Local or MSRT Comments: Oversight group did not rank this project because there are no federal hydropower impacts and no subbasin plan for the subbasin in which the project is proposed.

In the original proposal, only general burn procedures were described. The Forest Service response provided useful details in answer to ISRP questions including pre-burn surveys, environmental clearances, information reporting and other details. Monitoring had been deemed unnecessary, but in response to the ISRP, an aerial photo monitoring procedure is proposed to examine changes in timber type following burning.

The response addressed concern about infiltration and sedimentation following controlled burns with general information, but the ISRP notes that the intensity of the proposed burns, including 53% mixed lethal/moderate and 8% stand replacing, is greater than that described in that discussion. Site specific characteristics, such as the steepness of these south and west slopes and preference for fall burning that will leave slopes less vegetated during peak precipitation were not addressed. The ISRP remains concerned about sediment dumping into the Thompson River. The Thompson feeds a segment of the Clark Fork where bull trout spawn (the ISRP is not clear if there is spawning in the Thompson as well). As stated, the watershed impacts of a natural burn would probably be more destructive than controlled burning, but that does not negate concern for impacts of this project. Perhaps burning from low to high elevation over several years would establish some buffering vegetation and reduce overall potential impact on streams.

The proposal states effectiveness monitoring is omitted due to recent research showing the approach is sound. However, the authors should consider conducting follow-up monitoring on direct vegetative response to the burns. The ISRP requests a response to how vegetation on the burn areas will be monitored. This doesn't need to be a research-level effort. The goal of sampling would be to allow comparison of vegetation change and animal use over time. The ISRP also request a discussion of erosion and sedimentation, and noxious weed invasion, all of which might occur. The ISRP requests a more complete description of “Information transfer will be electronic.” Please describe what information, to whom and why?

It would be valuable to develop this into a fundable proposal. Many of the subbasin plans identify fuel and forest succession problems, but controlled burn proposals are scarce. Prescribed fire as a treatment would be widely applicable; however, few of the proposing agencies have the fire management experience of the Forest Service.