabletotheactiveprincipleofGBHandnottotheadjuvants.Wewilldiscussourresultsinthefollowingcontext:(1)thecorrelationofourphenotypeswiththoseobservedinanimalmodelswithanimpairmentofRAsignalingordeficitsintheexpressionofcriticalgenesthatcontrolembryonicdevelopment;(2)theprobablemechanismsunderlyingthephenotypesinducedbyGBHandglyphosate;(3)possiblecorrelationswithclinicalcasesofhumanoffspringexhibitingmalformationsinzonesexposedtoGBH.MisregulationofRA,shh,andotx2AreInvolvedinCephalicMalformationsandNeuralCrest‐DerivedPheno‐typesReminiscentoftheEffectsofGBHandGlyphosate.ThephenotypesobtainedafterGBHtreatmentsorinjectionsofglyphosatealonearestrikinglyreminiscentofthoseobservedasaconsequenceofanexcessofRAsignalinginvertebratesandhumans.AcuteorchronicincreaseofRAlevelsleadstoteratogeniceffectsduringhumanpregnancyandinexperimentalFigure4.PhenotypeinducedbyGBHismediatedbyanincreaseofRAsignaling(A).AnalysisofRAactivitywiththereporterplasmidRAREZ.AllembryoswereinjectedwiththereporterplasmidRAREZ,exceptforuninjectedcontrols,andleftuntreatedorweretreatedasindicatedinthefigureuntilstage14‐15,whentheywereprocessed.Resultsareexpressedasarbitraryluminiscenceunitsperµgofprotein.Atwo‐tailedttestwasemployedtoanalyzethesignificanceinthedifferenceofthemeans.**p<0.01;***p<0.0001.(B‐G)WMISHforshhandotx2attailbudstages.(B)Controlembryo.Notochord(n);floorplate(fp);brain(spacebetweenbars),eye(arrowhead).(C)Embryotreatedwith1/5000GBHmanifestingmicrocephaly(spacebetweenbars),reducedeyes(arrowhead),diminishedShhsignalingfromtheprechordalmesoderm(arrow),andshortenedA‐Paxis(78%,n)9).”(Pg.6)

AlejandraPaganelli,VictoriaGnazzo,HelenaAcosta,SilviaL.López,andAndrésE.Carrasco“Glyphosate‐BasedHerbicidesProduceTeratogenicEffectsonVertebratesbyImpairingRetinoicAcidSignaling”


A‐169

PublicadoporNOGALDEVIDA,May20,2010

http://nogaldevida.blogspot.com/2010/08/glyphosate-based-herbicides-produce.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#49‐“AlthoughthereisonlyahandfulofstudiesonthesafetyofGMsoybeans,thereisconsiderableevidencethatglyphosate—especiallyinconjunctionwiththeotheringredientsinRoundup—wreakshavocwiththeendocrineandreproductivesystems.‘Ithinktheconcentrationofglyphosateinthesoybeansisthelikelycauseoftheproblem,’saysEwen.

Glyphosatethrowsoffthedelicatehormonalbalancethatgovernsthewholereproductivecycle.‘It’sanendocrinebuster,’saysEwen,‘thatinterferes with aromatase,whichproducesestrogen.’Aromataseisrequiredbylutealcellstoproducehormonesforthenormalmenstrualcycle,butit’sthoselutealcellsthathaveshownconsiderablealterationsintheratsfedGMsoybeans.

Glyphosateisalsotoxictotheplacenta,theorganwhichconnectsthemothertothefetus,providingnutrientsandoxygen,andemptyingwasteproducts.Ina2009 French studyattheUniversityofCaen,scientistsdiscoveredthatglyphosatecankillthecellsintheouterlayerofthehumanplacenta(thetrophoblastmembrane),whichinturncankilltheplacenta.Theplacentacellsare,inEwen’swords,‘exquisitelysensitivetoglyphosate.’Only1/500ththeamountneededtokillweedswasabletokillthecells.Theamountissosmall,accordingtothestudyauthorsthe‘residuallevelstobeexpected,especiallyinfoodandfeedderivedfromR[oundup]formulation‐treatedcrops’couldbeenoughto‘causecelldamageandeven[cell]death.’Furthermore,theeffectofthetoxinmaybioaccumulate,growingworsewithrepeatedconsumptionfromRoundupladenfoods.

Smith,Jeffery“GeniticallyModifiedSoyDietsLeadandUterusChangesinRats”

foodconsumer.org,September22,2010

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/genetically_modified_soy_diets_0910100128.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#50‐“SuchreportsgainedfurthertractionafteranArgentinegovernmentscientist,AndresCarrascoconductedastudy,"Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling"in2009.

Thestudy,publishedinthejournalChemical Research in Toxicologyin2010,foundthatglyphosatecausesmalformationsinfrogandchickenembryosatdosesfarlowerthanthoseusedinagriculturalspraying.ItalsofoundthatmalformationscausedinfrogandchickenembryosbyRoundupanditsactiveingredientglyphosateweresimilartohumanbirthdefectsfoundingeneticallymodifiedsoy‐producingregions.

"Thefindingsinthelabarecompatiblewithmalformationsobservedinhumansexposedtoglyphosateduringpregnancy,"wroteCarrasco,directoroftheLaboratoryofMolecularEmbryologyattheUniversityofBuenosAires."Isuspectthetoxicityclassificationofglyphosateistoolow.”“

“FagantoldHuffPostthatamongdevelopmentalbiologistswhoarenotbeholdentothechemicalindustryorthebiotechnologyindustry,thereisstrongrecognitionthatCarrasco’sresearchiscredible.”


A‐170

"Formeasascientist,oneofthereasonsImadetheefforttodothisresearchintotheliteraturewastoreallysatisfythequestionmyselfastowheretherealityofthesituationlies,”headded.“Havingthoroughlyreviewedtheliteratureonthis,IfeelverycomfortableinstandingbehindtheconclusionsProfessorCarrascocametoandthebroaderconclusionsthatwecometoinourpaper.”

“Wecan’tfigureouthowregulatorscouldhavecometotheconclusionsthattheydidiftheyweretakingabalancedtookatthescience,eventhesciencethatwasdonebythechemicalindustryitself.”

Graves,Lucia.“Roundup:BirthDefectsCausedByWorld'sTop‐SellingWeedkiller,ScientistsSay”

byLuciaGraves

PublishedonFriday,June24,2011byHuffington Post

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/24-4

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#51‐"Thisstudywasjustroutine,"saidRussianbiologistAlexeyV.Surov,inwhatcouldendupastheunderstatementofthiscentury.SurovandhiscolleaguessetouttodiscoverifMonsanto'sgeneticallymodified(GM)soy,grownon91%ofUSsoybeanfields,leadstoproblemsingrowthorreproduction.Whathediscoveredmayuprootamulti‐billiondollarindustry.

Afterfeedinghamstersfortwoyearsoverthreegenerations,thoseontheGMdiet,andespeciallythegrouponthemaximumGMsoydiet,showeddevastatingresults.Bythethirdgeneration,mostGMsoy‐fedhamsterslosttheabilitytohavebabies.Theyalsosufferedslowergrowth,andahighmortalityrateamongthepups.

Andifthisisn'tshockingenough,someinthethirdgenerationevenhadhairgrowinginsidetheirmouths—aphenomenonrarelyseen,butapparentlymoreprevalentamonghamsterseatingGMsoy.”

“InadditiontotheGMOs,itcouldbecontaminants,hesaid,orhigherherbicideresidues,suchasRoundup.ThereisinfactmuchhigherlevelsofRounduponthesebeans;they'recalled"RoundupReady."BacterialgenesareforcedintotheirDNAsothattheplantscantolerateMonsanto'sRoundupherbicide.Therefore,GMsoyalwayscarriesthedoublethreatofhigherherbicidecontent,couplewithanysideeffectsofgeneticengineering.

Withoutdetailedtests,noonecanpinpointexactlywhatiscausingthereproductivetravestiesinRussianhamstersandrats,ItalianandAustrianmice,andlivestockinIndiaandAmerica.Andwecanonlyspeculateabouttherelationshipbetweentheintroductionofgeneticallymodifiedfoodsin1996,andthecorrespondingupsurgeinlowbirthweightbabies,infertility,andotherproblemsamongtheUSpopulation.Butmanyscientists,physicians,andconcernedcitizensdon'tthinkthatthepublicshouldremainthelabanimalsforthebiotechindustry'smassiveuncontrolledexperiment.


A‐171

AlexeySurovsays,"WehavenorighttouseGMOsuntilweunderstandthepossibleadverseeffects,notonlytoourselvesbuttofuturegenerationsaswell.Wedefinitelyneedfullydetailedstudiestoclarifythis.Anytypeofcontaminationhastobetestedbeforeweconsumeit,andGMOisjustoneofthem."

Smith,Jeffery“GeneticallyModifiedSoyLinkedtoSterility,InfantMortality”

foodconsumer.org,September22,2010

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Watch-List/genetically_modified_soy_linked_to_sterility_infant_mortality_22.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#52‐“AstudyreleasedbyanArgentinescientistearlierthisyearreportsthatglyphosate,patentedbyMonsantounderthename"RoundUp,"causesbirthdefectswhenappliedindosesmuchlowerthanwhatiscommonlyusedinsoyfields.

Thestudywasdirectedbyaleadingembryologist,Dr.AndresCarrasco,aprofessorandresearcherattheUniversityofBuenosAires.Inhisofficeinthenation'stopmedicalschool,Dr.Carrascoshowsmetheresultsofthestudy,pullingoutphotosofbirthdefectsintheembryosoffrogamphibiansexposedtoglyphosate.Thefrogembryosgrowninpetridishesinthephotoslookedlikesomethingfromafuturistichorrorfilm,creatureswithvisibledefects—oneeyethesizeofthehead,spinalcorddeformations,andkidneysthatarenotfullydeveloped.

"Weinjectedtheamphibianembryocellswithglyphosatedilutedtoaconcentration1,500timesthanwhatisusedcommerciallyandweallowedtheamphibianstogrowinstrictlycontrolledconditions."Dr.Carrascoreportsthattheembryossurvivedfromafertilizedeggstateuntilthetadpolestage,butdevelopedobviousdefectswhichwouldcompromisetheirabilitytoliveintheirnormalhabitats.

Trigona,Marie“GMO–MonsantoSoyHerbicidecouldPoseHealthRisks”

AmericasProgram,CenterforInternationalPolicy(CIP),July13,2009

http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-36061426.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#53‐“AstudyreleasedbyanArgentinescientistearlierthisyearreportsthatglyphosate,patentedbyMonsantounderthename“RoundUp,”causesbirthdefectswhenappliedindosesmuchlowerthanwhatiscommonlyusedinsoyfields.

Thestudywasdirectedbyaleadingembryologist,Dr.AndresCarrasco,aprofessorandresearcherattheUniversityofBuenosAires.Inhisofficeinthenation’stopmedicalschool,Dr.Carrascoshowsmetheresultsofthestudy,pullingoutphotosofbirthdefectsintheembryosoffrogamphibiansexposedtoglyphosate.Thefrogembryosgrowninpetridishesinthephotoslookedlikesomethingfromafuturistichorrorfilm,creatureswithvisibledefects‐oneeyethesizeofthehead,spinalcorddeformations,andkidneysthatarenotfullydeveloped.”


A‐172

Trigona,Marie“StudyreleasedinArgentinaputsglyphosateunderfire”

SOURCEAmericasProgram,CenterforInternationalPolicy,USA,July13,2009

PublishedbyPrismWebcastNews

http://prismwebcastnews.com/2009/08/06/study-released-in-argentina-puts-glyphosate-under-fire/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#54‐“RelyeafoundthatRoundupcauseda70percentdeclineinamphibianbiodiversityandan86percentdeclineinthetotalmassoftadpoles.LeopardFrogtadpolesandGrayTreefrogtadpoleswerecompletelyeliminatedandWoodFrogtadpolesandtoad(Bufo)tadpoleswerenearlyeliminated.Onespeciesoffrog,SpringPeepers,wasunaffected."ThemostshockinginsightcomingoutofthiswasthatRoundup,somethingdesignedtokillplants,wasextremelylethaltoamphibians,"saidRelyea,whoconductedtheresearchatPitt’sPymatuningLaboratoryofEcology."WeaddedRoundup,andthenextdaywelookedinthetanksandthereweredeadtadpolesalloverthebottom."“

RoundupRavagesRiparianResidents”

TheCenterforNorthAmericanHerpetology.NEWSRELEASE18April2005

http://www.csupomona.edu/~cmbrady/courses/bio304/Roundup.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#55‐“FalseResearch

TheEPAhastwicecaughtscientistsdeliberatelyfalsifyingresultsatresearchlaboratorieshiredbyMonsantotostudyglyphosate.

In1983,theEPArevealedthatIndustrialBiotestLaboratories(IBL)routinelyfalsifiedresultsoftheir1971researchperformedonglyphosate.TestsperformedatIBLincludedelevenoutofnineteentotalchronictoxicologystudiesonglyphosate;studiesinstrumentalinitsretainingregistrationin1974.

In1991,theEPAallegedthatCravenLaboratories,anotherlabhiredbyMonsantotostudytheeffectsofglyphosate,hadfalsifiedtestresults.Severalmethodswereused,includingmanipulationofequipmentandnotebookentries.”

“Alaskahasaneconomicandculturaldependenceonthewelfareofsalmonandotherfishspecies,soitisparticularlyvitalforAlaskanstoknowthatglyphosate,andevenmoresoglyphosateherbicides,areacutelytoxictofish.

Thetoxicityofglyphosate,whichismostpotentlydangeroustoyoungerfish,increasesaswatertemperaturerises.Ironically,theuseofglyphosatecauseswatertemperaturestoincreaseforseveralyearsfollowingtreatment,astheherbicidekillsshadingvegetation.Thisissignificantinmorethanonewayforsalmon,asjuvenilesalmonrequirecoldwatertothriveunderevennormalenvironmentalcircumstances.


A‐173

Theeffectsofglyphosateonfishhavebeendocumentedusingrainbowtrout,whichexhibitederraticswimmingandlaboredbreathing,effectswhichcanincreasetheriskthatfishwillbeeaten,aswellasaffectingabilitytofeed,migrate,andreproduce.”

James,Carrie“AerialHerbicideSpraying”

SitNews(Ketchikan,Alaska)June19,2004

http://www.sitnews.us/0604Viewpoints/061904_carrie_james.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#56‐“Worldwide,amphibianpopulationsarereportedtobeinastateofdecline.Causativefactorsareincompletelyunderstood.InecosystemsofnortheasternNorthAmerica,multiplestressorsofpesticidecontaminationandacidificationmaybeinvolved.Asaninitialcomponentofamulti‐tierinvestigation,theeffectsofforest‐useherbicidesVision®(glyphosate)andRelease®(triclopyr)arebeingstudiedusingXenopuslaevis,RanapipiensandRanaclamitans.Twodifferentlifestagesofamphibians,embryos(blastulastage)andlarvae(Gosnerstage25),arebeingused.InteractiveeffectsofvariousherbicideconcentrationsandpH(5.5and7.5)arebeingstudiedusingtheorganismsexposedin96hrstaticrenewaltests.TheFrogEmbryoTeratogenesisAssay‐Xenopus(FETAX)protocolisusedfortheembryostageforthedeterminationofmortality,malformationandgrowthdata.ThelarvalexposuresarebeingdevelopedandrefinedtocomparesensitivitiestotheFETAXassay.Thelarval96hrstaticrenewalexposureisfollowedbya10‐daywater‐onlyrecoveryperiod.SensitivitiesarebeingcomparedtodeterminetheappropriatenessoftheexoticamphibianXenopuslaevisfortoxicitytesting.ResultsontoxicitytodateindicatethatVision®ismoretoxictoallspeciesatpH7.5thanatpH5.5.ThereversehasbeenshownforRelease®.Inaddition,thelarvalstagehasconsistentlybeenshowntobemoresensitivethantheblastulastage.Understandingspeciessensitivitiesandherbicide/pHinteractionswillaidinalteringforestryherbicideusepatternstominimizeeffectsonamphibiansandothernon‐targetorganisms.”

Edginton,AndreaN.Ph.D.“Multiplestressoreffectsinamphibians:herbicide/pHinteraction”

Apresentationatthe5thAnnualoftheCanadianAmphibianandReptileConservationNetwork,September22‐25,2000

http://www.carcnet.ca/past_meetings/2000/pastmeeting2000.php

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#57‐“Wehaveevaluatedthetoxicityoffourglyphosate(G)‐basedherbicidesinRoundup(R)formulations,from105timesdilutions,onthreedifferenthumancelltypes.Thisdilutionlevelisfarbelowagriculturalrecommendationsandcorrespondstolowlevelsofresiduesinfoodorfeed.TheformulationshavebeencomparedtoGaloneandwithitsmainmetaboliteAMPAorwithoneknownadjuvantofRformulations,POEA.HUVECprimaryneonateumbilicalcordveincellshavebeentestedwith293embryonickidneyandJEG3placentalcelllines.AllRformulationscausetotalcelldeathwithin24h,throughaninhibitionofthemitochondrialsuccinatedehydrogenaseactivity,andnecrosis,byreleaseofcytosolicadenylatekinasemeasuringmembranedamage.Theyalsoinduceapoptosisviaactivationofenzymaticcaspases3/7activity.ThisisconfirmedbycharacteristicDNAfragmentation,nuclearshrinkage(pyknosis),andnuclear


A‐174

fragmentation(karyorrhexis),whichisdemonstratedbyDAPIinapoptoticroundcells.Gprovokesonlyapoptosis,andHUVECare100timesmoresensitiveoverallatthislevel.ThedeleteriouseffectsarenotproportionaltoGconcentrationsbutratherdependonthenatureoftheadjuvants.AMPAandPOEAseparatelyandsynergisticallydamagecellmembraneslikeRbutatdifferentconcentrations.

Benachour,NoraandGilles‐EricSeralini“GlyphosateFormulations

InduceApoptosisandNecrosisinHumanUmbilical,Embryonic,

andPlacentalCells”

ChemicalResearchinToxicology,2009,22(1),pp97–105

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#58‐“Caseexample:OkanoganNFIntegratedWeedManagementEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)(1997,1999)

TheOkanoganNFIntegratedWeedManagementEAfor1997receivedmanycommentsfromthepublicaskingfordocumentationandanalysisoftherisksofherbicidestohumanhealthandsafety,yetalloftheseconcernsforsafetywerelumpedintoasingleissueonp.15‐16:

Noxiousweedpopulationscandegraderecreationalexperiencesbydecreasingthedesirabilityofcampsites,replacingnativeplantpopulationsindevelopedanddispersedareasandchangingthescenery.Herbicidecontactcouldposeriskstohumanhealththroughskinexposure,inhalation,oringestion.Somenoxiousweedsalsoposeriskstohumanhealth.

Themarginalizationofhumanhealthasmere“issues”ratherthanactualhazardssuggeststhattherewasneveranyintentionofquestioningthesafetyoruseofherbicides,exceptinaverylimitedfashion,andthisisborneoutintheanalysissection.

TwoyearslatertheOkanoganNFpreparedasecondEA(1999)andthroughanotherpubliccommentprocess,theissuesidentifiedthroughpubliccommentswereexactlythesame.

Whyaretheissuesofpublichealthignored?AccordingtotherationalizationgivenintheEA(OkanoganNF,1997,p.17),publiccommentswereaddressedina“higherleveldocument”.Inotherwords,concernsabouthumanhealthandsafetywerenotconsideredintheEA.Byitslimitedscope,theagencyeffectivelyavoidshavingtoconsiderissuesthatitdoesn'twantto.

ThepurposeofanEAistoassessaproblem,proposeandevaluatealternativesandselectthemosteffectiveremedy,whichshouldbetheleastharmfultotheenvironment.Inthiscase,thealternativetouseherbicideshadbeenselectedpriortodoingananalysis.TheEAwasonlyusedtojustifyapredetermineddecisionratherthantrulyexplorealternatives.”

FromChapter3.Adverseimpactsinthereport:“RiskyBusiness:InvasivespeciesmanagementonNationalForests‐Areviewandsummaryofneededchangesincurrentplans,policiesandprograms”


A‐175

ApublicationoftheKettleRangeConservationGroup,February,2001

http://kettlerange.org/weeds/Chapter-3.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#59‐“Inonestudy,forinstance,weexposedneuralstageembryosandnewlyhatchedtadpolesofgreenfrogstolowlevelsoftheherbicideglyphosate.Following96hoursofexposuretotheherbicide,survivinganimalsweremovedtofreshwater.Nominalglyphosateconcentrationsof1.2to4.0ppminitiallycausedtadpolesparalysisfromwhichtheyeventuallyrecovered.Duringthefirst24hoursofexposureto8.0ppm,alltadpoleseitherdiedorwerecompletelyparalysed.Furthermore,almostallofthesurvivorsfromthefirst24hoursofexposurediedbeforethecompletionofthe96‐hourexposureperiod.Follow‐uptestsindicatedthatmuchofthetoxicitycouldbeattributedtothesurfactantusedintheRoundUp®formulationofglyphosate.”

Pauli,BruceandM.BerrillPh.D.“PesticidesandBehaviourinTadpoles”

InEnvironmentalContaminantsandAmphibiansinCanada

http://www.open.ac.uk/daptf/froglog/FROGLOG-16-5.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#60‐“BUENOSAIRES–Theherbicideusedongeneticallymodifiedsoy–Argentina’smaincrop–couldcausebrain,intestinalandheartdefectsinfetuses,accordingtotheresultsofascientificinvestigationreleasedMonday.

Althoughthestudy“usedamphibianembryos,”theresults“arecompletelycomparabletowhatwouldhappeninthedevelopmentofahumanembryo,”embryologyprofessorAndresCarrasco,oneofthestudy’sauthors,toldEfe.”

“Carrascosaidthattheresearchfoundthat“pureglyphosate,indoseslowerthanthoseusedinfumigation,causesdefects...(and)couldbeinterferinginsomenormalembryonicdevelopmentmechanismhavingtodowiththewayinwhichcellsdivideanddie.”

““Thecompaniessaythatdrinkingaglassofglyphosateishealthierthandrinkingaglassofmilk,butthefactisthatthey’veusedusasguineapigs,”hesaid.”

“HerbicideUsedinArgentinaCouldCauseBirthDefects”

LatinAmericanHeraldTribune,April30,2009

http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/roundup-report-Argentina.htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#61‐“DENVER,Colo.—Recognizingthethreatposedbyexpandinguseofdangerouspesticidesacross18westernstates,competitionfrominvadingbullfrogs,nonnativediseases,andlossofwetlands,theU.S.FishandWildlifeServicewillannouncetomorrowtheirconclusionthatwesternpopulationsofthenorthernleopardfrogmaywarrantprotectionundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct.”


A‐176

“TheuseofRoundup(aproprietaryherbicidecontainingglyphosate),whichislethaltoamphibiansevenatrecommendedlevelsaccordingtorecentstudies,alsothreatensthewesternleopardfrog.RoundupReadycrops(resistanttoRoundupsotheherbicidecanbebroadlyappliedtokillweeds)compriseasignificantportionofcropacreageinthemidwesternUnitedStates.In2004,RoundupReadysoybeancropscomprised89percentofallsoybeancropsinIowa,82percentinMinnesota,92percentinNebraska,82percentinNorthDakota,and95percentinSouthDakota.”

WesternLeopardFrogsMoveaStepClosertoProtection‐‐U.S.FishandWildlifeService:Pesticides,Disease,InvasiveSpecies,andHabitatLossMayThreatenNativeFrogswithExtinction

CenterforBiologicalDiversitynewsrelease,June30,2009

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/western-leopard-frog-06-30-2009.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#62‐“EduardoNeaves,a12‐year‐old,wentswimminginacanalinCoralGables,FloridathatwascontaminatedwithfourtimestherecommendedamountofRoundUpherbicide.Thechildbecamecompletelyparalyzed,andfiveyearsaftertheincidentsuffersresidualnervoussystemdamage.

TheEPA,accordingtothisarticle,in1985reportedonthecaseofa59‐year‐oldwomaninTennesseewhohassufferedcentralnervoussystemdamageafterexposuretoRoundUp.

Monsanto'soriginalneurotoxicitystudiesonRoundUpwereruledinvalidbytheEPAdueto"extensivegapsintherawdatasupportingstudyfindingsandconclusions.TherehasbeennorequirementforanewstudyontheneurotoxicityofRoundUp.”

“AnecdotalEvidenceofRoundUp'sToxicity”

NaturesCountryStore

FromJuly1987editionofTheProgressive,andarticleentitled'WeedKiller'

http://www.naturescountrystore.com/roundup/page7.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#63‐“Agroupofinternationalscientistshasreleasedareportdetailinghealthandenvironmentalhazardsfromthecultivationofgeneticallymodified(GM)RoundupReadysoyandtheuseofglyphosate(Roundup®)herbicide.

Thereport,GMSoy:Sustainable?Responsible?,[1]highlightsnewresearchbyArgentinegovernmentscientist,ProfessorAndrésCarrasco,[2]whichfoundthatglyphosatecausesmalformationsinfrogandchickenembryosatdosesfarlowerthanthoseusedinagriculturalspraying.

“Thefindingsinthelabarecompatiblewithmalformationsobservedinhumansexposedtoglyphosateduringpregnancy,”saidCarrasco.”


A‐177

Antoniou,Michael,PauloBrackPh.D.,AndrésCarrascoPh.D.,JohnFagan,MohamedEzzEl‐DinMostafaHabibPh.D.,PauloYoshioKageyamaPh.D.,CarloLeifertPh.D,RubensOnofreNodariPh.D.,WalterA.PenguePh.D.“GMSoy:Sustainable?Responsible?”

GMWatch,13September2010

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ANA20101010&articleId=21382

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#64‐“ThreerecentstudiesshowthatRoundup,whichisusedbyfarmersandhomegardeners,isnotthesafeproductwehavebeenledtotrust.

AgroupofscientistsledbybiochemistProfessorGilles‐EricSeralinifromtheUniversityofCaeninFrancefoundthathumanplacentalcellsareverysensitivetoRoundupatconcentrationslowerthanthosecurrentlyusedinagriculturalapplication.

AnepidemiologicalstudyofOntariofarmingpopulationsshowedthatexposuretoglyphosate,thekeyingredientinRoundup,nearlydoubledtheriskoflatemiscarriages.Seraliniandhisteamdecidedtoresearchtheeffectsoftheherbicideonhumanplacentacells.Theirstudyconfirmedthetoxicityofglyphosate,asaftereighteenhoursofexposureatlowconcentrations,largeproportionsofhumanplacentabegantodie.Seralinisuggeststhatthismayexplainthehighlevelsofprematurebirthsandmiscarriagesobservedamongfemalefarmersusingglyphosate.”

Heong,CheeYoke“NewEvidenceEstablishesDangersofRoundup”

ThirdWorldResurgence,No.176,April2005

Re‐publishedbyProjectCensored

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-new-evidence-establishes-dangers-of-roundup/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#65‐“Colombia‐AColombiancourtonFridayorderedthegovernmenttosuspendimmediatelyaerialsprayingofdrugcropswiththeherbicideglyphosate,apotentialblowtoPresidentAndresPastrana'santi‐cocaineoffensive.

BogotaJudgeGilbertoReyesDelgado,rulinginfavorofindigenousgroupsthathadprotestedthesprayingprogram,saidhehadaskedthegovernmenttoprovidestudiesonglyphosate'seffectsontheenvironmentandhumanhealth.”

“EcuadorrecentlyaskedColombiatostopaerialcropsprayingneartheborderthetwonationsshareoverfearsglyphosatecouldharmEcuadoreans'healthanddamagesubsistencecropsintheregion'sjungletowns.”

“ColumbianCourtSuspendsAerialSprayingofRounduponDrugCrops”

Reuters,July27,2001

RepublishedbyMindfilly.org

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Drug-Spray-Colombia.htm


A‐178

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#66‐“Inshort,Monsanto'sRoundupReadytechnologyisemergingasanenvironmentaldisaster.Thequestionisn'twhyajudgedemandedanenvironmentalimpactstudyofRoundupReadysugarbeetsin2010;it'sthatnoonedidsoin1996beforethetechnologywasrolledout.Afterall,theUnionofConcernedScientistswasalreadyquite,well,concernedbackthen.”

“AsIwrote in June,ratherthansparkareassessmentofthewisdomofrelyingontoxicchemicals,thefailureofRoundupReadyhastheU.S.agriculturalestablishmentscramblingtointensifychemicaluse.CompanieslikeDowAgrisciencearedustingoffold,highlytoxicpoisonslike2, 4-Dandpromotingthemasthe"answer"toRoundup'sproblems.”

Philpott,Tom.“WhyMonsantoispayingfarmerstosprayitsrivals’herbicides”

Grist,October20,2010

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-10-20-why-monsanto-paying-farmers-to-spray-rival-herbicides/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#67‐“Glyphosateisnomorethanslightlytoxictofish,andpracticallynon‐toxictoamphibians(McComb1990)andaquaticinvertebrateanimals.”(page4)

“Forglyphosateanditsformulations,findingsarefromstudiesconductedbythemanufacturer.ThesestudieshavebeenpresentedtoEPAtosupportproductregistration,butmaynotbeavailabletothepublic.(page5)

“Sincethe1988rating,EPAhasconcludedthatglyphosateshouldbeclassifiedashavingevidenceofnoncarcinogenicityforhumans.Therewasnoconvincingevidenceofcarcinogenicityinnewstudiesintwoanimalspecies(DykstraandGhali1991).(page7)

“GlyphosateHerbicideInformationProfile”

ForestServicePacificNorthwestRegion,February,1997

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/pubsweb/gly.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#68‐“TwonewstudiesindicatethatMonsanto'sherbicide,Roundup,isahormone‐disruptorandisassociatedwithbirthdefectsinhumans.

FarmfamiliesthatappliedpesticidestotheircropsinMinnesotawerestudiedtoseeiftheirelevatedexposuretopesticidescausedbirthdefectsintheirchildren.Thestudyfoundthattwokindsofpesticides‐‐fungicidesandtheherbicideRoundup‐‐werelinkedtostatisticallysignificantincreasesinbirthdefects.Roundupwaslinkedtoa3‐foldincreaseinneurodevelopmental(attentiondeficit)disorders.[EHPSupplement3,Vol.110(June2002),pgs.441‐449.]

“ArecenttesttubestudyrevealsthatRoundupcanseverelyreducetheabilityofmousecellstoproducehormones.RoundupinterfereswithafundamentalproteincalledStAR(steroidogenicacuteregulatoryprotein).TheStARproteiniskeytotheproductionoftestosteroneinmen(thuscontrollingmalecharacteristics,includingspermproduction)butalsotheproductionofadrenalhormone(essentialforbraindevelopment),carbohydratemetabolism(leadingtolossorgainof


A‐179

weight),andimmunesystemfunction.Theauthorspointoutthat"adisruptionoftheStARproteinmayunderliemanyofthetoxiceffectsofenvironmentalpollutants."[EHPVol.108,No.8(August2000),pgs.769‐776.]”

“Monsanto’sRoundupHerbicideThreatensPublicHealth”

Rachel'sEnvironmentandHealthNews,issue751,Sept.5,2002.

ReprintedbyOrganicConsumersAssociation

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/roundup92502.cfm

http://www.whale.to/b/roundup_h.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#69‐“Exposureofmammalstoglyphosatemaycauselossofmitochondrialtransmembranepotentialandresultinoxidativestresstoliverandbrain[27,28].Bothapoptosisandautophagyareinvolvedinglyphosatetoxicitymechanisms[29]CasereportsindicatedthatexposuretoglyphosatewasrelatedtoParkinsonism[19,30].

Conclusions

Glyphosateresiduecouldreachhumansandanimalsthroughfeedandexcretedinurine.Presenceofglyphosateinurineanditsaccumulationinanimaltissuesisalarmingevenatlowconcentrations.Unknownimpactsofglyphosateonhumanandanimalhealthwarrantsfurtherinvestigationsofglyphosateresiduesinvertebratesandothernon‐targetorganisms.”

Krüger,MonicaPh.D.etal.“DetectionofGlyphosateResiduesinAnimalsandHumans”

JournalofEnvironmental&AnalyticalToxicology,2014,4:2

http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#70‐“Only23ofthe9,990foodsamplestested,saystheUSDA,showedpesticideresiduesexceedingtheestablishedtolerancelevels.Basedonthis,theagencyisnowclaimingthatthefoodsupplydoesn'tposeasafetyconcern,andthatconsumerscaneatupwithoutworry.

Butwhattheagencyisn'tdivulgingisthattolerancelevelscontinuallychangeasaresultofcorporatelobbying.Asmorepesticidesareneededtogrowgenetically‐modifiedorganisms(GMOs)andotherunnaturalfactoryfoods,moreresiduesremain,thustheneedfornewlimits.

NotonlydoestheEPAcontinuetoevaluatethesafetyofpesticidesinisolation,ignoringtheeffectsofsynergistic,real‐lifeexposurestomanydifferentpesticides,buttheagencyhasalsorepeatedlysuccumbedtocorporatelobbyingpressurestoupthesafetylimitsforknownhazardouspesticides.”

“USDArefusestotestfoodsforglyphosatecontamination,sayspesticidesaresafetoeat”


A‐180

PublishedinNaturalNews,January9,2015

http://www.naturalnews.com/048237_glyphosate_contamination_USDA.html

http://agrihunt.com/agri-news/6528-usda-refuses-to-test-foods-for-glyphosate-contamination.html

http://carlislewellnessnetwork.blogspot.com/2015/01/usda-refuses-to-test-foods-for.html

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#71‐“Astheyearsrollon,suchsuspicionsarebecomingincreasinglyvalidated.Inrecentweeks,we’venotonlylearnedthatGE cornisinnowaycomparabletonaturalcornintermsofnutrition,we’realsodiscoveringtheramificationsofdousingourcropswithlargeamountsofglyphosate—theactiveingredientinMonsanto’sbroad‐spectrumherbicideRoundup.”

“WhileMonsantoinsiststhatRoundupissafeand“minimallytoxic”tohumans,SamselandSeneff'sresearchtellsadifferentstoryaltogether.Theirreport,publishedinthejournalEntropy,1arguesthatglyphosateresidues,foundinmostcommonlyconsumedfoodsintheWesterndietcourtesyofsugar,corn,soyandwheat,“enhancethedamagingeffectsofotherfood‐bornechemicalresiduesandtoxinsintheenvironmenttodisruptnormalbodyfunctionsandinducedisease.”Accordingtotheauthors:

"Negativeimpactonthebodyisinsidiousandmanifestsslowlyovertimeasinflammationdamagescellularsystemsthroughoutthebody.”

“ResearchRevealsPreviouslyUnknownPathwaybywhichGlyphosateWrecksHealth”

ByDr.Mercola

PublishedbyMercola.com,May14,2013

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/14/glyphosate.aspx

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#72‐“Glyphosatemaybethemotivatingfactorfortheautism rateincreaseprojectedby2015.MITComputerScienceandArtificialIntelligenceLaboratory’sDr.StephanieSeneffsaidthathalfofthechildrenintheUnitedStateswillbebornwithautisminthenextdecade.

Autismandglyphosatearelinked,accordingtoDr.StepanieSeneff,andahostofotherresearcherswhohavestudiedthechemical,whichisverypopularwithbiotechgiantslikeMonsantoandSyngenta.Dr.Seneffasksthefollowing:

“IsthereatoxicsubstancethatiscurrentlyinourenvironmentontheriseinstepwithincreasingratesofAutismthatcouldexplainthis?…Theanswerisyes,I’mquitesurethatI’mright,andtheanswerisglyphosate.”

“AutismWillAfflictHalfOfTheAmericanChildrenBy2025,AndGlyphosateIsToBlame,MITDoctorSays”


A‐181

PublishedinInquisitr,January7,2015

http://www.inquisitr.com/1735694/autism-will-afflict-half-of-the-american-children-by-2025-and-glyphosate-is-to-blame-mit-doctor-says/

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#73‐“InthefirstevertestingonglyphosateherbicideinthebreastmilkofAmericanwomen,MomsAcrossAmericaandSustainablePulsehavefound‘high’levelsin3outofthe10samplestested.Theshockingresultspointtoglyphosatelevelsbuildingupinwomen’sbodiesoveraperiodoftime,whichhasuntilnowbeenrefutedbybothglobalregulatoryauthoritiesandthebiotechindustry.”

“Thereiscurrentlynoregulatorylimitfortheamountofglyphosateinbreastmilkanywhereintheworld.However,theEPAhassetalegallyenforceablemaximumcontaminantlevel(MCL)forglyphosateof700ug/lindrinkingwater,whichis7,000timeshigherthantheMCLinEurope.”

“EarthOpenSourceResearchDirectorClaireRobinsonsaid,“Regulatorsandindustryalwayssayitisthedosethatmakesthepoison,andeventheincreasinglevelsofglyphosatecurrentlyfoundinfoodandfeedandtheenvironmentarenotaproblem.However,thatargumentonlyholdstrueifglyphosatedoesn'tbuildupinthehumanbodyandisexcretedasfastaswetakeitin.Thesebreastmilkresultssuggestglyphosatemaybio‐accumulate.Thatmeansthatourbodytissuesmightbeexposedtohigherlevelsthantheso‐calledsafelevelssetbyregulators.Sotheregulationsarenotprotectingus."

“Shockingly,thenewUStestingbyMomsAcrossAmericaandSustainablePulse,withsupportfromEnvironmentalArts&Research,foundmaximumglyphosatelevelsinurineover8timeshigherthanthosefoundinEurope.”

“GlyphosateTestingFullReport:FindingsinAmericanMothers’BreastMilk,UrineandWater.”

PublishedbyMomsAcrossAmerica,April7,2014

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#74‐“TheGMAlatticehypothesisgivesrationalandconsistentexplanationstothemanyobservationsandunansweredquestionsassociatedwiththemysteriouskidneydiseaseinruralSriLanka.Furthermore,itmayexplainthesimilarepidemicsofCKDuobservedinAndraPradesh,IndiaandCentralAmerica.Althoughglyphosatealonedoesnotcauseanepidemicofchronickidneydisease,itseemstohaveacquiredtheabilitytodestroytherenaltissuesofthousandsoffarmerswhenitformscomplexeswithalocalizedgeoenvironmentalfactor(hardness)andnephrotoxicmetals.ItislogicaltofindoutotheragriculturalareasintheWorldwhereexcessiveuseofglyphosateanddrinkinggroundwaterwithhighhardnessandthecontaminationofgroundwaterandfoodwithnephrotoxicmetalshaveoverlappedincausingkidneydamage.”(under5.Conclusions)

Jayasumana,Channa,Ph.D.,Gunatilake,Sarath,Ph.D.andSenanayake,Priyantha,“Glyphosate,HardWaterandNephrotoxicMetals:AreTheytheCulpritsBehindtheEpidemicofChronicKidneyDiseaseofUnknownEtiologyinSriLanka?


A‐182

Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth2014,11(2),2125‐2147

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/2/2125/htm

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#75‐“Caimanembryoswereexposedatearlyembryonicstagetodifferentsub‐lethalconcentrationsofRoundup(50,100,200,300,400,500,750,1000,1250and1750microg/egg).Attimeofhatching,bloodsampleswereobtainedfromeachanimalandtwoshort‐termtests,theCometassayandtheMicronucleus(MN)test,wereperformedonerythrocytestoassessDNAdamage.AsignificantincreaseinDNAdamagewasobservedataconcentrationof500microg/eggorhigher,comparedtountreatedcontrolanimals(p<0.05).ResultsfromboththeCometassayandtheMNtestrevealedaconcentration‐dependenteffect.ThisstudydemonstratedadverseeffectsofRounduponDNAofC.latirostrisandconfirmedthattheCometassayandtheMNtestappliedoncaimanerythrocytesareusefultoolsindeterminingpotentialgenotoxicityofpesticides.Theidentificationofsentinelspeciesaswellassensitivebiomarkersamongthenaturalbiotaisimperativetothoroughlyevaluategeneticdamage,whichhassignificantconsequencesforshort‐andlong‐termsurvivalofthenaturalspecies.”

Poletta GL,Ph.D,Larriera A,Ph.D.,Kleinsorge E,Ph.D.,andMudry MD,Ph.D.,“GenotoxicityoftheherbicideformulationRoundup(glyphosate)inbroad‐snoutedcaiman(Caimanlatirostris)evidencedbytheCometassayandtheMicronucleustest.”

Mutat Res.2009Jan31;672(2):95‐102.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19022394

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#76‐“Thebroadspectrumherbicideglyphosateiswidelyusedinagricultureworldwide.Therehasbeenongoingcontroversyregardingthepossibleadverseeffectsofglyphosateontheenvironmentandonhumanhealth.Reportsofneuraldefectsandcraniofacialmalformationsfromregionswhereglyphosate‐basedherbicides(GBH)areusedledustoundertakeanembryologicalapproachtoexploretheeffectsoflowdosesofglyphosateindevelopment.Xenopuslaevisembryoswereincubatedwith1/5000dilutionsofacommercialGBH.Thetreatedembryoswerehighlyabnormalwithmarkedalterationsincephalicandneuralcrestdevelopmentandshorteningoftheanterior‐posterior(A‐P)axis.Alterationsonneuralcrestmarkerswerelatercorrelatedwithdeformitiesinthecranialcartilagesattadpolestages.Embryosinjectedwithpureglyphosateshowedverysimilarphenotypes.Moreover,GBHproducedsimilareffectsinchickenembryos,showingagraduallossofrhombomeredomains,reductionoftheopticvesicles,andmicrocephaly.Thissuggeststhatglyphosateitselfwasresponsibleforthephenotypesobserved,ratherthanasurfactantorothercomponentofthecommercialformulation.”

Paganelli A,Ph.D.,Gnazzo V,Ph.D,Acosta H,López SL,Ph.D.andCarrasco AE,Ph.D.“Glyphosate‐basedherbicidesproduceteratogeniceffectsonvertebratesbyimpairingretinoicacidsignaling.”

Chem Res Toxicol.2010Oct18;23(10):1586‐95



A‐183

Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#77‐“Therehasbeenongoingcontroversyregardingthepossibleadverseeffectsofglyphosateontheenvironmentandonhumanhealth.Reportsofneuraldefectsandcraniofacialmalformationsfromregionswhereglyphosate‐basedherbicides(GBH)areusedledustoundertakeanembryologicalapproachtoexploretheeffectsoflowdosesofglyphosateindevelopment.

Xenopuslaevisembryoswereincubatedwith1/5000dilutionsofacommercialGBH.Thetreatedembryoswerehighlyabnormalwithmarkedalterationsincephalicandneuralcrestdevelopmentandshorteningoftheanterior‐posterior(A‐P)axis.Alterationsonneuralcrestmarkerswerelatercorrelatedwithdeformitiesinthecranialcartilagesattadpolestages.Embryosinjectedwithpureglyphosateshowedverysimilarphenotypes.Moreover,GBHproducedsimilareffectsinchickenembryos,showingagraduallossofrhombomeredomains,reductionoftheopticvesicles,andmicrocephaly.Thissuggeststhatglyphosateitselfwasresponsibleforthephenotypesobserved,ratherthanasurfactantorothercomponentofthecommercialformulation.

“ThedirecteffectofglyphosateonearlymechanismsofmorphogenesisinvertebrateembryosopensconcernsabouttheclinicalfindingsfromhumanoffspringinpopulationsexposedtoGBHinagriculturalfields.”

Paganelli A1,Gnazzo V,Ph.D.,Acosta H,Ph.D.,López SL,Carrasco AE

“Glyphosate‐basedherbicidesproduceteratogeniceffectsonvertebratesbyimpairingretinoicacidsignaling.”

Chem Res Toxicol.2010Oct18;23(10):1586‐95.


Glyphosatesafetyopposingview#78‐“GlyphosateandAMPAweredetectedinshallowripariangroundwaterat4of5streamsitesinurbancatchmentsinCanadaandeachwerefoundinapproximately1in10ofthesamplesoverall.”

D.R. Van Stempvoort,,Ph.D.,J.W. Roy,Ph.D.,S.J. Brown,G. Bickerton

“Residuesoftheherbicideglyphosateinripariangroundwaterinurbancatchments”

Chemosphere,Volume 95,January2014,Pages455–463

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653513013659

Following“Approved”LabelDirectionsonHerbicideContainersdoesnotAssureSafety

FollowingLabelDirectionswillnotAssureSafety‐‐OpposingView#1

“Testsdoneonglyphosatetomeetregistrationrequirementshavebeenassociatedwithfraudulentpractices.


A‐184

Laboratoryfraudfirstmadeheadlinesin1983whenEPApubliclyannouncedthata1976audithaddiscovered"seriousdeficienciesandimproprieties"intoxicologystudiesconductedbyIndustrialBiotestLaboratories(IBT).44Problemsincluded"countlessdeathsofratsandmicethatwerenotreported,""fabricateddatatables,"and"routinefalsificationofdata."44

IBTwasoneofthelargestlaboratoriesperformingtestsinsupportofpesticideregistrations.44About30testsonglyphosateandglyphosate‐containingproductswereperformedbyIBT,including11ofthe19chronictoxicologystudies.45AcompellingexampleofthepoorqualityofIBTdatacomesfromanEPAtoxicologistwhowrote,"ItisalsosomewhatdifficultnottodoubtthescientificintegrityofastudywhentheIBTstatedthatittookspecimensfromtheuteri(ofmalerabbits)forhistopathologicalexamination."46(Emphasisadded.)

In1991,laboratoryfraudreturnedtotheheadlineswhenEPAallegedthatCravenLaboratories,acompanythatperformedcontractstudiesfor262pesticidecompaniesincludingMonsanto,hadfalsifiedtestresults.47"Tricks"employedbyCravenLabsincluded"falsifyinglaboratorynotebookentries"and"manuallymanipulatingscientificequipmenttoproducefalsereports."48Roundupresiduestudiesonplums,potatoes,grapes,andsugarbeetswereamongthetestsinquestion.49

Thefollowingyear,theowner/presidentofCravenLaboratoriesandthreeemployeeswereindictedon20felonycounts.Anumberofotheremployeesagreedtopleadguiltyonanumberofrelatedcharges.50Theownerwassentencedtofiveyearsinprisonandfined$50,000;CravenLabswasfined15.5milliondollars,andorderedtopay3.7milliondollarsinrestitution.48

Althoughthetestsofglyphosateidentifiedasfraudulenthavebeenreplaced,thesepracticescastshadowsontheentirepesticideregistrationprocess.”

Cox,Caroline,“QualityofToxicologyTesting”

JournalofPesticideReform,Volume15,Number3,Fall1995.NorthwestCoalitionforAlternativestoPesticides,Eugene,OR.Glyphosate,Part1:Toxicology

http://www.inspiringlandscapes.com/hope/glyphos8.htm


“In2004the“CounterpartRegulations,”stronglysupportedbyindustry,wereproposedtostreamlineEPA’spesticidereviewprocessattheexpenseofthemostvulnerablelifeformsinourcountry,EndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesakaListedSpecies(1,265speciesare“Listed”).ThecriticalchangetheseregulationsbringaboutiseliminationoftherequirementforconsultationswithwildlifeexpertsattheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(FWS)andtheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)byEPAreviewersevaluatingadverseimpactsofpesticidesonListedSpeciesandtheirhabitats.RCCopposedtheCounterpartRegulationswithcomments,but,sadly,theRegulationswereissuedinfinalformonJuly29,2004,despiteourobjections.Over125,000publiccommentswerereceivedbytheFishandWildlifeService,andtheyran2to1againsttheCounterpartRegulations.

RCCInsight:


A‐185

Apparently,thepublic’sconcernsdidnotmakeadifferencetothepeopleatFWSandNMFS,ordidthey?Wewonderwhetherthescientistsinvolvedwithprotectingwildlifeatboth“Services”wouldwanttobebringingtheirexperienceandknowledgetobearondecisionsmadebyEPAwithrespecttopesticides,ifitwereuptothem.PerhapstheywouldprefertobepartoftheevaluationprocessandtheydonotconcurwithfinalizingtheCounterpartRegulations.However,thefactisthatdecision‐makers,byfinalizingthesechanges,supportanactionthatwillweakenEndangeredSpecies’protectionfrompoisoningandhabitatdegradationduetopesticides.Thislatestenvironmentalrollbackcanmeanincreasinglyhazardousconditionsinrivers,lakesandwetlands.AfurtherriskisweakeningoftheEndangeredSpeciesActitself.(Textofour“Comments”isavailablethroughourwebsite‐‐rachelcarsoncouncil.com)”

“SpeciesfromPesticides–Weakened”

RachelCarsonCouncilInc.,Issues&InsightsOctober,2004

http://www.rachelcarsoncouncil.org/index.php?page=issues-insights-october-2004


“Usedinyards,farmsandparksthroughouttheworld,Rounduphaslongbeenatop‐sellingweedkiller.ButnowresearchershavefoundthatoneofRoundup’sinertingredientscankillhumancells,particularlyembryonic,placentalandumbilicalcordcells.

Untilnow,mosthealthstudieshavefocusedonthesafetyofglyphosate,ratherthanthemixtureofingredientsfoundinRoundup.Butinthenewstudy,scientistsfoundthatRoundup’sinertingredientsamplifiedthetoxiceffectonhumancells—evenatconcentrationsmuchmoredilutedthanthoseusedonfarmsandlawns.

Onespecificinertingredient,polyethoxylatedtallowamine,orPOEA,wasmoredeadlytohumanembryonic,placentalandumbilicalcordcellsthantheherbicideitself–afindingtheresearcherscall“astonishing.”

“TheresearchteamsuspectsthatRoundupmightcausepregnancyproblemsbyinterferingwithhormoneproduction,possiblyleadingtoabnormalfetaldevelopment,lowbirthweightsormiscarriages.

Monsanto,Roundup’smanufacturer,contendsthatthemethodsusedinthestudydon’treflectrealisticconditionsandthattheirproduct,whichhasbeensoldsincethe1970s,issafewhenusedasdirected.Hundredsofstudiesoverthepast35yearshaveaddressedthesafetyofglyphosate.

“Rounduphasoneofthemostextensivehumanhealthsafetyandenvironmentaldatapackagesofanypesticidethat'soutthere,”saidMonsantospokesmanJohnCombest.“It'susedinpublicparks,it'susedtoprotectschools.There'sbeenagreatdealofstudyonRoundup,andwe'reveryproudofitsperformance.”

TheEPAconsidersglyphosatetohavelowtoxicitywhenusedattherecommendeddoses.


A‐186

“Riskestimatesforglyphosatewerewellbelowthelevelofconcern,”saidEPAspokesmanDaleKemery.TheEPAclassifiesglyphosateasaGroupEchemical,whichmeansthereisstrongevidencethatitdoesnotcausecancerinhumans.”

Weed‐WhackingHerbicideProvesDeadlytoHumanCells

ByCrystal GammonandEnvironmental Health NewsJune23,2009

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p


“However,theU.S.governmentregulatoryagenciesseemtohavegivenMonsantoalongrope.ThecloutMonsantoenjoysintheU.S.governmentisbynomeansincidental.AccordingtotheOrganicConsumersAssociation,ClarenceThomas,beforebeingtheSupremeCourtJudgewhoputGeorgeW.Bushinoffice(inhisfirstterm),wasaMonsantolawyer;AnneVeneman,theU.S.SecretaryofAgriculture,wasontheboardofdirectorsofMonsanto'sCalgeneCorporation;DonaldRumsfeld,theSecretaryofDefence,wasontheboardofdirectorsofMonsanto'sSearlePharmaceuticals;SecretaryofHealthTommyThompsonreceived$50,000indonationsfromMonsantoduringhiswinningcampaignforWisconsin'sgovernorship;andthetwoCongressmenwhoreceivedthemostdonationsfromMonsantoduringthelastelectionwereLarryCombest(ChairmanoftheHouseAgriculturalCommittee)andJohnAshcroft(theAttorney‐General).”

“AmultinationalExposed”

Frontline,Volume22‐Issue05,Feb.26‐Mar.11,2005

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2205/stories/20050311003312500.htm


“Arecentstudywhichshowsclearlinksbetweenexposuretotheherbicideglyphosateandnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma(NHL),aformofcancerthatafflictsthelymphaticsystem,hascausedworldwideconcernoverthesafetyoftheherbicideonhumans.

ThestudywasconductedbyeminentoncologistsDrLennartHardellandDrMikaelErikssonofSwedenandpublishedinthejournalCancerbytheAmericanCancerSocietyonMarch15.”

“Monsanto'sArgument:

PreviousevaluationsconductedbytheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)andtheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)suggestthatglyphosateisnotamutagenicorcarcinogenic.

WHOandtheFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO)haveapprovedthesafetyofglyphosateresiduesingenetically‐engineeredRoundupReadysoyabeans.

PAN'sCounterArgument:


A‐187

TheEPAandWHOevaluationsweredonemorethanfiveyearsagoandbasedmainlyondatasubmittedtothembyMonsanto.

Theseevaluationsdidconcludethat"thereisnoevidenceofmutagenicityorcarcinogenicity"basedontheavailabledata,buttheydonotsupportdefinitiveassertionsthatglyphosate"isnotmutagenicorcarcinogenic".

PreviousEPAandWHOevaluationswhichmadesimilarclaimsforotherchemicalshadtoberevisedasnewevidencecametolight.

TheestablishmentoftheWHO'sAcceptableDailyIntake(ADI)isbasedonlimitedstudiesusinglimitedparameterswhichdonotaccountforvulnerablegroupssuchaschildren,theelderly,thesickandothergroupsthatmighthaveincreasedsusceptibilitytoglyphosateexposure.”

“ConcernsOverGlyphosateUse”

TheSun(Malaysia),FridayAugust20,1999

http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/archives/glywb.htm


“Toprotectourhealth,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)setsmaximumlegalresiduelevelsforeverypesticide,fordozensofcrops.ButanewstudyintherespectedjournalToxicologyhasshownthat,atlowlevelsthatarecurrentlylegalonourfood,RoundupcouldcauseDNAdamage,endocrinedisruptionandcelldeath.Thestudy,conductedbyFrenchresearchers,showsglyphosate‐basedherbicidesaretoxictohumanreproductivecells.”

“Solventsandsurfactants,legallyconsidered‘inertingredients,’aremixedwithglyphosateinproductssuchasRoundupweedkillertocreatechemicalformulationsthatincreasemobilityandmoredirectaccesstothecells.‘Thosesamefactorsthataidpenetrationintoaplant,alsoaidpenetrationintotheskin,’saysVincentGarry,professoremeritusofpathologyattheUniversityofMinnesota.‘Thesechemicalsaredesignedtokillcells.’”

“Herbicidemanufacturersaresubjecttofewerrulesinthetestingofinertingredientsthantheyareforactiveingredients,explainsCarolineCox,researchdirectorattheCenterforEnvironmentalHealthinOakland,Calif.‘TheteststheEPArequiresforinertingredientscoveronlyasmallrangeofpotentialhealthproblems,’Coxsays.‘Testingforbirthdefects,cancerandgeneticdamagearerequiredonlyontheactiveingredients.Butwe’reexposedtoboth.’”

“‘Ourbodiesaregiganticspiderwebsofchemicalcommunicationsthatworkintheparts‐per‐trillionrange,’saysWarrenPorter,professorofzoologyandenvironmentaltoxicologyattheUniversityofWisconsin.‘Whenyouputso‐called‘insignificant’amountsoftoxicchemicalsintothemix,youhaveamolecularbullinachinashop.Thepossibilitiesforimpactareendless.’”

Kimble‐Evans,Amanda

“RoundupKillsmorethanWeeds”


A‐188

MotherEarthNews,December2009/January2010

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Roundup-Weed-Killer-Toxicity.aspx?page=2


“ThefindingsofRichardetal.(2005)areanimportantadditiontoourunderstandingthatthehealthandenvironmentaleffectsofformulatedpesticideproductsarenotfullyreflectedintestsconductedontheactiveingredient(s)alone.Ithasbeenlongknownthattheadjuvants(commonlyandmisleadinglycalled"inert"ingredients)maybetoxicandmayenhanceorsupplementthetoxiceffectsoftheactivepesticidalingredient.

Inthecaseofglyphosate‐containingproducts,thisphenomenonwaswelldemonstratedinthedatasubmittedtothe(EPA)bytheregistrant(Monsanto),andsummarizedbytheU.S.EPAintheReregistrationEligibilityDocument(RED)forglyphosate(U.S.EPA1993).Forexample,basedontheregistrant'sowntestsofacutetoxicitytofreshwaterfish,theU.S.EPAclassifiedtechnicalgradeglyphosateas"slightlytoxic"to"practicallynon‐toxic"andformulatedproductsrangedfrom"moderatelytoxic"to"practicallynon‐toxic."Testedalone,thesurfactantadjuvant(identifiedas"inert")was"highlytoxic"to"slightlytoxic."Similardifferenceswerereportedintestsofacutetoxicitytofreshwaterinvertebrates.

BasedinpartonthedataintheglyphosateRED(U.S.EPA1993),theNewYorkStateAttorneyGeneral'sofficesuccessfullypursuedanactionagainstMonsantoin1996(AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofNewYork1996).Atthattime,MonsantowasmakingadvertisingclaimsaboutthetoxicityoftheRoundupproductsbasedondatafromtestsontheactiveingredientalone.Suchclaimsarescientificallyunfoundedandinherentlydeceptive.TheAttorneyGeneral'sactionwasfacilitatedbytheavailabilityofatleastsomelimitedinformationabouttheinertingredientsandtheirtoxicity.ThatsamesortofinformationenabledRichardetal.(2005)toconducttheirstudy.

Unfortunately,thatisnotalwaysthecase,andformanypesticideproducts,littleornoinformationabouttheidentityofinertingredientsispubliclyavailable.Registrantsaregenerallyrequiredtoconductacutetoxicitytestsonformulatedproducts,buttheytraditionallyconductchronictoxicitytestsontheactiveingredientalone.Evenwhenformulatedproductsaretested,theidentityofinertingredientsisrarelyrevealedintheopenliterature,publiclyavailableregulatorydocuments,orproductlabels.Therefore,independentresearchisstymied,andthepublicisill‐informedinthemarketplace.”

Séralini,Gilles‐Eric“Issue:CumulativeImpactstoAmphibiansSpecies”

ALaboratoiredeBiochimieetBiologieMoleculairepublication,UniversitédeCaen,February2006

http://www.signaloflove.org/clearcutting/reports/cumulativeimpactstoamphibian


“FACT:TheEPA(EnvironmentalProtectionAgency)doesnottestpesticidesforsafety.Itreliesonthemanufacturers’testdatatomakejudgments.Recentprobeshavefoundthattheexperiments


A‐189

onwhichthesedatahavebeenbased,havebeendesignedtoshowonlywhatthemanufacturerwouldlikethemtoshow.Thiscriticismofself‐servingmisrepresentationcanbeaimedequallyvalidlyatirresponsibleexperimentersbentondemonstratingtoxicityofagivenpesticide.

Itseemsthathoweverthisproblemisapproached,theEPAneedstotakemoreaffirmativeactionandresponsibility.Thisisnotlikelytohappen,astheEPA’sresearchprogramincreasinglyreliesoncorporatejointventure,accordingtoagencydocumentsobtainedbyPublicEmployeesforEnvironmentalResponsibility(PEER).Indeed,astudybytheGovernmentAccountabilityOffice(theinvestigativearmofCongress–thesamepeoplewhofirsttoldusofthe$640toiletseatsand$1,000hammerspurchasedwithDepartmentofDefensemoney),inApril2005,concludedthattheEPAlackssafeguardsto“evaluateormanagepotentialconflictsofinterest”incorporateresearchagreements,astheyaretakingmoneyfromcorporationsthattheyaresupposedtoberegulating.”

“MYTH:TheGovernmenttestspesticidesforsafetybeforetheyaresold”

WildOnesJournal,Nov17,2006

http://www.for-wild.org/download/roundupmyth/roundupmyth.html


“FACT:TheprimaryfocusoftheFederalInsecticide,Fungicide,andRodenticideAct,originallyenactedin1947,wastoprovidefederalcontrolofpesticidedistribution,sale,anduse.Theacthasbeenamendedmanytimesovertheyears.Oneoftheseamendmentspermittedmanufacturersprotectionoftradesecrets.Itisundertheseprovisionsthatmanufacturerscircumventalawthatoriginallyintendedallinformationtobeknown–atleastbytheEPA.Thefactthattoday,withmassspectrometers,chemistrycandeterminethemakeupoftheinertingredients,leavesonlytheendconsumerinthedark.

In1990theOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralofNewYorkfiledarequestthatallinertingredientsinpesticidesbemadepublic.Therequestwasrepeatedanumberoftimesthroughthedecade,tonoavail.Sixteenyearslater,inAugustof2006,theattorneysgeneralof14stateshavefiledasimilarpetitiontotheEPA.ThistimetheEPAisobligedtorespondwithinagiventimeperiod.”

“MYTH:Therearelaws…”

WildOnesJournal,Nov17,2006

http://www.for-wild.org/download/roundupmyth/roundupmyth.html


“ArecentstudybyeminentoncologistsDr.LennartHardellandDr.MikaelErikssonofSweden[1],hasrevealedclearlinksbetweenoneoftheworld'sbiggestsellingherbicide,glyphosate,tonon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma,aformofcancer[2].”

“Inthestudypublishedinthe15March1999JournalofAmericanCancerSociety,theresearchersalsomaintainthatexposuretoglyphosate'yieldedincreasedrisksforNHL.'Theystressthatwith


A‐190

therapidlyincreasinguseofglyphosatesincethetimethestudywascarriedout,'glyphosatedeservesfurtherepidemiologicstudies.'“

“O'Neillconcluded:'TheEPAwhenauthorisingMonsanto'sfieldtrialsforRoundup‐readysugarbeetdidnotconsidertheissueofglyphosate.TheyconsideredthistobetheremitofthePesticidesControlServiceoftheDepartmentofAgriculture.Thusnobodyhasincludedtheeffectsofincreasingtheuseofglyphosateintherisk/benefitanalysiscarriedout.Itisyetanotherexampleofhowregulatoryauthoritiessupposedlyprotectingpublichealthhavefailedtoimplementthe'precautionaryprinciple'withrespecttoGMOs.'“

O'Neill,Sadhbh“RoundUp—LymphomaConnection”

GeneticConcern,June22,1999

http://www.hancock.forests.org.au/docs/herbicidesUpdate0602.htm


“Glyphosate‐containingproductsareacutelytoxictoanimals,includinghumans.Symptomsincludeeyeandskinirritation,cardiacdepression,gastrointestinalpain,vomiting,andaccumulationofexcessfluidinthelungs.Thesurfactantusedinacommonglyphosateproduct(Roundup)ismoreacutelytoxicthanglyphosateitself;thecombinationofthetwoisyetmoretoxic.”

“Testsdoneonglyphosatetomeetregistrationrequirementshavebeenassociatedwithfraudulentpractices.”

“Laboratoryfraudfirstmadeheadlinesin1983whenEPApubliclyannouncedthata1976audithaddiscovered"seriousdeficienciesandimproprieties"intoxicologystudiesconductedbyIndustrialBiotestLaboratories(IBT).44Problemsincluded"countlessdeathsofratsandmicethatwerenotreported,""fabricateddatatables,"and"routinefalsificationofdata."“44

“IBTwasoneofthelargestlaboratoriesperformingtestsinsupportofpesticideregistrations.44About30testsonglyphosateandglyphosate‐containingproductswereperformedbyIBT,including11ofthe19chronictoxicologystudies.45AcompellingexampleofthepoorqualityofIBTdatacomesfromanEPAtoxicologistwhowrote,"ItisalsosomewhatdifficultnottodoubtthescientificintegrityofastudywhentheIBTstatedthatittookspecimensfromtheuteri(ofmalerabbits)forhistopathologicalexamination."“46(Emphasisadded.)

“In1991,laboratoryfraudreturnedtotheheadlineswhenEPAallegedthatCravenLaboratories,acompanythatperformedcontractstudiesfor262pesticidecompaniesincludingMonsanto,hadfalsifiedtestresults.47"Tricks"employedbyCravenLabsincluded"falsifyinglaboratorynotebookentries"and"manuallymanipulatingscientificequipmenttoproducefalsereports."48Roundupresiduestudiesonplums,potatoes,grapes,andsugarbeetswereamongthetestsinquestion.”“49

“Thefollowingyear,theowner/presidentofCravenLaboratoriesandthreeemployeeswereindictedon20felonycounts.Anumberofotheremployeesagreedtopleadguiltyonanumberof


A‐191

relatedcharges.50Theownerwassentencedtofiveyearsinprisonandfined$50,000;CravenLabswasfined15.5milliondollars,andorderedtopay3.7milliondollarsinrestitution.”48

Cox,Caroline.“Glyphosate,Part1:Toxicology”

JournalofPesticideReform,Volume15,Number3,Fall1995

http://terrazul.org/Archivo/Glyphosate_Fact_Sheets.pdf


“EPAInvestigatesMonsanto

AninternalmemorandumbyanofficialoftheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency[EPA],hasaccusedEPAofconductinga"fraudulent"criminalinvestigationofMonsanto,theSt.Louischemicalcorporation.[1]

The30‐pagememo,fromWilliamSanjourtohissupervisor,DavidBussard,datedJuly20,1994,describesatwo‐year‐longcriminalinvestigationofMonsantobyEPA'sOfficeofCriminalInvestigation(OCI).

TheSanjourmemosaysEPAopeneditsinvestigationonAugust20,1990andformallycloseditonAugust7,1992."However,theinvestigationitselfandthebasisforclosingtheinvestigationwerefraudulent,"theSanjourmemosays.

AccordingtotheSanjourmemo:

EPA'sinvestigationofMonsantowasprecipitatedbyamemodatedFebruary23,1990,fromEPA'sDr.CateJenkinstoRaymondLoehr,headofEPA'sScienceAdvisoryBoard.

TheJenkinsmemosaidthatEPAhadsetdioxinstandardsrelyingonflawedMonsanto‐sponsoredstudiesofMonsantoworkersexposedtodioxin,studiesthathadshowednocancerincreasesamongheavilyexposedworkers.

AttachedtotheJenkinsmemowasaportionofalegalbrieffiledbytheplaintiffsaspartofatrialknownasKemnerv.Monsanto,inwhichagroupofcitizensinSturgeon,MissourihadsuedMonsantoforallegedinjuriestheyhadsufferedduringachemicalspillcausedbyatrainderailmentin1979.

TheJenkinsmemohadnotrequestedacriminalinvestigation;insteadJenkinshadsuggestedtheneedforascientificinvestigationofMonsanto'sdioxinstudies.ButinAugust1990,EPA'sOfficeofCriminalInvestigation(OCI)wrotea7‐pagememorecommendingthata"fullfieldcriminalinvestigationbeinitiatedbyOCI."

PlaintiffsintheKemnersuitmadethefollowingkindsofallegations(whichwequoteverbatimfromtheSanjourmemo):


A‐192

“Monsantofailedtonotifyandliedtoitsworkersaboutthepresenceanddangerofdioxininitschlorophenolplant,sothatitwouldnothavetobeartheexpenseofchangingitsmanufacturingprocessorlosecustomers;...

"Monsantoknowinglydumped30to40poundsofdioxinadayintotheMississippiRiverbetween1970and1977whichcouldentertheSt.Louisfoodchain;

"MonsantoliedtoEPAthatithadnoknowledgethatitsplanteffluentcontaineddioxin;

"MonsantosecretlytestedthecorpsesofpeoplekilledbyaccidentinSt.Louisforthepresenceofdioxinandfounditineverycase;...

"Lysol,aproductmadefromMonsanto'sSantophen,wascontaminatedwithdioxinwithMonsanto'sknowledge."[TheSanjourmemosaysthat,atthetimeofthecontamination,"Lysol(was)recommendedforcleaningbabies'toysandforothercleaningactivitiesinvolvinghumancontact."]

"ThemanufacturerofLysolwasnottoldaboutthedioxinbyMonsantoforfearoflosinghisbusiness;

"OthercompaniesusingSantophen,whospecificallyaskedaboutthepresenceofdioxin,wereliedtobyMonsanto;...

"ShortlyafteraspillintheMonsantochlorophenolplant,OSHAmeasureddioxinontheplantwalls.Monsantoconducteditsownmeasurements,whichwerehigherthanOSHA's,buttheyissuedapressreleasetothepublicandtheyliedtoOSHAandtheirworkerssayingtheyhadfailedtoconfirmOSHA'sfindings;

"ExposedMonsantoworkerswerenottoldofthepresenceofdioxinandwerenotgivenprotectiveclothingeventhoughthecompanywasawareofthedangersofdioxin;

"EventhoughtheToxicSubstancesControlActrequireschemicalcompaniestoreportthepresenceofhazardoussubstancesintheirproductstoEPA,MonsantonevergavenoticeandliedtoEPAinreports;

"AtonetimeMonsantoliedtoEPAsayingthatitcouldnottestitsproductsfordioxinbecausedioxinwastootoxictohandleinitslabs."...

“EPAInvestigatesMonsanto”

RACHEL'SHAZARDOUSWASTENEWS#400,July28,1994

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn400.htm



A‐193

“Astudy by French researchers at the University of Caenofglyphosateresiduediscoveredthattheinertingredientsintheherbicide(solvents,preservatives,surfactants)increasedthetoxiceffectonhumancells.Accordingtotheresearchers,glyphosateresiduecancausebirthdefects.

“Thisclearlyconfirmsthatthe[inertingredients]inRoundupformulationsarenotinert,”wrote the study authors.“Moreover,theproprietarymixturesavailableonthemarketcouldcausecelldamageandevendeath[atthe]residuallevels”foundonRoundup‐treatedcrops.”

“AnotherstudybyArgentinescientistsalsofoundthatglyphosatecancausebirthdefectsatdosesconsiderablylowerthanwhatiscommonlyusedoncrops,inthiscase,soybeans.Theresearchersinjectedamphibianembryocellswithglyphosatedilutedtoaconcentration1,500timeslessthanwhatisusedcommercially.Theembryosgrewintotadpoleswithobviousbirthdefects.”

“A2001studybySwedishoncologistsdiscoveredlinksbetweennon‐Hodgkin’slymphomaandglyphosate.TheSwedishresearchersfoundthatSwedishpeoplewithnon‐Hodgkin’slymphomawere2.3timesmorelikelytobeexposedtoglyphosate.

MonsantospokespersonJohnCombestdefendedthesafetyofRoundup.“Rounduphasoneofthemostextensivehumanhealthsafetyandenvironmentaldatapackagesofanypesticidethat’soutthere.It’susedinpublicparks,it’susedtoprotectschools.There’sbeenagreatdealofstudyonRoundup,andwe’reveryproudofitsperformance.”“

Cheeseman,Gina‐Marie,“CanACompanyThat

MakesRoundupBeSustainable?”

TriplePundit,November20th,2009

http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/11/can-a-company-that-makes-roundup-be-sustainable/


“Overtwentyyearsago,thedangersofMonsanto'sglyphosateaswellasitsassociatedGMOswereknownscientificallytocausehumanhealthdifficultiesandSwedishresearchersyearsagointheJournal'Cancer'notedglyphosatewasconnectedtohumancancer.Anyway,manyscientistsandpublichealthworkersresearchingitwerefired.It'samadempire'srush‐‐theU.Sempireanditscorporateproxies‐‐todesire(hell,therealityof)toowntheworld'sfoodanddominatethewholeworld.Itisdestroyingthousandsofyearsofbiodiversitysecurityintheprocess.AndMonsanto'sempireofglyphosateisinvirtuallyeverythingintheUSAandworldwide.Onefoolishcompany,onecorruptfederalgovernmentoftheUSA.EveryoneshouldlearnmoreaboutMonsantointhefilm"TheWorldAccordingtoMonsanto."(90minutes).Monsanto'scorporatecontractshouldberevokedforendangeringworldhealthandkillingoffglobalcropbiodiversityofthousandsofyearsofworkdestroyedinonegeneration‐‐inthemadrushtodominatethewholeworld'sbiodiversity.

MonsantoandtheUSAwillgodowninhistoryastheorganizationsthatcausedmostbiologicaldevastationandhumansufferinginhumanhistory.”


A‐194

“MONSANTORoundUp(glyphosate)Empirecauses

BIRTHDEFECTS...inamphibianembryos,humans?”

Portlandindependentmediacenter,May3,2009

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/05/391045.shtml


“BUENOSAIRES,Apr15,2009(IPS)‐Glyphosate,theherbicideusedonsoybeansinArgentina,causesmalformationsinamphibianembryos,sayscientistsherewhorevealedthefindingsofastudythathasnotyetbeenpublished.”

"Theobserveddeformationsareconsistentandsystematic,"ProfessorAndrésCarrasco,directoroftheLaboratoryofMolecularEmbryologyattheUniversityofBuenosAiresmedicalschoolandleadresearcherontheNationalCouncilofScientificandTechnicalResearch(CONICET),toldtheInterPressServicenewsagencyIPS.

Reducedheadsize,geneticalterationsinthecentralnervoussystem,anincreaseinthedeathofcellsthathelpformtheskull,anddeformedcartilagewereeffectsthatwererepeatedlyfoundinthelaboratoryexperiments,saidthebiologist.

ThenewswasreportedMondaybytheArgentinenewspaperPágina12.

Monsanto’sheadofcommunicationsinArgentina,FernandaPérezCometto,toldIPSthatthecompanyhas"severalstudiesthatshowthattheherbicideisharmlesstohumans,animalsandtheenvironment."

Valente,Marcela“ScientistsRevealEffectsofGlyphosate”

HEALTH‐ARGENTINA,April15,2009

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516


“It’samazinghowmanyorganicspeoplestillthinkit’sOKtojustuseabitofRounduponthoseweedsinthebushorthedriveway,or….ofcourse,notonthefood,butthebush,that’sOKisn’tit?

Well,no,actuallyitisn’t,andhere’swhy:Roundupandvariousotherformulationsoftheactiveingredientglyphosate,havethepotentialtocauseserioushealthandenvironmentaleffects,andhavecausedsomeseverepoisoningproblems.

ThoroughPRbythedeveloperofRoundup,Monsanto,hasresultedinthewidespreadbeliefthatglyphosateis‘safe’.Registrationprocesseshavegenerallysupportedthisattitude,andtherearenonationalorinternationalbans.However,independentscientificstudiesandwidespreadpoisoningsinLatinAmericaresultingfromaerialapplicationarebeginningtorevealthetrueeffectsoftheworld’smostwidelyusedherbicide.”


A‐195

Watts,MerielPh.D.“Roundup'sNotOK”

ORGANICNZ,November/December2009

http://www.livingorganics.co.nz/roundups-not-ok.php


“Researchongeneticallymodifiedseedsisstillpublished,ofcourse.Butonlystudiesthattheseedcompanieshaveapprovedeverseethelightofapeer‐reviewedjournal.Inanumberofcases,experimentsthathadtheimplicitgo‐aheadfromtheseedcompanywerelaterblockedfrompublicationbecausetheresultswerenotflattering."Itisimportanttounderstandthatitisnotalwayssimplyamatterofblanketdenialofallresearchrequests,whichisbadenough,"wroteElsonJ.Shields,anentomologistatCornellUniversity,inalettertoanofficialattheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(thebodytaskedwithregulatingtheenvironmentalconsequencesofgeneticallymodifiedcrops),"butselectivedenialsandpermissionsbasedonindustryperceptionsofhow’friendly’or’hostile’aparticularscientistmaybetoward[seed‐enhancement]technology."

Shieldsisthespokespersonforagroupof24corninsectscientiststhatopposesthesepractices.Becausethescientistsrelyonthecooperationofthecompaniesfortheirresearch‐theymust,afterall,gainaccesstotheseedsforstudies‐mosthavechosentoremainanonymousforfearofreprisals.ThegrouphassubmittedastatementtotheEPAprotestingthat"asaresultofrestrictedaccess,notrulyindependentresearchcanbelegallyconductedonmanycriticalquestionsregardingthetechnology."

Itwouldbechillingenoughifanyothertypeofcompanywereabletopreventindependentresearchersfromtestingitswaresandreportingwhattheyfind‐imaginecarcompaniestryingtoquashhead‐to‐headmodelcomparisonsdonebyConsumerReports,forexample.Butwhenscientistsarepreventedfromexaminingtherawingredientsinournation’sfoodsupplyorfromtestingtheplantmaterialthatcoversalargeportionofthecountry’sagriculturalland,therestrictionsonfreeinquirybecomedangerous.

“DoSeedCompaniesControlGMCropResearch?”

Scientific American,Editorial,August2009edition,published21July2009

ReprintedbyCombat‐Monsanto.org

http://www.combat-monsanto.co.uk/spip.php?article399


“France’shighestcourthasruledthatU.S.agrochemicalgiantMonsantohadnottoldthetruthaboutthesafetyofitsbest‐sellingweed‐killer,Roundup.ThecourtconfirmedanearlierjudgmentthatMonsantohadfalselyadvertiseditsherbicideas“biodegradable”andclaimedit“leftthesoilclean.”Roundupistheworld’sbest‐sellingherbicide.


A‐196

Frenchenvironmentalgroupshadbroughtthecasein2001onthebasisthatglyphosate,Roundup’smainingredient,isclassedas“dangerousfortheenvironment”bytheEuropeanUnion.

Inthelatestruling,France’sSupremeCourtupheldtwoearlierconvictionsagainstMonsantobytheLyoncriminalcourtin2007,andtheLyoncourtofappealin2008,theAFPnewsagencyreports.

MonsantoalreadydominatesAmerica’sfoodchainwithitsgeneticallymodifiedseeds.Nowithastargetedmilkproduction.Justasfrighteningasthecorporation’stactics,includingruthlesslegalbattlesagainstsmallfarmers,isitsdecades‐longhistoryoftoxiccontamination.”

FranceFindsMonsantoGuiltyofLying

Infowars Ireland,November23,2009

http://info-wars.org/2009/11/23/france-finds-monsanto-guilty-of-lying/


“MonsantocreatedRoundupinthe1970'stokillweedsandhassincecatapultedthisproducttobetheworld'snumberonesellingherbicide.BeforethepatentonRoundupwassettoexpirein2000,MonsantoneededasurefirewaytokeeptheprofitsofRoundupfrombottomingout.Monsantoquicklybeganpurchasingthemajorityoftheworld'sseedcompanieswhilesimultaneouslycreatingGMOsthatfarmersneededtosigncontractualagreementstoonlyuseRoundup.Subsequently,revenuefromRoundupneverdroppedandinfacttoppedmorethan$4billionin2008,up59%from2007[2].

GM‐soyisestimatedtobepresentinupto70%ofallfoodproductsfoundinUSsupermarkets,includingcereals,breads,soymilk,pastaandmostmeat(asanimalsarefedGM‐soyfeed).AlthoughMonsantohasconsistentlyreliedonindustry‐fundeddatatodeclarethesafetyofGM‐soyandglyphosate,objectiveresearchpublishedinpeer‐reviewedjournalstellsanotherstory.

ToxicityofGlyphosate

ArecentlypublishedstudybyItalianresearchers[3]examinedthetoxicityoffourpopularglyphosatebasedherbicideformulationsonhumanplacentalcells,kidneycells,embryoniccellsandneonateumbilicalcordcellsandsurprisinglyfoundtotalcelldeathofeachofthesecellswithin24hours.Theresearchersreportedseveralmechanismsbywhichtheherbicidescausedthecellstodieincluding:cellmembraneruptureanddamage,mitochondrialdamageandcellasphyxia.Followingthesefindings,theresearcherstestedG,AMPAandPOEAbythemselvesandconcludedthat,"ItisveryclearthatifG,POEA,orAMPAhasasmalltoxiceffectonembryoniccellsaloneatlowlevels,thecombinationoftwoofthematthesamefinalconcentrationissignificantlydeleterious.”

Damato,GregoryPh.D.,“GM‐Soy:DestroytheEarthandHumansforProfit”

Fourwinds10.com,May27,2009

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/science_technology/dna_gmo/news.php?q=1243529527


A‐197


“Ifyou'restillnotconvincedthatRoundupisahighlytoxicandpersistentpesticide,readon,whileatthesametimerememberingtheothercontributionsthatMonsantohasmadetosocietysuchas:

Saccharin,Astroturf,agentorange,dioxin,sulphuricacid,polychlorinatedbiphenyls(PCBs),plasticsandsyntheticfabrics,researchonuraniumfortheManhattanProjectthatledtotheconstructionofnuclearbombs,styrenemonomer,anendlesslineofpesticidesandherbicides(Roundup),rBGH(recombinantbovinegrowthhormonethatmakescowsill),geneticallyengineeredcrops(corn,potatoes,tomatoes,soybeans,cotton),andit'smostsignificantproducttodate;Lies,FactualDistortionsandOmissions.Here'soneofthedistortionsthatMonsantohadonitswebsiteawhileback.‘Sustainability‐theideathattheresourcesandpeopleofthisworldarefinite.Thatforanybusinessdecisionwemake,wemustconsidertheeffectitwillhaveonusandourchildren.Thattheproductswemakemustnotuseupallofanaturalresource,orevenworse,contaminatewhatisleftbehind.’"

“EverythingyouNeverWantedtoKnowaboutMonsanto’sModusOperandi(M.O.)”

Mindfully.org

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Roundup-Glyphosate.htm


“"TheU.S.response(toquestionsaboutbiotechcropsafety)hasbeenanextremelypatronizingone.Theysay'Weknowbest,trustus,'"addedGurian‐Sherman,nowaseniorscientistattheUnionofConcernedScientists,anonprofitenvironmentalgroup.”

“Sofar,thatconfidencehasbeenlacking.Courtshavecitedregulatorsforfailingtodotheirjobsproperlyandadvisersandauditorshavesoughtsweepingchanges.”

“Thedevelopersofthesecroptechnologies,includingMonsantoanditschiefrivalDuPont,tightlycurtailindependentscientistsfromconductingtheirownstudies.Becausethecompaniespatenttheirgeneticalterations,outsidersarebarredfromtestingthebiotechseedswithoutcompanyapprovals.”

“Theagreementsdisallowanyresearchthatisnotfirstapprovedbythecompanies."Notrulyindependentresearchcanbelegallyconductedonmanycriticalquestionsregardingthetechnology,"thescientistssaidintheirstatement.”

“Outsideresearchershavealsoraisedconcernsovertheyearsthatglyphosateusemaybelinkedtocancer,miscarriagesandotherhealthproblemsinpeople.”

Gillam,Carey“PatentsTrumpPublicInterestinMonsanto's

AgEmpire‐SpecialReport:AreRegulatorsDroppingtheBallonBiocrops?”

Reuters,April13,2010


A‐198

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/13-0


“DefiningToxicAsbestosisanextremeexample,whichIusehereandinmybookPick Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us Alltomakeapoint,butmanyother“nontoxic”productscouldbefulloftoxicchemicals.I’mhopingthisessayleavesyouwithageneraldistrustofthenontoxiclabel,bothinthepastandcurrently.Whenyousee“nontoxic”onaproduct,keepthefollowingfactsinmind:

“Nontoxic”canstilllegallymeanthattherearenoimmediate,acutehazardsasdeterminedbytheLD50andLC50tests.

“Nontoxic”maymeantherearelittleornochronicdataavailableonthesubstance.Ifthesubstanceisnotacutelytoxic,andonecan’tproveitistoxicinthelongterm,manymanufacturersfeelthattheyhavetherighttocallitnontoxic.Eveniftherearestudiesshowingthatthesubstanceistoxic,manufacturersintheUnitedStateshavetraditionallywaitedforabsolute,unequivocalproof,whichinmostcasesisneveravailablebecausewedon’tstudyourchemicals.

Anartmaterialis“nontoxic”ifatoxicologistpaidbythemanufacturerdecidesitissafe.Thedramaticfailureinthislabelingprocedurewasillustratedwiththeleadceramicglazesandasbestos‐containingmaterialssuchastalc.Asbestos‐containingtalcsarestillfoundinsomeartandcraftmaterialstoday.

Someartmaterialsthathaveneverbeenevaluatedbyatoxicologistmaybelabeled“nontoxic”illegallyduetoweakenforcementoftheartmaterialslabelinglaw.Forexample,in1995,acameramanandareporterfromChannel9inNewYorkwentwithmetoamajorartmaterialsoutlet.Thatnightontheeveningnews,weshowedviewersaboutadozenimportedproductsthatdidnotconformtothelaw,somelabeled“nontoxic,”whichwerebeingsoldillegally.Thisisstilltruetoday,andalittleresearchwillleadyoutomanysourcesofnoncompliant“nontoxic”products.

Labelingofordinaryconsumerproductsisprettymuchuptothemanufactureranditspaidadvisers.Becausethereisnoenforcementmechanismintheregulationsforthechronichazardlabelingofordinaryconsumerproducts,thereisnotmuchincentivetoprovidewarnings.

Thereisnoregulatoryrequirementtowarnconsumersaboutdamagetomostofthebody’sorgans,suchasthelungs,theliver,andthekidneys.OnlyfourtypesofchronichazardsarecoveredbytheFederalHazardousSubstancesActregulations.Thesearecancer,anddevelopmental,reproductive,andneurologicaldamage.”

Rossol,Monona,Ph.D.“SayWhat?AChemicalCanDamageYourLungs,LiverandKidneysandStillBeLabeled"Non‐Toxic"?”

Ms.Rossolisaresearchchemist,authorandmemberoftheAmericanIndustrialHygieneAssociation

May9,2011


A‐199

http://www.alternet.org/story/150888/say_what_a_chemical_can_damage_your_lungs%2C_liver_and_kidneys_and_still_be_labeled_%22non-toxic%22?page=entire


Monsanto'sClaims IndependentResearchFindings

Rounduphasalowirritationalpotentialforeyeandskinandotherwiseisnotarisktohumanhealth.

Roundupisamongstthetopmostreportedpesticidescausingpoisoningincidents(mainlyskinirritation)inseveralcountries.Italsocausesarangeofacutesymptomsincluding,recurrenteczema,respiratoryproblems,elevatedbloodpressure,allergicreactions.

Roundupdoesnotcauseanyadversereproductiveeffects

Inlaboratorytestsonrabbitsglyphosatecausedlonglasting,harmfuleffectsonsemenqualityandspermcounts.

Roundupisnotmutagenicinmammals.

DNAdamagehasbeenobservedinlaboratoryexperimentsinmiceorgansandtissue.

Roundupisenvironmentallysafe.

Intheagriculturalenvironment,glyphosateistoxictosomebeneficialsoilorganisms,beneficialarthropodpredators,andincreasescrops'susceptibilitytodiseases.

Sub‐lethaldosesofglyphosatefromspraydriftdamageswildflowercommunitiesandcanaffectsomespeciesupto20metresawayfromthesprayer.

Theuseofglyphosateinarableareasmaycausediebackinhedgerowtrees.

Roundupisrapidlyinactivatedinsoilandwater.

Glyphosateisverypersistentinsoilsandsediments.

Glyphosateinhibitedtheformationofnitrogenfixingnodulesoncloverfor120daysaftertreatment.

Glyphosateresidueswerefoundinlettuce,carrot,andbarleywhenplantedayearafterglyphosatewasapplied.

Roundupisimmobileanddoesnotleachfromsoils.

Glyphosatecanreadilydesorbfromsoilparticlesinarangeofsoiltypes.Itcanbeextensivelymobileandleachtolowersoillayers.


A‐200

Glyphosatecanbecarriedbysoilparticlessuspendedinrunoff.

Roundupdoesnotcontaminatedrinkingwaterwhenusedbylocalauthoritiesonhardsurfaces.

IntheUK,levelsofglyphosateabovetheEUlimithavebeendetectedbytheWelshWaterCompanyeveryyearsince1993.TheDrinkingWaterInspectoraterecommendsthatglyphosatebemonitored,particularly,inareaswhereitisusedbylocalauthoritiesonhardsurfaces.

Itisnearlyimpossibleforglyphosateresistancetoevolveinweeds.

In1996,glyphosateresistantryegrasswasdiscoveredinAustralia.

Outcrossinginoilseedrapecrops(andthetransferofgenesfromtransgeniccrops)occursoverashortdistanceandcanbeeasilymanaged.

Thedensitiesofoilseedrapepollenaremuchhigherandtheirdispersalpatternsdifferfromaroundlargefieldscomparedtothosefoundinexperimentalplots.Winddispersalofpollenoccursovermuchgreaterdistancesandathigherconcentrationsthanpredictedbyexperimentalplots.Significantlevelsofgeneflowfromtransgenicoilseedcropsisinevitable.

RoundupReadycropswillreducelevelsofherbicideuse.

Herbicideresistantcropswillintensifyandincreasedependencyonherbicideuseinagricultureratherthanleadtoanysignificantreductions.Avarietyofherbicideswillhavetobereintroducedtocontrolglyphosateresistantvolunteers,feralpopulationsofcropsandresistantweeds.

Source:ReferencescitedinHealthandEnvironmentalImpactsofGlyphosate,(DetailsavailablefromthePesticidesTrust[nowPANUK]).

PANUK“Resistancetoglyphosate”

ThisdatawasfirstpublishedinPesticidesNewsNo.41,September1998,page5

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn41/PN41p5.htm


“WhenSofíalosthernewborn,shesoonrealizedthatsuchlosseswereall‐too‐commoninhersmallcommunityofItuzaingóAnnex.AerialsprayingwithMonsanto’sherbicideRoundUphadclimbeddramaticallyintheregionasthenumberofacresplantedwiththecompany’s“RoundUpReady”soycropsgrew.


A‐201

Sofíaandotherconcernedmotherswentdoortodoorcollectingstoriesabouthealthproblemsineachfamily—basicallyconductingthecommunity’sfirst‐everepidemiologicalstudy.“TheMothersofItuzaingó”discoveredthecommunity’scancerratetobe41timesthenationalaverage,andratesofneurologicalproblems,respiratorydiseasesandinfantmortalitywereastonishinglyhigh.Inresponse,themotherslauncheda“StoptheSpraying!”campaign.”

Schafer,Kristin,“MothertakesonMonsanto,winsglobalprize”

PublishedinGroundTruth,April13,2012

PesticideActionNetworkNorthAmerica

http://www.panna.org/blog/mother-takes-monsanto-wins-global-prize


“Buthumansaremuchbiggerthaninsectsandthedosestohumansareminiscule,right?Duringcriticalfirsttrimesterdevelopment,ahumanisnobiggerthananinsect,sothereiseveryreasontobelievethatpesticidescouldwreakhavocwiththedevelopingbrainofahumanembryo.Buthumanembryosaren'toutincornfieldsbeingsprayedwithinsecticidesandherbicides,arethey?Arecentstudyshowedthateveryhumantestedhadtheworld'smostpopularpesticide,Roundup, detectable in their urineatconcentrationsbetweenfiveandtwentytimesthelevelconsideredsafefordrinkingwater.

Theautismepidemicandthedisappearanceofbeesarejusttwoofmanyself‐imposeddisastersfromallowingourworld,includingUtah,tobeoverwhelmedbyenvironmentaltoxins.Environmentalprotection‐includingthesmallestandmostvulnerableamongus‐ishumanprotection.”

Moench,Brian,MD.,“TheAutismEpidemicandDisappearingBees:ACommonDenominator?”

PublishedinTruthout,April21,2012

http://truth-out.org/news/item/8586-the-autism-epidemic-and-disappearing-bees-a-common-denominator


“Aformulaseemstohavebeenmadetonotonlyruintheagriculturalsystem,butalsocompromisethehealthofmillionsofpeopleworldwide.WiththeinventofMonsanto’sRoundupReadycrops,resistant superweedsaretakingoverfarmlandandpublichealthisbeingattacked.ThesegeneticallyengineeredcropsarecreatedtowithstandlargeamountsofMonsanto’stop‐sellingherbicide,Roundup.Asitturnsout,glyphosate,theactiveingredientinRoundup,isactuallyleavingbehinditsresidueonRoundupReadycrops,causingfurtherpotentialconcernforpublichealth.”

Barrett,Mike,“Monsanto’sRoundupReadyCropsLeadingtoMentalIllness,Obesity”

NaturalSociety,December15,2011


A‐202

Source:http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-roundup-ready-crops-decreased-gut-flora/


“AskedabouttheharmlessnessofRoundup,Loverareplies,“That’sthePRbehindRoundup–howbenignitwasandyoucandrinkitandthere’snothingtoworryabouthere.Therearepeoplewhodisputethat.”ForexamplethereisanaccusationthatRoundup causes birth defects.“Wedon’tbuythebenigntheory,”continuesLovera,“Butwhat’sreallyinterestingisthatwearen’tgoingtobehavingthisconversationprettysoonbecauseRoundupisn’tworkinganymore.”

JillRichardson,“Monsantocontrolsourfood,poisonsourland,andinfluencesallthreebranchesofgovernment.”

Alternet,April18,2013

Source:http://www.alternet.org/food/how-monsanto-went-selling-aspirin-controlling-our-food-supply?paging=off


“Heavyuseoftheworld'smostpopularherbicide,Roundup,couldbelinkedtoarangeofhealthproblemsanddiseases,includingParkinson's,infertilityandcancers,accordingtoanewstudy.

Thepeer‐reviewedreport,publishedlastweekinthescientificjournalEntropy,saidevidenceindicatesthatresiduesof"glyphosate,"thechiefingredientinRoundupweedkiller,whichissprayedovermillionsofacresofcrops,hasbeenfoundinfood.

Thoseresiduesenhancethedamagingeffectsofotherfood‐bornechemicalresiduesandtoxinsintheenvironmenttodisruptnormalbodyfunctionsandinducedisease,accordingtothereport,authoredbyStephanieSeneff,aresearchscientistattheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,andAnthonySamsel,aretiredscienceconsultantfromArthurD.Little,Inc.SamselisaformerprivateenvironmentalgovernmentcontractoraswellasamemberoftheUnionofConcernedScientists.”

CareyGillam,“HeavyuseofherbicideRounduplinkedtohealthdangers‐U.S.study”

Reuters,April25,2013

Source:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425


"Thesebeautifulanduniquecreatureshavelongfascinatedbiologistsandschoolchildrenalike,"saysSylviaFallon,anNRDCseniorscientist."Theirprecipitouslosssignalsawarningabouttheunintendedconsequencesofourindustrialagriculturalpractices.Weneedtoactquicklytoensurethatfuturegenerationswillalsobeabletoexperiencethewonderofthemonarch'smigration."Althoughmilkweedmaysoundlikeapeskyweed,it'sactuallyanativeplantthatnatureintendedtobehere.Monarchbutterflylarvaedependonthisplantspeciesfortheirsurvival.”


A‐203

Zerbe,Leah,“MonarchsandGlyphosate:WillEPATakeActiontoSaveButterflies?”

RodaleNews,February26,2014

Source:http://www.rodalenews.com/monarchs-and-glyphosate

Conclusion

Theresultsofindependent,unbiasedresearchonglyphosate‐containingherbicidesindicatethischemicaliscausing:birthdefects,non‐Hodgkin’slymphoma,mitochondrialdamage,cellasphyxia,miscarriages,attentiondeficitdisorder,endocrinedisruption,DNAdamage,skintumors,thyroiddamage,hairycellleukemia,Parkinsondisease,prematurebirths,decreaseinthespermcount,harmtotheimmunesysteminfish,deathoflivercells,severereproductivesystemdisruptionsandchromosomaldamage.

PleasereadDanRather’sveryrecentSeptember22,2011investigativereportabouttheEPA’scorruptapprovalprocessofman‐madechemicals:

http://www.panna.org/blog/dan-rather-pesticides-bees

FSResponse:GlyphosatewasidentifiedbytheLoloNFasapotentialherbicidefornoxiousweedcontrol,specificallyeradicationwithknownofftargetimpacts,inthe2007IntegratedWeedManagementEIS.ItwasincludedinTable4(pgs.11‐12oftheMarshallWoodsWeedSpecialist’sReport)basedonthe2007EIS.AppendixAoftheWeedSpecialist’sReport(pgs.46–52)identifiespossibletreatmentsthatwouldbeusedtoreducethespreadofweeds;includingtheuseofherbicides.Theherbicidesidentifiedareaminopyralid,chlosulfuron,clopyralid,metsulfuron,imazapic,andpicloram.Atthistimethereisnoplantouseglyphosate.


A‐204


CaringUSFSOfficialswillAlwaysTaketheMostEffectiveActionAvailabletoReducetheRiskOfHomesBurningandLossofLifeshouldaWildfireStartNear

NeighborhoodsLocatedintheWoods

NotAnalyzinganAlternativeinDetailthatAppliesDr.Cohen’sFineFuelsRemovalMethodsDiscussedbelowIndicatestheResponsibleUSFSOfficialBelievesTimberRemovalresultingfromHazardousFuelsReductionLoggingismoreimportantthan

PreventingHomesfromBurning

1 Comment:“Homeownersaretheirownfirstlineofdefense.Savingahomefromwildfiredependsprimarilyontwofactors:roofingmaterialandthequalityofthe“defensiblespace”

surroundingit.8ResearchPhysicalScientistJackCohennotedaftervisitinghomesthat

survivedtheRodeo‐ChediskiFireandthosethatwereconsumed,thathadhomeownersfollowedguidelinesforcreatingdefensiblespace—describedascreatinganareaaroundastructurewherefuelsandvegetationaretreated,cleared,orreducedtoslowthespreadoffire—morehomeswouldhavesurvived.”FactSheet:UnderstandingFireandFireBehaviorOntarioAviationandForestFireManagementhttp://www.emifpa.org/PDF/FactSheetUnderstandingFire.pdfFSResponse:AsstatedonEAp.142,“Finneyetal.(2005)observedreductionsinwildfireseverityinportionsoftheRodeo‐Chediskiwildfiresontheleesideofareaspreviouslytreatedwithprescribedfire.Thesepositiveeffectscanbeexpectedtobemorefrequentastheportionpfthelandscapethathasbeentreatedincreases(Reinhardt,etal.,2008)”AsdiscussedintheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport(pp.2‐3)andEA(pp.126‐127),“ThreeNationalgoalshavebeenidentifiedformakingapositivedifferenceinaddressingthewildlandfireproblems.TheCohesiveStrategybuildsonthesegoalsinthethreephases:•Restoringandmaintainingresilientlandscapes.Thestrategymustrecognizethecurrentlackofecosystemhealthandvariabilityofthisissuefromgeographicareatogeographicarea.Becauselandscapeconditionsandneedsvarydependentonlocalclimateandfuelconditions,amongotherelements,thestrategywilladdresslandscapesonaregionalandsub‐regionalscale.•Creatingfire‐adaptedcommunities.Thestrategywillofferoptionsandopportunitiestoengagecommunitiesandworkwiththemtobecomemoreresistanttowildfirethreats.•Respondingtowildfires.Thiselementconsidersthefullspectrumoffiremanagementactivitiesandrecognizesthedifferencesinmissionsamonglocal,state,tribalandFederalagencies.Thestrategyofferscollaborativelydevelopedmethodologiestomoveforward.Fire‐adaptedCommunities•Preventunwantedhuman‐causedfireignitionswithinorincloseproximitytocommunities.•Reducehazardousfuelswithinthewildland‐urbaninterfaceandnearbyareascontaining


A‐205

communityvaluestobeprotected.•Continuetodevelop,support,andmaintainCommunityWildfireProtectionPlans(CWPP)asoneoftheprimarytoolstoachievethegoalsoftheCohesiveStrategy.•Buildacultureofself‐sufficiencytoprepareforandprotectlifeandpropertyfromwildlandfire.•Improveeffectivenessandself‐sufficiencyofemergencyresponsewithineachcommunity.•Improvepost‐firerecoveryeffortsthatimpactpublichealthandsafety,watersources,powertransmissioncorridors,andothercriticalinfrastructure.

2 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#1‐ “Researchresultsindicatethatthehomeanditsimmediatesurroundingswithin100‐200feet(30‐60meters)principallydeterminesthehomeignitionpotentialduringseverewildland‐urbanfires.ResearchhasalsoestablishedthatfireisanintrinsicecologicalprocessofnearlyallNorthAmericanecosystems.Together,thisunderstandingformsthebasisforacompellingargumentforadifferentapproachtoaddressingthewildland‐urbanfireproblem.”(Pg.1–abstract)Source:Wildland‐UrbanFire—Adifferentapproachhttp://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildlandurbanfire.pdfFSResponse:“Studieshavefoundthatthelossofstructuresandotherresourcedamagefromwildfirescanbelimitedbyfueltreatmentsconductedpriortofires(Graham,2009).Inadditiontomodifyingwildfireintensity,theseverityofeffectstovegetationandsoilsinpreviouslytreatedareascanbelowerthaninareasnottreatedpriortowildfire.Studieshavealsofoundthatbymodifyingfirebehavior,lowerimpactsuppressionmethodscanbeused.Becauseofthelowerburnintensityintreatedareas,firefightersareabletoremainwithintheareatosuppressspotfiresignitedaheadofthewildfire.Therefore,fueltreatments,likethoseproposedinthisproject,canbeusedtocreateirregularforeststructuresandcompositionsthatproduceforeststhataremoreresilienttowildfire”(MarshallWoodsEA,page17).“Whileindividualhome‐by‐hometreatmentscanhelpreducetheriskofstructureloss,relyingsolelyonsuchtreatmentscouldforegostrategicopportunitiesforsuppressingwildfireswithinthewildland‐urbaninterface.Althoughhomesinthepathofwildfireareoftenthemostrecognizedvalue‐at‐risk,treatmentsneedtogobeyondthehomeignitionzonetoprotectotherresourcevaluesthatmakeuptheforestedsettingincludingsoilstability,wildlifehabitat,waterquality,timbervalue,andlandscapeaesthetics(Graham,2004)”(MarshallWoodsEA,page17).“Studiesindicatethemostappropriatefueltreatmentstrategyforreducinghazardousfuelsincludesforestthinning(removingladderfuelsanddecreasingtreecrowndensity)followedbyprescribedburning,pilingandburningoffuels,orothermechanicaltreatments(Peterson,2005).Otherresearchshowsthattreatingareasbeforefirebeginscandecreasetheseverityoffire(StromandFule,2007;Peterson,et.al,2005;OmiandMartinson,2004;AgeeandSkinner,2005;Graham,2004;PolletandOmit,202;Fuel,et.al.2001)”(MarshallWoodsEA,page17).Insupportingoneoftheobjectivesofthisproject,topreventwildfiresfromenteringthecommunitysothathomeignitabilityisnottested,thefollowingstatementsandmodelresultssupportfuelstreatmentmanagementmorethan30‐60metersfromstructurestopreventfirebrandloftingandspreadintothewildlandurbaninterface.TheStructureIgnitionAssessmentModel(SIAM)developedbyCohen(1995)andresultsfromtheInternationalCrownFireModelingExperiment(Alexanderetal.1998)generallyconcurthataflamingfrontatadistanceof40meters(approximately120feet)ormorefromstructuredoesnotdeliver


A‐206

sufficientheatenergytoignitetheexteriorofahome.However,loftedfirebrandsarealsoaprincipleignitionfactor.Highlyignitablehomescanigniteduringwildlandfirewithoutafirespreadingnearthestructure.Thisoccurswhenfirebrandsarelofteddownwindfromfires.Thefirebrandssubsequentlycollectonandigniteflammablehomematerials(suchasroofs)andadjacentflammables(suchaswoodpiles,decking,andlandscapedvegetation).Firebrandsthatresultinignitionscanoriginatefromwildlandfiresthatareadistanceofonekilometer(0.6miles)ormore(Cohen,2000.)AsdiscussedintheFireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport(p.25),“AlternativeBisthealternativebestdesignedtocreatefireresilientstands.Thebestscienceindicatesathreepartobjectivetocreatingfireresilientstandswithfueltreatments;reducingsurfacefuels,reducingladderfuelsandreducingcrowndensity(AgeeandSkinner,2005).Bymeetingtheseobjectivesonagreaterscalewithinthewildland‐urbaninterfaceandthehighuserecreationcorridorthecrownfirepotentialisreducedandresiliencyandecosystemfunctionincrease.Thisoccursinakeylocationwithahighdensityofhighvalueassetsthatarecurrentlyatrisktonegativeimpactsfromawildfireevent.”…”UnderAlternativeA,thepotentialforhighintensityfireremainsveryprobablewithinalandscapethathasmissednumerousfirereturnintervalsandhasaccumulatedatypicalstanddensitiesandfuelloads.”(FireandFuelsSpecialist’sReport(p.24).Furthermore,asdiscussedonEAp.141,“Thegoaloffueltreatmentregimesprobablyshouldnotbeatargetstandstructureoratargetfirehazardrating,butrather,tosavethoseimportantecosystemcomponents(e.g.,large,oldponderosapinetrees)andprocessesthatmightbelostifanunplannedwildfirehappenstovisitthelandscape(ApfelbaumandChapman,1997).ThisespeciallyappliestotheWUIwherefueltreatmentregimesshouldminimizethosefiresthatcouldburnhomes(Reinhardt,etal.,2008).AlternativeA(NoActionalternative)wouldperpetuatesurfacefuelconditionsthatcontributetofirebehaviorintensitiesthatresultinflamelengths4feetorgreaterandpotentialmortalityrangingfrom80%to100%ofthestand.TheNoActionalternativeisdoesnotmeetthepurposeandneedoftheprojectonanyofthe3,959acresproposedfortreatmentintheotheralternatives.AlternativeBwouldapplyprescribedfiretreatmentsonallacresproposedfortreatment.Incriticalareas(e.g.,theRattlesnakecorridor)thetreatmentcallsforthinningtheoverstoryandunderstorytoagreaterextentthantheotheractionalternatives.Thistreatmentcoupledwithunderburningisthemosteffectivemannertoaddressmodifyingfirebehavioroverthelongestperiodoftime.Thestanddensitiesarelowerandcanopybulkdensitiesarelessenedtoagreaterextentpriortotheapplicationofprescribedfire.Thiswouldresultinconditionsthatareatlesslikelytoexperienceadversefireeffects.Thecrownfireindexisthehighest,theflamelengthsthelowest,andthepercentmortalitythelowestofanyoftheactionalternatives.AlternativeCisdesignedtoachievethesesameobjectives;however,wouldnotaccomplishthiseffectivelyacross539acresalongthemainRattlesnakeTrailcorridor(Units70,71,2,3).AlternativeDwouldnotaccomplishthiseffectivelyon1,054acresthatwouldbetreatedunderAlternativeBincludingthemainRattlesnakecorridor.”

3 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#2‐ “AseniorphysicistattheStanfordResearchInstitute,C.P.Butler(1974),coinedtheterm"urban‐wildlandinterface"anddescribedthisfireproblemasfollows:


A‐207

"Initssimplestterms,thefireinterfaceisanypointwherethefuelfeedingawildfirechangesfromnatural(wildland)fueltoman‐made(urban)fuel.”(Pg.1)

Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#3‐“Theresultsofthediverseanalyticalmethodsarecongruentandconsistentlyindicatethatignitionsfromflamesoccuroverrelativelyshortdistances‐‐tensofmetersnothundredsofmeters.Thesevere‐caseestimateofSIAMindicatesdistancesof40metersorless.Experimentalwoodwallsdidnotigniteat10meterswhenexposedtoexperimentalcrownfires.And,casestudiesfoundthatvegetationclearanceofatleast10meterswasassociatedwithahighoccurrenceofhomesurvival.”(Pg.4)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#4‐“AnalysesofsouthernCaliforniahomelossesdonebytheStanfordResearchInstituteforthe1961Belair‐BrentwoodFire(Howardandothers1973)andbytheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,forthe1990PaintedCaveFire(FooteandGilless1996)areconsistentwithSIAMestimatesandtheexperimentalcrownfiredata.Givennonflammableroofs,StanfordResearchInstitute(Howardandothers1973)founda95percentsurvivalwithaclearanceof10to18metersandFooteandGilless(1996)atBerkeley,found86percenthomesurvivalwithaclearanceof10metersormore.”(Pgs.3and4)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#5‐“Extensivewildlandvegetationmanagementdoesnoteffectivelychangehomeignitability.”(Pg.5)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#6‐“Homeignitabilityalsodictatesthateffectivemitigatingactionsfocusonthehomeanditsimmediatesurroundingsratherthanonextensivewildlandfuelmanagement.Becausehomeownerstypicallyasserttheirauthorityforthehomeanditsimmediatesurroundings,theresponsibilityforeffectivelyreducinghomeignitabilitycanonlyresidewiththepropertyownerratherthanwildlandagencies.”(Pg.5)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#7‐“Asstated,theevidenceindicatesthathomeignitionsdependonthehomematerialsanddesignandonlythoseflammableswithinafewtensofmetersofthehome(homeignitability).ThewildlandfuelcharacteristicsbeyondthehomesitehavelittleifanysignificancetoWUIhomefirelosses.”(Pg.5)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#8‐“HomeignitabilityimpliesthathomeownershavetheultimateresponsibilityforWUIhomefirelosspotential.Asshown,theignitionandflammabilitycharacteristicsofastructureanditsimmediatesurroundingsdeterminethehomefirelosspotential.Thus,thehomeshouldnotbeconsideredavictimofwildlandfire,butratherapotentialparticipantinthecontinuationofthewildlandfire.Homeignitability,i.e.,thepotentialforWUIhomefireloss,isthehomeowner'schoiceandresponsibility.”(Pg.5)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#9‐“However,publicandmanagementperceptionsmayimpedehomeownersfromtakingprincipalresponsibility.Forexample,theFederalWildlandFireManagement,PolicyandProgramReview(1995)observes,‘Thereisawidespreadmisconceptionbyelectedofficials,agencymanagers,andthepublicthatwildland/urbaninterfaceprotectionissolelyafireserviceconcern.’InaJournalofForestryarticle,BeebeandOmi(1993)concur,statingthat,‘PublicreactiontowildfiresuggeststhatmanyAmericanswantcompetentprofessionalstomanagefireflawlessly,reducingtheriskstolife,property,andpubliclandstonil.’ThesestatementsagreewithBradshaw's(1988)descriptionofthesocietalrolesintheWUIproblem.Heobservesthathomeownersexpectthatfireprotectionwillbeprovidedbyothers.Contrarytotheseexpectationsforfireprotection,thefireservices


A‐208

haveneithertheresourcesforeffectivelyprotectinghighlyignitablehomesduringsevereWUIfires,northeauthoritytoreducehomeignitability.”(Pg.6)Sourceforquotes#2to#9above:ReducingtheWildlandFireThreattoHomes:WhereandHowMuch?PresentedastheFireEconomicsSymposiuminSanDiego,CaliforniaonApril12,1999.http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1999_cohen_j001.pdfFSResponse:Withintheprojectareathereareapproximately10,164acresthataredeemedwildland‐urbaninterface(MarshallWoodsEA,page16).TheLNFrecognizestheintermixedurbaninterfaceas1.5milesfromprivatepropertywhereman‐madefuelsmaynotbepresent.Conversely,wildlandfuelsmaybepresentonprivatepropertywherenoman‐madefuelsarepresent.Theybothfeedeachother,howevertheycanalsobeindependentofeachother.Theabove‐citedresearchexclusivelyaddresseshomeignitability.Notaddressedintheresearcharesomeoftheotherissuesandproblemsfacedbyresourcemanagers,fireprofessionals,andresidentswhenconsideringfireintheWUI.WhenafireenterstheWUI,thereremainsthepotentialforlossoflife,property,andothervaluesevenifhomeshavebeenmadefiresafe.TheMissoulaDistrictworkscloselywiththeMissoulaCityFireDepartment,MissoulaRuralFireDepartment,ClintonVolunteer,andtheMontanaDepartmentofResourcesfirepersonnelwhenrespondingtofireeventswithinjointjurisdiction.FederalandStatefirepersonnelarenottrainedtosuppressstructurefiresasthisdutyistheresponsibilityoftheruralfiredepartment.WhiletheMissoulaRangerDistricthashadaveryactivepreventionprogram,notaddressedaboveistheuncertaintyregardingthenumberofpropertyownerswhotaketheresponsibility,orwhohavethefundsavailable,toreducetheignitibilityoftheirhomesandmaintainthatcondition.Also,notaddressedisthepotentiallossofprivateforests,vehicles,domesticanimals,andinfrastructure(e.g.,roads,utilitylines,watersupplies,etc.).Simplyreducinghomeignitabilityignoresthecosttoprivateandpublicentitieswhenthesevaluesaredamagedordestroyedinawildfireevent.“WhiletheRattlesnakeWUIalongwithadditionalprivatelandanddevelopmentsdictatesignificantvalues‐at‐risktofiremanagement,othervalues‐at‐riskwithintheprojectareaincludetheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaanditsassociatedtrails/developmentsaswellasoverheadpowerlines.Values‐at‐riskadjacenttoandoutsidetheprojectareaincludeMineralPeakLookout,SawmillGulchTrailhead,MacroFlatsfishingaccess,Sharonfishingaccess,theRattlesnakeWildernessAreaandtheMissoulaMunicipalWatershed.”(EAp.17)Manyhomeownerswouldlikelyfinditundesirabletoliveinanintenselyorseverelyburned‐overforesteveniftheirhomehassurvivedthepassageoffire.Notonlyareaestheticvaluesdecreasedformostpeople,buttheeconomicconsequencescanbedevastating,andtherisksassociatedwiththeafter‐effectsofwildfireevents(e.g.mudslidessuchasthoseexperiencedontheLoloandBitterrootNationalForestsin2000)canputhomes,andpotentiallylives,atrisk.AlsoseeFSResponse#2.

4 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#10‐ “Vegetationmanagementbeyondthestructure'simmediatevicinityhaslittleeffectonstructureignitions.Thatis,vegetationmanagementadjacenttothestructurewouldpreventignitionsfromflameexposure;butvegetationmanagementawayfromthestructurewouldnotaffectignitionfromflameexposureandwouldnotsignificantlyreduceignitionsfromfirebrands.”(Pg.4)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#11‐“PastreportsandrecommendationsaswellasexperimentalresearchandmodelingsuggestthatW‐UIfire‐lossmitigationshouldconcentrateonthe


A‐209

residenceanditsimmediatesurroundings.AnystrategyforeffectivelyreducingtheW‐UIfireproblemmustinitiallyfocusonresidentialfireresistance.”(Pg.5–Conclusion)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#12‐“Insteadofallfireprotectionresponsibilitiesresidingwithfireagencies,homeownerstakeresponsibilityforassuringfirewiseconditionsandtheinitialfiredefenseoftheirresidencesduringwildlandfires.Thefireagenciesbecomeacommunitypartnerthatprovidesinformation,coordinatesandassistsinmeetingfirewiserequirements,andprovidesfiresuppressionassistance.”(Pg.5)Sourceforquotes#10to#12above:StructureIgnitionAssessmentcanHelpReduceFireDamagesintheWUIPublishedinFireManagementNotes,Volume57No.4,1997http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1997_cohen_j001.pdfFSResponse:RefertoFSResponse#3.

5 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#13‐ “Myexaminationsuggeststhattheabundanceandubiquityofpineneedles,deadleaves,curedvegetation,flammableshrubs,woodpiles,etc.adjacentto,touchingandorcoveringthehomesprincipallycontributedtotheresidentiallosses.”(Pg.4)Source:ExaminationoftheHomeDestructioninLosAlamosAssociatedwiththeCerroGrandeFireJuly10,2000Source:USDAForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation,Missoula,Montana,2000.http://www.fusee.org/docs/Preparedness/Cohen_examlosalamos%20copy.pdfFSResponse:Focusingonthehomeignition’szonepineneedles,deadleaves,curedvegetation,flammableshrubs,woodpiles,etc.adjacentto,touchingandorcoveringthehomesisessential;however,loftedfirebrandsfromadjacentforestfuelsarealsoaprincipleignitionfactor.Highlyignitablehomescanigniteduringwildlandfirewithoutafirespreadingnearthestructure.Thisoccurswhenfirebrandsarelofteddownwindfromfires.Thefirebrandssubsequentlycollectonandigniteflammablehomematerials(suchasroofs)andadjacentflammables(suchaswoodpiles,decking,andlandscapedvegetation).Firebrandsthatresultinignitionscanoriginatefromwildlandfiresthatareadistanceofonekilometer(0.6miles)ormore(Cohen,2000.)RefertoFSResponse#3.

6 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#14‐ "ThewildlandfiremanagementapproachforpreventingWUIfiredisasterslargelyaddressesthewildfireoutsidethehomeignitionzoneratherthanahome'signitionpotentialasdeterminedbytheconditionswithinthehomeignitionzone.Since2000,agencyfiremanagementpolicyinitiativeshaveemphasizedfiresuppression."(Pg.24)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#15‐"PreventingWUIfiredisastersrequiresthattheproblembeframedintermsofhomeignitionpotential.Becausethisprincipallyinvolvesthehomeignitionzone,andthehomeignitionzoneprimarilyfallswithinprivateownership,theresponsibilityforpreventinghomeignitionslargelyfallswithintheauthorityofthepropertyowner.Preventingwildfiredisastersthusmeansfireagencieshelpingpropertyownersmitigatethevulnerabilityoftheirstructures.ThecontinuedfiremanagementfocusonfiresuppressionsuggeststheWUIfireproblempersistslargelyasaconsequenceofframingtheWUIfireproblemprimarilyintermsofthefireexclusionparadigm."(Pg.25)


A‐210

Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#16‐ "ThecontinuedfocusonfiresuppressionlargelytotheexclusionofalternativesthataddresshomeignitionpotentialsuggestsapersistentinappropriateframingoftheWUIfireproblemintermsofthefireexclusionparadigm."(Pg.25)Sourceforquotes#14to#16above:TheWildland‐UrbanInterfaceFireProblem:AConsequenceoftheFireExclusionParadigmPublishedinForestHistoryToday,Fall2008http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/FHT/FHTFall2008/Cohen.pdfFSResponse:Agency fire management policy has changed over the years and is now accepting of utilizing natural ignitions for multiple resource benefit. However, in Fire Management Unit 1, FMU, wildland-urban interface, there may be a greater need for suppression efforts than in other FMUs due to the urban interface concerns and values at risk. However, where applicable in FMU 2, developed accessible areas, there are greater possibilities of utilizing natural ignitions for resource benefit (Fire and Fuels Specialist’s Report, pp. 6-7). The majority of the Marshall Woods project area (90%) and proposed treatments are within FMU1 (EA, p. 22).RefertoFSResponse#3.

7 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#17‐ “Forthesamereason,mitigatinghomeignitionpotentialduringextremewildlandfiresmustfocusactivitieswithinandimmediatetotheresidentialarea,i.e.thehomeignitionzone.Butthehomeignitionzonelargelycorrespondstoprivateproperty.Thus,withminorexception,theauthorityforeffectivelyreducingthehomeignitionpotentialbelongstohomeowners.Publiclandmanagementagenciescanfacilitatehomeownermitigationsandtheseagenciesmaybeabletoreducefireintensitiesandtheextentofburningaroundcommunities.Buttheseagenciescannotaccomplishthenecessaryandsufficientactionsnecessarytopreventresidentialfiredisastersduringextremefireconditionsbytreatingbeyondthehomeignitionzone.”(Pg.2)Source:ThoughtsontheWildland‐UrbanInterfaceFireProblem,June2003http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildurbaninterface.pdfFSResponse:RefertoFSResponse#6

8 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#18‐ “Ahomewithitsimmediatesurroundings(about100‐150feetfromthestructure)iscalledtheHomeIgnitionZone.ManyfactorsabouttheHIZdeterminethepotentialforignitionduringawildlandfire,suchasflammablewoodroofsandmaterialsliketrees,grass,decks,oradjacentstructuresleadinguptoahome.”(Pg.1)Source:SavingHomesfromWildfires:RegulatingtheHomeIgnitionZonePublishedinZoningNews,May2001http://www.battle-creek.net/docs/fire/Zoning.pdfFSResponse:RefertoFSResponse#6.

9 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#19‐ “SIAMcalculationsindicatethatlargewildlandflamefronts(e.g.,forestcrownfires)willnotresultinpilotedwoodignitions(e.g.,thetypicalvarietyofexteriorwoodwalls)atdistancesgreaterthan40meters(CohenandButler[Inpress]).”(Pg.4)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#20‐“FieldstudiesconductedduringtheInternationalCrownFireModelingExperiment(Alexanderetal.1998)providedmeasureddataforcomparisonswithSIAMmodelestimates.Totalheattransfer(radiationandconvection)andignitiondata


A‐211

wereobtainedfromheatfluxsensorsplacedinwoodenwallsections. Theinstrumentedwallswerelocatedonflat,clearedterrainat10,20,and30metersdownwindfromtheedgeoftheforestedplots.Theforestwasvariablycomposedofanoverstoryofjackpine(Pinusbanksiana)about13metershighwithanunderstoryofblackspruce(Piceamariana).Thespreadingcrownfireproducedflamesapproximately20metershigh.”(Pg.5)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#21‐“Fiveburnswereconductedwherewallsectionswereexposedtoaspreadingcrownfire.Asthecrownfiresreachedthedownwindedgeoftheplot,turbulentflamesextendedintotheclearingbeyondtheforestedge.Intwoofthefiveburns,flamesextendedbeyond10meterstomakecontactwiththewallsectionplacedat10metersfromtheforestedge.Whenflamecontactoccurred,thewallsignited;however,withoutflamecontact,onlyscorchoccurred.Thewoodenpanelsat20and30metersneverignitedandthepanelat30metersneverscorched.”(Pg.6)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#22‐“CasestudiesofactualW‐UIfiresprovideanindependentcomparisonwithSIAMandthecrownfireexperiments.Theactualfiresincorporateawiderangeoffireexposures.Thecasestudieschosenexaminesignificantfactorsrelatedtohomesurvivalfortwofiresthatdestroyedhundredsofhomes.TheBelAirfireresultedin484homesdestroyed(Howardetal.1973)andthePaintedCavefiredestroyed479homes(Foote1994).Analysesofbothfiresindicatethathomeignitionsdependonthecharacteristicsofahomeanditsimmediatesurroundings.Howardetal.(1973)observed95percentsurvivalforhomeswithnonflammableroofsandavegetationclearanceof10to18meters.Foote(1994)observed86percentsurvivalforhomeswithnonflammableroofsandaclearanceof10metersormore.”(Pg.7)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#23‐“Thehighsurvivalrateforhomeswithnonflammableroofsand10‐20metervegetationclearancesincludedfirebrandsasanignitionfactor,thusindicatingthatfirebrandignitionsalsodependontheignitioncharacteristicsofthehomeandtheadjacentflammablematerials.”(Pg.8)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#24‐“Wildlandfuelreductionbeyondthehomeignitionzonedoesnotnecessarilychangehomeignitability;therefore,wildlandfuelreductiondoesnotnecessarilymitigatetheW‐UIfirelossproblem.”(Pg.9)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#25‐“EffectivelandscapefuelreductiondoesnotnecessarilypreventW‐UIhomefiredestruction.”(Pg.10)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#26‐“Firelossesdependonhomeignitionsandhomeignitionsdependonhomeignitability.Thus,homeignitability,beinglimitedtoahomeanditsimmediatesurroundings,offersustheopportunitytoseparatetheW‐UIstructurefirelossproblemfromotherlandscape‐scalefiremanagementissues.Thisconclusionhassignificantimplicationsfortheactionsandresponsibilitiesofhomeownersandfireagencies,suchasidentifyingandmappingthepotentialforW‐UIresidentialfiredestruction,identifyingappropriateandeffectivemitigatingactions,anddeterminingwhoshouldtakeresponsibilityforhomeignitability.”(Pg.10)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#27‐“Thus,wildlandfuelreductionthatiseffectiveforreducingthewildlandfireintensitymightbeinsufficientforreducingthedestructionofhighlyignitablehomes.Incontrast,alowhomeignitionpotentialreducesthechancesoffiredestructionwithoutextensivewildlandfuelreduction.ThesefindingsindicatethattheW‐UIhomefire


A‐212

lossproblemisahomeignitabilityissuelargelyindependentoflandscapefuelreductionissues.”(Pg.10)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#28‐“Theextentofthehomeignitionzonecorrespondsmoretospecifichomeandcommunityownershipthantothelandscapesoffederal,stateandlocallandmanagementagencies.ThissuggestsacorrespondingresponsibilityforW‐UIhomefirelosspotentialresidingwithhomeownersandcommunities.Thus,thehomeshouldnotbeconsideredavictimofwildlandfire,butratherapotentialparticipantinthecontinuationofthewildlandfire.Homeignitability,i.e.,thepotentialforW‐UIhomefireloss,isahomeownerandcommunitychoiceandresponsibility.”(Pg.11)Sourceforquotes#19to#28above:WhatistheWildlandFireThreattoHomes?PresentedastheThompsonMemorialLecture,April10,2000http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildlandfirethreat.pdfFSResponse:Thefieldstudiesmentionedin“opposingview#20”focusedinajackpinehabitat,whereastheadjacentfuelsintheMarshallWoodsprojectisDouglas‐fir,ponderosapine,andwesternlarch.Loftedfirebrandsareaprincipleignitionfactor.Highlyignitablehomescanigniteduringwildlandfirewithoutafirespreadingnearthestructure.Thisoccurswhenfirebrandsarelofteddownwindfromfires.Thefirebrandssubsequentlycollectonandigniteflammablehomematerials(suchasroofs)andadjacentflammables(suchaswoodpiles,decking,andlandscapedvegetation).Firebrandsthatresultinignitionscanoriginatefromwildlandfiresthatareadistanceofonekilometer(0.6miles)ormore(Cohen,2000.)AlsoseeFSResponse#3.

10 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#29‐ “Modelresultsindicatethatignitionsfromflameradiationareunlikelytooccurfromburningvegetationbeyond40metersofastructure.Thinningvegetationwithin40metershasasignificantignitionmitigationeffect.”(Pg.81)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#30‐“Vegetationmanagementtopreventignitionsfromradiationdoesnotrequireextensivevegetationremovalhundredsofmetersfromastructure.Ouranalysisindicatedthat40meterswassufficientfora20meterflameheight.”(Pg.86–Conclusions)Sourceforquotes#29and#30above:ModelingPotentialStructureIgnitionsfromFlameRadiationExposurewithImplicationsforWildland/UrbanInterfaceFireManagementPresentedatthe13thFireandForestMeteorologyConference.Lorne,Australia,1996http://www.firewise.org/resources/files/WUI_HIR/Modelingpotentialignitions.pdfFSResponse:RefertoFSResponse#3.

11 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#31‐ “Miraclesaside,thecharacteristicsofthesurvivinghomeanditsimmediatesurroundingsgreatlyinfluenceditssurvival.”(Pg.15)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#32‐“Basedonsevere‐caseassumptionsofflameradiationandexposuretime,SIAMcalculationsindicatethatwild‐landflamefrontscomparabletocrowningandtorchingtrees(flames20metershighand50meterswide)willnotignitewoodsurfacesatdistancesgreaterthan40meters(CohenandButler,inpress).Figure2showstheradiantheatawallwouldreceivefromflamesdependingonitsdistancefromthefire.Theincidentradiantheatflux,definedastherateofradiantenergyperunitareareceivedatanexposedsurface,decreasesasthedistanceincreases.”(Pg.17)


A‐213

Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#33‐“Analysesofbothfiresindicatethathomeignitionsdependonthecharacteristicsofastructureanditsimmediatesurroundings.Howardetal.(1973)observed86percentsurvivalforhomeswithnonflammableroofsandaclearanceof10metersormore.”(Pg.19)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#34‐“Usingthemodelresultsasguidancewiththeconcurrenceofexperimentsandcasestudies,wecanconcludethathomeignitionsarenotlikelyunlessflamesandfirebrandignitionsoccurwithin40metersofthestructure.Thisfindingindicatesthatthespatialscaledetermininghomeignitionscorrespondsmoretospecifichomeandcommunitysitesthantothelandscapescalesofwildlandfiremanagement.Thus,theW‐UIfirelossproblemprimarilydependsonthehomeanditsimmediatesite.”(Pg.20)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#35‐“Thus,theW‐UIfirelossproblemcanbedefinedasahomeignitabilityissuelargelyindependentofwildlandfuelmanagementissues.Thisconclusionhassignificantimplicationsfortheactionsandresponsibilitiesofhomeownersandfireagencies,suchasdefiningandlocatingpotentialW‐UIfireproblems(forexample,hazardassessmentandmapping),identifyingappropriatemitigatingactions,anddeterminingwhomusttakeresponsibilityforhomeignitability.”(Pg.20)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#36‐“TheW‐UIfirecasestudiesindicatedapproximately90percentsurvivalwithavegetationclearanceontheorderof10to20metersforhomeswithnonflammableroofs.Thus,thecasestudiessupportthegeneralflame‐to‐structuredistancerangeof10to40metersasfoundthroughmodelingandexperiments.”(Pg.20)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#37‐“Achangeneedstotakeplaceintherelationshipbetweenhomeownersandthefireservices.Insteadofhome‐relatedpresuppressionandfireprotectionresponsibilitiesresidingsolelywithfireagencies,homeownersmusttaketheprincipalresponsibilityforensuringadequatelylowhomeignitability.”(Pg.21)Sourceforquotes#31to#37above:PreventingDisasterHomeignitabilityintheWildland‐UrbanInterfacePublishedintheJournalofForestry98(3):15‐21,2000http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_preventingdisaster.pdfFSResponse:RefertoFSResponse#s3and9.

12 Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#38‐ “Manyscientistsandnaturalresourceagenciessuggestextensivefueltreatmentstoreducethepossibilityofsevereandintensewildfiresthatcoulddamageecosystems,destroyproperty,andtakehumanlife(USDAForestService,2000;GAO,2003a,b).However,thereareanumberofmisconceptionsandmisunderstandingsaboutfueltreatmentsandtheiruseasapanaceaforfirehazardreductionacrosstheUnitedStates(FinneyandCohen,2003;FranklinandAgee,2003).”(Pg.1998)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#39‐“Giventherightconditions,wildlandswillinevitablyburn.Itisamisconceptiontothinkthattreatingfuelscan‘‘fire‐proof’’importantareas.Itwouldbevirtuallyimpossibletoexcludefirefrommosttemperateterrestrialecosystemsbecauseignitionsourcesareprevalentandfuelscannotbeeliminated.Ignitionisrarelyaffectedbyfueltreatment.”(Pg.1998)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#40‐“Treatingfuelstofacilitatesuppressionisanexamplein


A‐214

circularlogic.Iffueltreatmentmakessuppressionmoresuccessfulingeneral,thenlessareawillbeburnedintheshortrunandmoreacreagewilltendtoburnunderextremeconditions,whensuppressionisineffective.Theinevitableresultisthatmoreareaisburnedinfewer,moreunmanageableeventswithgreaterconsequences.Inaddition,firesuppressionleadstocontinuedfuelaccumulationand,inturn,moredifficultconditionsforsuppression.Thisphenomenonhasbeendescribedas‘‘thewildlandfireparadox’’(BrownandArno,1991).Ratherthancreatingconditionswherefireiseasiertosuppress,fueltreatmentsshouldstrivetocreateconditionswherefirecanoccurwithouttheneedforsuppression.”(Pg.1998)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#41‐“BessieandJohnson(1995)showweather(fuelmoistureandwind)isfarmoreimportantthanfuelsindeterminingfirebehavior;reducingfuelsmayhavealimitedimpactonfireoccurrence.”(Pg.1999)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#42‐“Treatingfuelstoreducefireoccurrence,firesize,oramountofburnedareaisultimatelybothfutileandcounter‐productive.”(Pg.1999)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#43‐“Sincethehomeignitionzonelargelyoccursonprivatelands,mostlandmanagementagenciesdonothavetheauthoritytomitigatetheWUIignitionpotentialdirectly(Cohen,2000b).However,theopportunityexiststoexplicitlydefineresponsibilitiesfortheWUIfirepotential(i.e.thehomeignitionzone)consistentwithareasofjurisdictionandseparatelyfromecologicalwildfireissues.”(Pg.1999)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#44‐“Itmaynotbenecessaryoreffectivetotreatfuelsinadjacentareasinordertosuppressfiresbeforetheyreachhomes;rather,itisthetreatmentofthefuelsimmediatelyproximatetotheresidences,andthedegreetowhichtheresidentialstructuresthemselvescanignitethatdetermineiftheresidencesarevulnerable.”(Pg.1999)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#45‐“WUIfueltreatmentscanbedesignedsuchthatanextremewildfirecanoccurintheWUIwithouthavingaresidentialfiredisaster.Althoughgeneralwildfirecontroleffortsmaynotbenefitfromfueltreatmentsduringextremefirebehavior,fuelmodificationscansignificantlychangeoutcomeofawildfirewithinatreatmentarea.Researchhasshownthatahome’scharacteristicsanditsimmediatesurroundingsprincipallydeterminetheWUIignitionpotentialduringextremewildfirebehavior(Cohen,2000a,c,2003,2004).TheareathatprimarilydeterminesWUIignitionpotentialiscalledthehomeignitionzone(Cohen,2001).WUIfueltreatmentscanaddressthehomeignitionzonebyremovingflammablematerialsimmediatelyadjacenttoresidences.”)Pg.1999)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#46‐“Treatingfuelsmaynotreducesuppressionexpenditures.Itisanaturalmistaketoassumethatasuccessfulfueltreatmentprogramwillresultinreducedsuppressionexpenditures.Suppressionexpendituresrarelydependdirectlyonfuelconditions,butratheronfirelocationandonwhatresourcesareallocatedtosuppression.Theonlycertainwaytoreducesuppressionexpendituresistomakeadecisiontospendlessmoneysuppressingfires.”(Pg.2000)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#47‐“Thinningtoreducecrownfirepotentialrequirescarefulevaluationofthetradeoffsintreatmenteffectsonpotentialsurfacefirebehaviorandcrownfirebehavior(ScottandReinhardt,2001).Thinningwilloftenresultinincreasedpotentialsurfacefirebehavior,forseveralreasons.First,thinningreducesthemoderatingeffectsofthecanopyonwindspeed,sosurfacewindspeedwillincrease(Grahametal.,2004).Italsoresultsinincreasedsolarradiationontheforestfloor,causingdriersurfacefuels.Itmayalsocausean


A‐215

increaseinflammablegrassyandshrubfuelsovertime,duetothereducedtreecompetition.”(Pg.2000)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#48‐“Someviablefueltreatmentsmayactuallyresultinanincreasedrateofspreadundermanyconditions(Lertzmanetal.,1998;Ageeetal.,2000).Forexample,thinningtoreducecrownfirepotentialcanresultinsurfacelitterbecomingdrierandmoreexposedtowind.Itcanalsoresultinincreasedgrowthofgrassesandunderstoryshrubswhichcanfosterarapidlymovingsurfacefire.”(Pg.2000)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#49‐“Treatingfuelsmaynotimproveecosystemhealth.Ecosystemrestorationtreatmentandfueltreatmentarenotsynonymous.Someecosystemrestorationtreatmentsreducefuelhazard,butnotallfueltreatmentsrestoreecosystems.Ecosystemrestorationtreatmentsareoftendesignedtorecreatepresettlementfireregimes,standstructuresandspeciescompositionswhilefueltreatmentobjectivesareprimarilytoreducefuelstolessenfirebehaviororseverity—thisisknownas‘’hazardReduction.’’Achievingfuelhazardreductiongoalsintheabsenceofecosystemrestorationisinsufficient(Dombecketal.,2004;Kauffman,2004).”(Pg.2000)Dr.Cohen’sopposingview#50‐“Conversely,somefueltreatmentscanreducefuelsbutcreatestandsthatarequitedissimilarfromtheirhistoricalanalogs.Examplesincludemasticationtreatmentsthatbreak,chip,orgrindcanopyandsurfacewoodymaterialintoacompressedfuelbedandthinningtreatmentsthatremovethefireadaptedspeciesandleaveshade‐tolerant,latesuccessionalspecies.”(Pg.2000)Sourceforquotes#38to#50above:ObjectivesandconsiderationsforwildlandfueltreatmentinforestedecosystemsoftheinteriorwesternUnitedStatesPublishedinForestEcologyandManagement256,2008http://www.firewise.org/Information/Research-and-Guidance/WUI-Home-Ignition-Research/~/media/Firewise/Files/Pdfs/Research/CohenFuelTreatment.pdfFSResponse:Asdiscussedabove,agencyfiremanagementpolicyhaschangedovertheyearsandisnowacceptingofutilizingnaturalignitionsformultipleresourcebenefit.However,inFireManagementUnit1(FMU1‐wildland‐urbaninterface)thereisagreaterneedforsuppressioneffortsthaninotherFMUsduetotheurbaninterfaceconcernsandvaluesatrisk.MA28Wildfireswillbeconfined,contained,orcontrolledasprovidedforbycriteriaandguidelinesforeachmanagementunitintheFireManagementPlan,describedinAppendixX(TheLoloNationalForestPlanpg.III‐145).DuringtheonsetofafireeventtheWildlandFireDecisionSupportSystem(WFDSS)processiscompletedwhichdrivesthecourseofactioncostsforafireeventwhetheritisfullsuppressionormultipleresourceobjectivesisanalyzedanddocumentedforfutureeconomicreview.Thelocationofvaluesatriskoftendictateswhethersuppressionisthecourseofactiontotake.Thewildland‐urbaninterfaceiscontinuallyexpandingrequiringfireprotectioneitherfromfederal,state,orruralfiredepartments.Policyacrosstheseagenciesvariesandoftendoesnotallowformultipleresourcefireevents.Theremovaloftreesfocusesonremovingsmallerdiametertreesandretainingthelargesthealthiestponderosapineandwesternlarchinallageclassesaswellasthinningandprescribedfireapplicationstomodifycrownfirepotentialandfirebehaviorcharacteristicsthatinfluencetreemortalityandstandresilience.(MarshallWoodsEAp.140)


A‐216

Theabovecommentin“opposingview#46”thattheonlywaytoreducesuppressionexpendituresistomakeadecisiontospendlessmoneyonsuppressingfiresisnotimplementableinallsituationsbaseduponvaluesatriskandfirejurisdictions.AlsoseeFSResponse#3.

13 Attachment#11concludes,NearlyallForestServiceprojectsthatclaimtolessentheriskstohomeownerslivingintheWUIproposetoreducehazardousfuels.TheNEPAdocumentsthatanalyzethesefuelsreductiontreatmentsconvenientlydonotmentionDr.Cohen’smethodsbecausethePurpose&Needistoreducefuels…not(emphasisadded)toprotecthomeownersasitshouldbe.ReducinghazardousfuelsisanalternativewaytolessentheriskstohomeownerslivingintheWUI.ItisdefinitelynotagoalorobjectiveuntoitselfandshouldneverappearinthePurpose&Need.HoweverthereisareasonmostUSFSline‐officersdealwithWUIrisksthisway.Theyknowhazardousfuelsreductiontreatmentsincludetheloggingofmerchantabletreeswhichproducesvolumeandhelpsthemmeettheirsupervisor’svolumeexpectationsandspendstheallocated“timer”moneyeachFY.Line‐OfficerswhoproposehazardousfuelsreductionprojectsareclearlymoreinterestedinaccumulatingvolumethantheyareprotectingthepublicintheWUI.TherearelawsthatprohibitsuchactionsbyapublicservantwhosesalaryispartiallypaidbythefamilieslivingintheWUI.FSResponse:Analternativethatincludedremovingfinefuelswithin300feetofhomes(a“Cohen”alternative)wasnotrequestedorsuggestedbythepublicduringscoping.Furthermore,thecommenterdidnotputtheagencyonnoticethatanalternativeshouldbeconsideredwhichfocusesonremovingfinefuelswithin300feetofhomes.Evenifthathadbeensuggestedattheappropriateplanningphase(duringscopingforalternativedevelopment,ratherthanduringtheEAcommentperiod),theagencyisresponsibleforlandmanagementactivitiesonNationalForestSystemlands,notonprivateproperty.Furthermore,analternativeshouldasthecommentersuggestedwouldnotachievethepurposeandneedoftheMarshallWoodsRestorationprojectwhichisdesignedtorestorefunctioningecosystemsandfire’snaturalroleonthelandscapewhichalignswithmultipleinitiativesincludingtheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy(CohesiveStrategy).TheMarshallWoodsprojectareaincludesnumerousresidencesmainlywithinthesouthwestportion.Withintheprojectareathereareapproximately10,164acresundermultipleownershipsthataredeemedWUI.Fuelstreatmentsareneededtoreducethepotentialforcrownfireinitiationandfireintensities.ManyoftheseprivatelandsareadjacenttoornearNFSlandsproposedfortreatmentintheMarshallWoodsproject.(MarshallWoodsEAp.16).Theseobjectivescouldnotbeaccomplishedbysolelyfocusingoneffectswithinthehomeignitionzone.Theabovecommentsarecitedopinionstowardsline‐officersandhazardousfuelsreduction.


A‐217

REVIEWOFREFERENCESCITEDINCOMMENTS–MIKEBADER

LiteratureCited ReviewandResponseAlexander,MartinE.andBretW.Butler.2008.ProceedingsoftheWildlandFireSafetySummits.FireManagementToday68(1):40.

FSResponse: ThecommenterprovidedthisdocumentwithoutanyindicationastotherelevanceofittotheMarshallWoodsproject.

Bader,M.1998.YellowstoneFires.Outoftheashes:planning,humility.GuestOpinion,TheMissoulian,August28,1998.Missoula,Montana.

Thisisan“opinion”anddoesnotrequirereviewandresponse.

Bader,M.2000.Wilderness‐basedecosystemprotectionintheNorthernRockyMountainsoftheUnitedStates.Pages99‐110in:McCool,S.F,D.N.Cole,W.T.BorrieandJ.O’Loughlin,comps.WildernessscienceinatimeofchangeconferenceProceedingsRMRS‐P‐15‐VOL‐2.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,RockyMountainResearchStation.Ogden,UT.

Thisisaportionoftheconferenceproceedingsfromawilderness‐basedconference.Theauthorispromotingtheideaofprotecting“wildernessrefugia”ora“wildernessreservenetwork,”toprotectareasoutsideofcongressionallydesignatedwildernesswithlowroaddensities.Thecommenterusedtheconferenceproceedingswithotherliteraturecitationstoaddresstherelationshipbetweenroaddensityandbulltrout.FSResponse:ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralinformationoropinion.

Bader,M.2004.AreportpreparedbyMikeBaderConsultinginMissoula,MontanaundercontractwiththeAlliancefortheWildRockiesforusebyAlliancefortheWildRockiesandFriendsoftheWildSwan,regardingpubliccommenttotheUSFishandWildlifeService’sannouncementtoconductafive‐yearstatusreviewofbulltrout.

Thisreportisacompilationofinformationandopinionbytheauthor,asinterpretedfromavarietyofsources.FSResponse:ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsprojectandthereportisbasedontheauthor’sopinion,sodoesnotrequirefurthercommentorreview.

Baxter,C.V.andF.R.Hauer.2000.Geomorphology,hyporheicexchange,andselectionofspawninghabitatbybulltrout(Salvelinusconfluentus).CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticScience(57):1470‐1481.

Theliteratureprovidesinformationontheecologyandselectionofspawninghabitatbybulltrout.TheresearchisbasedonstreamsintheSwanRiverBasininnorthwesternMT.FSResponse:ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralbiologicalinformationaboutbulltrout.

Brown,R.T.,Agee,J.K.,Franklin,J.F.2004.Forestrestorationandfire:principlesinthecontextofplace.ConservationBiology18,903‐912.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#93

CommitteeonInteriorandInsularAffairs,U.S.HouseofRepresentatives

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument. ItislocatedintheProjectFile.


A‐218

1980.ReportontheRattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaandWildernessAct.September17,1980.Covington,W.,Fule,P.,Moore,M/,Hart,S.,Kolb,T.,Mast,J.,Sackett,S.andWagner.(1997).Restoringecosystemhealthinponderosapineforestsofthesouthwest.JournalofForestry,95(4):23‐29.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#62

EcologicalRestorationInstitute,NorthernArizonaUniversity(undated).Effectsofforestthinningtreatmentsonfirebehavior.nau.edu

FSResponse:ThisisaSystematicLiteratureReviewthatdoesnotappeartobecompletedatthistime.Anintroductionofthereviewwasfoundonlineat:http://nau.edu/ERI/Research/Evidence-Based-Conservation/EBC-Projects/Forest-Thinning-and-Burning-Effects-on-Fire/

EndangeredSpeciesAct.16U.S.C.§1531etseq.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.

Espinosa,F.A.1996.ReviewandevaluationofGovernorPhilipE.Batt’sIdahobulltroutconservationplan.ReportpreparedforAlliancefortheWildRockiesandFriendsoftheWildSwan.Moscow,ID.19p.

Thecommentercitesthisdocumentwithregardtobulltroutbiologicalrequirementsforcleanwaterandspawningareaswithlowlevelsoffinesediments.FSResponse:Thecommenterdidnotprovidethisliterature.Wemadeareasonableattempttolocatethisliterature,butcouldnot.AGooglesearchledtoadifferentdocument(Bader2004)thatcitedtheEspinosadocument.TheBader2004documentwasincludedinthecommenter’sliteraturepackage,buttheEspinosa(1996)documentwasnot.However,thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastohowthedocumentwouldberelevanttotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisnotconsidered.

Fox,J.W.andIngalsbee,T.1998.Fuelreductionforfirefightersafety.ProceedingsoftheInternationalWildlandFireSafetySummit,Winthrop,WA

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocumentandagreewiththestatementthat“treatmentofsurfaceandladderfuelsthroughprescribedfirecombinedwithmanualpre‐treatments(forexample,non‐commercialthinning,pruning,andhand‐piling)caneffectivelyreducetheriskofcrownfires,increasefirefightersafety,andimproveecosystemhealth.”BasedonthepurposeandneedoftheMarshallWoodsproject,“Emulatingfire’snaturalroleonthelandscape…”VegetativetreatmentproposalsweredesignedtoaccomplishthesameobjectivesFoxandIngalsbeespeakof.Basedoncurrentfuelloadingconditionswithintheprojectarea,mechanicalremovalofmaterialisrequiredtomeettheseobjectivesinseveralunitsbasedondesiredbasalareacoupledwithnon‐mechanicalDBHlimitations.

Fraley,J.J.,andB.B.Shepard.1989.Lifehistory,ecologyandpopulationstatusofmigratorybulltrout(Salvelinus

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferredtothisliteratureasbestavailablescienceonbulltroutandtoestablish


A‐219

confluentus)intheFlatheadLakeriversystem,Montana.NorthwestScience63(4):133‐143.

basicbulltroutbiologicalneeds.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.Itisawell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbasicbulltroutbiology.ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralbiologicalinformationaboutbulltrout.

FriendsoftheRattlesnakeStatementofPurpose

ThisdocumentdescribesthepurposesandgoalsoftheFriendsoftheRattlesnake,Inc.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.ItislocatedintheProjectFile.

Frissell,C.A.2014.CommentsontheRevisedDraftRecoveryPlanfortheCoterminousUnitedStatesPopulationofBullTrout(Salvelinusconfluentus).50p.

Thisisacommentletterbasedontheauthor’sprofessionalopinionsonthereviseddraftrecoveryplanforbulltrout.ItwaspreparedattherequestofFriendsoftheWildSwan.Thecommenterreferencesthisdocumentasanoutlineandreviewofthebestavailablescienceonbulltrout.FSResponse:Thiscitationiscomprisedoftheauthor’sopinionsrelatedtoaseparateissue–thedraftrecoveryplanforbulltrout.ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastohowthesecommentsarerelevanttotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisnotconsidered.

Goetz,F.1989.Biologyofthebulltrout,Salvelinusconfluentus,aliteraturereview.WillametteNationalForest.Eugene,OR.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferredtothisliteratureasbestavailablescienceonbulltroutandtoestablishbasicbulltroutbiologicalneeds,specificallyoptimalspawningandrearingtemperatures.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.Itisawell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbasicbulltroutbiology.ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralbiologicalinformationaboutbulltrout.Seeresponsestocomments#132and#135forinformationregardingstreamtemperature.

HealthyForestsRestorationActof2003.PublicLaw108‐148).

FSResponse:Weare familiarwiththisdocument.

Huntington,C.W.1995.FishhabitatandsalmonidabundancewithinmanagedandunroadedlandscapesontheClearwaterNationalForest.USDAForestService.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferencedthisliteratureassupportthat“bulltroutstrongpopulations,presenceandbiomassareinverselyrelatedtoroaddensities.”FSResponse:Wehavereviewedthedocumentandagreethatthedatacollectedsupportthatstatement.However,


A‐220

thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject.

Ingalsbee,T.2005.Fuelbreaksforwildlandfiremanagement:Amoatoradrawbridgeforecosystemfirerestoration?FireEcology1(1):85‐99.AssociationforFireEcology.

FSResponse:WearefamiliarwiththisdocumenthoweverthefocusofthisdocumentisfuelbreakswhicharenotincludedintheproposedtreatmentsfortheMarshallWoodsproject.Refertoresponsetocomment#91.“ThispaperwillbrieflydiscusssomeofthecritiquesandcontroversiesthathavebeenraisedagainstfuelbreakproposalsonpubliclandsmanagedbytheForestService,anddrawattentiontotheneedsandopportunitiesformorefireecologyresearch.Ingalsbee,T.2005”ThepurposeandneedoftheMarshallWoodsprojectincludes:“Emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire.EAp.16”Asstatedonpage17oftheEA“Studiesindicatethemostappropriatefueltreatmentstrategyforreducinghazardousfuelsincludesforestthinning(removingladderfuelsanddecreasingtreecrowndensity)followedbyprescribedburning,pilingandburningoffuels,orothermechanicaltreatments(e.g.,Peterson,2005).”

InlandNativeFishConservationStrategy.U.S.ForestService.LoloNationalForest.1986.ForestPlan.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,anditisreferencedintheFisheriesSpecialistReportandtheEA.TheLoloNFPlanwasamendedonAugust30,1995,bytheInlandNativeFishStrategy(INFISH).

Krelick,Jake.4/27/2015.StatementRegardingHistoryofMarshallWoodsProject

ThisdocumentisastatementbyJakeKrelick,LRCChair,describinghisinterpretationofthehistoryoftheLRC’sinvolvementinthedevelopmentandplanningfortheproject.FSResponse:WearefamiliarwiththehistoryoftheLRC’sinvolvementintheMarshallWoodsproject.ThecollaborationandcorrespondencethatoccurredbetweentheLoloNFandtheLRCisdocumentedintheProjectFile,SectionK.

LoloNationalForest.May,1987.ManagementAreaQuickGuideSummarySheet.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.ThiswasnotpartoftheLNFForestPlan.Seeresponsetocomment#10.

LoloNationalForest.2004.PressReleaseonSawmillGulchFuelsReductionProject.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument(ProjectFile,ItemN‐14)

McPhail,J.D.andC.B.Murray.1979.TheearlylifehistoryandecologyofDollyVardenintheUpperArrowlakes.ReporttoB.C.HydroandPowerAuthorityandKootenayRegionFishandWildlife.Nelson,BC.113p.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferredtothisliteratureasbestavailablescienceonbulltroutandtoestablishbasicbulltroutbiologicalneeds,specificallywithregardtotemperaturesinspawninghabitat.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.Itisawell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbasicbull


A‐221

troutbiology.ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralbiologicalinformationaboutbulltrout.

MontanaBullTroutScientificGroup.1998.Therelationshipbetweenlandmanagementactivitiesandhabitatrequirementsofbulltrout.ReportpreparedfortheMontanaBullTroutRestorationTeam,MontanaDepartmentofFish,Wildlife&Parks,Helena.78p.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommentercitesthisdocumentforitssuggestedwaystoprotectcoreandnodalbulltrouthabitat.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,anditiscitedintheFisheriesSpecialistReportandtheEA.ResourceProtectionMeasureswereprescribedtoprotectriparianareasandaquaticresources(FisheriesSpecialistReport,Table2,pgs.22‐23,andEA,pgs.67‐72),andeachoftheactionalternativesisincompliancewiththeapplicableregulatoryframework.Seeresponsetocomment#129.

Myrick,Christopher.2002.Bulltrouttemperaturethresholdspeerreviewsummary.

FSResponse:Wewereunabletolocatewherethecommentercitedthisinthecomments.Whilethecommenterdidprovideanelectronicfiewiththistitle,wewereunabletoopenit.

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1970.PublicLaw91‐190.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.

Odion,D.C,Hanson,C.T.,Arsenault,A.,Baker,W.L.,DellaSala,D.A.,Hutto,R.L.,Klenner,W.,Moritz,M.A.,Sherriff,R.L.,Veblen,T.T.andWilliams,M.A.2014.Examininghistoricalandcurrentmixed‐severityfireregimesinPonderosapineandmixed‐coniferforestsofwesternNorthAmerica.PLosONE9(2).

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#s61and53andinHuttoLiteratureReview.

Oliver,M.2014.Realitycheck:sheddingnewlightontherestorationneedsofmixed‐coniferforests.ScienceFindings(168),PacificNorthwestResearchStation,USDAForestService.

FSResponse:ThisagencybriefisspecifictomoremesicforestsinthePacificNW,yettheconceptsandrestorationpointsareconsistentwiththeMarshallWoodsproposedaction.

Quigley,T.M.,R.W.Haynes,andR.T.Graham,technicaleditors.1996.IntegratedscientificassessmentforecosystemmanagementintheinteriorColumbiaBasinandportionsoftheKlamathandGreatBasins:VolumeIII.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.Portland,OR.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument. Wecitedthisdocument.

RattlesnakeNationalRecreationAreaandWildernessActof1980.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.ItislocatedintheProjectFile(ItemN‐1)


A‐222

Rheinhardt,E.D.,Keane,R.E.,Calkin,D.E.andCohen,J.D.2008.ObjectivesandconsiderationsforwildlandfueltreatmentinforestedecosystemsoftheinteriorwesternUnitedStates.ForestEcologyandManagement256:1997‐2006.

Wecitedthisdocument.

RiemanB.E.andJ.D.McIntyre.1993.DemographicandhabitatrequirementsforconservationofBullTrout.Gen.Tech.Rep.INT‐302.Ogden,UT.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,IntermountainResearchStation.38p.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommentercitesthisdocumentforbestavailablescienceonbulltrout,andgeneralinformationonbulltrouthabitatneedswithemphasisontemperatureandtheroleofmetapopulations.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,anditiscitedintheFisheriesSpecialistReportandtheEA.Itisawell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbasicbulltroutbiology.ThecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectiontotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralbiologicalinformationaboutbulltrout.

Rieman,B.E.,D.C.Lee,andR.F.Thurow.1997.Distribution,status,andlikelyfuturetrendsofbulltroutwithintheColumbiaRiverandKlamathbasins.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement17:1111‐1125.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferencedthisliteratureassupportthat“bulltroutstrongpopulations,presenceandbiomassareinverselyrelatedtoroaddensities.”FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,asitiswell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbulltrout.Thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralinformationonbulltrout.

Rieman,B.E.andF.W.Allendorf.2001.Effectivepopulationsizeandgeneticconservationcriteriaforbulltrout.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement21:756‐764.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferencedthisliteraturewithregardtobulltroutminimumviablepopulationsizes,geneticisolationandthermalbarriers,andfragmentation.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,asitiswell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbulltrout.Thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralinformationonbulltrout.

Rieman,B.E.,Isaak,D.,Adams,M.,Horan,D.,Nagel,D.,Luce,C.andMyers,D.2007.AnticipatedclimatewarmingeffectsonbulltrouthabitatandpopulationsacrosstheinteriorColumbiaRiverBasin.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.Thecommenterreferencedthisliteraturewithregardtorisingairtemperaturesbeingaprominentthreattobulltrout.FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument,asitiswell‐knownandfrequentlyciteddocumentonbulltrout.


A‐223

136:1552‐1565. Temperatureisaveryimportantelementinthesuitabilityoffishhabitat,andisthereforediscussedthroughouttheFisheriesSpecialist’sReport,includingananalysisoftheanticipatedeffectstostreamtemperatureassociatedwitheachofthealternatives.Seeresponsestocomments#132and#135.

Shugart,H.H.andWest,D.C.1981.Long‐termdynamicsofforestecosystems.AmericanScientist69:647‐652.

FSResponse: Thisliteratureisdatedanddoesnotrepresentthebest‐available,currentscience,itdoes;however,asdisclosedintheMarshallWoodsForestedVegetationreportandanalysisdiscusstheever‐changinganddynamicnatureofforests.

USCensusBureau.BlockLevelHousingDensitiesintheWildlandUrbanIntermix.

FSResponse:Specificdocumentationregarding“BlockLevelHousingDensitiesintheWildlandUrbanIntermix”pertainingtotheMarshallWoodsprojectcouldnotbelocated.Refertoresponsetocomment#86foradditionalinformationondefiningWildlandUrbanInterface.

USDAForestService.1978.RAREIIMontana.SupplementtoDraftEnvironmentalStatementRoadlessAreaReviewandEvaluation.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument(PFItemxx).Asdiscussedintheresponsetocomment#167,noneofthe7,281acresofNFSlandintheMarshallWoodsprojectareaisinanIRA.ThenearestIRAisRattlesnake#1204liessevenplusmilesnorth‐northeastoftheMarshallWoodsprojectarea.

USDAForestService.2009.Focus:BullTroutandClimateinAir,WaterandAquaticEnvironmentsScienceProgram.

ThisliteraturegivesanoverviewofwhattheRockyMountainResearchStation’sAir,WaterandAquaticEnvironmentsScienceTeamwasworkingonwithrespecttobulltroutandclimate.Thecommenterprovidesthisliteraturebutdoesnotreferenceitinthecomments.FSResponse:WearefamiliarwiththisdocumentandthecurrentresearchbeingconductedbytheForestService’sRockyMountainResearchStation.Thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralinformation.

USDAForestService.2014.RealityCheck:SheddingNewLightontheRestorationNeedsofmixed‐ConiferForestsinScienceFindings(spies,ThomasandMerschel,Andrew).

FSResponse:ThisagencybriefisspecifictomoremesicforestsinthePacificNW,yettheconceptsandrestorationpointsareconsistentwiththeMarshallWoodsproposedaction.

USDistrictCourt–DistrictofOregon.2004.NoticeofPublicationofFinalRulecriticalhabitatdesignationforColumbia/KlamathRiverbulltrout.

FSResponse:Wewereunabletolocatewherethecommentercitedthisinthecomments.Whilethecommentercitedthisdocument,theexplanationofwhythisisrelevanttotheMarshallWoodsprojectwasnotclearlyspelledout.

USDistrictCourt–DistrictofOregon.2004.Compliant:AWRv.USDIFWS

ThisisacomplaintfiledincourtregardingtheUSFishandWildlifeService’sdesignationofcriticalhabitatforbulltrout.Thisliteratureprovidedbythecommenterwasnotspecificallyreferencedinthecomment.


A‐224

FSResponse:Thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisnotconsidered.

USDOJ.2003.Confidentialsettlementdocument:finalcriticalhabitatdesignationforColumbia/KlamathRiverbulltrout.

FSResponse:Wewereunabletolocatewherethecommentercitedthisinthecomments.Whilethecommentercitedthisdocument,theexplanationofwhythisisrelevanttotheMarshallWoodsprojectwasnotclearlyspelledout.

U.S.Fish&WildlifeService.1998.Bulltroutinterimconservationguidance.Lacey,WA.47p.

Theliteraturetitleadequatelydescribesthecontentofthedocument.ThecommenterreferencedthisliteraturetohighlightarecommendationmadebytheUSFishandWildlifeServicethatremainingroadlessareaswithinbulltroutrangebemaintainedinroadlesscondition.FSResponse:Thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastotheliterature’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisnotconsidered.

Weaver,T.andJ.J.Fraley.1991.Fisherieshabitatandfishpopulations.Pages53‐68in:FlatheadBasinCooperativeProgramFinalReport.FlatheadBasinCommission.Kalispell,MT.

TheliteraturereviewsfishhabitatconditionsandfishpopulationsintributarieswithintheFlatheadBasin.Thecommentercitedthisdocumentwithregardtobulltroutbiologicalrequirementsforcleanwaterandspawningareaswithlowlevelsoffinesediments.FSResponse:Thecommenterdidnotprovidethisliterature.Wemadeareasonableattempttolocateit,andfoundthedocumentwiththesametitlebutitdoesnothavethepagenumbersspecifiedbythecommenter.ThedocumentwefounddiddiscussavarietyofdatacollectedonfinesedimentsassociatedwithbulltroutandwestslopecutthroattroutintheFlatheadBasin.However,thecommenterdidnotmakeaspecificconnectionastothedocument’srelevancetotheMarshallWoodsproject,sothecitationisconsideredasgeneralinformationonbulltrout.

Williams,M.A.andBaker,W.L.2012.Spatiallyextensivereconstructionsshowvariable‐severityfireandheterogeneousstructureinhistoricalwesternUnitedStatesdryforests.GlobalEcologyandBiogeography,21:1042‐1052.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.RefertoEAp.131“Theimpactsof“no‐action”indryforestecosystemsmustincorporatetheprobabilityofstand‐replacing,intensefirewherestanddensityhasincreasedanddeadfuelaccumulatedinexcessofhistoricallevels(AgeeandSkinner,2005).”

Wuerthner,G.2014.Whythinningforestsisapoorwildfirestrategy.TheWildlifeNews,wildlifenews.com

Thisisan“opinion”anddoesnotrequirereviewandresponse.

Zachmann,L.,Shaw,D.andDickson,B.2014.Thelong‐viewoffuelreductiontreatmentsinmixed‐coniferforestsofthewesternUnitedStates:a15‐year

FSResponse:Thisdocumentisnotavailableanditsrelevance,orlackthereof,totheMarshallWoodsprojectandanalysiscannotbeascertainedgiventhat.


A‐225

casestudyinthenorthernSierraNevada.Abstractin:SocietyofConservationBiologyConference:480.Authoranddateunknown.ScientificLiteratureReview.

FSResponse:Thisdocumentappearstoreviewliteratureaboutavarietyoftopics.Becausenoauthorordateisprovidedforthisdocument,itscredibilityisinquestion.Also,thecommenterprovidedthisdocumentwithoutspecificallyindicatingtherelevanceofittotheMarshallWoodsproject.


A‐226

REVIEWOFREFERENCESCITEDINCOMMENTS‐DICKHUTTO

LiteratureCited ReviewandResponseAmoroso,M.M.,L.D.Daniels,M.Bataineh,andD.W.Andison.2011.Evidenceofmixed‐severityfiresinthefoothillsoftheRockyMountainsofwest‐centralAlberta,Canada.ForestEcologyandManagement262:2240‐2249.

FSResponse:TheauthorsfoundevidenceofhistoricallylowtomoderateandhighseverityfiresinlodgepolepineforestsinAlberta,Canada.LodgepolepineisnotaprimarytreespecieswithintheMWanalysisareahence,thereferencedarticleisnotdirectlyapplicabletothisproject.

Baker,W.L.,T.T.Veblen,andR.L.Sherriff.2007.Fire,fuelsandrestorationofponderosapine‐DouglasfirforestsintheRockyMountains,USA.JournalofBiogeography34:251‐269.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.“The aimofthisarticleistoelaboratea….variable‐severityfiremodelandevaluatetheapplicabilityofthismodel,alongwiththelow‐severitymodel,fortheponderosapine‐Douglas‐firforestsoftheRockyMountains.”AsdisclosedintheFV,variableseverityfireregimeslikelydominatedmoderatelywarmanddryforestswithbothlowandhighseverityfireevents.

Calkin,D.E.,J.D.Cohen,M.A.Finney,andM.P.Thompson.2014.Howriskmanagementcanpreventfuturewildfiredisastersinthewildland‐urbaninterface.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences111:746‐751.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.“Reframingtheobjectivesofthefiremanagementtohowwebestlivewithwildfireinafireadaptedenvironmentiscriticaltountanglingthewildlandfireparadox.Calkinetal.”PleaserefertoEApage16,“TheCohesiveStrategyrecognizesthatfireisanaturalprocess,necessaryforthesurvivalofmanylandscapesandpeople.TheCohesiveStrategytakesaholisticapproachbysimultaneouslylookingattheroleoffireinthelandscape,theabilityofhumanstoactivelymanagetheselandscapes,planforandadapttolivingwithfire,andtheneedtobepreparedtorespondtofirewhenitoccurs.”ThepurposeandneedfortheMarshallWoodsprojectcontains“Emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire.”

Cohen,J.2003.Homeignitionzone.MS.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.Pleaserefertopage17oftheEA,“Whileindividualhome‐by‐hometreatmentscanhelpreducetheriskofstructureloss,relyingsolelyonsuchtreatmentscouldforegostrategicopportunitiesforsuppressingwildfireswithintheWUI.Althoughhomesinthepathofwildfireareoftenthemostrecognizedvalue‐at‐risk,treatmentsneedtogobeyondtheareasimmediatelysurroundingindividualhomestoprotectotherresourcevaluesthatmakeuptheforestedsettingincludingsoilstability,wildlifehabitat,waterquality,timbervalue,andlandscapeaesthetics(Graham,2004)”.

Cohen,J.D.2000.Preventingdisaster:homeingnitabilityinthewildland‐urbaninterface.JournalofForestry

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.Pleaserefertothelastparagraphinthe“Conclusions”sectionofCohen’spaperwhereitstates:“Consequentlyifthe


A‐227

98:15‐21. communityorbornesiteisnotconsideredinreducingW‐UIfirelosses,extensivewildlandfuelreductionwillberequired.Forhighlyignitablehomes,effectivewildlandfireactionsmustnotonlypreventfiresfromburningtohomesites,butalsoeliminatefirebrandsthatwouldignitethehomeandadjacentflammablematerials.Toeliminatefirebrands,wildlandfuelreductionswouldhavetopreventfirebrandproductionfromwildlandfiresforadistanceofseveralkilometersawayfromhomes.”DecreasinghighintensitywildfirepotentialisincludedinthepurposeandneedoftheMarshallWoodsproject(EApage16).

Cohen,J.D.,andR.D.Stratton.2008.Homedestructionexamination:GrassValleyfire.USDAForestServiceR5‐TP‐026b:1‐26.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.PleaseseeresponseabovetoCohen,J.D.2000.Preventingdisaster…Also,pleaserefertoparagraph3oftheSummaryandConclusionofCohen’sHomedestructionexaminationoftheGrassValleyfirewhereitstates:Homeignitionsduetothewildfirewereprimarilyfromfirebrandsignitinghomesdirectlyandproducingspotfiresacrossroadsinvegetationthatcouldsubsequentlyspreadtohomes.”Asstatedonpage140oftheEA:“Thinningstandstoreducecrownfirepotentialisaprimarymeansofreducingfirehazard(Grahametal.,1999,2004;BrownandAplet,2000).”

Graham,R.,M.Finney,C.McHugh,J.Cohen,R.Stratton,L.Bradshaw,N.Nikolov,andD.Calkin.2011.FourmileCanyonFire:preliminaryfindings.USDAFor.Serv.Sta.Pap.RMRS:1‐99.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.PleaserefertoresponseabovetoCohen’s2003documentonthe“HomeIgnitionZone”.Page90ofFourmileCanyonFire:preliminaryfindingsstates:“WehavetheopportunitytosignificantlyreducethepotentialforWUIfiredisastersduringextremeburningconditionssuchastheFourmileCanyonFire,butthisopportunitydependsonhomeownerscreatingandmaintaininglowhomeignitionpotentialwithintheHIZ.”TheMarshallWoodsprojectaimsto“Decreasehighintensitywildfirepotential;enhancefirefighterefficiencyandsafetywithintheWUI.EA,page16)”.Atthetimethisresponsewaswritten,theFederalGovernmentdoesnothavecontroloverprivatelyownedlandsandthereforecannotcontrolhomeowner’sactivitieswithregardstohazardousfuelsreductionactivitiesonprivatelands.

Harvey,B.J.,D.C.Donato,W.H.Romme,andM.G.Turner.2013.InfluenceofrecentbarkbeetleoutbreakonfireseverityandpostfiretreeregenerationinmontaneDouglas‐firforests.Ecology94:2475‐2486.

FSResponse:Seeresponse tocomment#56.Citedarticlediscussesthat,“Although(bark)beetleoutbreaksandsubsequentfirewerenotlinkeddisturbances,theyproducedcompoundeffectsthatcontributetoheterogeneitycharacteristicofmid/lowermontaneforests.”ThisisconsistentwiththeconceptofdisturbancedisclosedintheMWproject,FVp.8,“Naturaldisturbancesarenotdisruptionsinforestsrathertheyarethenorm,andwarm,drylowelevationforests,likethosethatoccupy


A‐228

MarshallWoodsarea,aredisturbancemediated.Thespeciesthatoccupytheseforestsevolvedwithandaremorphologicallyadaptedtoveryfrequentdisturbance,namelyfire.Theseforestsareever‐changinganddynamic;forestdevelopmenttypicallyfollowsaninitialfloristicpatternwherebyspeciesinvadeatapproximatelythesametimefollowingamajordisturbance,butassertdominanceatdifferenttimes(OliverandLarsen,1996).Thetype,size,scale,arrangement,duration,speciesaffected,etc.inadisturbanceeventdictatehowforestdevelopmentpatternsemergeafteritsoccurrence.”

Harvey,B.J.,D.C.Donato,W.H.Romme,andM.G.Turner.2014a.Fireseverityandtreeregenerationfollowingbarkbeetleoutbreaks:theroleofoutbreakstageandburningconditions.EcologicalApplications24:1608‐1625.

FSResponse:Theauthorsconcludedthat,“TheseverityofrecentwildfirestobemoderatelylinkedtoprefirebarkbeetleoutbreaksinlodgepolepineforestsofGreaterYellowstone….(and)thatserotinouslodgepolepineforestswereresilienttocompounddisturbanceeffectsifbeetleoutbreakswerefollowedbyfirewithin;10years.”ThesefindingsarenotdirectlyapplicabletotheforestsorconditionsintheMWproject.

Harvey,B.J.,D.C.Donato,andM.G.Turner.2014b.Recentmountainpinebeetleoutbreaks,wildfireseverity,andpostfiretreeregenerationintheUSNorthernRockies.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences.

FSResponse:Theauthorsfoundthat“recentprefiremountainpinebeetleoutbreakseverityaffectedfewmeasuresofwildfireseverityandwasnotdirectlyrelatedtopostfiretreeseedlingestablishment”.ThesefindingsarenotdirectlyapplicabletotheforestsorconditionsintheMWproject.

Hessburg,P.F.,R.B.Salter,andK.M.James.2007.Re‐examiningfireseverityrelationsinpre‐managementeramixedconiferforests:inferencesfromlandscapepatternsofforeststructure.LandscapeEcology22:5‐24.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.Theauthorsconcludedthatvariableseverityfire,firerangingfromlowtomixedtoseverity,wasthemostprevalentfiretypethatshapeddryandmoistEasternWashingtonforests.ThesefindingsareconsistentwiththeinformationdisclosedintheMWForestedVegetationp.10:“Historicallyfiresweremixedwithvariableintensitiesrangingfromfrequent,lowintensity,non‐lethal,understoryfirestoinfrequent,highintensity,stand‐replacementfires.”

Heyerdahl,E.K.,K.Lertzman,andC.M.Wong.2012.Mixed‐severityfireregimesindryforestsofsoutherninteriorBritishColumbia,Canada.CanadianJournalofForestResearch42:88‐98.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.Theauthors“suggestthatmixed‐severityfireregimesthataredominatedbylow‐severityfireswerelikelytobehistoricallywidespreadintheInteriorDouglas‐firandPonderosaPinezoneselsewhereinthesoutherninteriorofBritishColumbia.”“ThishypothesisisgenerallyconsistentwiththeconclusionsofKlenneretal.(2008),althoughourdatasupportamoresignificantroleforlow‐severityfiresthantheiranalysessuggest.”Again,asdisclosedinForestedVegetationreport,variableseverityfireregimeslikelydominatedmoderatelywarmanddryforestswithbothlowandhighseverityfireevents.Heyerdahletal.(2012)illuminatedthattheportionoflowandhighseverityfireshistoricallyisvariablebasedonregionandotherinfluencingfactors.Intheirstudyareatheirfindingsindicatethatlowseverityfirewasthemost


A‐229

dominanttypeinthemixedseverityregime.Klenner,W.,R.Walton,A.Arsenault,andL.Kremsater.2008.DryforestsintheSouthernInteriorofBritishColumbia:historicdisturbancesandimplicationsforrestorationandmanagement.ForestEcologyandManagement256:1711‐1722.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.Theauthorsconcluded“thatamixed‐severitydisturbanceregime(includingfire,insectsandotherdisturbances)likelymaintaineddiversestandandlandscapeconditionsinourstudyarea…(Andthat)….Forestmanagersshould:(1)focusonclearlydefiningdesiredstandconditionsandthemosaicofhabitatsnecessarytomaintainmultiplevaluesacrosslandscapes(e.g.Fischeretal.,2006),(2)identifythecommodity,socialandecologicalobjectivesthatwillbemetorcompromisedwiththeseconditions,(3)identifythemosteffectiveinterventionsforachievingtheseobjectives,and(4)implementaprogramtomonitor,assessandreviseactivitiestoensureobjectivesaremet.”TheserecommendationsareconsistentwiththeMWprojectandanalysis.

Marcoux,H.M.,L.D.Daniels,S.E.Gergel,E.DaSilva,Z.e.Gedalof,andP.F.Hessburg.2015.Differentiatingmixed‐andhigh‐severityfireregimesinmixed‐coniferforestsoftheCanadianCordillera.ForestEcologyandManagement341:45‐58.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.Again,asdisclosedinForestedVegetationreport,variableseverityfireregimeslikelydominatedmoderatelywarmanddryforestswithbothlowandhighseverityfireevents.

Marcoux,H.M.,S.E.Gergel,andL.D.Daniels.2013.Mixed‐severityfireregimes:Howwellaretheyrepresentedbyexistingfire‐regimeclassificationsystems?CanadianJournalofForestResearch43:658‐668.


Moritz,M.A.,E.Batllori,R.A.Bradstock,A.M.Gill,J.Handmer,P.F.Hessburg,J.Leonard,S.McCaffrey,D.C.Odion,T.Schoennagel,andA.D.Syphard.2014.Learningtocoexistwithwildfire.Nature515:58‐66.

Locateddocumentonlinebutcouldnotfindaccesstoviewcontent.

Odion,D.C.,C.T.Hanson,A.Arsenault,W.L.Baker,D.A.DellaSala,R.L.Hutto,W.Klenner,M.A.Moritz,R.L.Sherriff,T.T.Veblen,andM.A.Williams.2014.ExaminingHistoricalandCurrentMixed‐SeverityFireRegimesinPonderosaPineandMixed‐ConiferForestsofWesternNorthAmerica.PLoSONE9:e87852(87851‐87814).


Perry,D.A.,P.F.Hessburg,C.N.Skinner,T.A.Spies,S.L.Stephens,A.H.Taylor,J.F.Franklin,B.McComb,

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.Theauthorsconcludedthat,“Likelow‐severityforestsinthewesternUnitedStates,manydrymixed‐severitytypesexperienced


A‐230

andG.Riegel.2011.TheecologyofmixedseverityfireregimesinWashington,Oregon,andNorthernCalifornia.ForestEcologyandManagement262:703‐717.

significantincreasesinstanddensityduringthe20thcentury,threateningforesthealthandbiodiversity,howevernotallunderstorydevelopmentinmixed‐severityforestsincreasesthethreatofseverewildfires.Ingeneral,currentlandscapeshavebeenhomogenized,reducingbetadiversityandincreasingtheprobabilityoflargefiresandinsectoutbreaks.Furtherlossofold,firetoleranttreesisofparticularconcern,butunderstorydiversityhasbeenreducedaswell.Highstanddensitiesonrelativelydrysitesincreasewateruseandthereforesusceptibilitytodroughtandinsectoutbreaks,exacerbatingatrendofincreasingregionaldrying.”ThesegeneralconclusionsareconsistentwiththeconditionsintheMWproject.

Schoennagel,T.,R.L.Sherriff,andT.T.Veblen.2011.FirehistoryandtreerecruitmentintheColoradoFrontRangeuppermontanezone:implicationsforforestrestoration.EcologicalApplications21:2210‐2222.

FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#53.TheauthorsstudiedtheresilienceofforestintheColoradoFrontRangeandconcludedthat“theseforestsareresilienttoprolongedperiodsofseveredroughtandassociatedseverefires.”….Theauthorsrecommendedthat“managementfocusonfuelsreductiondirectlyadjacenttoresidentialcommunities.“TheconditionsintheMWareaarenotanalogoustotheFrontRangeofColoradowherethestudyoccurred.Additionally,theMWprojectisimmediatelyadjacenttothecommunityofMissoula,MT.

Sherriff,R.L.,andT.T.Veblen.2006.EcologicaleffectsofchangesinfireregimesinPinusponderosaecosystemsintheColoradoFrontRange.JournalofVegetationScience17:705‐718.


Sherriff,R.L.,andT.T.Veblen.2007.Aspatially‐explicitreconstructionofhistoricalfireoccurrenceintheponderosapinezoneoftheColoradoFrontRange.Ecosystems10:311‐323.


Six,D.L.,E.Biber,andE.Long.2014.Managementformountainpinebeetleoutbreaksuppression:Doesrelevantsciencesupportcurrentpolicy?Forests5:103‐133.

FSResponse:seeresponsetocomment#51.

Syphard,A.D.,T.J.Brennan,andJ.E.Keeley.2014.Theroleofdefensiblespaceforresidentialstructureprotectionduringwildfires.InternationalJournalofWildlandFire23:1165‐1175.

FSResponse: Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.PleaserefertotheresponsetoFourmileCanyonFire:preliminaryfindings,Grahametal.

Syphard,A.D.,andJ.E.Keeley.2015.Location,timingandextentofwildfirevarybycauseofignition.

FSResponse:Wearefamiliarwiththisdocument.AlthoughtheimportanceofwildfirepreventionstrategiesissignificanttofiremanagementwithintheWUI,itisnot


A‐231

InternationalJournalofWildlandFire24:37‐47.

significantinregardstothepurposeandneedoftheMarshallWoodsproject.Furthermore,incontrasttotheCaliforniasub‐regionsinwhich95%ofignitionswerehumancaused,only36%offiresoccurringontheLoloNationalForestbetween1980and2008werehumancaused(EApage135),leavingthevastmajoritylightningcaused,whichisanignitionsourcethatcannotbeprevented.

Williams,M.A.,andW.L.Baker.2012.Spatiallyextensivereconstructionsshowvariable‐severityfireandheterogeneousstructureinhistoricalwesternUnitedStatesdryforests.GlobalEcologyandBiogeography21:1042‐1052.

FSResponse:ThemethodologyandconclusionsofWilliamsandBaker(2012)havebeenquestionedandrefutedbyFuleandothers(2013)whostate,“ContrarytotheconclusionsofWilliamsandBaker,thepreponderanceofscientificevidenceindicatesthatconservationofdryforestecosystemsinthewesternUnitedStatesandtheirecological,socialandeconomicvalueisnotconsistentwithapresent‐daydisturbanceregimeoflarge,high‐severityfires,especiallyunderachangingclimate”(ProjectFileItemM5‐50).WeconcurwiththeeighteenscientistslistedinFuleetal.(2013).


A‐232

REVIEWOFREFERENCESCITEDINCOMMENTS–JEFFJUEL

LiteratureCited ReviewandResponseBaker,WilliamL.;ThomasT.Veblen,andRosemaryL.Sherriff;2006.Fire,fuelsandrestorationofponderosapine–DouglasfirforestsintheRockyMountains,USA.JournalofBiogeography(J.Biogeogr.)(2006)

Paperstates,“(T)he variable‐severitymodel, in whichforeststructureswereshapedmainlybyinfrequent severefires,isconsistentwiththeevidenceoffirehistoryandtreeagestructuresinthese forests.Onlylimitedareasofponderosapine–DouglasfirforestsintheRockyMountains, primarilyatlowelevationsandonxericsites,appeartohavebeenshapedprimarilyby low‐severityfires.Toassesswhichmodelmaybestfitapotentialmanagementarea,site‐ specificinformationonfirehistoryandforestconditionsisrequired.”FSResponse:Thisiscomment#101.

FinneyandCohen,2003.ExpectationandEvaluationofFuelManagementObjectives.USDAForestServiceProceedingsRMRS‐P‐29.

Paperdiscusses theconceptofa“fireshedinvolvingawideareaaroundthecommunity(formanymilesthatincludeareasthatfirescancomefrom).Questionseffectivenessofanygivenentitythatisclaimedtohaveitsriskoffirereducedbytheproposedproject.FSResponse:AsstatedintheEApage16,TheMarshallWoodsRestorationprojectisdesignedtopromoteecosystemhealthanddecreasehighintensitywildfirepotentialwhichalignswithmultipleinitiativesincludingtheNationalCohesiveWildlandFireManagementStrategy(CohesiveStrategy).PurposeandNeed2.)“Emulatefire’snaturalroleonthelandscapethroughvegetativetreatmentsincludingprescribedfire.a.Promoteecosystemhealthwithprescribedfiretodistributebeneficialfireeffectstoareaswithinthewildland‐urbaninterface(WUI).b.IntegrateprojectobjectiveswiththeMissoulaCountyWildfireProtectionPlan(CWPP).andc.Decreasehighintensitywildfirepotential;enhancefirefighterefficiencyandsafetywithintheWUI.”“Thefundamentalgoaloffueltreatmentshouldnotbetoreduceburnspreadratebuttoreduceburnseverity(Reinhardt,etall,2008).Burnseverityforthedesiredfutureconditionisrepresentedbyflamelength.Theobjectiveisthatwithreducedflamelengths,standswillexperiencelowerlevelsoftreemortalityduringwildlandfireeventswhethertheyarelargeorsmalleventsinscale.Thelessenedfireintensityallowsforagreatermarginforfirefighterandpublicsafety.Resilientstandconditionscontributetoresilientcommunityconditions.”(FireandFuelsSpecialistReport,page24)

Graham,RussellT.,SarahMcCaffrey,TheresaB.Jain,2004.ScienceBasisforChangingForestStructuretoModifyWildfireBehaviorandSeverity.U.S.DepartmentofAgricultureForest

Wealsocitedthisdocument.Itstatesthat“(T)reatmentsneedto gobeyondtheareasimmediatelysurroundingindividualhomestoprotectotherresourcevaluesthatmakeuptheforestedsettingincludingsoilstability,wildlifehabitat, waterquality,timbervalue,andlandscapeaesthetics.”FSResponse:ThisdocumentwascitedintheEAonpage17and140.ThecommentercitesGrahametal.,2004stating“fuelmodificationsdolittletoinfluenceoverallfirebehaviorandseverityoffire”,however,thisstatementisdescribinganextremefirebehavioreventinwhich


A‐233

ServiceRockyMountainResearchStation,GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐120.April2004.

theHaymanfireran“16‐19mileslastinganentireday,burning60,000acres.Grahametal.,2004”.MeasurementindicatorsusedfortheEffectsAnalysis(EApage129)includeHighintensitywildfirepotential,andCrownFireIndex.Asstatedonpage140oftheEA,“Thinningstandstoreducecrownfirepotentialisaprimarymeansofreducingfirehazard(Grahametal.,1999,2004;BrownandAplet,2000)”.

Lesica,Peter,1996.UsingFireHistoryModelstoEstimateProportionsofOldGrowthForestInNorthwestMontana,USA.BiologicalConservation77,p.33‐39.

Paperstatesthateven 10% as minimum old‐growthStandardmayresultinextirpationofsomespecies. Thisisbasedonhisestimatethat20‐50%oflowandmanymid‐elevationforestswereinold‐ growthconditionpriortoEuropeansettlement.FSResponse:Seeresponsetocomment#123.

McRaeD.J.,L.C.Duchesne,B.Freedman,T.J.Lynham,andS.Woodley2001.Comparisonsbetweenwildfireandforestharvestingandtheirimplicationsinforestmanagement.Environ.Rev.9:223–260(2001)DOI:10.1139/er‐9‐4‐223©2001NRCCanada

Paperdiscussestheuseandeffectivenessofsilviculturaltechniquestoimitatenaturaldisturbancessuchaswildfire.FSResponse:ThepaperisnotdirectlyapplicableorrelevanttotheMWproject,astheforesttypes,practices,andobjectivesareentirelydifferent.Acorrelationdoesnotexist.

Riggers,Brian;RobBrassfield;JimBrammer;JohnCarlson;JoChristensen;StevePhillips;LenWalch;KateWalker;2001.ReducingFireRiskstoSaveFish–AQuestionofIdentifyingRisk.APositionPaperbytheWesternMontanaLevelIBullTroutTeam,2001.

Paperstatesthattherealrisktofisheriesisnotthedirecteffectsoffireitself,butrathertheexistingconditionofourwatersheds,fishcommunities,andstreamnetworks,andtheimpactsweimpartasaresultoffightingfires.FSResponse:Thecommenterdidnotprovideacopyofthispaper,andForestServiceBiologistsconfirmedthatitwasneverfinalizedandwasonlyadraftpositionpaper.Thedraftversionwewereabletolocatehadnodate,butdidhavetheinformationcitedbythecommenter.Inaddition,thecommenteromittedportionsofthepositionpaperthatarerelevanttotheMarshallWoodsproject:“Althoughmechanicalfuelremovalandsalvageismorelikelythanwildfiretoadverselyaffectfishesandtheirhabitat,theTeamunderstandsthatinsomeareas(suchasurbaninterfacezones),mechanicalfuelmanagementmaybethemostpracticaloption.Inthesecases,werecommendthatfisheryandfuelsspecialistsworkcloselytogethertoachieveprojectgoalswhileminimizingimpactstofishes.”Withregardtothepositionquotedbythecommenter,theauthorsofthedraftpositionpaperalsostated:“Thereareundoubtedlyexceptionstothisposition.Examplesmightincludedirecturbaninterfaceenvironmentswherenaturalfire


A‐234

processesareclearlynotanoptionandroadsystemscannotberemoved,orareaswherenativefishpopulationsarenearlyextinctandisolatedtoanextremelysmallwatershedandreconnectiontootherpopulationsisnotanoption.Anotherexceptionmightbewherefundsgeneratedfromthinningwouldbedirectlyusedtoobliterateroadsorremovebarriers.”TheMarshallWoodsprojectwouldfitwithintheexceptionstotheauthors’position.

Samson,Fred2006a.Habitatestimatesformaintainingviablepopulationsofthenortherngoshawk,black‐backedwoodpecker,flammulatedowl,pileatedwoodpecker,Americanmarten,andfisher.UnpublishedpaperbyFredSamson,RegionalWildlifeEcologist,USDAForestServiceNorthernRegion.25pp.May2006

Commenterchallengesthereportfindingsre:goshawkviabilityinRegion1,andreferstoWoodbridgeandHargisgoshawkmonitoringprotocol,whichispublishedasaUSFSaForestServicetechnicalreportwho’s2005detectionmapsaystherewere40detectionsin2005inRegion1whereasSamsonsays50pairsareneeded.ConcludingthattheresultsofthissurveyessentiallyshowthatthepopulationinRegion1isnotviableaccordingtotheagency’sownscience(only40insteadof55).ThemapreferencedinthiscommentshowsdetectionsfromaRegionalgoshawksurveyeffortconductedin2005,themethodsandresultsofwhicharedetailedinKowalski2006(includedintheProjectFile),andcitedintheWildlifeSpecialist’sReportonpage113.Thesurveyeffortsub‐sampledtheRegion,asitwouldbeinfeasibletosurveyeveryacreoflandintheRegionforgoshawks.ThusKowalskiusedasub‐setofPrimarySurveyUnits(PSUs)placedthroughouttheRegionforthesurvey,surveying114ofthe12,350PSUsthatcontainedNFSlandsintheRegion.Goshawksweredetectedin40ofthe114PSUssurveyed,leadingtoadetectionrateof0.39forPSUsintheRegion(alldescribedinKowalski).ExtrapolatingthisdetectionprobabilityacrossalllandsintheRegionwouldresultinmanymorethan40,oreven55,goshawkdetections.AsstatedinKowalski:IfweusetheaboveconfidencelimitstoextrapolatetotheentiresetofPSUswithintheaccessibleportionoftheNorthernregion,weobtainamaximumlikelihoodestimateof4,816PSUswithgoshawkpresenceand,basedona95%confidenceinterval,havingarangeof3,581to6,175PSUswithgoshawkspresent…sincegoshawkresearchershavefoundnoevidencethatgoshawksaredeclininginthewesternUnitedStates(Kennedy1997,SquiresandKennedy2006)andSamson(2005)demonstratedthatgoshawkhabitatwaswell‐distributedandabundantintheRegion,ourestimateofgoshawkpresencesuggeststhatgoshawksareabundantandwell‐distributedthroughouttheaccessibleportionsofRegionOneNationalForestSystemlandswithinMontanaandIdahoduringthebreedingseason.”Kowalskialsofoundreproductionat0.175ofthegoshawkdetections(7ofthe40).Again,ifthisisextrapolatedout,calculating0.175ofthe3,581to6,175PSUswouldassumethattherecouldbe626‐1,080goshawkpairsnestingintheRegion.Thegoshawkanalysisinthewildlifespecialist’sreport(page112‐113)considersthisinformationintheexistingconditionforgoshawks,andintheanalysisofeffectstogoshawks(pages119‐120).


A‐235

USDAForestService,2008a.YoungDodgeDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement,RexfordRangerDistrict,USDAForestService,KootenaiNationalForest,February2008

ThisDEISwasnotcitedinthecommenter’sletter;onlylistedinLiteratureCited.

DRAFT Decision Notice Appendix A – Response to Marshall Woods Restoration Project...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT Decision Notice Appendix A – Response to Marshall Woods Restoration Project...