The Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Collaborative Proposed Action

A report to the North Kaibab Ranger District Kaibab National Forest

from the Landscape Conservation Initiative Northern Arizona University

The Landscape Conservation Initiative at Northern Arizona University forges new solutions to environmental challenges through a three-pronged approach: applied science, collaborative planning, and field-based educational experiences. More information is available online at www.nau.edu/LCI

Suggested citation for this report:

Sisk, T.D., S.D. Stortz, J.M. Rundall. 2014. The Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan: A Collaborative Proposed Action. Landscape Conservation Initiative, Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, AZ USA.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the contributions of all participants in this collaborative, including the many stakeholder participants and personnel of the North Kaibab Ranger District and Kaibab National Forest. Your time and knowledge were key to making progress on these complex issues. The Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, Kaibab National Forest and Grand Canyon Trust provided spatial data for this project. Dr. Steve Sesnie and former forest planner Bruce Higgins provided important advice on old growth in the project area and references across the plateau. Thanks to the Kaibab National Forest and North Kaibab Ranger District for the opportunity to pursue this collaborative landscape assessment for the Kaibab Plateau; particularly Randall Walker, Dave Vincelette and Ariel Leonard for their leadership, coordination and contributions. This project was funded by the North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Region 3, with matching funds from the Landscape Conservation Initiative, Northern Arizona University.

Project Staff

Jill M. Rundall Northern Arizona University Thomas D. Sisk, Ph.D. Northern Arizona University Sasha D. Stortz Northern Arizona University

Participants

Name Organization Sept. 18 Oct. 22-23 Nov. 19 Alicyn Gitlin Sierra Club x x x Ariel Leonard Kaibab National Forest x x x Bill Austin US Fish and Wildlife Service x x Brit Betensen North Kaibab Ranger District x x Byard Kershaw Kane County x x Cassie Hagemann North Kaibab Ranger District x x x Connie Reid North Kaibab Ranger District x x Dave Robinson North Kaibab Ranger District x Dave Vincelette North Kaibab Ranger District x x x David Hercher North Kaibab Ranger District x x Don Martin Mohave Sportsman Club x x Ed Grumbine Grand Canyon Trust x x x Ethan Aumack Grand Canyon Trust x x x Garry Domis North Kaibab Ranger District x x x Geoffory Anderson North Kaibab Ranger District x Jim Koons Private citizen x x x Jim Matson Kane County x x x John Schoppman Forever Resorts x Joseph Varnado North Kaibab Ranger District x x x Katherine Davis Center for Biological Diversity x Katie Sauerbrey North Kaibab Ranger District x Kevin Frandsen K&D Forest Products x Larry Whelan Friends of the Kaibab Squirrel x Luke Thompson Arizona Game and Fish Department x Melissa Robinson North Kaibab Ranger District x Paul Callaway North Kaibab Ranger District x x Randall Walker North Kaibab Ranger District x x x Samantha Flores North Kaibab Ranger District x x Steve Rich Private citizen x Tanner Whetstone North Kaibab Ranger District x Terry Herndon Mule Deer Foundation x Todd Buck Arizona Game and Fish Department x x x Todd Schulke Center for Biological Diversity x

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Study Area ...... 3 Approach and Methods ...... 5 Results ...... 8 Discussion...... 16 References ...... 18 Appendices ...... 22

Executive Summary

In July of 2014, the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) launched a collaborative planning process to develop a proposed action for vegetation management in the Burnt Corral project area. The project, focusing on the western Ponderosa Pine belt of the district, is within the area prioritized by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF), a collaborative, science- based group that worked from 2008-2009 to guide landscape-level forest restoration efforts across the Kaibab National Forest (KNF). The priorities from the KFHF were subsequently integrated into the Kaibab Forest Plan, and the NKRD drew on the stakeholder-identified priority areas to select the Burnt Corral project boundaries. A collaborative group, consisting of about 32 stakeholders, some involved in the KFHF and some new participants, was convened to carry forward the spirit of the KFHF toward on-the-ground management actions. Specifically, the collaborative process, supported by science and spatial analysis, was an effort to develop a single proposed action, supported by stakeholders and interest groups holding diverse values, for the NRKD to bring forward into scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The NKRD contacted the Landscape Conservation Initiative at Northern Arizona University (NAU), including the Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, to facilitate the meetings and support spatial analysis to aid consensus building, and the district committed to take the guidance of the collaborative forward into NEPA planning and implementation. The effort produced a draft proposed action based on a field visit and stakeholder deliberations over the course of several months. Consensus was reached on many pieces of guidance, and the proposed action reflects the will of the group. Where consensus was not reached, the LCI attempted to chart a path forward, or to document the range of opinions and options that emerged. This report presents the approach, outcomes and future recommendations from the Burnt Corral collaborative, and is accompanied by the collaborative proposed action submitted to the NKRD as they move forward with project planning and NEPA analysis.

Background

The Burnt Corral collaborative vegetation management planning process was convened to develop a proposed action for vegetation treatment in an area of approximately 28,060 acres on the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF), using a collaborative approach supported by spatial analysis and group deliberation. The project represents a significant milestone in several years of work on landscape level prioritization and planning for forest restoration on the Kaibab Plateau.

In 2009 the Kaibab Forest Health Focus, a science-based collaborative process to identify priority treatment areas across the Kaibab National Forest, was completed. The effort identified both priority areas and initial treatment guidance across the KNF, by district (Figure 1). The results of the prioritization were integrated into the new Kaibab Forest Plan as priority landscapes for management attention. The Burnt Corral project area is a venture into vegetation management in the area identified as highest priority for management action by stakeholders in the KFHF. It offered the opportunity for stakeholders, both those involved in the KFHF and others interested in forest management on the North Kaibab, to contribute to on-the-ground efforts across this project area, effectively filling in the details of the treatment sketch provided in previous broad-scale assessment work, as the scale of planning and analysis moves toward project-level implementation. This is also the first landscape-scale project on the NKRD that falls under the 2014 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest.

Figure 1. Priority landscapes (left) and treatment guidance (right) on the North Kaibab Ranger District, as developed by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus

The NKRD identified several objectives for the Burnt Corral project. Vegetation management objectives were to improve forest health and vigor, while improving habitat conditions which are more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and/or other climatic condition changes. The goal of

convening a collaborative process was to reach consensus, where possible, on a proposed action or guidance to use in a proposed action. The NKRD hoped that thorough and inclusive work “up front” to address stakeholder values and concerns, a civil and science-based process would lead to an efficient NEPA process and support for a practical, implementable proposed action to serve as the foundation for future project-level efforts.

Study Area

The Burnt Corral project area is about 28,060 acres in size, and lies on the southwest portion of the Kaibab Plateau, on the North Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest (Figure 2). The majority of the Burnt Corral project planning area is considered to be a Priority Landscape project within the western ponderosa pine belt of the Kaibab Plateau (Figure 3). In 2009, the Kaibab Forest Health Focus collaborative viewed the western ponderosa pine belt of the NKRD as a single priority area divided into four recommended project areas (“High 1A-1D”), each of which would receive a configuration of treatments that most efficiently met ecological restoration goals, including the return of natural fire regimes. The collaborative suggested working from South to North, capturing the early benefits of restoration by starting upwind of vulnerable forests. The NKRD selected the Burnt Corral project area based on these priorities, with additional refinements to the project area based on administrative and implementation considerations, such as the fact that some forest treatment had already occurred in the “1A” zone, and that by merging two previously separate projects (Burnt Corral and Pine Hollow) the project could benefit from using existing roads as boundaries, increasing the efficiency of project implementation and fire management.

Figure 2. The Burnt Corral project area is on the southwestern flank of the Kaibab Plateau

Figure 3. The Burnt Corral project area lies within one of three priority areas determined by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus The majority of the project area is dominated by ponderosa pine forest. The western edge, about 7,530 acres, overlaps with the 1996 Bridger Knoll Fire area and is now dominated by low lying vegetation, oak and New Mexican locust (Figure 4). In 2008, the Mill fire burned 1,710 acres in the Burnt Corral project’s northeast corner. The area contains 358 acres of Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat. Most of the Burnt Corral project is within the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark, and Arizona Game and Fish Game Management Unit 12A west.

Figure 4. Vegetation types across the project area. Predictive vegetation map was created using 2010 Landsat imagery by the Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology for the Kaibab National Forest monitoring project, with support from the Grand Canyon Trust

Approach and Methods

The process design for the Burnt Corral collaborative was built on the philosophy that this was not a “start from scratch” effort, but rather an extension of previous landscape-scale collaborative work through the KFHF. Our approach was to start from the proposed treatment guidance provided by the KFHF, focusing on the goal of developing a consensus-based proposed action for the project area while further refining, revising and developing specific treatment guidance. We drew from on-the-ground visits, informed opinion from experienced participants, and new analysis of existing data. With a strong commitment from the NKRD to carry forward an agreed-upon proposed action into NEPA, we attempted to maintain an efficient timeline driven by NRKD planning goals, over a 6-month period (Table 1). While many stakeholders commented that this timeline seemed quite short compared to other collaborative efforts, it was a long period compared to what is typically allocated to the development a proposed action, allowing considerable up-front deliberation in the hope that early and deep involvement of stakeholders would lead to greater support at later stages of the planning process. In order to maximize the value of face-to-face meeting time, we prefaced stakeholder interactions with surveys and

interviews, and used video teleconferencing when the need for deliberation exceed what was available during in-person meetings. To ensure stakeholders had a shared understanding of conditions on the ground, we conducted a field visit and used spatial data to visualize the landscape and the approximate size of proposed treatments.

Table 1. Project timeline and milestones

Date Process Milestone July 23rd-24th, 2014 NAU/NRKD kick off meeting and field visit (Fredonia, AZ/NKRD) August 20th, 2014 Stakeholder invitation letters sent out September 18th, 2014 Stakeholder introductory meeting and field visit (Big Springs, AZ, NKRD) October 22nd-23rd, 2014 Stakeholder meeting (Kanab, UT) November 19th, 2014 Working session on large and old trees (Video teleconference between Flagstaff, AZ and Fredonia, AZ) December 2nd, 2014 Draft proposed action submitted to stakeholders for review and feedback January, 2015 Revised proposed action and final report submitted by LCI

The LCI organized two stakeholder workshops, and supported those meetings with structured facilitation and participatory GIS. Invited participants represented a diversity of values and interests, and included environmental groups, forest industry representatives, hunting groups, recreational groups, local tribes, community organizations, local and county government, and state and federal wildlife and land management agencies. Over 130 participants were invited by email and hard copy letters, and stakeholders who responded were asked to identify any additional participants for further outreach. In addition, the meetings were advertised to the public via the forest service website. About 32 individuals representing 14 organizations attended one or more of the project meetings. Many of the organizations or individuals had also participated in the Kaibab Forest Health Focus or other forest planning processes. In addition to the two workshops, we also convened a supplemental working session focusing specifically on the issue of large and old trees, at the request of stakeholders.

Prior to the first stakeholder meeting and field visit, stakeholders were asked to identify key issues and concerns that they felt needed to be addressed in order for progress to be made, and to share their expectations, and their perspectives on what would constitute success of the project, through surveys and interviews. This allowed the LCI to focus subsequent meetings on key issues, to bring forward appropriate data, and to identify and represent the shared goals and expectations of the project. Through the survey and subsequent group discussions, we identified a few key issues to work through in development of the proposed action, as well as a number of stakeholder concerns. These concerns addressed the impacts of management and the preference for treatments to maintain or augment desired features while avoiding or mitigating undesirable impacts. Concerns and relevant approaches to addressing them, whether suggested by the stakeholder group, required by the Kaibab Forest Plan, or used in best management practices, were compiled in “design features” and included with the proposed action.

In order to develop treatment guidance to be included in a proposed action, we divided the project landscape into strata, defined as vegetation types or management units relevant to a specific treatment recommendation. Where treatment guidance from the KFHF had been established, we used

that as a starting point to launch group discussion and, where deemed helpful, further refinement. Where no guidance existed, we started with open discussion and used an interactive, map-based approach to help understand which areas, and how much of the landscape, should be identified for treatment in each strata. Much of this analysis involved new representations of existing spatial data. The Kaibab Forest Plan provided important starting points, sideboards and guidance throughout in steering the discussion towards implementable outcomes and progress towards Kaibab National Forest desired conditions.

Stakeholders desired to expand their understanding of how much of the landscape was “old growth”, and where these patches were located. They charged LCI with performing analyses to address and explore these issues. We went through several iterations of analysis to arrive at a range of estimates for the number of old growth acres in the project area, using a variety of data sources. This included an initial overnight analysis during meeting 2, demonstrating what types of analysis might be possible, and subsequent, more detailed analysis, described in Appendix II. While the NKRD will conduct additional stand exams in 2015 and conduct their own analysis as part of the NEPA process, we felt that it was important to provide stakeholders with an initial estimate of acreages of all landscape strata discussed in the stakeholder meetings, based on the best data available to us, for the purpose of providing a more specific, quantitative context for group discussion. That said, the estimated areas presented in this report may shift following NEPA analysis, which will draw on NKRD stand data and other sources that are currently unavailable. Spatial data sources and analysis used in mapping for the collaborative process and underlying the proposed action are described in detail in Appendix I.

The goal of this process was to surface and better understand the range of values and goals of various stakeholders and, where possible, to reach consensus on treatment guidance for the proposed action. For the purposes of this project, consensus was defined as an action that everyone in the group could “live with.” If everyone could not “live with” a specific recommendation, the group discussed issues or concerns, which were documented, and the recommendation was explored in greater detail and refined if possible. If agreement was not reached, the range of perspectives and opinions were recorded, and the LCI attempted to chart a path forward with our best effort to capture the overall intent of the diverse group. While the group reached agreement on many aspects of the project, several issues – primarily those involving large and old trees – were not fully resolved, with stakeholders differing on the appropriate trade-offs between thinning and fire threat reduction, on one hand, and the retention of old-growth stands and structure, on the other (see meeting summaries, Appendix IV).

After the workshops were completed, we worked to develop a draft proposed action for stakeholder review. In order to develop this document, the North Kaibab Ranger District drafted an initial purpose and need statement based on their on-the-ground knowledge of the project area and desired forest conditions. Meanwhile, LCI took the lead in developing language for the proposed action and design features. Where the stakeholder group reached clear agreement, we followed group guidance in developing the proposed action. Where agreement was not reached, we proposed language attempting to reflect the overall intent of the group as a starting point for stakeholder review. Finally, we revised and integrated the purpose and need statement from the NKRD into a complete draft of the proposed action. This draft was sent to stakeholders for a one-week review and comment period, after which comments were collated and themed (Appendix VI), and the proposed action was revised to reflect, to the best of our ability, the overall group intent and the degree of agreement that was reached. The NKRD reviewed these revisions, and we finalized the document to share with stakeholders.

Results After a field trip and two-and-a-half days of meetings, along with continued analysis and discussion over three months, stakeholders participating in the collaborative developed guidance on a number of elements for development of the proposed action. On most topics, the discussion stayed fairly high-level given the limited time but, in general, issues were discussed in enough detail to develop a sense of shared understanding and a range of options. Enough was agreed upon by the group to move forward with draft language and parameters for a proposed action. The use of spatial data assisted in discussion and acted as a consensus-building tool. Maps helped to illustrate the size and locations of the different strata, as well as their spatial distribution and juxtaposition across the project area. Furthermore, participants were able to see the project area in the context of the variability in forest conditions within the contiguous ponderosa pine belt and across the Kaibab Plateau. In several cases, stakeholders requested specific analyses to aid in their deliberations, most notably in the case of large trees and candidate old growth stands. This approach assisted the effort by helping develop a shared understanding of the place and allowed individuals to assess their personal comfort levels with proposed treatments. In the following section, we present a summary of the group guidance, as well as the estimated acres and maps that resulted from group discussions and subsequent analysis (Figure 5, Table 2).

Treatment guidance and proposed actions

Fire only areas

The group discussed treatment guidance across the project area, focusing most of their time on the ponderosa pine dominated acres of the project. They agreed that fire alone, both prescribed and managed wildfire, should be used on a significant portion of the project area. They referred to this as “wild land fire”, a term we adopted in the draft proposed action. The NKRD later suggested that future versions of the proposed action might need to refer strictly to prescribed fire, because managed wildfire is authorized outside of the proposed action process. However, for the purpose of illustrating the intent of the collaborative, we retained the operational definition used by the group through this process, which includes both prescribed and managed wildfire. The area where only fire was recommended for treatment included the Bridger Fire area, about 7,560 acres of which lies within the Burnt Corral project area, as well as a relatively small area including seed cuts carried out in the 1990s and locations characterized by sensitive soils and steep slopes (> 40 degrees), about 5,010 acres.

The group discussed several concerns related to fire treatments and identified additional stipulations to be applied to treatment guidance for some specific locations. In the Bridger Fire area, where gamble oak provides important wildlife habitat, the group stipulated that burn plans be developed in coordination with the Arizona Department of Fish and Game to meet wildlife habitat objectives, that burns be limited to spot treatments, and that they avoid impacting young ponderosa seedlings. On sensitive soils and steep slopes, concerns were expressed that high burn intensity could damage and destabilize sensitive soils, and that high burn frequency could decrease the productivity of understory vegetation and the quality and quantity of wildlife forage. The group acknowledged that hand thinning, piling and other actions used by fire crews prior to burning should be used when fuel loading could result in undesirable fire effects, and that this could reduce the risk of negatively impacting sensitive soils. NKRD further recommended that the proposed action acknowledge that

preparation thinning prior to fire often includes both hand thinning and the use of small, low-pressure ground equipment such as mastication heads.

Across the remainder of the project area, the group agreed that wildland fire, defined as either prescribed fire or managed wildfire, should be used in conjunction with planned mechanical treatments wherever possible. In addition to wildland fire, the group discussed different levels of mechanical treatments across other ponderosa pine areas. The suggested treatments reflect the group’s attempt to balance a range of treatment intensities that would achieve a range of management objectives, including reducing the risk of spreading crown fire, protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, protecting old growth characteristics, and creating a heterogeneous forest structure. The three major landscape strata where treatments addressed these objectives were Northern goshawk nest areas, old growth protection areas, and the “remaining” ponderosa pine areas of the landscape.

Northern goshawk nest areas

Northern goshawk nest areas cover about 2,580 acres of the project area. In these areas, the group agreed to protect and enhance nesting and replacement nesting habitat by thinning trees from below up to 14” diameter at breast height (dbh) when conditions indicated significant deviation from desired conditions and elevated fire risk. The group also discussed the need to retain downed logs, woody debris and old trees whenever possible for habitat enhancement.

Old growth patches

The group agreed that some significant portion of the landscape should be managed to promote and retain “old growth characteristics”. These areas would be managed for the protection and recruitment of old growth and are referred to, in this report and in the proposed action as they were in group deliberation: “old growth patches”. In addition to this specific landscape stratum, the group discussed the use of project-wide design features to retain old and large trees across the project area. To identify candidate old growth patches, stakeholders requested that LCI perform analysis using existing spatial data to estimate the approximate area, in addition to acres identified as goshawk nest sites and those with sensitive soils and/or steep slopes. During meeting 2, LCI analysts conducted preliminary overnight analyses drawing on existing basal area and tree height data, to identify candidate old growth patches. An initial example estimate suggested that about 1,800 additional acres might capture the areas with relatively high density of old and large trees within the project area. However, the overnight analysis also illustrated several caveats that precluded a confident mapping of old growth patches: other data sources that might identify old growth with greater confidence, including recently acquired Lidar data, Forest Service stands exams, and Northern goshawk nest areas, did not always overlap with the representation of old growth that emerged from our preliminary analyses. LCI committed to continuing data exploration and analysis designed to refine estimates of the number and location of patches that might be recommended for old growth management in the proposed action and final report.

Following further data development, modeling and exploration, LCI determined that the available data were not of the quality or resolution appropriate for mapping old growth patches. Instead, we identified a range of conditions representative of stands containing a high density of large trees, based on predictive models of basal area and tree height developed by the Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology in 2010, based on Landsat imagery. These data, the best available for

analysis at the time of the Burnt Corral effort, were developed for broad-scale assessment of forest structural characteristics across the Kaibab Plateau, and resolution was not adequate for identifying patches within the project area with sufficient confidence to establish meaningful patch boundaries. Promising new Lidar data acquired by the Forest Service, identifying tall trees and their density, was not adequately processed to allow new analyses given timeline of this project, and stand exam data were also being assessed for quality and were unavailable for use. Therefore, we pursued exploratory analysis using the Landsat-derived data, and identified a relatively broad range of 2,601-5,585 acres as representing the upper quantile for structural characteristics consistent with “old growth” as described by the collaborative group (see Appendix II for more information). We suggested that approximately 2,600 acres, in addition to areas identified as goshawk habitat and those with sensitive soils and steep slopes, would capture the majority of contiguous areas exhibiting old growth characteristics, while noting that specification of the number, size, and location of old growth patches required higher resolution data than those currently available. It was apparent from preliminary analysis, however, that in some locations patches could be strategically positioned adjacent to goshawk nest areas and steep slopes to create larger old growth patches. In-depth analysis, as is likely to be performed under the forthcoming Burnt Corral NEPA process, will offer the opportunity for mapping old growth patches with greater specificity. It is likely that the actual area of these patches, in aggregate, may differ from the area suggested in the proposed action, however, we believe this is a reasonable estimate and expect deviation from this number to be modest.

The “Remaining ponderosa pine”

In the remaining ponderosa pine dominated areas (about 9,530 acres), the group recommended using group selection cuts in varying shapes and sizes to create a heterogeneous forest mosaic. The group agreed to design such treatments to take advantage of topographic features and roads in a way that would optimize the effect of treatments and allow more confident, safe use of fire as a primary management tool across the landscape. They also recommended treating strategically around high valued areas such as goshawk nests and old growth by treating more intensively upwind of these high value areas. A strong desire to use selection cuts to create variability in forest structure at the landscape scale was motivated by the group’s desire to avoid a “cookie cutter” treatment approach.

This treatment category includes about 9,320 acres of Northern goshawk PFAs. Under the new Forest Plan, the management of PFAs is not as strictly circumscribed as in previous management guidelines. The plan simply states that these areas may have 10-20% higher basal area than the greater ponderosa matrix at the midscale. Therefore, the group chose to address PFAs as part of this broader stratum of “remaining ponderosa pine”, treating it as an element of the matrix forest type across the Burnt Corral project area.

Other vegetation types

The group briefly discussed treatments in other vegetation types in the Burnt Corral project area, as well. In the 358 acres of Mexican Spotted Owl recovery habitat, the group agreed that the MSO guidelines must be followed, and that treatment be developed in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The NKRD subsequently shared their initial proposal for treating in this area, which was integrated into the draft proposed action for stakeholder comment. The NKRD consulted with the USFWS on December 10, 2014, and provided the LCI with refined language after consultation. The group

also discussed aspen and oak, specifically locating treatments, where possible, in areas where thinning was likely to stimulate aspen and oak stands within pine-dominated stands.

Figure 5. Preliminary map of landscape strata selected for particular treatments, reflecting the acreages in Table 2. Not depicted: “Old Growth Patches”, yet to be identified spatially, but for which characteristics and general approach for identification were discussed in stakeholder meetings.

Design features

The pre-workshop stakeholder survey and subsequent discussions surfaced a variety of stakeholder issues and concerns to be addressed in the proposed action. We responded to each issue with suggestions on how these might be addressed, drawing first on existing guidance from the Kaibab Forest Plan and recommendations from stakeholders. In the proposed action, we included relevant Forest Plan guidelines and NKRD’s standard best management practices and mitigation measures. In addition to previously identified design features, a few design criteria were discussed in depth by the collaborative and refined for the purpose of reflecting the perspective of the stakeholder group in the proposed action. These included wildlife habitat, large trees, old trees and protection of sensitive areas. Wildlife and protection of sensitive areas were both discussed in depth during the October stakeholder meeting and a number of guidelines to mitigate, retain, protect and stimulate desired features were integrated into the proposed action.

Table 2. Landscape strata and estimated areas for proposed treatments. Values rounded to the nearest ten acres, except for Mexican Spotted Owl habitat.

Maximum Treatment Type(s) Proposed Relevant Strata Estimated Acreage Wildland Fire Fire only 1 Bridger fire area, sensitive soils, steep slopes, seed cuts approaching desired conditions 12,990 Mechanical Thinning and Wildland Fire: Thin from below to 14” Northern Goshawk nest areas 2,580 Limited treatment reduce fire risk Old growth patches 2,600 Group selection cuts Remaining ponderosa pine 9,530 Thin mixed conifer from below to 12" to reduce fire Mexican Spotted Owl habitat risk 358 Total Project Area 28,060 1 Note: This includes activities such as preparation thinning and other light mechanical and hand thinning treatments associated with appropriate use and management of prescribed fire and managed wildfire

An extra half-day meeting was held to further discuss the issue of large and old trees and to refine approaches proposed for their protection. A proposed old and large tree retention strategy, drawing initially from the painstaking negotiations that took place in developing the Four Forest Restoration Initiative Large Tree Retention and Old Growth Protection Strategy, was brought forward as a starting point. Through discussion and reaction to that starting point, a range of options were discussed, including large tree retention with a diameter threshold ranging from 16 to 24 inches, and a tiered and verifiable approach to protecting the greatest percentage of large and old trees in stands where meeting desired conditions required cutting some trees larger than the threshold dbh (see summary of meeting 3, Appendix IV). The NKRD agreed that, in order to respect the work of the collaborative group, they could live with a large tree retention and old growth protection strategy for the project area, even though they believe that the threshold of 18” dbh suggested by LCI in the draft proposed action and agreed to by most stakeholders would lead to much of the landscape being treated as an ‘exception’, given the density of large, relatively young ‘blackjack’ pines across much of the project area. Comments from various parties following meeting 3 established unequivocally that considerable disagreement remained regarding appropriate management strategies for retaining large and old trees, while meeting the shared objectives of the Burnt Corral project. In the end, the collaborative group did not find consensus on this topic, though the majority of stakeholders adopted compatible positions. Because this challenge could not be fully resolved, the LCI drafted initial language for the draft proposed action and circulated that language for review.

Reponses to the draft proposed action

After eight days to review the draft proposed action, a number of stakeholders provided their comments and reactions. These included representatives of Arizona Game and Fish Department, Grand Canyon Trust, Kane County, private citizens, Mohave Sportsman Club, Sierra Club, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Most but not all commenters attended the collaborative meetings. In addition, the

NKRD provided detailed comments and suggested revisions to the LCI through several discussions. The majority of responses were supportive of the major concepts outlined in the proposed action, with requests to address and refine a wide range of specific issues or questions. A few responses expressed strong apprehensions, offered significant revisions, or requested the inclusion of new recommendations. Comments (Appendix VI) fell under a number of themes that we summarize below (Table 3). A few of the concerns and suggestions represent departure from what was discussed in the collaborative meetings. For example, while the range of diameter thresholds for large and old tree retention discussed by the collaborative in meetings ranged from 16”-24”, and the proposed action suggested an 18” threshold, one comment suggested a lower threshold. Another comment expressed concern that the area suggested for “old growth patches” was too high, and suggested returning to the value identified in the preliminary overnight analysis that the LCI performed as an example in meeting 2: 1,800 acres. The NKRD suggested that limited mechanical treatments on sensitive soils and steep slopes using low-impact equipment in preparation thinning would benefit efficiency and management objectives in the project. All responses were taken into consideration in the preparation of the final proposed action, however, suggestions that deviated significantly from sense of the collaborative effort seldom led to modification of the draft, except where they identified a specific error in the document. Beyond these issues, comments were primarily focused on refining and clarifying or adjusting existing language, rather than proposing significant new changes to the concepts agreed upon in the meetings. One theme that was evident in comments from multiple stakeholders was the use of reference conditions for guiding proposed treatments. Several comments suggested specific locations to use as references, and requested that the purpose and need describe reference conditions specific to the project area, rather than the KNF, in general.

As has been the case over the last two decades of debate over forest management on the Kaibab Plateau, divergence in opinions regarding how to address the management of old and large trees, and stands with old growth characteristics, was evident throughout the Burnt Corral collaborative effort. Feedback on the issue of large and old tree retention ranged from agreement with the language in the proposed action, to expressions of concern that the specified areas were too small and the guiding parameters too lenient. This collaborative effort was designed to take the issue of old and large trees head-on, and a substantial proportion of the total meeting and analysis time was focused on large and old trees. Progress was made on the issue. Despite a broad range of opinions, the group agreed on several major components of the proposed action: that some portion of the landscape would be managed for the protection of stands retaining old growth characteristics; that a range of treatment intensities would be employed outside these areas; and that old and large trees would be preferentially retained throughout the project area, except where meeting the objective of the project and attaining desired conditions as specified in forest plan required that some large trees be thinned. Despite the high degree of conceptual agreement, differences emerged in the discussion of specific measures to be included in the proposed action. The main areas of disagreement include 1) the specific diameter threshold that would identify trees large enough to be preferentially retained, except in situations where site-specific assessment indicated that the thinning of some large trees was necessary to meet desired conditions; and 2) the specific conditions and categories that would trigger exceptions to the diameter threshold. At the core of this debate are uncertainties about how much of the landscape contains large and old trees, in what density they occur, and in what spatial patterns. A better understanding of these questions about the occurrence of old growth would help all to understand if and how management objectives can be achieved while preserving the large tree heritage of the Kaibab Plateau that has been lost over much of the Southwest’s extensive ponderosa pine forest.

Table 3. Summary of comments received in response to the initial draft proposed action sent to stakeholders. See Appendix VI for full commentaries. Old growth patches Concern that the document focuses too heavily on old growth rather than forest structure and maintaining a diversity of age classes over time Concern with number of old growth acres proposed in the action; question on how amount was derived Disagreement that project area contains dense stands of pre-settlement trees retain conditions that approximate pre-settlement ponderosa ecosystem Old growth protection and large tree retention Suggestion to retain all trees larger than 12” diameter Concern that exceptions to large tree retention are too broad, and are not applicable because they were originally developed for restoration rather than timber sale, and used in conjunction with an old growth retention plan that had fewer exceptions Concern that the threshold thinning from below could negatively impact old growth, as old trees are not always large Concern that old growth protection parameters will not protect old growth but instead lead to significant loss due to exceptions, particularly exception 3 Suggestion that only public safety exception should be considered in old growth protection Recommendation that diameter threshold be moved to >24" or based on achieving a basal area of 90 with selective thinning retaining trees up to some diameter Suggestion that because this was not a consensus piece of the collaborative, it should not be included Concern that an 18" threshold would not meet forest management objectives Sensitive soils and steep slopes Acknowledge the use of small, low ground pressure equipment in addition to hand thinning during treatments preparing areas for fire, including on sensitive soils and steep slopes "Remaining" ponderosa pine treatment feedback Question on desired condition of 3 classes in roughly even proportion; don't believe reference conditions point to even classes Request to include "random mosaic" rather than a "mosaic" pattern; desire to avoid "cookie cutter" pattern Suggests that intensive treatments near high value resources should not be limited to upwind; take topography and other factors into account Wildfire Suggested changing terminology from wildland fire to prescribed fire; cannot propose a wildfire, this is focused on proposed actions. Wildlife Concern that refurbishing existing water developments and potentially building new ones using KV funds was not addressed in the proposed action Suggestion to leave 20”+ Keen Tree Class trees damaged by lightning strikes as wildlife habitat Requested some clarifications on wildlife design features such as citations and language clarity

Northern goshawk Best Management Practices and Mitigation measures attachment includes limiting activities near nest sites and PFA’s during breeding season. Flagged timing of logging activities in PFAs; can logging take place within PFAs? If not, activities will need to be coordinated between USFS and contractor to minimize potential impacts Concern that proposal focuses only on Northern goshawk nest areas, when it should focus on PACs Mexican Spotted Owl Specific questions and clarifications on language related to treatments in Mexican Spotted Owl habitat Specific questions on how the large tree retention strategy related to Mexican Spotted Owl habitat Comment that USFS and NKRD are meeting in December and language will be refined afterwards Aspen and oak Concern that encouraging regeneration of aspen and oak in the project area is unnecessary given the regeneration in other areas such as the Warm Fire area. Information and analysis Concern that a decisions has been made that large trees need to be cut without sufficient analysis or description of what exists across the project area Not enough information to understand how group selection cuts and post-treatment forest would be structured; need data-driven, scientifically justified and detailed plan Concern that threshold for large tree retention was determined without providing analysis on numbers and sizes of trees across the project area Reference conditions Consider using Garret, Soulen and Ellenwood (1997), “After 100 Years of Forest Management: The North Kaibab” as a source for reference conditions using USFS CFI and/or FIA cruise plot data Concern that reference conditions are not specifically described or place-based for the North Kaibab Concern that Powell plateau and other suggested reference conditions are not applicable to project area due to elevation differences and future drought scenarios Roads Concern that additional logging roads could be closed to the public, causing access issues for sportsmen and others Concern that administrative roads could be increased under the project; request to state that any new roads are closed after restoration activities Economics Concern that the document does not address the Arizona Strip and Kane County local economy, culture and capacity for sustaining infrastructure and labor needed to carry out proposed treatments Recognition that cost to reduce ladder fuels will be significant, and justification of the up-front cost may be difficult, however, reducing wildfire risk now will be less costly than battling and recovering from a large fire such as the Warm Fire. Encourage deliberate thinking about choice to “pay now, or pay later.” Purpose and need Concern that the purpose and need includes ideas beyond what was discussed in the collaborative (e.g. restoration tools, USFS targets for silviculture, lack of reference to old and large tree protection), and does not focus on the uniqueness of this effort, and this place General edits, including moving language from purpose and need to design features and requests to use NKRD data sources to represent vegetation across the project area

Comment that purpose and need should focus on treatments without assuming they will be commercial in nature; restoration focus with commercial byproduct as one option Design Features NKRD staff updated language from the Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices to apply to the new forest plan and project specifics

NKRD staff committed to providing additional language to address California Condor and Kaibab Bladderpod

Overall, most responses supported the broad concepts of the proposed action, but suggested specific clarifications or expansions. Some comments introduced novel ideas or suggested changes that diverged from the range of deliberation during the collaborative group’s meetings. Where comments from different stakeholders were in opposition, where requests deviated significantly from the sense of the collaborative as determined by the LCI, and where new language not vetted by the group was suggested, we chose not to revise the content of the proposed action. We did make numerous changes intended to clarify key points, and we accepted suggestions that improved organization, made the text more concise, or highlighted questions deserving further discussion. We also expanded explanation of the reasoning behind some key issues that remain contentious or not fully resolved. The proposed action emerging from the Burnt Corral collaborative effort, Appendix VII, represents both significant progress toward restoration and conservation of the Kaibab Plateau’s forested habitats, as well as the “sticking points” that remain as the Forest Service strives to retain public participation and support for progressive approaches for management, going into the public scoping period and NEPA analysis.

Discussion

At the end of the October meeting, participants shared closing thoughts on the Burnt Corral collaborative effort, having made substantial progress towards the development of a proposed action. Participants commented on the contrast between the quick progress made in this effort and other, longer collaborations. The majority expressed positive opinions about the format, showed optimism moving forward, and expressed willingness to participate in future meetings, with the hope that their participation would provide a foundation for public support and rapid progress toward on-the-ground implementation of the recommended forest management actions. Through group deliberation and collaborative mapping, a working consensus was achieved on many recommendations included in the proposed action, with the major exceptions including some aspects of the identification and management of old growth patches, and the specific components of design features regarding large and old tree retention. At both the second and third meetings, participants suggested that with more time, these issues also could be resolved. Most participants who provided comments on the draft proposed action supported the document and provided a few points for expansion, clarification or addition. A few expressed significant concerns. A range of reactions is not uncommon when addressing in a new way a set of issues previously characterized by disagreement and conflict. Therefore, this collaborative process could benefit from additional opportunities for group engagement after project scoping and prior to NEPA analysis. And despite several unresolved issues, it is heartening that most respondents felt significant and rapid progress had been made, and that further convergence of positions was possible with continued opportunities for collaboration.

Several issues not addressed or unresolved in this project are deserving of further discussion and analysis, perhaps independent of this proposed action or the Burnt Corral project, specifically:

1) Retention of large and old trees. Stakeholders often stated that the North Kaibab had a different history and, therefore, was in need of a unique large and old tree retention strategy. As the issue of large and old trees is continually and further addressed through various venues and discussions, such as the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, it may be that a standard and shared expectation is arrived upon through the culmination of multiple efforts. Furthermore, promising new data products and advanced analysis could refine and improve these deliberations by developing an increased, shared understanding of on-the-ground variability and conditions. Broad agreement on a specific standard developed through a science-based collaborative and applied across future project areas on the NKRD would increase project-level planning efficiency and build on recent progress toward consensus.

2) District-wide discussion of mixed conifer and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat may also aid future project-level collaborations in a similar way. The Burnt Corral project area has only a small area of MSO habitat, however future projects are likely to have significantly more, suggesting that the next round of collaborative efforts may require new data-driven exploration focused on mixed conifer forest types.

3) The issue of reference conditions was brought up by several stakeholders during meetings and in comments on the draft proposed action. There is a desire for the use of reference conditions in establishing desired conditions that are specific to the Kaibab Plateau. There is also a need for analytical approaches that assess current conditions in relation to reference conditions, such that treatments can be designed specifically to move forest structure and composition toward those characteristic of locally relevant reference sites.

Resolution of these issues is beyond the scope and timeline of this project, which did not allow for new research. Future investment in targeted analysis, however, would allow a more informed exploration of key topics that are bound to reemerge in future projects on the North Kaibab.

The Burnt Corral project leveraged previous, broad-scale collaborative assessment efforts for forest restoration at the landscape scale. The Kaibab Forest Health Focus set the stage for moving to the project level, with deliberation focusing on specific locations and tailored treatments to guide on-the- ground management actions toward landscape level goals. As the project moves into public scoping, the NKRD will have the opportunity to engage a broader public in consideration of a proposed action that has emerged from a concerted effort to engage, inform, and benefit from stakeholder input early in the planning process. By raising concerns early, opening multiple channels of communication, considering new and diverse ideas, and embracing the broad values and objectives of the stakeholder group, the NKRD is moving forward with a plan that differs markedly from what likely would have emerged from a drafting process with less public participation. As voiced by many participants on numerous occasions, this effort will result in a greater degree of ownership on the part of stakeholders, and generate increased support for the proposed action through the scoping period. By drawing on site-specific knowledge and landscape scale analysis, and sharing information with an informed and engaged public, forest restoration and conservation on the Kaibab Plateau is entering a new era, where shared values lead to common objectives, and collaboration strengthens management by forging practical agreements on contentious issues. We hope that the result will be more efficient planning and analysis efforts, and better outcomes as future forest management improves forest health and wildlife habitat, while increasing resilience to the changes brought on by wildfire and a warming climate.

References

Abella, S. R. and W.W. Covington. 2006. Forest ecosystems of an Arizona Pinus ponderosa landscape: multifactor classification and implications for ecological restoration. Journal of Biogeography 33:1368-1383.

Abrams, J., H.M. Hampton, J. Prather, B. Dickson, J. Rundall, Y. Xu, J. Anderson, T. Sisk. 2005. Report on the White Mountains Landscape Assessment: A Collaborative, Science-based Approach to Forest Restoration in Eastern Arizona. Ecological Restoration Institute and Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University. 104 pp.

Ager, A., Finney, M., McMahon, A., 2006. A wildfire risk modeling system for evaluationg landscape fuel treatment strategies. In: Andrews, P.L. Butler, B.W., Fuels management—How to measure success: conference proceedings. 29-30 Mar 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Allen, C.D., Savage, M., Falk, D.A., Suckling, K.F., Swetnam, T.W., Schulke, T.P., Stacey, P.B., Morgan, P., Hoffman, M., Klingel, J.T., 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol. App. 12, 1418–1433.

Beier, P. and J. Maschinski., 2003. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. In: Friederici, P. (Ed.), Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 306-327.

Covington, W.W., Moore, M.M., 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: changes since Euro- American settlement. J. For. 92, 39–47.

Cox, M.D., W. Lutz, T. Wasley et al. 2009. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: Intermountain West Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Finney, M.A., R.C. Seli, C.W. McHugh, A.A. Ager, B Bahro and J.K. Agee. 2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16: 712-727.

Fulé, P.Z., 2008. Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate? Restoration Ecology 16: 526-531.

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, A.E. Cocke, M.M. Moore, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Changes in canopy fuels and potential fire behavior 1880-2040: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Ecological Modelling 175: 231-248.

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, T.A. Heinlein, M.M, Moore, W.W. Covington and G. Verkamp. 2003. Mixed- severity fire regime in a high-elevation forest of Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 18: 465-486.

Fulé, P.Z., W.W. Covington, M.M. Moore, T.A. Heinlein, and A.E.M. Waltz. 2002. Natural variability in forests of the Grand Canyon, USA. Journal of Biogeography 29: 31-47.

Governor’s Forest Health Councils, State of Arizona. June 2007. The Statewide Strategy for Restoring Arizona’s Forests. Aumack, E., T. Sisk, and J. Palumbo, editors. Published by Arizona Public Service, Phoenix, AZ.

Hampton, H.M., S.E. Sesnie, B.G. Dickson, J.M. Rundall, T.D. Sisk, G.B. Snider and J.D. Bailey. 2008. Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona, Center for Environmental Sciences and Educations, Northern Arizona University.

Hampton, H. M., E. N. Aumack, J. W. Prather, B. G. Dickson, Y. Xu, and T. D. Sisk. 2006. Development and transfer of spatial tools based on landscape ecology principles: supporting public participation in forest restoration planning in the southwestern U. S. Pp. 65-95 in Forest Landscape Ecology: Transferring Knowledge to Practice (A. Perera, L. Buse, and T. Crow, eds.). Springer Publishing, New York.

Hickey, J. A., J.C. Jenkins, D.S. Ojima and M. Ducey. 2007. Spatial patterns of forest characteristics in the western United States derived from inventories. Ecological Applications: 2387-2402.

Kaufman, M.R., W.H. Moir and W.W. Covington. 1992. Old-growth forests: what do we know about their ecology and management in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain regions? In: Old-growth forest in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Region: proceedings of a workshop, M arch 9-13, 1992, Portal Arizona. Tech Eds. M.R. Kaufman, GTR-RM-213. W.H. Moir and R.L. Bassett. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ft Collins, CO. pp. 1-11.

Moir, W. H. and J.H. Dieterich. 1988. Old-growth pine from succession in pine-bunchgrass forest in Arizona and New Mexico. Natural Areas Journal. 8:17-24.

The National Map: LANDFIRE Rapid Refresh National Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2008) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: U.S. Department of Interior, [Online]. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/index.php [2008].

Prather, J.W., R.F. Noss, and T.D. Sisk. 2007. Real and perceived conflicts between restoration of ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted owl, Forest Policy and Economics

Reynolds, R.T., A.J. Meador, J.A. Youtz, T. Nicolet, M.S. Matonis, P.L. Jackson, D.G. DeLorenzo, andA.D. Graves. 2013. Restoring Composition and Structure in Southwestern Frequent-Fire Forests: A science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310.

Scott, Joe H and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72. p.

Sesnie, S.E. 2001. Environmental histories: a foundation for adaptive forest management on the Kaibab Plateau in northern Arizona. Master’s Thesis, Northern Arizona University.

Sesnie, S. and J. Bailey. 2003. Using history to plan the future of old-growth ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 101:40-47.

Shaw, H.G. and C. Mollohan. 1992. Merriam’s turkey. Pages 221-249 in J.G. Dickson, ed. The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Sisk, T. D., H.M., Hampton, J. Prather, E. N. Aumack, Y. Xu, M.R. Loeser, T. Munoz-Erickson, B. Dickson and J. Palumbo. 2004. Forest Ecological Restoration Analysis (ForestERA) Project Report, 2002- 2004. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Sisk, T. D., J. W. Prather, H. M. Hampton, E. N. Aumack , Y. Xu, and B. G. Dickson. 2006. Participatory landscape analysis to guide restoration of ponderosa pine ecosystems in the American Southwest. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 78, Issue 4, pp. 300-310.

Sisk, T.D., J.M Rundall, E. Nielsen, B.G. Dickson, S.E. Sesnie. 2009. The Kaibab Forest Health Focus: Collaborative Prioritization of Landscapes and Restoration Treatments on the Kaibab National Forest. The Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Project, Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ.

Strom, B.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16: 128-138.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Kaibab National Forest Social and Economic Sustainability Report. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern Region, August 2008. 85 pp.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (USDA). 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest: Coconino County and part of Yavapai County, Arizona. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest. Available online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5138598.pdf.

USDA Forest Service, North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. November 2013. Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Kane Ranch Allotment Management Plan EA.

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. January 2005. Record of Decision – Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds. Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest, February 2014. 219 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. FSH 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service National Headquarters. 47 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. “Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process” 36 CFR Part 218. 4 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Mexican spotted owl recovery plan, first revision. Albuquerque, NM. 392 pp. Available online: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/MSO_Recovery_Plan_First_Revision_Dec2012.pdf.

Appendices I. Spatial data sources and development...... 23 II. Approach to estimating old growth patch acres...... 33 III. Invitation to stakeholders ...... 37 IV. Stakeholder meeting agendas and summaries...... 39 V. Draft proposed action and design features ...... 107 VI. Stakeholder comments in response to the draft proposed action...... 153 VII. Revised proposed action and design features ...... 167

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 23 Spatial Data Sources and Data Development

All data outlined below were spatially subset to the Burnt Corral study extent for analysis.

Burnt Corral Study Extent - These data were provided to us by the Kaibab National Forest staff as the project boundary.

Bridger Fire Acquired from the fire history polygons (posted 4/28/2014) from the SW Region 3 Geospatial Data, Kaibab National Forest GIS Data website 06/2014. (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/landmanagement/gis/?cid=stelprdb5209305). C

- Sensitive Soils and Steep Slopes Steep slopes of >= 40% were derived from 30-m LANDFIRE national elevation dataset (LANDFIRE,2009), as used in KFHF (Sisk et al, 2009). Sensitive soils, as defined by KNF timber and silvicultural staff, were subset from the KNF Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey data.

- Seed Tree Cuts Original spatial data provided by KNF timber and silvicultural staff.

- Northern Goshawk Nest Areas Original spatial data was updated with additional replacement nest sites and provided by KNF wildlife biologist

- Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat Provided by KNF wildlife biologist

- Remaining Ponderosa Pine Modeled vegetation layer based on 2010 Landsat Imagery (K2M_VegetationClassfication; Ray et al 2012) was subset by other landscape strata as discussed by stakeholders including sensitive soils and steep slopes, seed tree cuts, Northern Goshawk nest areas and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat.

------

Literature cited

Ray, C., O. Wang, B.G. Dickson, and S.E. Sesnie. 2012. A spatial model of dominant vegetation types on the Kane and Two Mile Ranches and adjacent areas, Arizona. Final Summary to the Grand Canyon Trust. Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 8pp.

Sisk, T.D., J.M. Rundall, E. Nielsen, B.G. Dickson, S.E. Sesnie. 2009. The Kaibab Forest Health Focus: Collaborative Prioritization of Landscape and Restoration Treatments on the Kaibab National Forest. The Forest Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Project, Lab of Landscape Ecology, School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 123 pp.

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 24 LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.1.0, Digital Elevation Model layer. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. [Online]. Available: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/[2009, January 30].

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 25

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 26

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 27 Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 28

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 29

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 30

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 31

Appendix I. Spatial data sources and development 32

Appendix II. Approach to estimating old growth patch acres

Appendix II. Estimating old growth patches 33 Old growth

There is a large body of research on definitions of old growth forests (http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/old_growth_definitions.htm) and their characteristics. (http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/page24.php)

Identification of spatially explicit areas of old growth characteristics requires fine scale ground data combined with hyper-spectral remotely sensed imagery or LiDAR data acquired within the same time frame. While the remotely sensed imagery and derivatives explored for old growth criteria in Burnt Corral were multi-spectral, the resolution of the data was found to be too coarse.

Ultimately, the spatial and field data available to us, within the time and funding window of the Burnt Corral, did not allow for identification of locations of old growth. Rather we were able to approximate acres based on coarse forest structure characteristics of old growth with 30-m derived forest structure variables. We selected these as the best available data, however, these data were developed for use across the entire forest. While we are confident in the models, their resolution was not ideal for the question at hand.

In our approximation of old growth acreage we calculated the 80th and 90th percentiles of basal area and tree height within the Burnt Corral project area using the predictive models of forest structure developed by the LLECB using Landsat data (see table below). We acknowledge that old growth estimates can be derived in any number of ways, however, we feel this approach best reflected the intent of the stakeholder discussion around old growth and the data available to us.

Percentile basal area and tree height Acres identified 80th 5,585 90th 2,601

Appendix II. Estimating old growth patches 34 Data available to identify Old Growth in the Burnt Corral project area Field Name Provided by / Proposed use Outcome data description Forest USFS; Fall 2013/ ID current Spatial location point data fuzzed Inventory tabular CSV files of average tree to protect landowners Analysis 2012 FIA forest plots DBH, height and age Continuous Not acquired ID historic Location attributes unavailable or Forest average tree inconsistent (A. Leonard, Inventory DBH, height and personal communication) age Kaibab Not acquired ID current Outdated information (G. Domis, National average tree personal communication); Field Forest Stand DBH, height and work to take place to bring Exams field age information current for further data USFS analyses in Burnt Corral Spatial Southwest Center for Biological ID NKRD stands Unable to verify data locations do data Forest Diversity; Fall 2013 / historically depict old growth characteristics Alliance - polygon shapefile managed for old 803 polygons representing forest growth management for old characteristics growth from 1986 Kaibab USFS, Kaibab Ranger ID old growth Aligned somewhat with the 803 National District; 2009 / management polygons, these may have been Forest Stand polygon shapefile stands under the basis for 803 polygons. Exams former KNF Plan Unable to verify data locations do depict old growth characteristics Predictive Lab of Landscape One input Provided most reliable data for model of Ecology and variable used to estimating acres of old growth basal area Conservation try to identify old Biology, NAU / growth across Modeled current Burnt Corral forest structure project area. variable, basal area, Data used to developed for KNF characterize Forest Monitoring. conditions within Derived from FIA Northern field data and goshawk nest Landsat; 2010. areas, areas Statistical model managed for old explained 75% of growth (stand variance. exam) and 803 Mean: 91 polygons. StdDev: 44 Range: 0-168

Appendix II. Estimating old growth patches 35 Predictive Lab of Landscape One input Provided most reliable data for model of Ecology and variable used to estimating acres of old growth tree height Conservation try to identify old Biology, NAU / growth across Modeled current Burnt Corral forest structure project area. variable, mean tree Data used to height, developed characterize for KNF Monitoring. conditions within Derived from FIA Northern field data and goshawk nest Landsat; 2010. areas, areas Statistical model managed for old explained 80% of growth (stand variance. exam) and 803 Mean: 40 polygons. StdDev: 21 Range: 0-70 KNF LiDAR Not available (Dec ID large and old None 2014) / Light trees, multi- detection and range storied canopy, point clouds and possibly large raster data with woody debris as completed quality metrics of old analyses based on growth ground data characteristics acquired at time of LiDAR flight

Appendix II. Estimating old growth patches 36

Appendix III. Invitation to stakeholders

Appendix III. Invitation to stakeholders 37 Appendix III. Invitation to stakeholders 38

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting agendas and summaries

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting agendas and summaries 39 Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Field Workshop September 18th, 2014 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Big Springs Ranger Station, North Kaibab Ranger District Objectives

 Share background on the Burnt Corral project context, process and roles  Develop an understanding of the project area and its variability  Decide roles and responsibilities for working together as the project moves forward towards a collaboratively developed Proposed Action for vegetation management

8:00- 8:30 Welcome and Introductions

8:30-9:00 Background on the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF) and linkage to the Burnt Corral

 History of the KFHF  Boundaries of the Burnt Corral project in context of KFHF

9:00-10:15 Background, context and goals for the Burnt Corral Project

 Burnt corral vegetation management project goals  Opportunities for collaboration  Success from the perspective of the North Kaibab Ranger District  Collaborative goals  Q&A, discussion

10:15-10:30 Break

10:30-11:30 Working together to develop a proposed action  Key issues to address  Process structure, sideboards, timeline  Q&A, discussion and refinement from the group

11:30-12:00 Getting oriented to the Burnt Corral project area

Field Trip 12:00-4:00  Stop #1: Pine Hollow Even-aged Regeneration treatment near Junction of Forest Service Road (FSR) 447/FR 6416  Stop #2: Bridger Fire with salvage logging and reforestation near Junction of FSR 447/427B  Stop #3: Even-aged stand on FSR 425 at the top of the ridge before dropping into Sowats Canyon  Stop #4: Northern Goshawk nest area near intersection of FSR 222 and 416 (east side)  Stop #5: Patches of aspen along FSR 422 in Lookout Canyon vicinity

4:00-5:00 Reflections, wrap-up and next steps (in the field)

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 40 Meeting Notes Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Field Workshop September 18th, 2014 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM Big Springs Ranger Station, North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD)

Summary On September 18th, 2014, the North Kaibab Ranger District and Northern Arizona University convened a meeting of the Burnt Corral collaborative group at Big Springs, on the North Kaibab Ranger District. Meeting attendees were:

Tom Sisk (Northern Arizona University Landscape Conservation Initiative), Dave Vincelette, (NKRD), Jim Koons, (private citizen, formerly of Kaibab Industries and Forest Products and the USFS), Randall Walker (NKRD), Garry Domis (NKRD), Alicyn Gitlin (Sierra Club), John Schoppman (Forever Resorts), Jim Matson (Kane County), David Herscher (NKRD), Ethan Aumack (Grand Canyon Trust), Sasha Stortz (Northern Arizona University Landscape Conservation Initiative), Ariel Leonard (Kaibab National Forest), Luke Thompson (Arizona Game and Fish Dept.), Don Martin (Mohave Sportsman Club), Ed Grumbine (GCT), Tanner Whetstone (NKRD), Connie Reid (NKRD), Cassie Hagerman (NRKD), Katie Sauerbrey (NKRD), Todd Buck (AGFD), Bill Austin (USFWS), Joseph Varnado (NKRD), Kevin Frandsen (K&D Forest Products), Samantha Flores (NKRD), Brit Bettensen (NKRD), Jill Rundall (Northern Arizona University Landscape Conservation Initiative)

The meeting consisted of a ½ day presentation and conversation on the project background, objectives and how to move forward (pg. 1- 11) and a field visit (pg. 12-17, map of field stops on pg. 14). The following next steps were identified:  Sasha will send out meeting summary, doodle poll for week of Oct. 20  All- bring forward proposals, exceptions and language you could live with  Sasha will send out revised key issues document; all are invited to share research, recommendations and comments. LCI will collate and share  Jill and Ariel following up on LiDar  Ariel will reach out to Sasha to work on issue framing  LCI will share meeting summary, key issues, example proposed action language from other EIS/EAs; all please read and consider level of detail needed  LCI will come into the next meeting with a structure and draft. After that meeting, will be working to finalize language, develop a report, and deliver to NKRD by December 15th

Meeting Notes Welcome and Introductions Tom Sisk and Randall Walker welcomed meeting participants.

Tom Sisk: People traveled long distances, have a deep commitment to this landscape. We’re at a new phase in an old set of objectives; restore forest heath and build resilience into the forests of the Kaibab plateau starting with the ponderosa pine belt. Welcome on behalf of NAU and the

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 41 Landscape Conservation Initiative. Approached several months ago by Randall Walker to work together to restart some of the work begun under the Kaibab Forest Health Focus

Randall Walker: Thanks for coming here to work on restoration of this beautiful landscape. I inherited this project, it was on the 5 year plan when I came in, it fell right in line with the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF) work, and we want to continue that great work and see how we can work together to get something done on the ground. Hope we can incorporate everyone’s ideas and move forward to get it done in a timely manner. We have a lot of landscape out there; we need to do work here so we can keep going. We can find a common goal and get it done.

Tom Sisk Acknowledged the expertise in the room; diversity of views and experiences. People have time in this landscape and their careers here and elsewhere. If we can bring that knowledge together, can work creatively and quickly to move in a focused manner.

This project is the next phase in an ongoing effort; the first in the queue that came out of the Kaibab Forest Health Focus. The goal is to work as efficiently as possible to get work done on the ground based on the diversity of values, and see if we can bring them together in a way that results in real on the ground action in an efficient way.

Tom reviewed the objectives and agenda for the day. Meeting objectives were to:

Q: What’s the timeline? A: Collaborative complete by December, NEPA project planning in a year. We’ve set an ambitious goal.

Sasha Stortz reviewed ground rules, asked participants to commit to following them.

Background on the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF) and linkage to the Burnt Corral

Tom Sisk provided background on the Kaibab Forest Health Focus:  Kaibab National Forest approached Tom and NAU to bring a collaborative group together to ID shard priority areas on each of the 3 districts  Pledged to use that input in future projects  Produced high priority areas people felt were in need of attention  Provided some treatment guidance, which gives a foundation to this effort  We have priorities and shared objectives, in the Burnt Corral, we will translate it into something that can be done on the ground  Major issues will include large trees and old growth, wildlife and aesthetic values. But we’re not starting from scratch: KFHF guidance language, 4FRI Large Tree Retention Strategy an example of an effort to move beyond hard and fast cap, Goshawk guidelines

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 42  On the North Kaibab, priority areas were identified in the Western Ponderosa Pine belt. General idea to start upwind with treatments. The Burnt Corral Project fits in this priority area. 1A (highest priority) already received some treatments  Burnt Corral is an opportunity to be an example; if its success, hope to move forward in a timely way.

Ariel Leonard: Goshawk guidelines themselves are not part of the forest plan. Some guidelines to address goshawks in terms of nesting, but doesn’t correlate to a specific prescription. There is work to draw on from Goshawk ecology, will undoubtedly play into how we plan this project.

Bill Austin: Is there Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) habitat in the project area? A: About 350 acres of MSO recovery habitat in the Southwestern corner of the project area.

Dave Vincelette: New forest plan the ponderosa pine belt is a key element, so falls in line with the KFHF Ariel Leonard: There is direct linkage between forest plan and KFHF. Tom Sisk: KNF has followed through, and here we are a few years later drilling down into those proposed projects.

Tom Sisk: KFHF worked on treatments that would achieve broad support. Handout in packet. Focus included subdivide the unit into manageable chunks, use existing roads and boundaries, to respect priority put on goshawk, reduce areas predicted as active crown fire to lower fire intensity through thinning, and utilize strategic treatments so that mechanical treatments were used to get the maximum “bang for your buck.” This was broad brushed as opposed to acre-by- acre or one-size-fits all. Need to now work with the district for the Burnt Corral area and become more specific

Work in the White Mountains identified priority areas. Wallow Fire burned through those acres. This is a motivator; when we bring diverse perspectives together, we can identify the proper priorities. We now need to reduce the time needed in order to work on the ground and safeguard them.

Q: Barriers to implementation in White Mountains? A: There wasn’t enough time. No blame or mistake made except not intimately connecting that collaborative to the process of moving towards NEPA. If we can reach consensus, we have an opportunity here because we are working so closely with the Kaibab. Q: Would like to focus on implementation in this process so we can allow the forest to move forward in a reasonable amount of time A: If you can reach consensus and have broad support, then we’ll do everything we can to move this into action. In my experience, we have more of a commitment from the Forest Service than I’ve experienced before.

Randall Walker: We have many tools on the ground; commercial, prescribed fire, managed fire, and we want to get work done; don’t want to see another Warm or Wallow fire.

Jim Matson: Community capacity in getting this done is important. Economics matter.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 43 Tom Sisk: We’ve laid a lot of groundwork. Sequencing has to be practical. And we have to have people to get the work done. But the work has to be guided in a shared principle. A lot of opportunity to build local economic opportunity that’s sustainable over time and build business and jobs around restoration objectives. Need to be considered up front

Randall Walker discussed the Burnt Corral project in the context of the KFHF focus:  We could probably agree on 75% of an idea today, might be 20 percent that’s a more difficult discussion, and 5 percent we may never agree on. I want to get through the 95% and then we can agree to disagree  Referring to KFHF priority areas map: In the high 1A area, much treatment has happened. Also working across the border with the park  Burnt Corral area is in the next priority area 1B and 1C.  A few years ago we looked at it but put it off. It came up on the 5 year plan along with another project in the bordering Pine Hollow so decided to combine them together.  Added Western area that burned in the Bridger Knoll fire in 1996. For implement purposes, made sense to combine these areas into one Burnt Corral project area

Tom Sisk: Fits KFHF guidance to start and work with prevailing winds, and to break landscape into manageable chunks.

Ethan Aumack: This makes sense to me. How would this sequence in a 5 year context with other projects? Garry Domis: Big Point is coming up to the north. Jim Koons: It’s a 23,000 acre area? Randall Walker: Wanted to be a landscape scale project Jim Matson: Might there be a commercial fuel component in the Bridger Knoll fire area? Is it pinon juniper? There’s a local reliance for fire wood. A: Need to go in the field this afternoon and think about it. Tom Sisk: Focus was designed around ponderosa. That’s why the western part of the Burnt Corral project area wasn’t considered in the focus. So we’re adding a few applies with a bunch of oranges, so we’ll have to determine how to deal with that as we go. Cheat grass issues in that area.

Jill Rundall referred to the map that participants had in their packet and a slide on the screen showing where Burnt Corral fit in the priority landscape from the KFHF. The KFHF guidelines were developed based on existing conditions at the time.

Tom Sisk: These priorities and guidelines maps are an example of what we can do to support the process. We don’t have a lot of resources to do new analyses, but we do have enough to make maps and bring existing information forward to answer questions.

Ethan Aumack: When we get to that 30% where agreement is more difficult, I can imagine that questions informed by basic analysis with existing data could inform. Would be very helpful. Do we have the resources to do such analysis if we’ve prioritized it down to a manageable set of questions?

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 44 Tom Sisk: Will be a case-by-case basis. Depends on if we’re set up to do it, if we have the data available. Keep an open mind; if there’s something really important, we can work to collectively find the resources. New analyses would be those that help get us over very real barriers to implementation.

Ariel Leonard: Probably don’t have products yet, but do have some preliminary LIDAR that will allow us to see where the tallest trees are.

Tom Sisk: First let’s figure out the issues, then we’ll know what we need to do and the type of work that it will take.

Jill Rundall: Important to recognize that data to inform these maps came from a variety of sources, not a single product. We always try to work with the best available data.

Background, Context and Goals for the Burnt Corral Project Randall Walker reviewed the project goals, NKRD’s perspective on success and opportunities for participating in the development of a proposed action  Vegetation management plan goal: Improve forest health and vigor, while improving habitat conditions which are more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and/or other climatic condition changes  Collaborative goal: Reach consensus on a proposed action or guidance to use in a proposed action

For the NKRD, success would include:  Efficiency of NEPA process  Fewer alternatives; a proposed action that is implementable  Thorough and inclusive up front; work now to avoid litigation later  Open and civil communication lines; positive discussions; working in good faith; sustaining good working relationship moving forward  A consensus outcome, or agreement to disagree; ability to move forward Dave V: We’d like to have a PA that’s implementable- needs to be cost effective, have the organizations able to do the work, depending on our budgets. We may be limited in the work we can do once NEPA is finalized.

Ariel: Intent is to develop a PA that addresses the issues raised by the group. The goal to have a proposed action with broad support.

Randall: That’s why we started this before NEPA. We need a proposed action to go out there, and we want one that covers all those issues so that when we go out for scoping, we’ve addressed everything and won’t need to develop many alternatives

Dave Vincelette: Our ideal in NEPA would be one proposed action and one no action. Ideally avoid 3 or 4 other alternatives. That speeds up NEPA a lot. You’re here to help develop that between now and January. We’d like to go out for scoping in January with that. Jim Matson: So currently we’re pre-NEPA? Randall Walker: Yes

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 45

Ariel Leonard: We might get lots of comments but want to make sure we address all the issues up front. If new issues are raised in public comment, can modify that PA (some might not be in conflict, just not addressed). Other issues might only be able to be addressed through an alternative. But ideally we’ll just have the one. Tom Sisk: The more we can deal with now, the better later. Openness and forthrightness now will help avoid a never-ending process. Jim Matson: IS NAU’s involvement complete with the start of NEPA in January? Tom Sisk: That’s our mission. To support each of you and be the synthesizer of the group input, the drafter. Dan: Is there a commitment from the public to the agencies to support into implementation. Tom Sisk: We have to develop a good product. I hope that if we can do that work, we can have support for a good product

Dave Vincelette shared several handouts on the NEPA process and project objectives from the NKRD.  Providing transparency on how this is done from the USFS standpoint  We are locked into some policy and procedures  In the NEPA triangle, we’re on the proposal development side of the triangle  We have new process, CFR 218, which changes the way NEPA objections are handled; we’re able to talk with more individuals and organizations before a decision is made. It’s an opportunity for collaboration.  Unsure if we’ll have an EA or EIS; depends on how much analysis is needed  New forest plan has different objectives, goals and desired conditions that we’re operating under. We have to meet the intention of the forest plan  The Proposed Action includes the purpose and need: why are we proposing treatments. The reason is the KFHF and the forest plan.  In the action, we address who, what, how, where and when. Those elements are important for how we frame up our work. How, and why, are especially relevant to this collaboration.  Randall will be the decision maker once we go into NEPA. He’ll look at specialist reports, and other parameters  USFS uses this need for change worksheet- an example of how we work through these things.  Previously sked staff about what they thought of as their objectives for this project. Some of the issues as a starting point are provided in the handouts

Jim Matson: The new plan is under appeal? Dave Vincelette: Being decided in mid-November by the Washington office. Operating under the new plan.

Ariel Leonard provided some background on the new Forest Plan: Scale matters in the forest plan. Can have dense areas in fine scale, but don’t want to see high density across the landscape. Want to have old growth present on the landscape. Things you want to see averaged over 10,000 acres or present in every 10,000 acres. Need to meet fine, mid and landscape desired conditions. Desired conditions are about painting the picture. If

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 46 you’re not moving towards or maintaining desired conditions, you’re not under the plan. The language is somewhat flexible, not to give us maximum decision space but to account for variability on the landscape. Several pages are specific to ponderosa, other vegetation types as well. Several places address all areas, so we’ll want to look at wildlife, invasives, etc. We’ll be addressing this a lot more in the next meeting

Dave Vincelette discussed project sideboards:  There may be sideboards to the issues that you’re passionate about.  Make sure that they fit within what we’re trying to do.  Operating under new forest plan. While the appeals process is happening, we were told to carry forward as if it was implemented. We are operating under those directives.

Ariel: It has been approved, it went into effect on April 7th of this year

Randall Walker: Our commitment is to take the guidance of the collaboration, in the form of a Proposed Action, forward into NEPA planning and implementation. Hope that it can become our only and preferred alternative, so we can get through this, get on the ground and do some work. If you have issues, we want to get it out on the table. If you have things you have questions about, bring it up, we want to be transparent, up front and be transparent

Jim Matson: Is the district ranger or forest supervisor the “decider” Ariel: Depends. Ideally, it will be Randall, which would mean no forest plan amendments. If proposal is inconsistent with forest plan and requires an amendment, it would be Mike.

Working together to develop a proposed action Tom Sisk: We asked you to fill out a survey to jumpstart this discussion. We took an initial, quick response to those issues. Between now and October we want to go deeper. But first, we’ll talk about success and participation for the collaborative.

The district talked about success from their perspective. A number of similar points also came out of your survey. Success from your perspective includes:  Implementable, operationally and financially  Science-based project plan  Creative solution finding  Restoration and needed treatments occur within 3-5 years  Proper functioning forest conditions are achieved to the greatest extent possible  In 20 years the Burnt Corral area is a healthy, functioning landscape and relatively risk free  Strengthening of trust and relationships  An example that will serve as a foundation from which to move forward with other projects  Process is not compromised by external pressure or appeal/litigation  A place of greater understanding between parties  Civility  Timeliness  Broad public and stakeholder support

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 47

We’re proposing the following structure for the Burnt Corral process:  Affirm shared objective for this project. Hoping that by being here we are affirming our shared objective.  Identify key issues to address  Develop approaches to each key issue and provide a path for addressing each in the proposed action either directly or indirectly. That then gives us the strong proposed action that we can move forward  Agree a structured approach to drafting the proposed action at our Oct. meeting; build on the KFHF outcomes, draw on outcomes from KFHF language and other efforts to address large and old tree conservation objectives.  Identify work required prior to the next meeting today. Probably a limit to how much work can be done between now and then but we’ll have a clear pathway for drafting and completing a proposed action.

This is a beginning. Looking for your feedback on how to structure next steps so they are efficient and sufficient. We want to turn back to the initial content you provided and touch base on those key issues as a way to start preparing.

The group reviewed the key issues document provided from the survey, and discussed several more, including:  Game species; multi-species approach  Balance horizontal cover needed for wildlife with fire prevention  Smoke and fire frequency: impact on visitors, ecological benefits of more frequent fires  Invasive plant monitoring  Soil disturbance, watershed conditions, mitigation within projects  Large tree retention  Goshawk  Old trees and large trees  What is the commercially viable wood? Jim Matson: How many key issues do we have to go through? Tom: A lot – 4 pages to start, but I think we’ve addressed many in different ways. Would like to take the next 20 or 30 minutes to go through the list and elicit other issues to get the sense from the group of which are the tough, crux ones that are deal wreckers if we don’t deal with them responsibly and directly. This will help us define the work that needs to be done before next time.

Jim M.: Do we concern ourselves with forest budget? Randall: No, can’t control that. Ariel: Keep in mind practicality. Don’t want to propose something that's not implementable. If we keep that in mind, we’re moving forward.

Tom Sisk: In a traditional setting, we’d come in cold. Look at this list as something that might emerge from a round robin. I’d like to read through the issues that came out during the survey. The sentence that are below are an initial response that we, the LCI, did as a way to get the

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 48 conversation started. I’d like to ask for your refinement and reply. Look at it as an initial response to get that conversation going. No issues are off the table, nor is any reaction, value or opinion. If we’re going to do it, this is where the transparency and openness come in. If there are conflicts or disagreements, the more time we have to address. Which of these issues does anyone want to discuss? Are there other key issues that need to be added to the list?

Jim: What’s the import of the Grand Canyon game preserve? Ariel: Will continue to be a game preserve by presidential proclamation. If our proposal will adversely effect game species it would be a problem. Tom: Do you think that it’s going to happen? Ariel: No, actions would benefit game species in understory and edge.

Dan: Broaden the issue of mule deer identified in the survey to all game species- squirrels, everything else. Some of this will be a positive on deer but might be a negative on turkeys or squirrels. Don’t isolate it; look at a broad view, wildlife. If something is a problem, need to think about how to mitigate it. Leave some understory for the turkeys. Cover all species

Ariel: Assumption in forest plan that if we’re removing towards historic variation, it will support numbers that were there historically. Want our project design to have mature trees with interlocking canopy. We should be able to provide for all wildlife if we’re meeting the forest plan.

John: What about bison? What about buffalo? Ariel: No bison in the project area

Cassie: Deer, squirrel, turkey, goshawk, goshawk prey, songbirds. There will be a lot of wildlife analysis because there is ponderosa, mixed conifer, oak, MSO habitat

Tom: We can help Cassie by identifying which are of particular concern to us or the public. Well taken that don’t go down the single species path, but we do want to be able to anticipate any hot button species.

John S.: People love the bison, elk, and squirrel. Adding some water would be good for tourism and recreation, and ground to create job. This community needs jobs more than anything.

Todd Buck: Emphasis is preventing fire, but need to balance with preserving horizontal cover for wildlife species. These objectives tend to buck up against each other.

Tom: Complex point we need to keep in mind. Project area looks small when we look at the whole Kaibab and there is going to be a lot of variability. We don’t have to do the same thing everywhere. It gives us some space that can accommodate those balances, need for hiding cover and areas that may be far denser than “classic” ponderosa stand. We have the ability to identify where those could be. Not in hunt for a one size fits all.

John S.: I love old growth as much as anyone. Need to be careful with controlled burns. Smoke impacts visitors.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 49 Alicyn Gitlin: We need to make sure there’s post treatment of this area. If we only do these infrequent prescribed burns, we have heavy smoke days. If there’s more fire you can keep more of the ecological values intact over the long-term.

Ariel: There are a number we want to make sure the proposed addresses in terms of design. Invasives, that’s going to be monitoring and soil disturbance. Design affects soil and watershed conditions too. We have handbooks on how to address and plan for soil disturbance. Mitigation within projects. And then the question is, are those enough or do we need more. Where we see issues in soil disturbance tends to be in the implementation and monitoring. Some of that is post implementation, getting some mitigation in place.

The places I see it’s going to all come down to is treatment intensity and balancing values. First, there’s large tree retention. There may be areas where we need to cut large trees to achieve openness. So where’s that balance between mechanical thinning and being able to effectively reduce potential for crown fire. Let’s talk about doing modeling, how much is going to be enough to protect from fire. What’s the point of protecting them if they burn up in the next warm fire?

Also we need to the project to be feasible for someone to bid on. What is the commercial viable wood? I think we need to have frank and open discussions. What can your mills use, what can’t you use? Where are the breakpoints? Some of the really important discussions and agreements about how much of this and how little of that, treatment intensity.

Many of the issues in the survey can be addressed through the purpose and need of the project. There are just a few that come down to how we are going to balance the multiple outcomes of the project.

Ethan Aumack: I see three potential sticking points. Goshawk, old trees and large trees. If part of the intent is to make significant headway towards a meeting in October based on consensus, I think we need a lot of steam coming into that meeting, we need to come in with some information. I suggest that we have a meeting on those issues before the Oct. meeting, or agree that we’ll need to evolve that conversation. There’s a contentiousness and a history, but some real opportunities to take advantage of some partial or more complete resolution developed through KFHF and elsewhere. I think we need a facilitated meeting before October, or that some issues may take longer. We can’t start and finish that conversation in one meeting and expect to find consensus.

Ariel: I think an interim meeting would be good. One of the concerns was about sidelining. So setting up an interim process to flesh out these issues, they should be information gathering that can report back. For example, goshawk… what does that mean? Canopy closure? Size class distribution? The plan has guidance about nest areas. What else should we take a look at? Canopy depended species- which ones are we talking about, what life history stages would it involve? Let’s look at the literature, bring that forward. Goshawk. What does that mean in terms of a project design? I think an interim meeting where we talk about what are those structural characteristics are, but not having a smaller group making side deals. It should be information gathering and fleshing out.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 50 Luke Thompson: I would contend that there is a lot of public interest around game species. Turkey, mule deer, Kaibab squirrels. Taking what you described a step further, are you going to want a refinement that says “we will retain x % of old growth in this area,” or is it more broad?

Ariel: I think we need to be as specific as possible.

Luke: We have some guidelines for other species that we can apply just as we can for goshawk. While old trees get a lot of attention, it brings us back to the mosaic

Tom: I think we’re dealing with two sets of issues simultaneously. The key issues that we as a group think are important, and there’s a set of issues that are the potential downfall of the project. The ones that could lead to conflict and litigation. They’re a subset of the key issues. I don’t know how to advance the project without talking about both at the same time.

How do we want to deal with the sticklers, the downfall? Interim meeting- what do people think about doing that?

Bill Austin: What did Ethan have in mind? Addressing key issues that might be contentious, or gathering info that would help us technically move forward

Ethan: I’m in a lot of meetings. Maybe we can do this without face-to-face. But somehow between now and next meeting we evolve our understanding about what the issues are, how significant, how pervasive they are across the project area. And then understanding what some different strategies are that have been tested or have been new.

Bill: There is information that needs to be provided up front before October

Alicyn: Rather than trying to amass a ton of reading material and conversation between now and Oct. is to have some definable, quantifiable, scientifically based metrics for what the species require so we can look at them in a table. It’s not mule deer versus goshawk. What else do we need to think about? Put together some numbers that you can defend for what you’d like to see optimally and it may not be so hard to find a balance between those numbers as we think. It’s hard to talk about when we can’t see.

Ariel: Everyone, think about the ponderosa desired conditions and the fine, mid and landscape scale objectives. Is there language beyond what’s in the desired conditions that will help us paint that picture and can be translated into active proposed action and eventual prescriptions? What are we actually going to do on the ground? What does an area need to move towards desired conditions? It’s about pulling together those key structural characteristics and some ranges. Some may be appropriate for some but not all of the project area. Some we might want to leave more dense, but not all. How do we position it on the landscape? Think strategically about reducing vulnerability. This is a large enough landscape to do a lot. Stratified thinking.

Todd: It seems like the contentious issues are always associated with the fine and midscale. In the back of your mind, think about the landscape scale to educate our thought process when we start talking about the fine and midscale. If we spend all our time talking about 8 trees, we’ll never get anywhere. Let’s try to get past some of the small acreage stuff.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 51 Tom: I think we’re approaching a place where we could benefit from being outside. The next step is a proposed action, and then there’s the NEPA analysis will happen. One very next step- this document based on comments today, will be an invitation to begin to comment on this response and references.

Next Steps The group discussed several next steps:  Sasha will send out a doodle poll for the week of Oct. 20  Discussed meeting in Kanab or Marble Canyon if facility is large enough  Ariel will reach out to Sasha to work on issue framing  LCI will share meeting summary, key issues, example proposed action language from other EIS/EAs; all please read and consider level of detail needed  All are invited to share research, recommendations and comments. LCI will collate and share  LCI will come into the next meeting with a structure and draft. After that meeting, will be working on a tight timeframe to finalize language, develop a report, and deliver to NKRD by December 15th

Field trip orientation Garry Domis shared a project area map and itinerary to get everyone oriented for the field trip.

The group broke for lunch before leaving for the field visit.

Field Trip The field visit consisted of 5 stops. Descriptions of the stops, and the discussion that took place at each, follows. A map of the field trip stops is on page 14. Stop 1: Pine Hollow even aged regeneration treatment Garry Domis: This area was an even aged regeneration seed cut in the 1990s. About 15-20 regeneration seed trees were left per acre. The Mill fire burned here in 2008 as a managed wildfire. The fire remained a surface fire. Regeneration was natural, not planted.

Q: How much of the project area is like this? A: Need to determine; can see on Google earth; fine grain openings. These prescriptions aren’t practiced any more Q: Would your preferred treatment here be managed fire? A: Yes, perhaps some mechanical too Q: Seems spaced out- prefer clumping and grouping for mixed age? Ariel: Keep in mind; you can only see the fine scale here. Try to think at the landscape scale too. Ethan: We’ve got to think about the difference between a rule-based approach and “here’s what’s next to a stand, what can we leave/make heterogeneous.” Tom: In the KFHF, treated more intensively to the South to deal with this, taking advantage of features on the landscape

Ariel: Goshawk nest areas will be less intensive treatments Q: How many are active? Cassie: Have checked 35 of the 133 listed, half were active. Will need lighter treatments, managing towards older trees with interlocking crowns; about 3,000-4,000 acres

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 52 Garry: Want to protect areas nesting areas from the risk of fire. Comment: Southwest of nests could be heavy treatment to protect, north side is dense, moist, hold as future nest sites. Q: What about treatment in foraging areas Garry: Prefer a range of basal areas

Jim Matson: How do you address bats? Does raking occur before burning? Ariel: Vegetation management guidelines include retaining bat bark trees, snags. Habitat trees are raked Todd Buck: Artificial bark can be beneficial

Stop 2: Bridger Fire: salvage logging and reforestation Garry: Bridger fire burned in 1996, 60,000 acres. Salvage operations occurred, paid for some tree planting. Ponderosa and oak woodland regions, converted on some ridges, some areas bare from soil loss Ariel: This is what we’re trying to avoid Todd Buck: This area is good for wildlife. Lost some roost sites in the pine, but don’t think there is a lot to do here from a wildlife perspective. Would resist doing much as these elevations because of cheat grass. Ethan: Further south there is cheat grass, but not sure if there’s anything to do. Much effort has gone in to managing cheat grass but haven’t yielded desired effects Todd: Pinon-juniper is limited here; mostly oak, don’t see a lot of firewood options. Cheat grass to the south. Recommend focusing management attention on the ponderosa. Katie Sauerbrey: This area provided natural fuel breaks Ariel: Could have this be an untreated area, or run some fire through to maintain fire break Jim M.: Goshawk forage here? Todd Buck: Early winter prey base Question to the group: Do we want to recommend doing anything in this post-burn area? Garry: Maybe prescribed fire option? Dave Vincelette: NEPA is for a 10 year time frame; consider fire treatments a possibility in that time frame.

Don: Is developed water an option? Pine hollow and pine flat unreliable or nonexistent. A: Other water around West Lake; feels there’s enough Jim Matson: Could a service contract include development of waters? Randall: Yes, or a stewardships contract. Funds for pre-commercial thinning, could use some to improve waters Ethan: Think more funding needs are for pre-commercial thinning.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 53

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 54 Stop 3: Even aged stand Garry: Just drove through some low country timber areas; would consider an area for commercial opportunities. Here there’s dense, continuous canopy. ~300 basal area, 350 trees/acre >5 inches. Western pine beetle has been found in some parts. Dave: An area where thinning and prescribed fire are needed. Could do a stewardship contract, pre-commercial. About 17-18,000 acres Ariel: Large tree retention strategy makes sense in the area south of the canyon, but here it may not work as well. There are more, large old trees outside of historical conditions Tom: This is our challenge. There are stands of dense, old trees. To reduce fire risk, there is a need to cut big trees. Another perspective is, if the old trees are here, they were here before fire suppression, so why intervene? We’re going to have to operate in this realm, but recognize that doing nothing offers risk of fire, particularly if we see this trend towards warmer, drier conditions in the future. We can think about protecting some stands of large and old trees, but how to treat around them at the landscape scale to minimize the likelihood of huge fire runs. Randall: Up here 16” isn’t relevant as a big tree. 28” is a big tree, something rare in the rest of Arizona. Garry: Even aged stands need openings Ariel: We don’t see the understory needed for goshawk and other wildlife. Also, even if these trees were here before fire suppression, they are outside historical range of variability because their mortality decreased from fire suppression. Ethan: This place is the heart of what we have to do. The large tree retention strategy doesn’t establish a cap, and its up for interpretation; lots of flexibility What it does is provide a framework for guiding conversations about where large trees need to be cut from an ecological perspective. Out of ~17,000 acres that look like this, I be there is 7,000 acres we can agree on what to do. In the rest, maybe we can be creative. We need to quickly get to that type of conversation. Also, old trees are more difficult to address than large trees. Ariel: Do we re-define what an old tree is? In the large tree retention strategy, its 130 years old. Here with regeneration rates, maybe 130-160 years old. Jim Matson: Also consider logging tools; can’t deal with the biggest trees. Keep those over 30” Alicyn Gitlin: Some of this is an issue of scale. There is a tendency to say there are too many trees, but over the Southwest, this place is rare. I see some variability in age here, and that this place survived a fire. We have so few large old trees, but I see the ability to take some midsized trees Randall: I think we’re all saying the same thing

Tom Sisk: The opportunity is to look at the large tree retention strategy not as a “yes” or “no” but as a way to say we need a solution that recognizes a diversity of values. We need a pathway, rather than a position, in order to accommodate multiple values. We need to define the conditions and allow us to all make trade offs. Randall: The large tree retention strategy can be helpful, but first let’s look at the scale. Across the landscape, how many acres do we need to treat to prevent fire? Then work on the specifics. Garry: Will need to consider treating for bark beetle too Katie Saurbrey: In 2008 there was a fire here, but it doesn’t mean that if there was a fire at a different time of year that it wouldn’t be a crown fire Ethan: I have to leave, but I’m exited. This is a special place and I’m glad to have the chance to go deeper. I appreciate the group sentiment. I’m not speaking for any other organizations, but from my perspective, let’s protect old growth, and define it for this place. Let’s be creative Ariel: We will need a large tree retention strategy

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 55 Alicyn: Even if they are small, there can be value to old trees Ariel: There is some guidance in the forest plan; don’t forget we have that to start from

Stop 4: Goshawk nest area Cassie described the Goshawk nest area. The nest area is about 25-30 acres, and the PFA is about 420 acres. This has been an active nest area Ariel: Forest plan direction is to identify goshawk nest areas and PFAs, and where denser conditions are desirable, but there are no specific guidelines. Mixture of denser areas with interlocking crowns and open foraging areas. We want to maintain that structure over time, which is why we sometimes do group cuts; regeneration patches. Dan: Food source? Cassie: About fourteen small birds and mammals, including Steller’s Jay, robins, flickers, squirrels and rabbits Randall: How to identify nest trees? Greater than 24” diameter? Cassie: Big and sturdy Garry: 24: for MSO Jim Matson: Would a nest area be somewhere to consider upwind treatments? Garry: Basal area treatments; 60 or 70, take out fuel ladders. Openings to make more fire resistant Katie Sauerbrey: Important to take trees out of the drip lines of ladder trees Garry: Groupy and clumpy philosophy seems effective Cassie: They nest from mid-May to mid-August Dan: Turkey hunts are in May. Will be important to consider with treatment timing Jim Coons: Figure out the basal area you want, and the function you want to maintain. It’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you want. Dave Vincelette: The forest plan prefers one commercial entry and stewardship contracts Ariel: Re-entry is on ~20-30 year cycles. We don’t want to do a lighter treatment where you have to go back in 10 years. Diameter growth comes from density; space and light. Cassie: MSO habitat area is across the street. It’s about 300 acres. Sam: Determined by size of trees and species composition; Doug fir and white spruce

Stop 5: Aspen Garry: Area where aspen and pine are growing together here. There’s an opportunity to increase aspen in the project area Dave: Aspen at the head of drainages are good deer areas Tom Sisk: What kind of treatment would you suggest? Opening it up? Garry: Root system disturbance; stirring it up Dave: And remove pine? Garry: Yes, could thin it out

Closing: Reflections, wrap-up and next steps Tom Sisk asked participants for general reflections on the field trip Jim: Old trees, big trees and goshawk areas… these issues will need to be addressed head on Tom: We have some models; the KFHF, the forest plan, the large tree retention strategy, where the intent is to preserve large trees without invoking a hard cap. Ariel: A lot we do agree on. We might have to have 80% of a proposed action and then let the rest be up to then NEPA process

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 56 Randall: We need a large tree retention strategy that meets our goals and objectives. Figure out what you can live with. How do we make a resilient ecosystem with our place-based definition of old trees? We don’t want another Wallow fire; we want a sustainable ecosystem. Tom: It’s a “how” question. We have an understanding on what, when and where. Not a lot of disagreement on that. It’s a challenge, but we can do it.

Ariel: For next time, we should all do some homework: write down proposals for good rules or exceptions to rules. What’s most likely to be successful is a range of strategies; everyone wins, but not on every acre. Our goal is to protect resources over the long term. Do have some LiDAR data that we may be able to bring forward. Doesn’t allow a lot of quantifications, but can look at concentrations of large trees so we can have those conversations spatially. Also, consider not only your personal concerns, but things that you think would come out in scoping. We need to be well rounded.

Next steps:  Sasha will send out meeting summary, doodle poll for next meeting  KNF and NKRD will share example proposed actions  All- bring forward proposals, exceptions and language you could live with  Sasha will send out key issues document o All respond with additional issues , or proposals on how to address  Jill and Ariel following up on LiDar The group had a closing round-robin and participants offered closing thoughts or reflections. Tom Sisk and Randall Walker closed the meeting. Tom: Appreciate that everyone took the time. We’re moving forward, and success will be mean continued time investment from all of you here. Randall: Thanks for driving a long way and coming to help us continue this collaborative. Keep the thoughts coming; come up with ideas on how we can work together. We appreciate the perspectives.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30PM.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #1: Sept. 18, 2014 57 DRAFT Agenda Burnt Corral Collaborative Vegetation Management Project Workshop 2 Wednesday, October 22- Thursday, October 23, 2014 Kanab, Utah

Day 1: Kanab Public Library (374 North Main) Day 2: Kane County Training Facility (2378 S Hwy 89A; 30 W Airport Drive) Call Sasha at 503 314 4317 if you get lost

Objectives  Discuss and resolve key issues and organizing concepts to inform the proposed action  Come to agreement on specific treatment guidance to address key issues  Develop and review draft language  Refine and approve a drafting and review process that will lead to a final Proposed Action by the end of the calendar year  Clarify next steps and NEPA process for the Burnt Corral

Wednesday, October 22nd Kanab City Library Multipurpose room 374 North Main (North side of town across from the hospital) Kanab, Utah 84741 435-644-2394

8:30-9:00 Continental breakfast and sign-in 9:00-9:30 Welcome and Introductions

9:30-10:00 Approach for this meeting  Landscape strata, treatment possibilities and integrating KFHF guidance  Organizing concepts and objectives for the proposed action

10:00-10:30 Project design criteria  Review qualities and characteristics to maintain across the project area from the Kaibab Forest Plan and other guidance

10:30-12:00 Identify areas outside Ponderosa or previously discussed as fire/low intensity treatment  Sensitive soils and steep slopes  Bridger fire area  Areas recommended as fire only in the Kaibab Forest Health Focus  Areas currently approximating desired conditions; previously logged/thinned areas  Mixed Conifer and Mexican Spotted Owl

12:00-1:00 Lunch (provided)

1:30-4:00 Ponderosa pine: large trees, old trees and NOGO  Review this area in the context of the Kaibab Forest Health Focus  Review Forest Plan and other guidance

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 58 DRAFT Agenda Burnt Corral Collaborative Vegetation Management Project Workshop 2 Wednesday, October 22- Thursday, October 23, 2014 Kanab, Utah

 Discuss issues and generate options across the project area for NOGO nest areas, NOGO PFAs, and other forested ponderosa areas

4:00-4:30 Review progress and discuss plan for tomorrow

5:30-6:30 Social Hour (location to be announced)

Thursday, October 23rd Kane County Training Facility (at Kanab Airport) 2378 S Hwy 89A; 30 W Airport Drive, Kanab Utah 84741 (Enter from the west side of the building; the door to the left as you face the building)

9:00-12:00 Reconvene and continue discussion of Ponderosa pine: large trees, old trees and NOGO  Refine options generated yesterday to specific recommendations  Craft language for the proposed action

12:00-1:00 Lunch (provided)

1:30-3:00 Discuss other issues to address in the proposed action  Aspen, mistletoe, oak, etc.

3:00-3:15 Break

3:15-4:00 Discuss and approve process to finalize proposed action by the end of the year  Outline of proposed action  Any analysis needed  Drafting and review process  Timeline

4:00-4:30 Next steps and closing statements

4:30 Adjourn

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 59 Meeting Notes Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Workshop 2 October 22nd and 23rd, 2014 Kanab, Utah

Summary On October 22nd and 23rd, 2014, the North Kaibab Ranger District and Northern Arizona University convened the second meeting of the Burnt Corral collaborative group, in Kanab, Utah. Meeting attendees were:

Steve Rich, Alicyn Gitlin, Connie Reid, Britt Betenson, Dave Robinson, Jim Koons, Terry Herndon, Todd Buck, Joseph Varnado, David Herscher, Cassie Hagemann, Garry Domis, Paul Calloway, Byard Kershaw, Dave Vincellette, Jim Matson, Ariel Leonard, Jill Rundall, Sasha Stortz, Ethan Aumack, Ed Grumbine, Geoffory Anderson, Don Martin (day 2)

The meeting was two days and focused on determining recommended treatments for the Burnt Corral project area. The group reached agreement on a number of recommendations for treatments and design criteria for the proposed action.

Agreements and Discussion  The group agreed on the decision rules, definition of consensus and process for documenting agreement and dissent  The group agreed to the following approach for sensitive soils and steep (>40%) slopes: Continue forward with KFHF guidance of fire only, and maintain design features that mitigate negative impacts to the areas. Where fuel loading could result in undesirable fire effects, consider hand thinning and piling prior to burning. Follow best management practices and design criteria for soils protection.  The group agreed to the following recommendation for the Bridger Fire area: Treat with wildland fire in spot treatments where appropriate; when burns occur is flexible, however burn plans need to take into account protection of regenerating trees and avoidance of cheat spread. Burn plans should include consultation with AGFD to ensure habitat objectives are met. Monitor and implement control measures for invasive species such as cheat grass.  The group agreed to the following recommendation for the mixed conifer: Treat up to 358 acres of MSO habitat in accordance with Forest Plan and MSO recovery guidance, in consultation with USFWS.  The group agreed to the following guidance for NOGO nest areas: Thin from below up to 14 inches and retain old growth components (snags, logs and large trees)  The group agreed that the treatment recommendations for the approximately 400 acres of even age seed cuts was fire only  The group agreed to task the LCI with more specifically identifying patches of old growth on the landscape that would be designated for lighter treatments, and that another meeting would be planned to address specifics of old growth areas and large tree retention

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 60  The group discussed that treatments in old growth areas could include matrix thinning when needed such as to reduce ladder fuels, and that limited mechanical treatments should not remove structural diversity, but that more specific parameters were needed.  The group agreed that trees should not be girdled to create snags.  The group agreed that Ethan Aumack could develop a short initial statement on large tree retention for the group to respond to.  The group agreed to recommend group selection cuts in the ponderosa pine matrix outside areas designated for low intensity treatments. They discussed using landscape features, such as ridges, slope and aspect and roads as buffers in order to optimize the impact of treatment, and that treatments should vary in intensity and size. They agreed that Tom Sisk would develop some initial language on the qualities of these group selection areas.  The group agreed that wildland fire should be implemented in conjunction with mechanical treatments, and that the timing should be flexible (pre or post mechanical treatment). They agreed that this would include multiple fire entries for maintenance over the 10 year life of the project. Concerns about soil impacts and understory productivity, and their relationship to fire frequency and intensity were documented.  The group identified a number of design characteristics relating to wildlife habitat including: o Use topography or seeding to create hiding cover whenever possible o Maintaining piles as turkey habitat when possible o Encouraging a diverse understory vegetation and insect community as forage for a variety of wildlife o Maintaining interlocking crowns for squirrel habitat o Adding bat barks in southern portion of the project area near waters

Next Steps The identified next steps included:  Sasha will set up a time for a half-day remote meeting to reach more specificity on issues regarding large and old trees  Dave Vincelette will share language on guidelines for protecting sensitive areas  Protection of karst features, other areas of recreational interest, plants of cultural importance and additional language on wildlife habitat will be added to design criteria  Ethan will develop a condensed statement proposing an approach to retaining large trees across the project area  Tom will develop some language on parameters and guidelines for group selection cuts  Todd Buck will share language on mule deer and turkey habitat guidelines, as well as information on fire intensity and understory productivity. He’ll also share thoughts on the number of piles to retain per acre as turkey habitat  LCI will craft language for proposed actions and calculate approximate treatment acres in coordination with NKRD, with proposed action draft language by week of 11/24; send out for stakeholder and NKRD comments  Comments will be due by 12/5 (2 weeks). LCI will collate and refine final report  LCI will submit final report to NKRD and stakeholders by 12/15

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 61 Meeting Notes: Day 1 Welcome and introductions

Tom Sisk welcomed everyone and introduced himself.

Randall Walker welcomed everyone; appreciate everyone coming to help craft an important project

TS reviewed the project background and activities of the first meeting for the benefit of some new meeting attendees. Goal of the vegetation management plan is to improve forest health and vigor, while improving habitat conditions which are more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and/or other climatic condition changes. Collaborative goal is to reach consensus on a proposed action or guidance to use in a proposed action.

TS reviewed the objectives for this meeting:  Discuss and resolve key issues and organizing concepts to inform the proposed action  Come to agreement on specific treatment guidance to address key issues  Develop and review draft language  Refine and approve a drafting and review process that will lead to a final Proposed Action by the end of the calendar year  Clarify next steps and NEPA process for the Burnt Corral We have a really specific goal: a brief proposed action document that covers what’s needed.

Jim Matson How do you deal with conflict in this process? We won’t always agree

TS this is a regular challenge. All have different values. Conditions have been displaced from what we’d like them to be, so we see a need to manage the forest. Most people’s values are at risk when the forest is at risk. Where we’d like to move it through management will differ. But I don’t think it will differ radically. We probably have about 80% agreement; we can build from agreement. We are moving through this with the assumption that we’re going to get to a quality proposed action. Maybe we’ve just identified some of the landmines, maybe we’ve broke through some of them. But we’ll at least be able to understand where the consensus lies An imperfect proposed action is still better than leaving everything to the next fire season. We’re here because we don’t want another Warm fire.

TS reviewed the agenda. Hope to start with some areas of the landscape that we see as less controversial and work through these relatively efficiently. This afternoon, dig through the crux issues that came out of the last meeting; large and old trees. This has been the source of many divergent values and conflicts. Wildlife connects these issues.

Approach for this meeting

Sasha Stortz reviewed ground rules for the meeting, and discussed decision rules. The group agreed that the definition of consensus would be “All can live with this.” If people have reservations, we will discuss and document them, and either re-negotiate a decision to see if we can reach consensus, or document the discussion and move on.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 62 SS and Dave Vincelette reviewed the outline of the proposed action document to be developed from this process, and discussed the opportunities for stakeholder participation

Ariel Leonard: We have a lot of existing guidance- USFS handbook, forest plan, etc. If we need a site specific amendment, that’s something that’s possible, but the plan should set the framework, sideboards and vision for where we’re trying to go. Purpose and need statement addresses why here and why now. We have conditions and values and risk and we want to do something about it.

TS: Sometimes unclear how it goes from the forest plan from people doing things in the woods. We are taking the intent of the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF) and forest plan and grounding it in this place. Stops short of defining prescriptions implemented on the ground. Proposed action intent gets translated into place and prescription.

AL: PA isn’t prescriptions, but should paint enough of a picture that Garry can then translate the vision, action, parameters into specific instructions to the marking crew. Need enough details that it’s clear what needs to go into the prescriptions.

DV: When we’re thinking about what we do, we need to think of 10 or 20 years out.

AL: If we’re unable to get beyond minority opinions or dissenting opinions we’ll identify in meeting outcomes, may have alternatives to address those issues

SS: The goal of this meeting is to get to if-then-statements about treatments; that’s the level of specificity needed for the proposed action.

RW: Keep in mind this is on the landscape scale. Need to include all the parts in the project area as a landscape; and consider that this is one piece of the whole plateau.

TS: The proposed action will include treatment approaches and approximate acreages to achieve those treatments. Requires understanding range of treatments and departures. We need to understand different strata on the landscape and develop rule sets or guidance for those strata, and then calculate approximate acreages for which the treatment would apply. KFHF guidance is a starting place; it stratifies landscape but not perfect framework for this project. A number of things have changed since the focus; regulatory and guidance information as well as new data availability. We can do some new analysis between now and the finalization of the PA, but we need to be judicious about what we ask for, and clarify/resolve conflict. We can build new models and clarify new issues.

Landscape strata TS discussed the approach for this meeting, which included addressing different landscape strata and the actions that could occur there:

Lots of heterogeneity and diversity on the landscape. Start by dealing with a lot of the issues that have more straightforward resolution. Then dig into the more difficult concepts. We’ll breakdown ponderosa into different strata, dealing with them in terms of anticipated treatments, gives us a sequenced way to work through what we need to cover.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 63 TS reviewed the proposed strata and cross walked them with any guidance provided in the KFHF

Sensitive soils and steep slopes: KFHF recommendation was no mechanical treatment Other veg types (mixed conifer, aspen, and meadows) had no guidance from KFHF; fire may only be possible Ponderosa: KFHF gives us a starting point, but we need refining. Include recommendations in some areas to thin so that predicted active crown fire dropped to surface fire. Use fire models to identify the percent reduction needed. Could treat a smaller percentage of the landscape with large benefits.

Our job is to develop guidance and rule sets about treatments for different landscape conditions. If- then- statements.

TS shared a handout from the NKRD describing different types of mechanical and fire treatments: None are exhaustive; provide a sense of the tools in the tool box to inform discussion about which or some new approaches might be applied. This has to be implementable. We can remain creative but need to be practical.

AL: Mechanical treatment thinning described here are the full array of what we might do. Bringing something from active crown fire to ground fire has to do with treatment intensity. Prescribed fire areas still may get some pre-treatment from the fire crew; hand thinning, etc. JM: There should be another action on the list of mechanical treatments- replanting should be a treatment

AL: Most mechanical treatments we propose there are seed sources within a distance that we hope planting is not necessary. Forest Plan has objectives for replanting- areas where seed sources have been eliminated

GD: I would expect natural regeneration

TS: List is not exhaustive; informative reference sheet. Anyone can propose something not on the list. Can we dive into what I hope is a straightforward start?

Project design criteria

SS shared a draft list of design criteria from the packet: In the issues identified during the pre- meeting survey, workshop 1 and the feedback I’ve received since, many are concerns that are not specific actions we would propose, but rather issues that could result from the impact of treatment, or things that should be protected from treatment. This document is meant to acknowledge that while this meeting will focus more specifically on treatment recommendations, these issues are important too. They are often addressed in analysis and design implementation. Acknowledge them, acknowledge existing guidance, and offer further refinement or guidance if you feel it is needed.

JM: Disagree with smoke impacts being something for design criteria; very important to consider Dave Robinson: The proposed action provide the framework. As we move into analysis, it’s like putting the walls on the house. From fire and fuels perspective, we are responsible for assessing

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 64 air quality for planned and unplanned fire events. We’ll have flow into the canyon, so it really does get on the analysis and implementation side. That will be on my shoulders to account for. TS: You can decide if your issues are foundational or walls and bring them up during the meeting DV: Consider short term negative impact may have a long term benefit. Can we live with some short term negative impacts to concerns if it looks different a month, year or 10 years from now? SS: If you have revisions or additions to contribute to design criteria, let me know during this meeting

Generating recommendations for areas outside of the ponderosa landscape strata or areas previously identified as fire/low intensity treatment

Sensitive soils TS: These are soils where mechanical entry is not advised Jill Rundall: Thanks to NKRD staff for getting me soil types. This is a draft/provisional list of sensitive soils TS: Note that acreages has changed from the KFHF guidance map due to the addition of one more sensitive soil type. Recommendation from KFHF and other projects was no mechanical entry, treatment by fire only. Steve Rich: Read research from RMRS in Flagstaff that often compared to logging, fire will be more erosive than logging. Is fire actually benign? TS: In extreme fire and high temperature, that’s true. My understanding is that under prescribed fire, it’s not. SR: Would supposed that low intensity fire wouldn’t create this. But overall treatment of general landscape, those areas where the ground fire has sufficient intensity because it's a wetter area. Loss of rare plants from impacts Alicyn Gitlin: On the landscape, can treat around these areas TS: Practicality issue. Mosaic landscape. Many valid issues and may be unresolvable. SR: With prescribed fire, can we have treatment parameters with size of treatment in blocks Loss of wetland habitats; there are practicality issues, but as a member of the public makes me not want to go there. AL: Watershed condition framework was put together. Findings were that fire is beneficial in controlled ways. It’s a matter of design features: can burn half in one year, half in another so you’re not putting everything in one basket in sensitive areas. The KFHF focused on ponderosa because its drier veg type and we have fewer of those concerns, which are more associated with some of the frequent fire areas. Where there are specific resource concerns, we can draw circles around specific areas SR: Rather than burning as a matter of utility, let’s do what we can to preserve them. AL: We start out with a coarse filter and then lay a framework for the project. What is being addressed? What else needs to be done? We do a lot on a site-specific base. SR: Can those fine scale issues be at the forefront of this conversation? Recognize that they have particular wildlife and recreational values. AG: Not proposing drainages as sacrifice zones. But they are in proposed strategic treatment areas so we can create buffer zones and make sure we protect them. Prevent erosion, etc. They are in a matrix of areas that will be strategic. Ethan Aumack: I think there are easier and harder issues, doesn’t make them more or less important. I think this fits into the easier category. Second Steve’s concerns. Let’s have design

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 65 criteria brought back to the group. We share those interests in terms of soil erosion and mitigating soil erosion. In spirit of moving along. Todd Buck: Some of the initial documentation for the field trip had paragraph about protecting heads of draws and maintaining dense at the head of the draws will help maintaining. SR: Agree DV: We have a statement 6-7 pages long on how to protect sensitive and riparian area AL: No mechanical, no heavy equipment on the ground, but some fire crew work may be needed to mitigate any fire

The group agreed to the following approach for sensitive soils and steep slopes: Continue forward with KFHF guidance of fire only, and maintain design features that mitigate negative impacts to the areas. Where fuel loading could result in undesirable fire effects, consider hand thinning and piling prior to burning. Follow best management practices and design criteria for soils protection.

Bridger Fire area

TS: On field trip we saw the complex landscape mosaic in that burn area. Not crying out for intervention at this point. Management approaches might involve managing fire on a spot-by- spot basis but that it was a relatively low priority in terms of a proposed action AL: What we would do is frame out the conditions under which burning would occur. Looks fine now but might be nice to get some fire in there eventually. Right now, too young, veg would probably die. Want to do NEPA so that we can have this ready to go on the ground, but that the planning would be 10 years out. TB: Excellent oak wildlife habitat. Should be protected from burns. TS: How’s this for an initial proposal: No treatment, except spot fire treatments 10 years down the line. Prior to specific burn plans, seek additional input from AGFD to make sure we’re meeting specific habitat objectives. DR: I agree with that. There are things we can do on the implementation side to manage intensities. There are lot of faces in this room who were at a meeting about fire last season. Don’t exclude this area completely until 10 years out from now. The boundary is important from a fire management perspective. Using the existing road system reduces our cost and exposure. Not a big fan of saying we’ll wait. Every year conditions are primed for a fast moving wildfire. It’s not if, it’s when, and I’m concerned that when we put timelines, spring gets tighter and we may miss opportunities. TB: Agreed. Can’t say not going to do anything till year 9. Want to make sure constituents are involved. Maintain or improve level of constituent involvement. TS: Opportunistically manage fire. Point towards flexibility; working towards fire when it occurs and localized use of prescribed fire. AL: I like the flexibility; let’s keep it a mosaic and focus on opportunity. The concerns on timeline was ensuring we’re not killing ponderosa regeneration coming in, and cheat grass. Need to ensure that the burn plan addresses retaining regeneration and avoiding spread of cheat grass. DR: Keep flexibility in overall NEPA that gives opportunities for dynamic management EA: Take the flexibility idea one step further. Have a clear sense of what I wouldn’t want the landscape to look like- infested across sig portions by cheat. Fire influences cheat. As part of the approach, identify need for some level of ongoing monitoring of fire effects related to cheat grass, if not specifically experimentation. We have to be very careful about unintended negative effects.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 66 Terry Herndon: Don’t want to see it look like Heber or Rodeo Chedeski. Need to be proactive on the whole project. TB: There are good native grasses and oak in there. From our perspective, I think we’re at it for some areas. DR: Can we use the term wildland fire? This includes both prescribed fire and managed wildfire. Gives us the opportunity to work with both planned and unplanned burns.

The group agreed to the following recommendation for the Bridger Fire area: Treatment can include wildland fire in spot treatments; when burns occur is flexible, however burn plans need to take into account protection of regenerating trees and avoidance of cheat spread. Burn plans should take place in consultation with AGFD to ensure habitat objectives are met. Monitor and implement control measures for invasive species, such as cheat grass.

JM: Stewardship opportunity for restoring cheat areas? SR: Cattle grazing could help. Can manage cheat into native grasses; willing to share that information.

Geoffory Anderson: Grazing could do a lot RW: That’s in the Kane EA; it’s outside of this project AL: Yes, valid strategy but outside the scope of this project. Could be done under the grazing adaptive management. This is on Randall and Geoffory’s radar. Through other venues, appropriate discussion EA: Happy to follow up on the Kane EA. Ongoing conversation. We will be exploring adaptive management in cheat in the project. TS: Can do things in experimental context. TH: Concern with cattle management is water and ability to take care of wildlife and riparian areas. If we’re going talk about cattle in these areas, need to consider those impacts. GA: Targeting grazing by goats could be treatment. TB: We’ll have big concerns about that with bighorn sheep AL: That’s all a different conversation. The purpose and need of this project is really focused up on the plateau. Lots of good work that can be done with invasives, but out of the scope of this identified effort. I think you should pursue and continue to have the discussions, different project, and different venue, may overlap geographically. Stay focused on these objectives.

The group agreed to move forward without including grazing in this particular EA.

Mixed conifer and Mexican Spotted Owl

TS: About 358 acres. Relatively small area, technical designation. It's a critical component but doesn’t rise to make-or-break. If it’s OK with the group, can just let Cassie and Bill Austin and interested parties work it out, but we need to remember that we’ll need to deal with it more in future conversations. AL: Small area, very little decision space. MSO recovery plan lays out specific management. We probably don’t want to spend too much time talking about such a minor area. TB: We need a lot of background docs on sideboards if we dive in, but don’t think we need to go there right now TS: How to work in mixed con is going to have implications at the landscape scale

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 67 TB: Given the timelines for this group, this discussion would be better in another group when we have a bigger landscape. These are huge discussions and need a longer timeline. AL: Appendix C of MSO recovery plan is the resource

The group agreed to the following recommendation for the mixed conifer: Treat up to 358 acres of MSO habitat in accordance with Forest Plan and MSO recovery guidance, in consultation with USFWS.

NOTE-The NKRD has shared the initial proposal for treatment that they will propose in consultation with USFW. It is attached to this summary on page 34.

The group took a break for lunch.

Ponderosa Pine

TS: We’re going to launch into the discussion of old trees, large trees, all those issues that have been the center of debate for many years. Debate, discussion, discord, appeals, litigation.

Untold conflict in various different ways. But also represent a common value. Part of what makes the Kaibab plateau different than other parts of the SW and very different from almost all other ponderosa forests. There’s no way we can get into the real work here without tackling that. I’m going to take a few minutes to work through some background and keep us focused on the objective of getting to a proposed action. Recognize you can’t address NOGO without addressing large trees. We’ve elected to try and tackle the old and large tree issue first, and then get into NOGO thinking it may be easier, but recognizing they may be intertwined.

JM: Did we decide the issue was large, not old?

TS: We talked about both. In one sense it’s an issue of scale. Regionally, there is a unique representation of large and old trees on the plateau. Locally, conditions aren’t rare, and site- specific conditions are such that sometimes there are a lot of old trees where we may want to see fire and thinning. So the scale where we consider large and old trees influences what we think should happen. It’s the crux issue of what we want the future to be like or if we break off into previously defined or new positions. We share the objective of wanting to retain habitat cover.

AL: We need to keep in perspective the fact that this is a fire evolved landscape and that trees grow. There’s no way to take a snapshot and save it by not doing anything; that will cause issues. Even if the issue is to maintain maximum amount of older trees, because it serves this niche area, it’s still going to be necessary to cut some large and old tress so they don’t die from density issues, and so that there is understory. Current condition is lots of trees, but they are not in healthy condition; understory not in good condition. Goal to retain precious resource, but the big question is how to retain.

TS: Want to reference some of the language that provides a starting point before we start deliberating. Have been speaking to many individually and have a sense of the range of perspectives, so allow me to play devil’s advocate a little bit at times.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 68

JM: Let’s address large trees; don’t want to talk about old growth.

TS: There are people out there who are concerned about old; it's a voice in this debate. To move forward, we need to find the sweet spot where we can live with what comes out of this.

AG: KFHF has one sentence guiding this: Ponderosa restoration in Northern Arizona should be designed to retain and restore old growth trees. Forest plan focuses on replacing and representing structure.

AL: Important point: old growth is a suite of components. Old and large trees is one of those components. We talk about clumps and smaller areas across the landscape. Will benefit this discussion if we don’t talk about “old growth” because it means different things to different people, but if we just discuss what the proposed action will do with old and large trees, and snags, and downed logs. That will be a more transparent discussion. If we talk about co-located components and what we would do. The plan has guidance to retain snags, partial snags. The real discussion about under ___ conditions, we’d retain ___.

Tom Sisk reviewed existing guidance and language on old and large trees from the Kaibab Forest Health Focus and the Forest Plan (see attached presentation).

Definition of old growth is different here than other forest types and other regions. One confounding factor. There are individual components or trees, there are stand conditions, that’s a space we need to explore. Should the guidance reflect individuals or stands? Realize that there is a precedent to this type of the discussion. I’d like to re-open it, but make sure we’re starting from the same place in guidance and approaches. Recognize that the density of large and old trees sometimes exceed historic levels.

RW: Guidance should consider landscape scale. We have a large landscape. We’ve already decided that there are certain places where we’re not going to cut trees mechanically. So we need to figure out the level to which we need to treat in order to protect particular stands. Some places we won’t cut large trees. Other places, we need to. See how much to cut across the landscape.

AL: As a starting point, in terms of NOGO nest stands, the plan guidance for nest stands have mature trees with interlocking crowns. CH: 111 nest areas, with some overlap, some lay outside. About 3,000 acres. AL: Of the ponderosa area, there are already about 3,000 to receive fairly light treatment. When I think about where it’s most important from a management standpoint, it relates to the spatial components. How connected areas are, where they are in relation to areas with predicted active crown fire. The spatial arrangement and the acknowledgement that there are going to be some areas of full retention. TS: Let’s go through some more background we have brought to share. We have a lot of data and maps to aid this conversation. Our tendency is to take things from the data direction. But that’s not only going to solve this issue. It's a values issue, the data and science can elevate the level of discussion.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 69 AL: Would benefit from visualizing. Maybe we can talk on a large scale. Full retention of trees, and then under what circumstances would we cut no large and old trees. Then, where are the areas where we could really use fuel breaks. SR: Seems like some full retention areas would be the draws and canyons that I’m concerned about. Understanding that NOGO like canyon areas with interlocking trees. TS: Majority of the project area in ponderosa is PFAs AL: Uneven condition for PFAs. Focus on post-treatment conditions and discuss management to get there. If-then scenarios for specific situations. Need to agree on size class distribution TB: Overlap between soils, steep slopes, nesting areas. Do we have a sense of areas where we definitely won’t be cutting? What percentages of the treatment areas does that areas

JR: Sensitive soils and steep slopes approximately 5,000 acres. NOGO areas 3,000 (but there’s overlap with soils and slopes). NOGO PFAs outside nest areas approx. 6300.

EA: If we’re dealing with a 30K acre project area, area of disagreement is small about 10-12K acres. Protect areas from high intensity fire; those areas where we’re going to lose trees. Need to be creative and flexible; we’ll find our way though

TH: Could be simplistic, but from the perspective of the healthy forest initiative, what is the general idea of what a healthy forest is supposed to look like? What are we looking at?

TS: I think there are multiple ways to answer the question. Health emerges to the mosaic and how pieces are positioned on the landscape. DV: Functioning ecosystem contains all components and processes necessary to retain resilience over time. One important consideration for the proposed action is if we should stratify to talk about even and uneven aged areas? TS: There are uneven aged areas that approximate desired conditions. DV: In past proposed action categories have had even aged young trees, or even aged older or larger trees AL: Healthy ponderosa is defined in the plan. Desired conditions for ponderosa are 2 pages. AG: What are our reference conditions? DV: Lang and Stuart

EA: In the spirit of kicking off ways the think about the landscape. There’s a basic question about what this area should look like informed by our idea of what natural should look like. Is there a difference between what the Powell plateau and other areas look like? AL: Powell plateau is a good reference. I think we’re looking at a range of treatments. Different intensities in different conditions DR: Data regarding desired conditions is available. EIS for fire management plan at GRCA. We have desired conditions by fire management units, which are broken out by veg types at the park. That info is available. JR: Reynold’s GTR has a list of historical variation; could use this as a reference as a group.

TS and JR: Reviewed available spatial data, including draft LiDar products.

AL: As we go through areas where we’ve made decisions and get to the difficult 30% of the landscape, we can pull this data set in and talk about what is on the ground.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 70 AG: Are you groundtruthing height to age? AL: this is a rough dataset, hasn’t been cleaned yet. This is prior to USFS analysis; just for the sharing. In term so of describing what would be OK, how we can move towards desired conditions, it’s helpful. AG: Height from the ground? Could it be because a tree is in a valley? AL: Adjusted; it’s ground to tree top. But uncorrected data means that there are problems near steep slopes. Around steep slopes there are errors that should be corrected on the final data set. Use caution around steep slopes. DV: These data are a position in time; we’re thinking long-term treatments. If we’re not modeling into the future, have to think about what it’s going to look like in the future.

TS: Showing Lidar data on top of tree height model of Sesnie and Olsen. You can see concordance between those. The Lidar are the black dots indicating clumps of trees and behind is a coarser; independent way of estimating where the large trees are on the landscape.

TS showed Northern Goshawk (NOGO) areas: NOGO areas can be looked at in relation to forest structure. NOGO on the plateau have had relatively high nest productivity. They’re augmenting populations off the plateau. When there is an unoccupied site it is quickly filled. Not a consensus about what structure is important for foraging area. Raging debate. We know that it’s important for nesting areas. They need prey, but it’s less clear within the foraging area what idea conditions would be.

AL: Old guidelines were about intensively managed stands, but conceptually in the new forest plan we want to ensure that multi-structured and multi-aged is maintained over time. At a minimum we want to have 3 age classes.

TS showed fire models:

DR: Fire behavior depends on calculations that assume uniform flaming front, continuous fuels and head fire. Forward moving fire. Prescribed fire, yes, we do have segments in our project where we may have head fire, but when we’re applying fire, we use backing and flanking not head fire. Understand there are limitations to the models and we account for this in our burn plans. TS: Becomes useful in terms of prioritizing management actions. Don't look at it as “where’s it going to burn up” look at “what’s most important to treat to reduce likelihood of big crown fires.” DR: Primary objective is to reduce crown fire and increase surface fire TS: Some areas that are high fire correspond to areas of high tree height or high old growth. So if there are old growth stand conditions that we want to retain on the landscape and they’re prone to crown fire, how do we retain some stand structural components in specific locations while, at the landscape scale, reducing the likelihood of crown fire at the landscape scale. We need that from this group so that we can safeguard key values and advance towards landscape goals. DR: Understory brings up ladder fuels, and interlocking crowns. That’s the big issues

JM: Ladder fuels and interlocking crowns are the issue. That’s the risk. Our trip it was obvious. When you think about preserving the landscape, moisture doesn’t get down from the trees.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 71 AL: In nest areas, they like the interlocking crowns and the diversity. If we’re leaving certain areas intact, what can we do around to prevent fire from getting in? To move forward in this dialog, let’s look at nest areas, predicted active crown fire areas, and some of the large old trees, we can talk about how we could create some fuel breaks and crowns, and create a healthy understory, fire risk.

TS pointed out stop 4 on the field trip on the fire map. It’s an area predicted as active crown fire, but dense areas of old trees.

TB: We can stop crown fires if we get rid of the crowns. It’s not so much the risk of crown fire, but what level is acceptable. Can we have that red patch? Is a 200 acre fire acceptable if we have blocks around? We can completely fireproof the forest, but none of us would be happy with the alternatives. AL: Forest plan says crown fire is acceptable at the fine scale. TH: You could probably make a fire break around there in that map. TS: We’re tying back to the conversation we’ve had in the field and since. We want to identify important patches with old growth structure, or stands characterized by large or old trees. Some or all of those, that’s for this group to decide, and we may decide to retain. But if that’s #1, how do you provide the conditions to keep crown fire from spreading in or out of those stands?

RW: we’re focusing in on fire here, but there’s another aspect of density and that’s insects. We don’t want to forget about that in this discussion. AL: Don’t use the word stands, probably. Should be talking about uneven aged stands. If we talk about stands, we’re talking about a condition that didn’t historically occur. Talk about groups and group sizes for old growth. Stands are management boundaries. SR: When you get to old trees, how much longer are they going to live? Could selectively take those with less chance of survival. TS: We could take it tree-by-tree. Decision rules about which trees stay and which go. My sense is that an alternative would be to identify subareas where it’s retained in current condition or light intervention, and then treat around it. EA: From an old growth perspective, the Kaibab is different now, and it was different 120-150 years ago. Looking at reference conditions on the North Rim. When we talk about a range, the mean reconstructed basal area was 80. Minimum 20, maximum 330. That’s reference conditions. I’m not suggesting we manage towards that, but there were places that were thick. That’s looking back. Looking forward, we’re looking for the potential of fires. Need to balance against fire risk mitigation. Coming back to Tom’s thoughts, let’s identify patches of a particular size that are beyond what we want to see. I think we’re talking about in the 100s of acres, patches. We should accept some areas of dense trees, but at some point we don’t want to see active crown fire.

SR: Agree AL: Agree, put in the context of forest plan. Kaibab had limestone soils, very productive. Mid- scale 20-80 basal area, North Kaibab trends on the upper end of desired. Large trees contribute more basal areas than small. It’s going to be a while before we can get to desired conditions in the plan. May not be able to go there in a single project. Want to make progress so we’re not spending a lot of effort doing a little bit of work. But as long as we’re making progress, we don’t have to go all the way there.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 72 JM: Can this be run to see what we need to do in order to reduce stand density to changed fire behavior? TS: Yes JM: Let’s look at that. DV: May be moving past developing a proposed action and more into analysis stage here. DR: We use Flammap in analysis JM: We need to understand in order to agree on what to put into a proposed action TS: Could be a yardstick; identify the objectives to be met and what acres it would be applied to, and then do the analysis to inform what would be proposed JM: Are we past diameter limits? Are they off the table? TS: Went in hoping to avoid hard caps because of the divisive nature of this debates. We will still have a strong voice about which trees are cut to achieve those conditions JM: From a community development standpoint, we’re re-tooling. We need to keep people working. It doesn’t really make a difference what the size of the tree is. It’s how many, where and when that figures more into that. TS: The predictability of the supply. While economic opportunities aren’t first and foremost in the objectives, they’re a key component in the project being practical and implemented. Another reason to find consensus and deal with things up front.

TB: We need to identify areas we’re not going to treat and overlay with fire. That will show us certain ridge tops and locations for treatments. Then we can start to put together a plan that will strategically address fire risk and incorporate large trees. Need to narrow focus to where we can work and accomplish something. Want to get to percentage of the landscape to treat. We’re most interested in understory health given the fact that we have an abundance of large trees on the plateau.

TS: Which areas would we overlay with fire?

TB: If we can continue to narrow down to a percentage of the landscape that we can start to get our arms around, it simplifies the process.

TS: Do we want to retain big stands of trees? SR: I’d like to keep everyone of them that we can. TB: yes. That we can. TS: What would lead us to identify the appropriate areas to retain? SR: If industry only needs to know that they have a reliable supply so they’re available DV: An exception would be, would we retain a 300-acre grove infected with bark beetle. SR: Would want to get rid of bark beetle. Byrd Kershaw: Surprised it took this long to bring up economics. Whole idea is harvesting forest products; it’s a means of treatment. Ed Grumbine: I like both old trees, old growth and I like healthy forests. The way we’ve framed this up to this point is that there is a conflict between those things. There is to a certain extent. You can’t have two things happen at the same time that might be divergent. Our charge is to identify the acres where we share values and can address them in a way we agree on. The three most important pieces of information. Understanding historic conditions. 300 trees was the historic trees per acre, now over 1000. That needs to be dealt with. Next: where the wildfire risk is highest on the landscape. Need to overlay with where the large tree/old growth is. The LiDar is getting closer to something we can depend on. Large tree and fire risk might be where are

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 73 areas of highest disagreement is. As a scientist, please let’s not identify resilience only as reducing risk of fire or getting back to reference conditions. It’s protecting old, large structures. No forest ecologist would ever say a diameter cap by its self is ecological. Old growth not just about large trees- it's a structural constellation of characteristics. If we want to think like the North Kaibab, need to consider ecological, not just political sense.

TS: Is there agreement in terms of old growth characteristics? We’ve been talking about individual trees; can we make a rule set. Do we want to trying to retain some areas with denser structure of large and old trees that may be in conflict with fire risk reduction objectives, and incorporate that into landscape plan, or should we address large and old on a tree-by-tree basis.

EA: I think we need both. I hope we’re going down that path. Identify those patches and stands with old grow characteristics. Do it and display it in a plan. Doesn’t need to be a conflict with fire management objectives if we run through the right steps. Combine with a large or old tree retention policy that indicates exceptions for making criteria. It’s worked well in other areas.

SR: Tend to agree. Threshold issues.

TS: Are we in agreement? Can we brainstorm strategies that are specific about how we would identify areas to retain structures, and by inverse, areas where we would be comfortable with more intensive thinning treatments?

EA: Take Lidar and fire behavior. Overlay and discuss. Define a maximum patch site. KFHF lesson was using existing roads and buffering on south facing slopes to control. AL: One important area is NOGO nest areas. We agreed that these would be retained. And they have much of the high value trees EA: Upwind would be another rule to apply for more aggressive

TS: What’s an appropriate max/min size for retaining? EA: Might be a specific set of questions we could take advantage of Powell plateau data sets. AG: To nuance that, if we have a 200 acre patch of old trees, need to remember there still hasn’t been a ground fire for a while. It’s not in historic condition. May need removing slash, small trees, finding a way to keep it from burning at once; it’s not in its natural condition

TS: These aren’t areas of no-go management, they’re areas that we’re not going to take down trees because there are too many. Might still involve controlled burn and thinning How much of the landscape would we want to treat intensively versus lightly treated?

TH: What area can be knocked back from a fire? DR: Depends on the time of year and conditions. Sometimes we can have 13 ignitions in a day. Historical accounts are for frequent, low intensity fire.

TS: Is the patch of our field trip stop the right size to preserve? DR: In central portion of project area, potential for crown fire is based on fire exclusion. Greater accumulation of surface fuels, tighter canopy. EA: There are areas with conflict between predicted active crown fire and large trees. There we have to either get discontinuity in the patches or treat heavily upwind.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 74 TB: Tree height and high predicted fire behavior spots that are on the map. Opportunities to protect some relatively easily.

TS: Here’s a proposal: we’ll take the spirit of Ed’s comment and take a cut at this without any supposition that we can identify those areas now, but we’ll come back tomorrow with something for you all to react to. We’ll take these questions; - Were to retain current structure - Where to treat more intensively o in these areas, how to address large/old trees

DR: Grand Canyon is great but remember the only disturbance that has occurred is fire. It is a little different there, but gives us a good reference.

TB: If we’re trying to develop old growth structure on the forest, which I think is lacking- dead and down, snags, old trees, we don’t have all those components commonly on the plateau-we need to buffer those areas away from our roads as well. We’ve had a tough time retaining snags especially proximal to roads. We need to try to design away from roads. JR: How far? Open roads or all roads? TB: Unsure but need to consider. PC: Out of visual site TS: Areas with low use intensity

Wrap up and plan for tomorrow TS: Please think about what we need to cover tomorrow to let the LCI in consultation with the NKRD run with this beginning tomorrow afternoon? If they haven’t been discussed, help us think about Overnight, we will work to identify candidate old growth stands based on both basal area and tree height. How large an area? How many? We’ll look to see what the data tells us, but we’ll need parameters. We’ll look at the reference conditions from Fule 2002’s historic conditions of Fire Point and Powell Plateau, as well as others.

The group adjourned, and re-convened at 5:30 for an informal social hour

Meeting Notes: Day 2

Reconvene and continue discussion

TS and RW opened the meeting. RW: Remember the objectives of this project. At the end of the day we need to have a proposed action. This area was identified because, through the KFHF, a need for treatment was keen. Keep thinking at the landscape scale. AL: Dense and open are both desirable at fine scale. Overall want to reduce density to be making progress towards landscape scale condition EA: So far we’ve operated at a coarser scale. Getting to finer makes a lot of sense. Felt sense of progress at the end of the day. In terms of uneven aged, the vast amount of new growth is in smaller categories. Focus on problem areas in size classes we have problems in. Focus on the 12- 18 inch category

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 75 SS reviewed the proposed landscape strata and identified the ones where guidance had been identified, and the ones still remaining: NOGO nest areas, NOGO PFAs, other areas of ponderosa pine, large tree/old growth patches to retain. She also discussed the need to address wildlife habitat characteristics to maintain, protect or stimulate across the project area, and asked if there were other issues that must be addressed by the end of the day.

TB: Concerns about productivity of understory under higher intensity fire conditions RW: Beetle is an issue in this area EA: If we can treat at the landscape scale we can take care of the beetle areas

EG: Because Northern Goshawk is a species is of special concern does our group have to get into the NOGO areas? Has it been set up for us?

AL: USFS sensitive spp. Guidelines different for nest areas and PFAs. Nest areas- light treatment, detailed in the plan. For PFAs, only thing in the plan is the multi-structural/multi-age; manage for that, have a tendency towards denser areas – 10-20% basal area EG: Would we be able to say we agree to maintain NOGO guidance from forest plan? AL: For nest areas, yes, for PFAs, that’s really the greater forest landscape. TS: And one question is can we have the same treatments for nest areas and old/large patches to maintain?

TS showed a map with nest areas and PFAs: In the white nest areas, we can recommend light treatments that retain large trees. In PFAs, there is a large range. Do the NOGO nest areas give us sufficient large old tree patch characteristics?

DV: In Jacob Ryan, 80% of OG existed within nest stands RW: Steep and sensitive soil areas also contain large old trees. Don’t forget that a certain percentage is already being protected that’s higher risk TS: So is that sufficient for OG patch protection? Nest areas and sensitive slopes? That would be a minimalist way, to say that we’ve already done it. If that’s not, the question is how we move forward to capture the additional value/need on the landscape EA: I’d expect that there’s a lot of concurrence and convergence of areas with nest areas. Beyond that I’d think that it’s a data informed question. Great place to start, but should be a data informed answer

Cassie Hagemann: When identifying nest areas, I went on the landscape and was looking for areas of larger trees. Not just one to center a nest area around, but areas with a sufficient amount of large trees. When we start talking about treatments in PFAs to protect nest areas, we might put a buffer around the nest because it’s not just 30 acres of large trees. It’s part of the PFA too.

EG: This is my first participation in a forest collaboration. Great to have it be with high capacity and totally committed. The North Kaibab is unique; that’s why we’re here. When I looked at the forest plan, I looked at what’s missing from the plan and what’s missing from our guidance. Plan is clear about managing for reference conditions, but not clear about how old growth. For me, old and large trees is one of many components. We should manage for retention. But we need to address large dead trees, and other pieces of structural diversity. Would like to see ultimate language talk about the whole system. Because, we get a more resilient forest closer to

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 76 reference conditions. Suggest that we follow nest guidelines in place. For PFAs, suggest that we manage for prey habitat and an ecological sense of old growth characteristics. Outside of NOGO areas, maintain old growth but use data about high fire risk and large concentrations of old trees. Might need more restrictive sidebars- maintain old growth characteristics including large trees, downs and snags, but may need to remove large trees for fire protection. Need criteria for when that would occur.

TS: PFA management objectives are partially in line with maintaining old growth but they also encourage patchiness. Also, NOGOs across this area use many types of habitat. Nest areas could be a starting point for ideas of OG patch characteristics, but some nest areas are and some aren’t. Some candidate OG sites don’t have nest areas. AL: Because of plan direction and known habitat needs, nest areas are going to be a light treatment. Cassie could throw out some a likely prescription and vet it with the group, and see if we can set that aside, then look at where old trees are and what patch sizes are. Talk about intentional retention areas. CH: I’ll work on that right now

The group agreed to let Cassie develop a recommendation for them to vet.

AG: I represent a lot of people and the North Kaibab is a really important place. Sometimes we feel like the goshawk issue has been the only way to protect old trees, and that’s why it’s held closely. Protecting steep slopes and nest areas is not enough. For a lot of people, we want some of these places to be away from roads, wild places with an aesthetic and habitat values. We need to call back intent of KFHF. It’s important to retain structure whether or not it’s within the certain lines we’ve identified. SS: Let’s look at the data we’ve got since people keep referring to it. TS: What we tried to do was build a logic progression showing what we can do. This isn’t an answer today, but a way to show what we’re capable of and to get refinement that we’ll work. Eventually it will be checked in the field when the NKRD does stand exams next year for their analysis of the proposed action.

So, where might those dense old areas be and what we might do. Logic started with where tall trees and basal area overlap, and we felt we were in a stronger position when LidDar tall tree data lined up with these maps too. We’re not proposing that this is the answer. Illustrating the analyses that we can do.

JR: We worked on trying to identify patches we’d want to look at. A certain tree height and basal area value suggest old growth. We took the Landsat 30m data and let it drive. This shows 75th percentile tree height and 80th percentile basal area. We started with upper level percentiles. Here’s the intersection. What information do we want to bring on top of these basic thresholds? Landsat only gets to a certain scale, and to combine this with Lidar is a mismatch of scale; its’ draft data produced over night. TS: Lidar is point data and preliminary. There’s an analytical step in there; turning it into a polygon so you can work with raster data in a compatible way to do analysis. Yesterday we just looked at an overlay and said well, ‘it looks kind of the same.’ AL: They are correlated to the landsat, it's a good visual but it doesn’t help us do analysis yet.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 77 JR showed the old/large tree data overlaid with NOGO nests and steep slopes/sensitive soils: Not a lot of concurrence relative to what we would have thought. It was interesting to see.

EA: What’s interesting about the pattern is a lot of those areas are on north facing slopes. Denser stands of large trees on north facing slopes. We want less dense stands on south facing slopes. We already have some discontinuity and we want to take advantage of that and enhance that from a fuel perspective. We have roads that extend a long way along the ridges as an anchor. Could use fuel breaks and more intensive treatments

TS: Let’s take a break and think about this question: are those NOGO nest treatment guidelines appropriate and sufficient to apply to old growth patch characteristics as well, as if not, how would we define those treatments?

TB: Are we going to actively manage towards old growth characteristics or just retain and wait? Just big trees does not represent old growth.

TS showed some additional analysis that was done over break showing areas where crown fire is most likely, NOGO nest areas and older larger patches: Areas predicted to burn hottest appeared to be primarily away from the large trees and in areas where basal area is high and tree heights are low; dense smaller tree areas. Suggests that maybe those objectives are more compatible than we might otherwise have thought.

RW: How many acres and what types of blocks. Need to treat a certain percentage of the landscape to lower risk. Nest treatments are light. If these are small areas, maybe 100, seems appropriate, but if there are many, we still need to move overall towards reducing fire risk

TS: Right. We’ve been taking areas off the table here. The key remaining question of light/no treatment is do we want to identify specific old patches on the landscape outside of the nest areas. Give us the guidance, then we’ve got to move on.

EA: We don’t know exactly where the older trees are. We wish we did. My suggestion is we use multiple lines of evidence, several of which are represented here. Nest areas are an interesting surrogate. Stand data could be incorporated. In 4FRI we attempted to identify stands with a preponderance of larger older trees (basal area and tree density). Areas with greater than x basal area and less than x tree density. If the LiDar could be used, bring it into the conversation. We can’t get through all of that today, but would like to charge the lab or a work group over the next couple of weeks to develop out where the old growth patches are.

I don’t know what the right threshold is. It’s arbitrary- how much is enough. Could be 8,000 acres and that’s enough, or could be a certain pattern for retention.

TS: Could just specify an acreage. Take the large old component you can identify. We need to treat sufficient acres across the area to meet project objectives. We can take it from here. We’d be willing to meet for an afternoon and patch people in remotely.

AL: Don’t think nest area treatments should translate to older treatments. Within stands dominated by older trees there can still be small trees. Suggest treatments for open rooting zones and matrix thinning to reduce density. These may still need some density reduction but an

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 78 emphasis on smaller size classes. Want to approach historical reference conditions. Still some management in there. Plan has existing tree retention guidelines. So we have areas dominated by older trees with enhancement and protect for resilience. Outside those patches, we need to manage for multiple age classes, lower density. Fuel density and strategic fuel treatments. Still retain an older cohort of uneven aged management but also some group selection cuts where we’re getting group selection patches. Smaller group selections could reduce density overall.

TS: For the old growth areas, where would they be and how large would they be?

DV: Some of the analysis that we’re doing is great but it all comes down to the how. Additional analysis will be needed to accurately reflect how many acres we have in each. We could break it out into nest areas, PFAs and other, and then talk about what treatments you want in each. Don’t get hooked up on the number of acres; it's the type of treatment we’re going to do in each strata. Even outside old growth areas, forest plan says to retain old growth in many circumstances

CH: Nest areas are denser areas. Around them in the PFAs, provide protection for nest areas from natural disturbance of fire or insect/disease, and provide for prey habitat. Interspaces and multi-story structure.

GD: In previous, thinned up to 9 inches. Still some areas high risk for crown fire. In a nest area, we could go a little higher; up to 12 or 14 inches. It’d still be a light treatment from below, but would help to make it a little fire resistant.

AL: in terms of PFAs vs non, there’s a higher acceptance for higher basal areas. Same general treatment strategy of uneven aged management, higher basal areas tolerated.

The group agreed to the following guidance for NOGO nest areas: Thin from below up to 14 inches and retain old growth components (snags, logs and large trees)

EA: Nest areas; light touch. Manage for old growth condition. Could be more actively managing old growth. Retain larger and older trees. It’s a different form of a cap. We don’t have to talk about it, but functionally it serves as a way to protect. Define a value and ecological exceptions. Could help with the next set of conversations.

AL: The 4FRI Large Tree Retention Strategy (LTRS) framework was useful, but we couldn’t get the density to the place where fire risk is reduced. But in 4FRI there was a gap in the VSS 6 in terms of the vegetation management large tree retention. But you split VSS 4s into high and low 4s. 18” here isn’t big. Could split low 5 and high 5 and develop some rule sets. To retain all the 5s and 6s won’t be able to get where we need to. Also remember VSS is about dominant tree size in a group.

AG: LTRS can be applied. If we are looking at retaining old trees, it makes that distinction. Large young trees have exceptions. Maybe we can approach it from a percentile. If it is large, young VSS 5/large diameter groups.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 79 EA: Refine the old large area piece with the lab. I don’t know what more to contribute to that discussion. Let’s start focusing on from the other end of the spectrum and more active management. That also relates to large and old trees, let’s get specific for the goals.

TS: Tradeoff between setting areas aside and to what extent large and old is retained in the rest of the landscape. Relationship between those decisions.

AG: What about strategic treatment optimization and south facing slopes? TS: We can think about using the landscape to optimize treatments. Haven’t done the modeling but let’s talk about how to be strategic? Not literally the Finny treatment optimization model approach, but trying to be strategic and use the landscape in our recommendations

AL: Fire is important but remember need to fully meet ecological objectives

SS reviewed the landscape strata where treatment recommendations have been finalized. She pointed out the 400 acres of even aged seed cuts (such as stop 1 of the field visit) that had previously been discussed as fire only. The group agreed that the treatment recommendations for the approximately 400 acres of even age seed cuts was fire only treatment

DR described some of the pre-burn fuel treatments that can occur: we don’t cut and haul out but when needed we’d reduce fuels. Thin, pile, pile burn and then next year, broadcast burn. Most conventional tool. Also costs money. Have a machine that helps with pre-burn prep. Anything 6” or less it helps, very little disturbance, one operator. On slopes, phased implementation.

The group took a break and then reconvened to continue working over lunch.

TS: General sense of agreement that there are some old growth components to be safeguarded but are yet to be defined. Sounds like we can accept that LCI will take that forward. There are multiple issues to take forward in this “other” area of ponderosa. We’ve discussed the consideration of topography in treatment choices. Location/juxtaposition of areas is really important when thinking about fire. There are areas that we have taken off the table, and that has implications for what happens in the rest of the landscape. Fire breaks, control points like roads, etc. Wildlife considerations are very important and want to talk about that soon, but first let’s focus on treatment guidelines in a large area of ponderosa pine that we can consider for more intensive treatment.

DV: It takes 47 trees that are 18-in in diameter to meet the 80 BA (80 sq ft / acre). An acre is about 1 football field. This is for reference.

EA: Given everything we’ve talked about at the scale of the project area, we’re not going to be conflicted in having a greater diversity and range than that, with set aside areas, etc. In the 20- 80 range, are those hard side boards, and how do we accommodate greater diversity that were reference conditions across the Kaibab plateau.

DV: 20-80 is recommendations, can vary by 20%. Conditions should include 10-70% openings. So we’re meeting multiple parameters at the mid-scale. You can propose actions outside that, Randall is the one who approves before it goes out for scoping, if group and Randall agree…

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 80

AL: Desired conditions written for across the Southwest, across the forest. On NKRD, appropriate to look at historical evidence, site specific studies like Lang and Steward. This can inform where along the gradient you’re recognizing. N. Kaibab has more productive soils and tent to have higher basal area.

PC: Mid-scale is 100-1000 acres, so it’s not written in stone that every acre should be 80

EA: In areas upwind of areas defined to have values such as untreated old growth, should reduce fire risk sufficiently. Take advantage of existing roads, especially ridge top roads running E-W in the southern project area, as control features, especially on the south sides of the roads. Use as fire management/fuel break areas.

TS: That’s a clear if statement, but what’s the then? EA: Model to bring from predicted active crown fire to surface fire

RW: Prevailing winds come from the SW, but if you look at big fires, events not always from prevailing wind direction. In the quarter mile or whatever we’re talking about, reduce to the 80 sq foot basal area.

AL: Veg treatments should break up continuous canopies and create breaks. We don’t want large contiguous areas regardless of slope. Clumpy groupy management effectively creates discontinuous fuels between the groups.

DR: Like Ethan’s idea. Landscape matters. Historically ridge tops were open and a natural fuel break

TS: If we’re not operating on steep slopes then we probably will have upslope runs. Ridgetop roads are the potential control stops.

DR: We’re not excluding fire from this area. The foundation is we want to bring fire back in there. Health and vigor and to reduce risk. There’s a lot of creativity and adaptive management we can use in the implementation.

TS: Remember the ideas articulated in the overall project objective. What are the specific treatments we’d do to achieve the overall objective. The specifics become tied to the geographic location, not only the forest structure. Could have the same structure and do totally different things ridge top versus flat bottom, south versus north face. Treatments would be trying to get to specific landscape condition. It sounds like what we’re talking about is something in between a dynamic fire landscape and a silvicultural view.

DR: We have to make sure we look at forest health and vigor. No matter what we do, fire risk is going to be reduced. But in the large and old growth component, that doesn’t drastically impact reducing fire risk. In Jacob Ryan when we ran fire models with a 18 inch cap and no cap to do the analysis of the proposed action there was a 3% difference in crown fire potential. You have to understand what promotes crown fire: heavy surface fuels and ladder fuels. Both alternatives reduced that. You may have reduced a little because of gaps when you take out large trees, but they both reduced ladder fuels and surface fuels. There are other objectives, but in fire risk,

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 81 large tree is not that big of a component. That’s where I have to look at overall health of the ecosystem. Fire can interact with the other components of old growth habitat. Fire can burn dead and down. But give it a few years and fire creates that as well. The plan calls for 3-10 tons per acre on the ground.

BK: How does basal area fit in with all of this? TS: Measure of the amount of wood. Higher basal area means there’s more in there to burn, equates with lots of small trees or fewer numbers of large trees

AL: You say it’s currently 140 BA, post treatment, want it to be 60 or 70

TB: Aggressive treatments in strategic locations. This is where wildlife and historic reference diverge dramatically. Historic reference didn’t have people and road densities. Wildlife in history didn’t have to deal with what they deal with today. We have to do things a little differently than what was on the landscape because of the manmade features there now. I don’t think deer should have to live in canyons because there’s no forage available on ridge tops. Or just under NOGO nests. Right now I think there’s a lot with zero understory; needle duff and closed canopies. We want some of I open. I’m a proponent of old growth, of openings, of edge habitat. If we’re going to create aggressive fire breaks, use topography or seeding effort for screening cover (That cover that will hide 90% of a deer’s body at 70 yards). Right now the only cover I have is tree trunks.

DR: If we get that nutrient cycling in, we know that New Mexican Locust fixes nitrogen and suddenly we increase cover.

TB: Other species to take the place. We’ve got aspens, we’ve got oaks. All those things exist. They exist around the fringes of the pure ponderosa. I’d like to encourage them in the interior of those stands. The way to do that is open up canopy cover. All about this, would like to see wildlife habitat as part of every one of these discussions. Deer, turkey, a full host of species will exist in openings and in old growth. Those treatments should have to fit into what’s good for wildlife.

TS: This is the time to talk about specific treatments. Wildlife doesn’t call for delineation of a single strata. We want them to utilize all habitat types and move freely among them

TB: The fine scale best represents what’s good for wildlife. Plan does a good job at the fine scale of delineating. We can’t lose the forest for the trees as we move into the other scales. Utah serviceberry and elderberry probably used to be more prevalent for wildlife populations. I know reseeding is costly and hard to implement but it’s important. Neat part about those species is that they are both forage and cover. Reflecting on what Dave and Ethan said, if we choose this ridge as a strategic location for a fire break, then provide screening cover. Realize that causes difficulties when we talk about ladder fuels. Crux of the issue for AZGFD. Need to maintain and encourage cover. In 22 road, there are areas where you can see 200 yards in between, and won’t see a deer or a turkey. No undercover there.

TH: Mule Deer Foundation agrees

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 82 AL: When open conditions, can maintain this. Also enhances of woody species, and we have partnership opportunities seed sources.

DR: Could retain trees in NOGO nest areas, reduce fully basal area in other areas, buffer between with pre commercial thin.

TB: Distinct openings. Fuel breaks, break things up.

AL: What we’re describing is group selection cuts

TS: Is there a consensus view that where anticipate more intensive treatments are conducted, varied structure and the creation of openings, rather than a consistent matrix, is desired?

RW: Yes, been doing group selection cuts. Also maintain other groups.

TS: Within areas maintained for NOGO nests and old growth patches, thin from below and outside those areas, it’d be group selection?

AL: In old growth areas, could use matrix thin. Leave largest oldest, within the suit of mature trees, do some density reduction. Target basal area to get density down. Beetle risk has a specific density threshold. All sizes thin except not removing oldest and largest trees.

GD: 100 BA with average diameter 10 inches plus. Specific high risk feature in ponderosa

RW: Each acre should save the largest, oldest trees per acre. Leave those on the landscape. AL: Guideline in the plan

EA: In predicted crown fire areas and places where basal area is greater than 100 and a certain number of trees in the VSS 3&4 category, then we implement aggressive reduction of VSS 3&4 and see what we get in regeneration openings.

AG: Able to close roads to the public for a while to give places rest for wildlife? DV: Under travel management plan TB: Wouldn’t support that. AL: Could here from NEPA standpoint but whether or not we want to…

PC: Can’t do group selections with a diameter cap. EA: Not proposing a cap. I was proposing a big change.

TS: Can we further refine the where and what?

RW: Might need to treat very intensively given the matrix with areas of importance for lighter treatments

SR: There are small areas especially in draws with beautiful rock formations. Should receive special treatment. Like Billy Sink and the canyon with Jolly Sink. Many where Kaibab Limestone forms cliffs. We should have some trees left on those. Treatments around areas like that to protect them from fire. High value scenic area, high recreational potential.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 83

TB: Many will fall in steep slopes and sensitive soils.

AL: High scenic integrity areas, retaining natural areas. Other high value areas include scenic, draws and sinks. Could draw some specific mitigation techniques.

TS: These considerations like high scenic areas and also likely archeological sites, they fit into that category of design criteria. We have general treatment guidelines. As we come across unique conditions, the general strategy would change to protect those area.

Right now we have a short list of treatment types but they’re applied in different ways and locations. Getting to sophisticated guidance but are there other treatment approaches that we need to consider on the landscape?

TB: Where we have an opportunity to do so, encourage regeneration stands proximal to roads. In places where we can afford to do so, encourage regeneration stands for cover.

TS: Cover to one is ladder fuels to another.

SS: What does “where we can afford to do so mean”

AL: Not immediately adjacent to old growth retention areas. Proximal to roads not proximal to high value older retention areas. Where they wouldn’t pose a threat to other resource values.

PC: Have to look at what % is being converted. If we’re looking at 3 age classes, could do thirds. Personally don’t think that we should convert more than 20%. In the black barks, not the yellows, I’m personally fine with that, though in the past we’ve converted the oldest to the youngest. From a long term uneven aged thing

AL: Also talk about interspace and rooting zones. Instead of fuel breaks per se, what about interspaces?

PC: Could we have deer screening in the interspaces?

TB: Encourage everywhere we could get it

AL: Interspaces are not treed areas, but have a robust understories

RW: Interspaces, group selection, need to specify certain size. Wouldn’t be larger than 4 acres, etc.

AL: Groups are 1 acre or less.

EA: When we’re not talking about fire management goals, we’re talking about restoration goals, I’d like to pitch thresholds that take advantage of research we have. I know there may not be time or money but look at patterns across the Powell plateau for data informed conversation. Or evidence on the ground. Can’t afford to do it on the ground. Don’t have a good sense of what the right size is.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 84

TS: We can do that with analysis. It’s clear that what we’d find on Powell plateau is a lot of heterogeneity and openings.

JM: Are sensitive soils going to get torched if they are fire only? AL: No mechanical thinning doesn’t mean like wilderness. Hand crews, chain saws, etc.

PC: Economics of it; in the areas we do agree we can cut, can use KV and stewardship to support other activities

GD reflected on the map of landscape strata projected on the board: In the Southwest corner we could have a problem with a start below the steep or sensitive areas. Is there work we can do to mitigate fire around there

PC: In terms of scheduling that would be a high priority area. That would be an early treatment. AL: In terms of strategically placed fuel treatments TS: Distinguish this in terms of other treatments. Might do different things in similar areas TB: This is a good direction. Takes into consideration geographic, topographic. Juxtaposition of treatments. That’s the most exciting part of the treatments EA: Only question- we’re looking at the boundary but I don’t know what’s happening outside right there. Can we check and see what’s outside the project areas- might flip us to different. TB: Garry’s concern could be mitigated because Bridger PC: And Holy Hollow

JR shared the fire map outside the Burnt Corral area which showed that there was less crown fire potential Southwest of the project area, but higher to the Northeast, emphasizing why this project area had been selected.

SS reviewed the options that had been generated for ponderosa and asked the group to get more specific: In old growth protected areas, we’ve discussed that there might be need for treatment. We’ve talked about thinning from below and matrix thins. We’ve also talked about interspaces and root zones.

TS: Managing for suite of characteristics. What treatments are warranted? AG: Some places have seen every inch of land has been processed. Want to make sure some places are just left alone. AL: When I think of matrix thinning, we’re not just cutting small up to a certain point but selecting from a range but not taking everything. Might still have an upper limit. Intent would be to not remove structural diversity. Old growth conditions are multi-storied. If you just thin from below, you’re sanitizing it. GD: If you’re only thinning from below, you’re just creating an even aged stand of old growth TS: Not saying in all areas we’d do thinning. We’re saying there might be conditions were ladder fuels or pockets of trees would designate mechanical treatments. SR: Yes, limited treatment

The group agreed that treatments in old growth areas could include matrix thinning in conditions where ladder fuels or other conditions would suggest limited mechanical treatments which did not remove structural diversity, but that more specific parameters were needed.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 85

JM: Creating snags? CH: Don’t feel like we should girdle trees TB: Hasn’t resulted in lasting snags CH: We’ll get those through fire

The group agreed that trees should not be girdled to create snags.

TB: Downed logs. Where are they coming from? AL: Some areas contain. Could protect with prescribed burning. Over time, snags will become downed logs. DV: Conditional statement: those areas will be managed as excluded under firewood harvest areas. Would have to implement or monitor. PC: Would be easy to add that, unless it's a small area AL: Where downed logs are not meeting desired conditions in old growth retention stands, use firing techniques more likely to retain the heavies

CH: Interested in putting bat barks in the Southern portion of BC near waters. AL: Could be done as part of this NEPA. Additional design feature?

EA: In terms of identifying those areas, I think if we identify 1800 acres deserving protection out of 30K, I think it will be received poorly. Give credit for what we’ve done with other management constraints on the landscape. Identify steep and sensitive, NOGO nests and old growth as the 10K where we’ll be doing light treatments and managing into the future for old growth. We talked about taking multiple lines of evidence and putting more work on topics. Need to look at existing stand data. Would like a half day with a smaller group. Would like to be part of it and for it to be an open conversations.

TS: Not necessarily at 10,000 acres protected; preliminary data. Don’t know which of the steep and sensitive have trees. But the spirit of what you’re saying is correct; much of this area has been restricted from mechanical treatment

SR: Forest plan says retain large trees everywhere? DV: To extent possible

TS: Difference between old growth areas and retention across landscape. For those who want to participate in a conversation about OG, we’ll schedule it.

JM: Does uneven aged management play into conversations with your constituencies?

EA: Desire to see larger patches manages for old growth conditions. Across landscape we need to clarify a large/old tree retention strategy for the remaining matrix in areas for group selection and uneven aged management. Gotten partway down that path

TS: Aggregate landscape statistics can address evenness AL: Use the word patch. Old growth protection and enhancement. Providing for future snags and down logs, providing future ones. On the landscape, need to more clearly identify where these patches would be.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 86

SS: I’ll add this to next steps- setting up a meeting on large trees AL: Can do remotely – USFS has video teleconference capabilities

EA: Need to compress LTRS into a ½ page. Will work to refine statement on whatever it looks like and what people can agree on. Could develop prior to the meeting

The group agreed that EA could develop initial large tree retention language for the group to respond to.

TS: This idea of large tree retention really applies to the areas where group selection could occur. How large are groups? How large are openings? AG: I think they should vary. Don’t want a cookie cutter landscape. AL: Agreed TS: How would it vary? We can run with it but want to capture sense of the group. AG: Min max, set a range. Leave patches; should not be overly managed. Don't want to see every inch of the landscape treated.

TH: From wildlife benefit, Todd should probably identify where the openings should be. Need the LTRS and to see what was on the ground. TS: Can write out what we’re going to do and take it down the road, but have to go out and mark trees as a way of learning and saying what does this really look like. Could be a 2015 intention. AL: Don’t need that specific of details for a proposed action but should talk about for implementation. Hope this an ongoing collaboration

TS volunteered to come up with starter ideas on variation within group selection areas, and the group agreed to this approach.

DV: Old forest plan had 4 acres max, no more than 200 ft wide. Some retention trees. AL: Some data with The Nature Conservancy that mapped resettlement evidence, have some average group sizes

SS will follow up with AL to get this information.

TS reviewed progress and asked about the combination of mechanical treatments and fire treatments: What are the crosslinkages? We’re preparing the landscape for fire, we can use it to achieve treatment objectives. Any guidance on how to combine most efficiently?

JM: From a product value, fire should follow mechanical DR: From risk management, need flexibility before and after. Have seen areas where fire was excluded in pre-mechanical treatment. There is risk associated with suppressing fires in those areas. Also, timelines can be drawn out getting mechanical treatments on the ground. My recommendation is that it’s a decision that should be made during implementation, and the proposed action should give us the flexibility to do before or after mechanical treatment.

PC: I agree. Should have multiple entries for fire under this NEPA. Silvicultural prescription that protects those timber characteristics. We can play that out in prescriptions.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 87

TB: Not particularly concerned. Want to design frequency of managed fire or wildland fire to maximize productivity of the system.

DV: Consider multiple entries; this is a 10 year EA so may need fire early on, then mechanical treatment, and maintenance fires later.

The group agreed that wildland fire should be implemented in conjunction with mechanical treatments, and that the timing should be flexible (pre or post mechanical treatment). Can include multiple fire entries for maintenance over the 10 year life of the EIS

The following concerns and provisions were shared regarding the interface of soil, productivity and treatment intensity - SR: Need to get nutrients in the soil and keep them there. Should make sure treatments have low impact on soil - TB: Fire intervals influence productivity. Have some language to address this - SR: After fire intervals are more like historic conditions, size and frequency need to shrink. Want to replicate historical conditions as soon as we can

EA: Have to leave early. This is feeling more productive and exciting to me than any other collaborative planning process I’ve been a part of over 15 years. Spectacular. Thanks for managing it, and for the support of the district. I think we’re heading in a really good direction. When draft PA comes together, if we’re not there, however that is determined, I think it would be worth everyone’s time to come together one more time. Not talking about a million meetings, not sure what’s in the contact, but if we can get from 80% agreement to 100% agreement with another meeting once the proposed action is fully developed, I see it as worth the time and cost.

TS: Willing to do that if asked to. Currently have a lot to do between now and December. Have a lot of feedback and guidance now. Assuming we will an imperfect draft, I think we can still make a big leap. Appreciate willingness to invest time beyond that. I think most of us would be willing to invest more time if we get pretty far down the road

TS turned the conversation towards wildlife habitat characteristics.

TB: Mule deer guidelines- will send to Sasha who will share with group

TS: We’ve collected a lot of guidance. Wildlife considerations that don’t play into treatment guidance per se but need clarity for design criteria, may influence how treatments are designed. We’ve wrestled MSO and NOGO but there are a lot of things we haven’t mentioned. Can we tie this into our consideration of aspen, oak, other vegetation? Maybe we can tackle together

PC: Not many meadows TB: Outside project area, aspen has been stimulated, within project area, oak not a huge issue. Lots in Bridger fire area.

In unburned ponderosa pine, enhance and retain existing stands of oak. As long as we won’t don’t cut >10 inch oak, I’m comfortable. Very comfortable with plan wording for aspen, oak and

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 88 wildlife. For small aspen stands, maybe can formulate group selections to stimulate aspen. If we manage ponderosa around oak and aspen to encourage, I’m good

AL: Last field trip on the final stop, saw conifer encroaching aspen. Could we do some aspen release in the plan? White fir, ponderosa. The shade tolerant species. Aspen isn’t in trouble on the N. Kaibab, do we want to include?

GD: Opportunity in what Todd said. Could place group cuts to expand aspen. Many black jack areas have aspen. Coming in post commercial treatment.

TS: Seems like more aspen to the south TB: Probably due to the elevation in the project area

AL: Cave and karst features. Design feature- buffers around karst features. Important wildlife habitat. Include “protection of any cave and karst features within project area managed with buffers from heavy equipment”

TS shared initial wildlife objectives from the NKRD

CH: Analysis will include migratory birds, squirrels TB: I like this list. Would add discussion about water distribution. Cassie and I are going to do an analysis of water distributions. Through KV funds, could look at renovating existing wildlife waters and even making new ones.

PC: Would need to have it in the proposed action.

TB: Westlake is the only natural water. TS: Would it be diverted? That’s a concern with livestock TB: No. AL: For squirrels the major interest is maintaining interlocking crowns as a structural component. Need some squirrel language. TB: Beauty of group selecting is we’ll be able to provide this type of habitat CH: If nest area isn’t active, see lots of squirrel

TS shared the recommendations provided by the Mohave Sportsmen Club

TB: Feel like we have these recommendations covered; turkey come out well on this project Don Martin: Deer are glamourous species but we can’t turn our backs on the other species. Need all wildlife to be managed AG: What is soft and hard mast? DM: Different foods; acorns, pine nuts. Different needs. TS: Consistent with diversification of the understory and trying to keep in mind not just herbaceous understory but shrub layer, and shrub layer that produces food. DM: Poults need viable insect food

TS: While we recognize preparing the landscape to restore fire, using fire as a lot for management tool, there are concerns about indiscriminant use of fire, even prescribed and controlled can have unintended consequences. Need attention so that we move slowly towards

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 89 desired condition, but now mechanical treatments are allowing us to get there more quickly. Can capture that sentiment in the prose part of the PA. Make it clear why we’re recommending what we are.

DM: I think our concerns are really addressed. We’re looking at things differently, but same outcomes

PC: Slash piles and unlopped slash for nesting sites?

TB: Often post-treatment, until we get a vegetation response we have an open understory. Slash piles have been proven to provide cover for turkey. Retaining post treatment until we get herbaceous and browse response can be valuable.

PC: What kind of piles? TB: A pile is a pile. At least 17 inches tall. AL: We have some standards for timing of pile burning for scenic integrity. Deviations OK but have to cover the logic

TB: Given group selection conversation, may be limited need GD: How many per acre? TB: I’ll think about it, get back to you GD: Totally do-able PC: Work with fire AL: Less issue in lower scenic integrity areas. PC: Probably not around 22 or 25 roads, but otherwise SR: Could put out signs to start educating the public. “If you like turkeys, you like slash piles.”

TS: We’ve been talking about important side conversations. We’ve worked through a lot of big issues, can take a stab at the draft. Some side conversations involving several of us, if they go somewhere, make sure they are incorporated if appropriate. Identify these areas where there are important issues that need some development.

We haven’t really talked about how the treatments are going to be done, paid for and whose going to do it. We have to keep that in our minds so that we don’t create something that is unrealistic to implement. It can’t be the driver of the plan, but when it comes to doing the work, it is the driver. Be aware that the consideration has to come in, but we have to know what tools to use.

Next steps TS shared the timeline the LCI has for proceeding to a proposed action:

 Meeting #2 summary shared by 11/10  LCI will craft language for proposed actions and calculate approximate treatment acres in coordination with NKRD  Proposed action draft language by week of 11/24; send out for stakeholder and NKRD comments  Comments due by 12/5 (2 weeks). LCI will collate and refine final report  Dec 15 Submit report to NKRD (deadline in LCI’s SOW) and share with stakeholders

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 90

TS acknowledged the additional new steps of a ½ day meeting on large trees and addressed the request for an additional meeting after the proposed action is drafted: It’s really Randall’s call with how comfortable everyone is with moving forward. Our contract is to deliver final report by 12/15. Others have talked about an additional meetings. Our target right now is delivering what we’ve committed to.

DV talked about the process of moving from this proposed action into NEPA: Next process once Randall blesses the PA, its put out for public comment. Comment period is 30 days. Announcement will be sent out to 120 organizations. Will evaluate comments to see if there are key issues that need to be addressed. If so, the interdisciplinary team and forest will step back and may come back to the group at that time if there was something that we didn’t address in this process. That will be Randall’s call. The Environmental Assessment comes out after analysis. Proposed action, no action and any alternatives that come out after comment. Right now feel like EA is warranted. If there are key issues we can’t resolve or are very controversial, can kick it up to an EIS, but

JM: What’s the calendar? DV: Lots of fieldwork to be done. Stand data and archeology. Want to scope in January. Depends on how this goes. A year or so- January 2016 for final EA? RW: We want to do it as quickly as possible, but we’ve got to do the analysis. As soon as that’s done, we’ll move. DV: Can’t sign decision notice until all consultations are done. USFWS and the SHIPO office. RW: My intent is to take this through the process as the preferred alternative. Hopefully we don’t have analyze other alternatives AG: Is there still a requirement to reach out to people who comment and notify them of decision DV: If they request it. Some organizations have already requested. We don’t have to do legal notice but we publish in newspaper of record which is AZ Daily Sun. JM: Can we request Utah news as well? RW: Yes.

Closing remarks TS invited any closing comments or lingering thoughts from meeting participants:

Connie Reid: Will be meeting with tribes to talk about this. Interest in plants. Dogbane species is in the project area. Will share cultural plants of value. Consider putting heritage treatments; could be more proactive. Over in Bridger area there are pueblos. Would be nice to have proactive opportunity to protect these areas

TS: Plant issues could be incorporated as a placeholder in design criteria as specificity becomes greater.

TH: Pleasure to be able to work with a diverse group. Mule deer is the only ungulate in North America that's failing right now. North Kaibab not such a problem but if there’s any way to help all the wildlife, I think that’s what we’re supposed to do as mankind.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 91 TB: Interested in whole suite of species on the landscape. Feel comfortable that all species will be represented, which really pleases me. As someone who has been involved in collaborations in 22 years, some of them incredibly laborious, we’ve arrived at a lot of agreement really quickly. It’s been an intriguing format, worked pretty well. Excited about discussions and shifts in approach. May provide a template for further efforts

AG: Same. Thank you, this has been a good collaborative experience. Enjoyed getting to know some of you. Amazing by how much consensus we do have. Hope details go as smoothly.

BK: Please send out powerpoint presentation from this meeting

SS: Back in September we said we wouldn’t be holding hangs and singing Kumbaya around the trees but we hoped we could reach some agreement. Done a great job and it’s been a pleasure to be a part of it. Have really enjoyed the civil and congenial conversations

TS: Thanks for hanging in there. Faster, but still 2 days out of your life. Hope I didn’t push too hard. Sometimes you feel like you’re not making progress but sometimes it all suddenly comes into focus. We’re not totally there, but way down the road. Plenty to go on in the drafting process. Warn you that before we distribute draft, may be contacting you to make sure we’re dialing it in right.

JM: NKRD is to be complimented for being forward looking on this process. Graphics and modeling help us be able to look at it. If you do another project like this, I’ll come back. New forest plan is a huge improvement over the last.

AL: I’ve told a lot of people we were going to get to a proposed action in 3 days and faced a lot of skepticism. Hope when this goes out we can share a short summary of the process. Hopefully we’re all dialed in and can sign our support on and make an endorsement, assuming we’re all there, share the process and collaborative support. May help down the road.

SR: We’ve learned a lot.

CH: Early in my wildlife career, appreciate other’s sharing their knowledge

RW: Appreciation to everyone who showed up and humored me with my short timeline. Got a lot of things I want to do before I retire and we’ve got a lot of work to do, can’t spend it all in meetings. Thanks to staff for coming, all the stakeholders, and facilitators. People said we couldn’t do it but I think we can and we’re going to move this forward.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 92 Attachment A: MSO desired conditions and proposed treatments from NKRD

The existing conditions of the 358 acres of mixed conifer meet Recovery Habitat conditions under the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (First Revision 2012). The key owl habitat elements in the Recovery Plan are hardwoods, large snags (18” DBH), large downed logs (18” diameter at any point), and large trees (>18” DBH). The following table provides data on tree size and BA for the whole stand, even if the stand lies partially within the Burnt Corral project area (Table 1).

Table 1 Stand data for whole stands that may lie partially or wholly within the Burnt Corral project area: trees per acre (TPA), Basal Area (BA), Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Stand ID TPA >18” DBH BA all trees BA 12-18” DBH BA >18” DBH Acres of stand within Burnt Corral 307030030790025 25 197 24 44 94.29 307030030920013 15 181 25 25 12.7 307030030360010 38 153 9 73 0.36 307030030790024 31 161 17 57 41.26 307030030790028 18 199 16 30 147.88 307030030920012 21 150 20 50 47.67 307030030790029 13 100 70 30 14.59

The Recovery Plan provides quantitative conditions for Recovery nesting/roosting habitat but there is no nesting/roosting habitat within the Burnt Corral project boundary. The Recovery Plan provides qualitative conditions for Recovery Habitat that resemble the desired conditions under the Forest Plan. Desired conditions in the Forest Plan under the mid-scale for frequent fire mixed conifer suggest basal area be between 30 to 100 square feet per acre with larger trees contributing the greatest percent of the basal area. The desired conditions under the Forest Plan retain key owl habitat elements (snags, downed logs, large trees) although some may be lost in the short-term to protect the stands in the longer-term. Objectives for the 358 acres of Recovery Habitat in Burnt Corral are to reduce the potential for active crown fire and improve stand condition to provide for large tree growth. Both of these attributes will require mechanical thinning of smaller diameter trees and ladder fuels. The removal of trees 12” DBH or greater may be necessary if the trees pose a risk for crown fire and to reduce impacts of insects and disease. Another treatment to reduce fuel loading and to increase stand health (i.e. nutrient recycling) would be to burn, either prescribed and/or naturally ignited.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder meeting #2: Oct. 22-23, 2014 93 DRAFT AGENDA Burnt Corral Collaborative Vegetation Management Project Working Session Wednesday, November 19th, 2014 Fredonia, AZ and Flagstaff, AZ via Video Teleconferencing

1:00-1:30 Welcome, Introductions and Background  Review and finalize agenda items to cover at this meeting  Review progress to this point and purpose of the meeting

1:30-2:30 Discuss large tree retention across the project area

2:30-3:30 Discuss work on identification of old growth patches, and refining treatment recommendations

3:30-4:00 Discuss more specific parameters and guidelines for group selection cuts

4:00-4:30 Wrap up, next steps and adjourn

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 94 Meeting Notes Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Working Session November 19th, 2014 Flagstaff, AZ and Fredonia, AZ Video Teleconference

Summary On November 19th, 2014, a working session was held to further address some key issues for the Burnt Corral proposed action. The meeting was conducted by video teleconference between the North Kaibab Ranger District office in Fredonia, AZ and the Coconino National Forest supervisor’s office in Flagstaff, AZ. Several participants also joined by phone. Meeting attendees were:

Flagstaff- Ariel Leonard, Tom Sisk, Jill Rundall, Sasha Stortz, Ed Grumbine, Todd Schulke, Alicyn Gitlin, Bill Austin, Ethan Aumack Fredonia- Jim Matson, Melissa Robinson, David Vincelette, Cassie Hageman, Samatha Flores, Paul, Todd Buck, Randall Walker, Garry Domis, Joseph Varnado, Jim Koons Telephone- Byard Kershaw, Katherine Davis

The meeting primarily focused on the request brought forth at previous meetings to develop a large tree retention strategy for the project. The specifics of such a strategy were discussed in detail. The NAU Landscape Conservation Initiative will work to refine language as part of the draft proposed action language; all stakeholders, including NKRD, will then have the opportunity to comment on the language. The group also reviewed status on identification of old growth patches, and refined language for the “remaining” ponderosa pine areas.

Meeting Notes

Welcome, Introduction and Background

Tom Sisk welcomed everyone: This is an “extra” meeting we agreed to hold as we work through large tree meeting. Main issues to work out- large tree retention across the landscape, and how we identify and define patches managed for old growth characteristics- ecosystem level characteristics in stands with a dominant component of old trees. This is what led to the desire to convene this. A few people are new to the process.

Tom Sisk reviewed Burnt Corral in the context of the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF), and reviewed background on the project so far, including project goals and definitions of success.

Todd Schulke I’ve read meeting notes, one thing that I don’t understand is why we’re in such a hurry on this. Incredibly short timeframe. Working out issues in a place people care about. After surviving 10 years of 4FRI, can understand desire to move quickly, but this seems very rushed. There are unique issues on the Kaibab that deserve more discussion. Tom has talked with Sharon and Robin. Feels like we’re in a rush to resolve issues not sure we can in this short of a time frame. There’s an opportunity- why is it moving quickly?

Tom Sisk my perspective is I view this as a continuation of the KFHF. The intent and momentum generated in that process. This effort has been happening for 6 years. There is an administrative

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 95 contractual element that keeps us on point and moving people forward on the proposed action (PA) because we accepted the invitation of the NKRD and the responsibility to develop a draft by the end of this calendar year. We’ve been trying to stick to that timeline because it's the effort we can put forward. Doesn’t mean the process ends there, but means we need to get to a good preliminary product. There is a real timeline we need to meet, but what the group and forest service does with that draft is for the group to decide.

Randall Walker: I agree with that. Continuation of the KFHF, been 6 years in the making. Timeframe is we’ve had three meetings, and I think we’re getting pretty close to agreement. So this is the timeline we’re following, hopefully we can find that zone where we are agreeing.

Todd: Is the intent to move this forward through NEPA with one alternative

Ariel Leonard: Goal is to have a proposed action that everyone can move forward. Will go forward into scoping so if there are issues not addressed by PA, alternatives will be generated through the NEPA process. Not deviating from NEPA, would like to address as many issues as possible up front.

Tom reviewed definition of success for the project. Goal of one alternative may not be attainable but if it is, reduces complexity of analysis and gets us to a place where things can move forward more quickly. If not possible, we want to strive for agreement. Tom reviewed accomplishments of the collaborative, and decisions so far.

Jill Rundall reviewed landscape strata and proposed treatments including draft acreage

Larry Whelan: Where is Kaibab squirrel habitat?

AL most of the project area, minus Bridger Fire and Mexican Spotted Owl habitat. Within National Landmark for the squirrel so we’ll specifically address it when we talk about the management areas that the project overlaps.

LW introduced self – Friends of the Kaibab Squirrel. We support and want healthy forest management. We would like to consider habitat needs and monitor populations.

Tom please hold that idea in the forefront as we talk about what might be done mechanically in the grey and pink area of this map. Looking at greater heterogeneity

JR shared acreages from previous map. (NOTE: These were revised after the meeting).

Tom: So our approach today is to identify options, refine recommendations, and focus in on these if-then statements. If these conditions exist, then we’ll take this particular approach. This mapping is to refine ideas and test concepts, but the result at this stage is number of acres in different treatment types. The acres aren’t locked in until after analysis.

We’ve probably spent more time on the issue of old growth patches, but need to talk about large tree retention across the project area. This could take the bulk of the meeting and more, but we’re going to take it and dive into it. Ethan agreed to start with the 4FRI Large Tree

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 96 Retention Strategy (LTRS) and incorporate into that the unique characteristics of forests on the North Kaibab.

Ethan Aumack: This has been subject of much debate. At the beginning of 4FRI, we identified the key make-or-break issues, where we needed some direction or resolution on in 4FRI. A long process to develop the 4FRI Path Forward that addressed old growth protection and large tree retention- 34 page document was developed. I fleshed this out into a short statement for Burnt Corral. Most of the document provides specificity for exception categories stipulating where or when large trees could be cut. Old growth is easy to define. We felt as a group that we wouldn’t cut old trees except with specific clear categories, exceptional circumstances.

Tom: How did you define?

EA: No specifications. We didn’t get into a discussion of appearance. Left it at any Old resettlement trees won’t be cut; you know it when you see it.

RW: Are you talking about Burnt Corral or 4FRI?

EA: Just reviewing short description of 4FRI. I have a suggested approach for Burnt Corral. Large trees occupied the most significant part of the discussion and the document. Basic approach we took was recognizing the importance of large trees, agreeing as a group that large trees defined in that document as trees >16 dbh would be retained across the landscape except under certain circumstances. Discussed the circumstances (exceptions) at great length. We agreed in that process that the WUI, large trees could be cut, and outside, when those certain circumstances were met. When it came to cutting large trees, felt that it should be based on ecological, not economic reasons. There was no call to reconsider, and it hasn’t been. So we tried to line out those ecological characteristics

Here’s what I’d suggest as a beginning for the conversation in a Burnt Corral conversation. I have a preamble paragraph and then three suggested approaches to old and large trees: 1) Significant portions of the project areas are left untouched because of steep slopes or soil characteristics, old growth protection and recruitment sites recognized to contain old growth structure, composition and function. 2) Outside of these areas, old growth and large trees will be protected with the following exceptions: public safety, operational considerations, large contiguous areas not impacted by logging where severe fire is predicted. In these areas, downed old logs remain on site. 3) Across entirety of project area, large trees >16 will be retained except when biological and ecological objectives can’t be met. Collaborative mapping should be used to identify these cases.

When we’ve discussed this before, we’ve discussed that some aspects of the LTRS can’t carryover into this project area. That may be a shared view, but if we went to each exception, there are numeric thresholds. The question isn’t whether numeric thresholds are consistent across the south and north rim, the question is first is there support for this basic approach: we’d retain large trees except in agreed upon, general ecological circumstances described here.

Need to discuss if this is an approach we can support. There wasn’t a collaborative mapping exercise in 4FRI and those exceptions were mapped across the project area. I think there’s an opportunity after NEPA to more collaboratively identify those areas on the landscape. The

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 97 approach we used in 4FRI which was in part the LRTS, in part the subset of stands with a preponderance of large trees, allowed us hopefully to get close to consensus on a million acre project. Not insubstantial. So, I tried to translate over what we did in 4FRI, and our discussions so far and offer up an approach that we could use. Just speaking for myself, but could see significant agreement.

Tom: To summarize, general approach is to identify a threshold tree size and a set of exceptions. Trees greater than this size will be retained except particular exceptions. In our previous discussions, starting on the field trip, we talked about two things as being different on the North Kaibab. One is the definition of large. So 16” threshold (not a cap), a lot of people discussed whether that was too small on the North Kaibab because there are a lot more large trees. It’s almost the same issue as the second part. There is a large area of the project area that is subject to high fire risk. So I hear we retain identifying a threshold and exceptions, but parameters and threshold itself would be open to discussion now.

EA: That’s fair. Number 2.3 is meant to get at a different question than we’ve dealt with before. That whole statement gets at the crux issue. I propose that we confront that issue with some analysis at some point.

TS: The larger the threshold, the smaller the proportion of the landscape likely to be an exception. They’re related. The conceptual approach is to identify the threshold and cases of exceptions. They’re not independent, because there is a structural characteristic that varies across the landscape. It will have an influence on how fires behave. If we take this approach, we could have a larger or smaller threshold and a greater or lesser proportion of the landscape that is an exception. Want to make that point so that we don’t discuss them completely independently

AL: Biodiversity exceptions. In this particular area, we don’t have a lot of wet areas, seeps, springs and riparian. Maybe a few sink holes. Those specifications may be minor. We do have aspen and oak. One of the other things we talked about was that we didn’t see a lot of healthy understory in areas with large dense areas, also, bark beetle. Stand density index is directly correlated with understory health. Not just about fire, it’s about understory biodiversity too. Want to make sure we don’t just focus on fire but also on healthy ecosystems. So old growth retention helps protect something that is an important niche of the North Kaibab. But looking at the landscape at the project level, we do want to have uneven aged management – we want to be making progress towards plans desired conditions. If I read this directly, I feel like there’s very little we could do to make progress towards desired conditions in new forest plan. And if we’re not making progress, no point in doing a planning progress. Big investment here in terms of planning and time. We need to open it up a little more.

Tom Sisk: We’re talking about a substantial project area. Don’t want to constrain ourselves that we can’t get to a place where 10 years from now we’re already worried about a fire moving through this landscape.

LW: A 16” tree if healthy can be a young tree. What do you do if you have two 16” trees 4 ft from each other? Would suggest higher than 16”

AL: Think there’s very little progress we could make with 16” even if it's a threshold.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 98

EA: Not a cap- there’s a lot of room for discussion. Value of setting forth the exceptions was to characterize and systematize the manner in which decisions were made for large tree cutting. It wasn’t too long ago when cutting large trees was inherently economic. I don’t think we’re there anymore, personally. The value is creating a structure and a systematized way of justifying when large trees can be cut. This isn’t saying no work will be done. Its characterizing a special set of circumstances and a planning system for cutting large trees, recognizing that a vast majority of the problem we’re seeing is in the smaller tree realm. Healthy understory I agree with. But to be extreme we could have a very healthy understory by cutting all trees. How do we balance quantity and quality? We can have reference sites that can give us some guidance in the under and over story dynamic. I think we can all agree we’d like it to look like around Fire Point. We’re not that far on significant portions of the North Kaibab. Regarding bark beetle- if we’ve done enough and the right kind of work in the woods, bark beetle can take its rightful place as a natural process. If we haven’t done that work, its’ an unnatural influence. If we can put it aside and come back to it at the end as a way to check if we’ve done enough for the scale of impact.

AL: To do enough for bark beetle to be natural, we have to think about stand density. Nest areas and old growth will have higher density. Then at the landscape level we have to reduce density sufficiently outside of those places.

TS: Keeping the conversation moving- the way Ethan has suggested structuring this, we have a threshold and exceptions; the thought process has a sequence. The smaller the threshold, the more exceptions and vice versa. We don’t want to get caught up arguing one side or the other. Its discussing the balance, and moving the language forward to achieve what we are here to achieve. So this logical structure is one proposal that we haven’t yet adopted, let’s see if we have agreement for this approach. A threshold, not a cap, but triggers considerations and a deeper look at the implication in a particular place. Want comments on if that conceptual approach is where we’re headed before we get into specifics. Since we’ve been talking a lot in this room, want to hear from Fredonia.

RW: I understand what EA put together. 16” is too small. We still need to do uneven aged management, talk about the openings we talked about at the last meeting. We’ve kind of regressed back. We still need to do uneven aged management. We’re down to about 30% of the project area to make openings and do treatment. We need to make progress.

TS: Are you proposing a different approach to the threshold exception logic? You’re proposing a larger threshold

RW: Yes, and understanding how much of the landscape we’re actually treating

TS: Old tree issue has to do with age, and large has to do with size. Threshold is for large trees.

RW: 24”

GD: Would focus on black jack areas

AL: The way we set the plan up was we have those trees that provide the structure- those are already retained except with some of those operational exceptions. We need to use that as one

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 99 sideboard. Then we have another guideline that says, because the desire is for uneven aged management, generally oldest and largest trees on a site are maintained. The place where the older larger cohort are generally on the South side places where we don’t have old trees. On the North Kaibab I don’t see a lot of areas where we need to retain large young trees, because we have the old trees. I would propose that except when there is a lacking of the older, larger trees that we would have no diameter cap on post-settlement trees unless they’re really lacking on a site. I can’t see a lot of circumstances where we would need to retain large post-settlement trees except where large old trees are lacking

TS: Trying to respond to the interests of moving forward. We’re moving backwards a little. I don’t hear anyone proposing a cap. There is a relationship between threshold and exceptions. We could have a 3 inch cap and the whole landscape would be an exception. If we want to explore the territory where we are trying to minimize the number of alternatives, we may be getting to the place of talking about multiple alternatives. We’ve talked about this issue a lot, we’ve thrown numbers around. People are showing cards right now, so would people be more comfortable moving to multiple alternatives, or if we want to work towards bringing them together in the interests of staying with one proposed action.

Ed Grumbine: This is a complex issue and not everyone sees it the same way. We’ve set up a quick process which Todd was questioning us about at the beginning. Our tie is limited this afternoon but in a collaboration it doesn’t work unless everyone has a chance to speak. There’s a tension between time management and the fact that the complexity of the issue requires us to discuss more. Moving forward, maybe two alternatives are where we need to go, but I don’t think we’ve given ourselves enough time yet to see if we can come up with one alternative. I’d like to hear from people before we decide if there’s more alternatives

Alicyn Gitlin: Maybe there is a tiered approach. If we feel we can’t meet objectives with this LTRS, then maybe there’s a percentile that we go to. I’ve seen places where the dog hair thickets were kept and the large trees were cut. That's not what we want to see. I’d like to see a way forward where if protecting 20” trees isn’t possible, we’re committing to protect X percentile of large and old on the landscape.

LW: Bottom line concept should be healthy forest management.

Todd Buck: Got to be a discussion on the preponderance of trees on the landscape. It starts to appear to me that we’re backing away from goals of uneven aged management, openings, etc. in exchange for single species management- a tree of X size. I would like to reiterate that AGFD is interested in a healthy forest. A mosaic. A diversity of species. And if sustaining that means cutting 20 inch trees, there’s probably 20 inch trees we can cut.

AL: Focus on what we leave, not what we take out. What’s the desired endpoint? After doing the field visits we’re not lacking large trees except on the Bridger Knoll area. Let’s focus on the endpoint and how to get there

Tom Sisk: Healthy forests are driving this- that’s the objective. Large tree issue is a potential sticking point. Trying to make it less of a sticking point is the purpose of this collaborative. I think we’re in agreement on the endpoint- a healthy forest. I tend to look at this in an analytical lens.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 100 Look at practical and pragmatic ways that we can get to our objective, a healthy forest, benefitting biodiversity, fire.

Todd Schulke: We don’t actually agree on what a healthy forest is. The GTR 310 definition of successful restoration was done in a black box, nobody from the outside participated. Don’t want to derail this whole thing, but based on the conversation right now, I don’t see where the agreement is. We didn’t resolve this in 4FRI outside of NEPA.

Tom Sisk: I’d still argue that if we can get a good start through a proposed action, NEPA will be more effective

Ethan Aumack: Don’t want to get stuck on one perspective, one approach. I have some thoughts about how that approach doesn’t get us stuck in the way people are suggesting it might. It got us across a million acres to a consensus place with the forest service getting 95% of what they wanted. So give it a good consideration.

We’re getting stuck on this approach. Can we imagine that we walk out to Fire Point or Powell Plateau and agree that’s what we want to head towards? There’s variability, but we have a unique opportunity. We didn’t have reference conditions on the south side, that’s where this became some complicated. So that’s another approach getting away from thresholds and moving to desired future conditions with data staring us in the face. Let’s take advantage of that kind of target.

AL: Let’s find some area we can live with. In the end, Randall will make a decision, and even if we have alternatives that span the globe there’s only one alternative that will be selected. I’d like it to have as much “we’ll live with it” agreement and best meet diverse interests.

What if we took some sort of threshold, like 20” and then we talked about what between 20-24 and 16-20 and took 16-24 as the outer bounds? We don’t want to completely eliminate our next generations. We may not be able to have a healthy forest if we just focus on all the young trees. Want to be thoughtful. So what if we took 20 inches as a midpoint and worked as exceptions both above and below?

TS: What does exceptions in both directions mean?

AL: In an instance where you don’t have larger trees represented, we might make the maximum size to be cut on a particular site. If we stratified for the remaining almost 13k acres and our desire is to have uneven aged ponderosa conditions in that area, maybe a portion or percentage maximum size is 16, but on another percentage, 24. You can’t have all things all places. We know we want a mosaic. We want some areas to be more open and denser, and all size classes to be represented. Whether or not we break down further this 13k acres, we could have

Dave Vincelette: I think Ariel is steering us right. There are metrics in the plan for basal area. Would be in conflict with our plan at the midscale. Wouldn’t be able to make progress at 16”

EA: This is not a diameter cap. This is a threshold beyond which you have to justify based on ecological criteria, why you’re cutting a larger tree. Not to make it too easy for you, but you justify it, using those criteria, and then you can cut it. That’s the process. It’s an imperfect

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 101 conversation and won’t resolve all the issues, because it comes down to prescriptions in the end, and conversations about what the prescriptions are. But you’re getting hung up on the notion that you can’t do anything, but you’re not hearing the exceptions. In 4FRI most area fit into exceptions. It can only take us so far and I’m loosing interest in the approach because its not getting us anywhere, but there’s a fundamental misunderstanding. In 4FRI there are large trees being cut. The basic idea is that there are criteria and it has to be justified.

Todd Schulke: I actually like Ethan’s idea. We do have places up there where I’d challenge anybody to show why they’re not healthy. We hold them up as shining examples of what the forest should be. It’s less formulaic than what is in the forest plan. We don’t agree with the forest plan but do agree with doing a significant amount of work on the ground. When I think about the objective, I think about the biggest intact forest, like in the Gila, which just withstood a huge fire. Let the intact places, the references drive what we do. References can be so abstract and base don 1878, but Powell Plateau and Fire Point and Gila Wilderness are functioning ecosystems now.

TS: So in the interests of moving towards a proposed action, Ethan put one option on the table, there’s some discomfort with it. Using historical reference conditions might be preferred to the process that's being used during the 4FRI.

Todd: What’s there now, as opposed to some historical reconstruction.

RW: Never said I didn’t like Ethan’s approach, but it needs to be different for the North Kaibab. I like AG’s point of saving the largest trees on the acres. 16”, 20”, 24” doesn’t make any difference, there’s just exceptions. I can live with what Ethan is proposing to move it along.

DV: I’d like to look at specific language before it’s adopted by the group and refine it before it’s adopted fully.

TS: We’ve got a few options on the table. Reference conditions, thresholds, are there others? For the proposed action, want to at least understand the range of options. It’s a tough issue that’s going to take more back and forth, but I don’t think we’re near step 1 either. We’re pretty far down the road. Any other ideas?

One piece to note- we haven’t heard any disagreement about old trees. However defined, old trees are going to be retained.

AL: Should better define old trees. At what age is a tree an old tree?

LW: Diameter. Stands as examples. Idea of stand management based on similar topography, stocking. Use that as a guideline stand by stand rather than one big prescription.

AG: A lot of old trees on the North Kaibab that aren’t necessarily large. Regardless of size, some old trees are ecologically important- looser bark for critters, branch structure. I don’t necessarily think those trees are overstocked. Older trees pre-fire suppression shouldn’t be eliminated.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 102 AL: What approximate age are you talking? When we developed alternative C for the plan, interest was in retaining old trees, we heard between 120 and 150 years old. We ended up developing alternative at 120 years old. Is that what we’re still talking about?

AG: We’re not going to core every tree. I’d go by structural characteristics. Yellow bark, large plates, flat top. The structure.

AL: That’s in the vegetation retention for the plan. That’s an existing sideboard.

AG: Would like to see it reiterated in the proposed action

EG: I like Ethan’s idea cause he’s my boss. It could be tweaked. The old growth is pretty straightforward. On the 4FRI model, we have 100% consensus that old trees would be retained. Then we have large trees, that’s what we’ve been struggling with. In 4FRI there is a model. I think we might have differences on what the exceptions might be. Let’s not just focus on large or old trees, but think more ecologically- snags, coarse woody debris, and the structural characteristics that as a package make old growth. Consider the suite of old growth characteristics. I think we’re making good progress. Would like to use Ethan’s general framework even as we might hash out details

Tom: We do have these design criteria, which can address things like snags, issues applied general across the landscape, so I think we should retain that point about characteristics. And then after a break, we need to come back to some idea of patches for old growth protection. And then discuss techniques for getting the heterogeneity and structure. Sounds like NKRD can live with a large tree retention strategy and we can work to put something initial forward for comment.

AL: I think the real work to be done is the matrix outside the light treatment areas. Less disagreement about patches maintaining for old growth. There are old components to retain

The group took a short break, then reconvened.

Tom: Transitioning to a few other issues to address. Here’s where we are with old growth patches- I think we’ve covered it sufficiently but want to go through it quickly. In Kanab, we were tasked with identifying candidate patches for retaining. We discussed some data driving ways. We’ve started down that pathway, but we’re facing data challenges. We can base this all on LCI data, at some time we may be able to access stand data to evaluate those patches, and we’ll play that by ear. Lidar is instructive but the products haven’t been developed to the point that they can be used. We’ll move forward. We don’t have access to new data sources so suggest we keep moving on discussion, knowing that some candidate patches will be identified.

AL: Only suggestion is to do a little bit of an overlay. Comfortable with 30m pixel stuff developed by the lab but at least grab Lidar tallest trees and look at if there are areas with more confidence.

Tom Sisk: We aren’t making any final boundary or area designations. We’re using spatial analysis as a way to identify number of acres, but where they are will be in the analysis period

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 103 and hopefully we then will be able to validate, refine, and probably change where those areas might be. Spatial analysis at this stage is a means to the end, not the end itself.

Bill Austin: Whats the problem with Lidar?

Tom Sisk: Data hasn’t yet been fully finalized.

JR: Ground data acquired to validate is still being used.

AL: Done but not released. Collected training data, modeling was done, they were near delivery, they said they’d share when it has happened. Hasn’t happened yet.

Sasha Stortz reviewed the proposed treatment parameters in old growth areas: Let me know now or when the draft comes out if you have additional parameters

Tom: So we have these low treatment intensity. In the remaining area we anticipate higher intensity treatment. Discussed using group selection cuts with criteria. Want to use landscape features to minimize impact of mechanical treatment and allow fire to burn, we’d vary treatment intensities strategically upwind of high value areas such as old growth patches, and avoid a cookie cutter approach. Want to get a little further down the road if we can.

So assuming that we can converge on a way of dealing with large tree issue, want to talk about appropriate scaling to deal with heterogeneity across the landscape. The acreage would be that 12,700 minus old growth patches.

EA: Opportunity unique to the project area- take advantage of East-West roads. Develop containment lines for fires prescribed and managed in the future. Hope that idea persists. Offers opportunity for more open conditions on south side aspects and more dense on north side. In my experience, that’s the norm. Trying to recall what distance from roads it. Propose distance from roads in containment be developed with fire management staff, but less under condition of wildfire suppression and more along the lines of 90th percentile conditions- less severe. Reiterating that importance from my perspective. Distance shouldn’t be ½ mile, but more tied to conditions we’d expect to be facing when we’re putting fire on the ground versus another road

AL: Remember Todd’s concern about treatment near roads.

Tom: Treatments likely to be pretty heavy. Matrix of lighter and heavier treatment based on the many values and objective.

Garry Domis: Treatments can vary from ½ an acre to 4 acres

DV: Recommend proposing as a range

AL: We did some pre-settlement conditions and ran a Ripley’s K analysis. We have a visual, if I can get the data, Andrew said he could run some stuff in about 15 minutes that would give average clustering sizes. Can probably bring some quantification to that.

EA: Where collected from?

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 104

AL: Only using N. Kaibab sites and pre-settlement evidence that has stem map and the Ripley’s K for 3 or 4 twenty acre sites. The Nature Conservancy. Informs the heterogeneity within a group. This range of group sizes is probably sufficient for the proposed but would like to bring this information for prescriptions to inform what distribution is in the range and some of the specifics. Hopefully prescriptions would better reflect the historic spatial arrangement.

BA: One specific; Norris Dodd did work on tassel eared squirrel habitat and some descriptions of the groups. Might offer some specific parameters.

Tom Sisk: Have worked with Norris in the past and have some information we could bring forward. I know there’s concern that so much has been taken off the table that there’s only so much we can do, but there’s a large proportion of the landscape that can be subject to this treatment approach. The highest specificity here will have a big impact. There’s a lot of flexibility in this area that will come from areas where treatments are more intensive.

AL: Want to make sure captured in previous notes. Including old growth and nest areas, we want to have at mid scale and above at least 3 size classes in any 100-1000 acre unit in roughly even proportions. Place where we point to that desired condition from the plan. Uneven aged forest system.

EA: Put a plug in that we take advantage of the some of the data on age and size class distributions as a check. Don’t know the answer, but would like to check against reference areas.

AL: Looking at numbers is different than total basal area. I’m talking about numbers of trees, I agree that for this system and particularly this project area, largest percentage of BA will be contributed by large trees.

Tom: We have guidance to use topography. To some extent while also retaining large trees this could push us into a place where there might not be a lot of heterogeneity across the landscape. It’s pushing us towards pretty heavy treatment. We can hear all these things and say we want all this and we want patchy and heterogeneity, but we’re kind of constructing an idea where the matrix might be more heavily treated.

EA: Yeah we’re getting coarse patchiness, but might not be allowing for finer scale patchiness

Tom: Exactly.

BA: Mix it up. Can take it more intensive but don’t always so there’s some diversity and heterogeneity at a larger scale. Or am I missing something?

Tom: Constraint of protecting certain areas means that we’re advocating for more intensive treatments to protect other values. So within those areas of intensive treatment, might not have as much flexibility to retain the patchiness

BA: Don’t have to do it always higher intensity. Mix it up.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 105 AL: Even if you have a more open area, can have clusters of trees of hiding cover. Can still leave structural diversity- interlocking crowns, hiding cover, overall more intensive treatments on the open end, but still retaining specific characteristics.

Tom: Hear that. We may not have that much wiggle room to retain clumps to manage for fire. To achieve objectives, may be concentrating treatments into specific areas. We can talk about it as the treatments evolve, but want to make sure that we’ve all had the chance to provide guidance.

EA: I feel good about what we discussed today. I feel like there’s enough that we discussed about key issues

Fredonia tried to communicate but sound was lost on the video teleconference system.

Tom: We’ll need to follow up with you guys specifically about anyone feeling your perspective wasn’t heard because of technical difficulties. We’ll talk tomorrow. Let’s wrap things up here. Here’s the timeline going forward. Going to hold this the best we can towards one alternative but if we need to move into a different strategy, we’ll do that in the wake of this draft. This is the last time we’ll meet as a group prior to submitting our report for the project.

Byard Kershaw requested presentation copies

Tom: Not sure how we’ll you’ve been able to hear things here towards the end but we’ll follow up tomorrow. Thanks to all for your time.

Appendix IV. Stakeholder working session: Nov. 19, 2014 106

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 107 DRAFT Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Proposed Action December 1st, 2014

I. Project Area Background:

General Project Location:

The Burnt Corral project area (28,052 acres in size) lies within the southwest portion of the Kaibab Plateau (i.e., south-southwest of Lookout Canyon and FS Road 22) on the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD), of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF). An approximate legal land description of the project area is that it is located within Townships 35-37 North, Ranges 1 West -1 East (within Coconino County, Arizona), Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian. Within the proposed project area, the majority of the ponderosa pine vegetation type is located west of Forest Service Road (FSR) 22, with the project area bounded by FSR 447 to the north, FSR 226 to the east, FSR 203/203A and the FSR 425 to the south, and FSR425 & 427 to the west. The existing system of open and administrative roads provides33 adequate access for implementation. It is anticipated that no new permanent roads would have to be constructed to access the treatment units or stands. However, temporary roads or permanent road improvements (i.e., gravel overlay) may be considered or included as part of the analysis, if necessary. Any existing closed roads that are reopened temporarily to access treatment units would be closed following project completion. Some roads may be temporarily closed during project implementation as a public safety measure. The majority of the Burnt Corral project/planning area is considered to be a Priority Landscape project within the western ponderosa pine belt of the Kaibab Plateau. In “The Kaibab Forest Health Focus” (Sept. 2009) this pine belt was identified as a priority area based on a collaborative, science-based assessment of forest composition and predicted fire behavior data.1 The western edge of the Burnt Corral project corresponds to the ecotone between ponderosa pine forest from pinyon-juniper and oak woodland area, with approximately 7,530 acres in the west-northwest portion overlapping into the 1996 Bridger Knoll Fire area, now dominated by patches of oak, New Mexican locust, and open areas occupied by bunch grasses and other low-lying vegetation. Some salvage activity along with some ponderosa pine reforestation (~ 1,550 acres) has been completed since the 1996 fire. The Mill Fire (2008) area (1,710 acres) also lies within the northeast corner of the Burnt Corral planning area. There is less than 400 acres of Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat in the southeast corner of the project area. The majority of the Burnt Corral project area lies within the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark, and Arizona Game and Fish Game Management Unit 12A west. This area is currently open to firewood gathering. The lower elevations of the project area on the west side of the Kaibab Plateau are a key asset to the NKRD regarding heritage, range, recreation and wildlife. Therefore, each resource area will evaluate past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities (including wildland fires) which may influence this and/or other future treatment options/applications within the Burnt Corral planning area. Planning Effort: In September 2009, the Kaibab Forest Health Focus group identified the ponderosa pine belt component of the NKRD as an area in need of treatment to: reduce fuels and increase canopy spacing, and lessen the risk to potential loss of ecosystem components due to uncharacteristic high severity stand

1 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf 1

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 108 replacement fire. The 2009, the Kaibab Forest Health Focus collaborative viewed this ponderosa pine portion of the NKRD as a single priority area divided into four project areas (“High 1A-1D”), each of which would receive a configuration of treatments that most efficiently meet ecological restoration goals, including the return of natural fire regimes (Figure 1). In addition, the group expressed an interest in moving towards a forest structure in the pine type that favors the groups or clumps of multi-storied, uneven aged2 stands. The group recognized that the western ponderosa pine belt of the Kaibab Plateau represents a significant management challenge and that conditions are sufficiently variable to demand more detailed guidance when performing project-level planning, as the 2009 Forest Health Focus was more landscape oriented.

Figure 1. The Burnt Corral project area lies within the areas of the ponderosa pine belt prioritized by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus. The eastern border extends beyond the priority area in order to an existing road.

Project level planning is the mechanism for Forest Plan implementation and translates the desired conditions and objectives of the Forest Plan into proposals that identify specific actions, design features, and project level monitoring. The proposal development for projects should address site-specific needs developed locally, with input from experts and stakeholders, and the most current and relevant information. If warranted, project level decisions and modifications may be made following public involvement and analysis. This process follows the new “Project-Level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process” (36 CFR 218).

2 Uneven-aged forests, as defined in the Kaibab National Forest Plan, are composed of three or more distinct age classes of trees, either intimately mixed or in small groups.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 109 The Burnt Corral Vegetation Management project (about 28,052 acres) was initially included in the U.S. Forest Service’s May 2011 North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) 5-year Vegetation Management Plan, a tool used for future resource planning and allocation purposes (Figure 2). The area was selected because it was identified as a priority in the KFHF, and because of NKRD priorities and ongoing projects.

Figure 2. The Burnt Corral project area is 28,054 acres.

Within the project area, the ponderosa pine forest vegetation community occurs at elevations ranging from 6,200 to 8,200 feet. A large component of the forested area within the Burnt Corral project area

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 110 (approximately 21,200 acres) are typed as Ponderosa pine (Figure 3). The ponderosa pine vegetation type or component is generally denser and more continuous across all developmental states than in reference conditions3.

3 Reference conditions are environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability. When available, reference conditions are represented by the characteristic range of variation (not the total range of variation) prior to European settlement and under the current climatic period. For many ecosystems, the range of variation also reflects human-caused disturbance and effects prior to settlement. It may also be necessary to refine reference conditions according to contemporary factors (e.g., invasive species) or projected conditions (e.g., climate change). Reference conditions are most useful as an inference of sustainability when they have been quantified by amount, condition, spatial distribution, and temporal variation. 4

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 111

Building on the spirit and outcomes of the KFHF, the Burnt Corral project collaborative was convened in mid-2014 with Northern Arizona University’s Landscape Conservation Initiative as a project-level planning effort to help develop a Proposed Action in the pre-scoping phase of the project, which will be carried forward into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. The Purpose and Need statements below, as well as the Proposed Action, were derived from a basic outline that was reviewed by the collaborative, and represents a Proposed Action that was acceptable to all parties. The purpose of the collaborative was to address key pre-scoping issues prior to the actual scoping phase of the Proposed Action for the project. Forest Plan: The new Forest Plan (i.e., Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest, February 2014) places emphasis on restoring the ponderosa pine component of the forest because it has changed significantly from desired conditions and is an area identified as a priority need for change (see Forest Plan, pp. 16-20, 30-32, & 191-192). Projects in ponderosa pine should be aimed at restoring forest structure as well as processes such as low-intensity fire, natural levels of disturbance, and nutrient cycling. Design features may increase diversity within treatment areas by promoting aspen and oak (see Forest Plan, “Aspen” - pp 27-29; “Oak” – pp 39-40), and openings and understory production. While treatments strive to mimic the structure and patterns of reference conditions, they can also reflect other desired conditions and objectives. As a result, reconstructed reference conditions are general guides rather than rigid restoration prescriptions. The Forest Plan (USDA FS 2014) briefly discusses the existing and desired conditions of the ponderosa pine forest as follows: “Ponderosa pine forests on the Kaibab NF are generally denser and more continuous across all developmental states than in reference conditions. The open, park-like stands characteristic of the reference conditions for ponderosa pine forests promoted greater floral and faunal diversity and fire resilience than the dense stands of today. Accumulations of forest litter and woody debris are much higher than would have occurred under the historical disturbance regime. Lack of fire disturbance has led to increased tree density and fuel loads that heighten the risk of uncharacteristically intense wildfire and drought-related mortality. When fires occur under current (2014) conditions, they tend to kill a lot of trees, including the large and old trees. These trees take longer to replace, moving the Kaibab NF further from desired conditions, and increasing the time it would take to return to desired conditions. There is currently a moderate risk of insect and/or disease outbreak, which is also a function of increased tree density.” (Forest Plan, pg. 16) In ponderosa pine, reintroduction of fire as the primary disturbance agent is critical to restoration. Due to capacity and efficiency needs, mechanical thinning and burning treatments are often needed to effectively progress toward the desired conditions, such that those conditions can be retained for at least 20 years. Tools for creating desired stand conditions and openings include a variety of treatments and uneven-aged cutting methods, such as single tree and group selection, sanitation and salvage, limited even-aged regeneration cutting, thinning, and managed fire (i.e., wildfires managed for both protection and resource management objectives). Besides presenting the desired conditions at various scales (i.e., fine, medium, and landscape), the new Forest plan (pp. 19-20) presents a “Management Approach” for the ponderosa pine component. Listed below is part of the rationale for treatment within the Burnt Corral planning area, which is an area that is at moderate risk and scheduled for treatment now instead of the future:

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 112 “Restoration activities would be prioritized in the areas identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) and then move to other areas of high risk and high value. The KFHF was a multi-stakeholder collaborative process that prioritized areas most in need of treatment. Primary indicators were related to high risk and high value such as those with closed canopies containing large trees. These areas were identified as high priority for restoration because they already contain many components of the desired condition and a single treatment may come close to meeting the desired condition, but if lost, would take centuries to replace. The KFHF report can be accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf.

II. Purpose and Need for Action: The overall objective of the Burnt Corral vegetation management project, which is in line with the Forest Service’s mission statement, is to improve ecosystem resilience and function at the landscape scale in order to sustain healthy forests and watersheds for future generations. Based on collaboration efforts and internal Forest Service review, the following are purposes and associated needs that were identified for this Project: Purpose 1: Move vegetation toward the desired conditions defined in the Forest Plan (USDA FS, 2014) and consistent with prioritized areas as identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009), with an emphasis on/to: a) Improve forest health and vigor, while improving habitat conditions to make them more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and/or other climatic condition changes (i.e., drought and/or bark beetle infestations). This may benefit aspen and oak components as well as other resources within the project area. To achieve this, there is a need for/to: . Return ponderosa pine forest to a Fire Adaptive Ecosystem (i.e., high frequency – low intensity surface fires). . Mange fire in first entry and follow-up prescribed fire treatments (i.e., maintenance burns for secondary treatment). . Fuels reduction (note: the lower elevation area has some residual fuels left over from the 1996 Bridger-Knolls fire). . Move the ponderosa pine component of the forest toward the desired condition, which includes restoring forest structure and process (e.g. natural disturbances such as low-severity fire and dwarf mistletoe, watershed function, and nutrient cycling). This includes: . Reducing the risk of uncharacteristic and undesirable wildland fire effects (i.e., either active or passive crown fire), with an emphasis on restoring and maintaining desirable plant community attributes, including fuel levels, fire regimes, and other ecological processes. . Maintaining and/or restoring upland area vegetation, and reducing erosion within the ephemeral drainage system (i.e., within drainages and bare ridgelines that drain to the west and southwest that are part of the Kanab Creek watershed). . Improving watershed conditions and reduce road-related impacts to natural and cultural resources. To achieve this, there is a need for/to: . Increase diversity in forest stand structure and species composition. . Increase native grasses forbs and shrubs within opening throughout the project area. . Improve drainage functions

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 113 . Reduce active headcuts or downcuts4 in ephemeral drainages. . Maintain existing system of roads and prevent development of new roads. Reduce the acres of non-native vegetation, and allow for native vegetation succession. b) Restore the ponderosa pine forest type to increase resilience to disturbance, improve forest health, and improve habitat. To achieve this, there is a need for/to: . Reduce tree density and Stand Density Index (SDI) to the lower range of site occupancy, about 35 – 40% of max SDI in ponderosa pine. c) Meet KNF Forest Plan objectives at the mid-scale for desired basal area ranges in the 60 – 80 sq. ft. per acre range with larger trees (i.e. > 18 inches in diameter) contributing the greatest percent of the total basal area, with some areas containing 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest (e.g. goshawk post-fledging family areas Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, drainages, and steep north-facing slopes). . Commercially thin about 15,000 acres. . Perform small-tree thinning on about 16,000 to 20,000 acres. (Note: the upper range of thinning described above would include most of the forest type in Burnt Corral, providing an opportunity for small-tree thinning on some of the steep slopes and sensitive soils, which is not feasible to treat with heavy equipment.) . Stimulate oak regeneration. . Stimulate aspen regeneration in the project area especially where encountered and at the head of draws, ephemeral streams, and hollows. . Retain remnant, surviving pine trees in the overlap of the burned area left over after the Bridger Knoll fire (1996, with about 60,000 acres burned). . Protect existing ponderosa pine plantations that have been established from the reforestation programs following the Bridger Knoll salvage timber sales. . Reduce the risk of hazardous, stand-replacing crown fire events in the entire project area, especially portions of the project area that have received no timber treatments nor experienced fire events in the last 25 years). . Promote uneven-aged forest where lacking, maintain current uneven-aged forest, and create openings in even-aged older stands with patch cuts from one-half to four acres distributed randomly across the landscape. . Restore fire-prone stands to more open, historic condition by removing more than half of the existing cubic foot volume in trees > 5” dbh. . Establish fuel breaks along major forest roads like FSR422, 255, and 425 to provide public safety and protection for firefighters if a high intensity, fast moving crown fire event occurred. . Create openings (utilizing “Group Selection” cuts), which range in size from ½ acre, up to 4 acres, with a maximum width of 200-feet for any opening 2 acres or greater in size. Openings will be laid out in a mosaic pattern within treatment units. Selected seed trees would be left in openings greater than 2 acres to maintain and promote desired or healthier genetic traits. d) Maintain and promote a ponderosa pine/frequent fire forest vegetation community that is a mosaic of forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees.

4 Headcuts or downcuts are erosional features of some intermittent streams where an abrupt vertical drop occurs. When not flowing the headcut or downcut may resemble a very short cliff or bluff feature.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 114 Existing Condition: The current condition of the majority of blackjack5 stands within the Burnt Corral project area is represented by dense patches of young ponderosa pine trees in even-aged condition. Many of these are in an unhealthy condition because natural ground fires and mechanical tree thinning and active forest management have been absent for decades. These stands support more than four times the number of trees identified in the statement of desired condition, and some show signs of competition-induced mortality (SDI >57% of Max), and have high susceptibility to disease. Often, the forest floor is a thick layer of pine needles and duff with very little forage growth and no regeneration of ponderosa pine seedlings. Tree growth is suppressed, and vigor is low; these trees are susceptible to attack from Dendroctonus bark beetles, especially Mountain Pine beetle and the Western Pine beetle. Given these conditions, desirable ground fire could quickly move into the tree crowns and run through the stand, causing higher than desired tree mortality. Desired Condition: The ponderosa pine forest vegetation community is a mosaic of forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. The forest is generally uneven-aged and open. Groups of old trees are mixed with groups of younger trees. Occasional areas of even- aged structure are present. Denser tree conditions exist in some locations such as north-facing slopes, canyons, and drainage bottoms. Desirable ponderosa pine stands include a mix of age and tree sizes, openings available for forage and grass production, space between groups that break up the continuity of the canopy, fire resistance, and a young forest component to help ensure sustainability. The desired condition within the ponderosa pine is to move towards an uneven aged structure that is somewhat open. To achieve this, there is a need for/to: . Balance age / size classes (3 classes minimum) to achieve an un-even aged structure; . Reduce basal area stocking by thinning the matrix through the size classes that are in excess, to promote or increase forest health and vigor; . Establish clumps and groups in a fashion that forms more of a mosaic at the midscale and landscape scale; . Improve forest health and availability of moisture, nutrients, and light; . Increase production of forage; . Create more openings (note there is a lack of competition for natural and/or artificial regeneration); . Create gaps in the canopy so natural surface fire stays on the forest floor; . Enhance tree vigor and growth conditions to produce large, thick-barked fire-resistant ponderosa pine trees; and . Create more healthy wildlife habitat capable of supporting a host of animal species. e) Improve habitat for wildlife species that inhabit the ponderosa pine component of the forest To achieve this, there is a need for/to: . Retain habitat elements required by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (2012) for 358 acres of Recovery Habitat within the Burnt Corral project area. These elements include hardwoods, large snags (>18 inches DBH), large downed logs (>18 inches diameter at any point), and large trees (>18 inches). . Create grass-forb-shrub interspaces within an uneven-aged forest structure to create habitat for goshawk prey species as well as various other wildlife including but not limited to songbirds and deer.

5 Blackjacks are young trees which possess all the biological advantages of youth. They are characterized by a dark almost black bark, a pointed or rounded top and ascending upper branches. 8

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 115 . Protect Northern goshawk nest areas, which should be denser than the surrounding forest with large trees being dominant, but not homogenous, and have interlocking crowns. . Maintain or improve the variety of vegetation types and structures to provide a range of habitats for wildlife species including but not limited to: . Merriam’s turkey roost sites (ponderosa pine groups) along FS road 427 . Gambel oak as a transition habitat for Mule deer and forage for Merriam’s turkey . Interspersed trees ranging from 8-18 inches DBH, with some continuous areas of interlocking crowns, as quality pine habitat for Kaibab squirrel (Sciurus aberti kaibabensis) . Maintain snags around waters for bat roosts Purpose 2: Maintain and/or improve current motorized public transportation system: . Roads – approximately 20% of the roads within the project area are logging roads which were not included as part of the Travel Management System, these road may be utilized under the administrative use rules within TMR, but will remain closed to public motorized use. . No new roads should be created, and administrative use should be used with discretion. The goal is to prevent resource damage from both administrative and public use. Purpose 3: Manage recreation uses with an emphasis on maintaining scenic integrity while providing for visitor safety. Purpose 4: Desired condition is to reduce the risk of damage to fire-sensitive cultural resource sites in the event of a catastrophic wildland fire, and to provide for the sustainability of archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, forest resources and areas associated with traditional practices. To achieve this, there is a need to: . Reduce fuels on fire-sensitive cultural resource sites. . Control erosion affecting cultural resource sites. . Provide local tribes continued access to forest resources and opportunities to engage in traditional practices. Purpose 5: Manage cheatgrass with an emphasis on reducing spread and eradication, while enhancing the conditions for native vegetation succession. . Reduce and/or eliminate cheatgrass, with objectives and methods based on field survey data Purpose 6: Offset treatment costs and benefit local rural economies. There is a need to: . Use wood products from restoration treatments, where appropriate. Purpose 7: Identify baseline carbon stocks and consider this information in management of the Forest in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule and the Forest Service’s Climate Change Performance Scorecard Element 9 – Carbon Assessment and Stewardship. (Carbon management and associated greenhouse gas emissions are an increasingly important consideration in forest management and climate change mitigation). . Gather and utilize carbon stock and trend information, in conjunction with companion assessments on forest carbon disturbances (currently being developed) to consider short and long-term carbon consequences of alternative forest management strategies. Carbon stock and trend information includes forest carbon pools (above ground, below ground, standing dead, down dead, forest floor, soil organic carbon, understory) as well as cumulative estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWP). . Utilize information gathered to help understand how much carbon is currently stored in forest ecosystems and harvested wood products.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 116 The desired conditions for this project are based upon the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest, (USDA Forest Service, Feb. 2014) and the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) (See Attachment B of the Proposed Action for specific plan sections, or the full plan here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf).

3. Proposed Action The USDA Forest Service (FS), Kaibab National Forest (KNF), North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD), through a collaborative process with interested stakeholders, proposes to mechanically thin up to about 15,065 acres and use wildland fire (managed or prescribed fire) alone or in conjunction with mechanical treatment on up to about 28,054 acres. The proposed action is based on consultation with diverse stakeholders and guided by a quantitative exploration of data that allowed explicit consideration of multiple values and perceived risks associated with this project and the earlier Kaibab Forest Health Focus. In pursuing this stakeholder process, the NKRD has endeavored to integrate the broad experience and expertise of stakeholders into a project plan that will achieve project objectives at multiple scales, consistent with the results from the Kaibab Forest Health Focus and the Forest Plan. A preliminary map of the strata used to address proposed treatments across the project area and tables of treatment types and estimated acres are provided below, for information purposes only. The map and estimated acres do not constitute formal analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, and should be viewed strictly as a means to identifying approximate acreages and treatment categories for this Proposed Action. Acreages presented in tis Proposed Action are based on preliminary Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and may vary based on field verification and review performed during NEPA analysis next year. Based on that analysis, refined acreages will be presented in the Draft Environmental Analysis. This Proposed Action is stratified based on treatment types and vegetation strata. The proposed treatments, including some fire-only treatments and some treatments using both mechanical treatments and fire, are detailed here:

Treatment type(s) proposed Relevant strata Maximum Estimated Acreage Fire only Bridger fire area, sensitive soils, steep 12,989 slopes, seed cuts approaching desired conditions Fire and mechanical: Thin from below to 14” Northern Goshawk nest areas 2,580 Limited treatment reduce fire risk Old growth patches 2,600 Group selection cuts Remaining ponderosa pine 9,527 Thin mixed conifer from below to 12" to reduce Mexican Spotted Owl habitat 358 fire risk Total project area 28,054

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 117

Figure 4. Preliminary map of landscape strata selected for particular treatments, as stipulated in the preceding table. Not depicted: approximately 2,600 ac of ‘Old Growth Patches’, yet to be identified spatially, but for which characteristics and general approach for identification were agreed upon during the stakeholders’ meeting in Kanab, UT, Oct. 22-23, 2014.

Wildland Fire Only Treat up to 12,989 acres using wildland fire only. Throughout this document, wildland fire refers to prescribed fire as well as managed wildfire, and includes activities such as preparation thinning, the construction of control lines, and other treatments associated with appropriate use and management of prescribed fire and managed wildfire. 1. Actions in the Bridger Fire Area (up to about 7,556 acres)

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 118  Use wildland fire and spot treatments of prescribed fire, as needed, to achieve management objectives  Protect regenerating trees as appropriate to meet management objectives  Avoid spread of cheatgrass by minimizing seed-dispersing agents and soil disturbance  Monitor and implement control measures for invasive species, such as cheat grass  Develop burn plans in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to ensure wildlife habitat objectives are met 2. Sensitive Soils and Steep (40% or greater) Slopes (up to about 5,012 acres)  Use wildland fire to burn when needed to achieve management objectives  Mitigate and avoid negative impacts to sensitive areas by using best management practices and design criteria for soils protection  Where fuel loading could result in undesirable fire effects, use hand thinning and piling in preparation for wildland fire 3. Ponderosa Pine Seed Tree Cuts Approaching Desired Conditions (up to about 421 acres)

 Use wildland fire to burn when needed to achieve management objectives Mechanical Thinning and Wildland Fire Treat up to 15,065 acres using both mechanical thinning and fire.

4. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Northern Goshawk Nest Areas (Up to about 2,580 acres). In the approximately 2,580 acres of Northern Goshawk nests or replacement nest areas, 414 acres are also areas of steep slopes and sensitive soils and will be treated under those guidelines. 4.1 Mechanical Treatment  Where needed to protect and/or enhance nesting habitat, thin from below up to 14”dbh in goshawk nest areas and replacement nest areas  Retain snags, downed logs, woody debris and old trees, whenever possible 4.2 Wildland Fire  Where possible, use wildland fire in preference to or in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre or post mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

5. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Old Growth Patches (Up to about 2600) Significant portions of the project area support relatively dense stands of presettlement trees and retain conditions that approximate presettlement ponderosa pine ecosystems. Some of these areas have been identified as old growth protection and recruitment sites (referred to as “old growth patches”). These are areas recognized as current and future reservoirs of old growth forest composition, structure and function. These areas will be managed to sustain the composition, structure and functional characteristics of these stand characteristics, including the living and non-living components of old growth ecosystems, into the future. 5. 1 Mechanical Treatment  Conduct limited mechanical treatments that thin postsettlement trees less than 16 inch dbh trees as necessary to reduce ladder fuels  Retain structural diversity

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 119  Retain old growth components including large snags, downed logs, large coarse woody debris, and large and old trees 5.2 Wildland Fire  Use wildland fire in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre or post mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

6. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Remaining Area (Up to about 9,527 acres) For the remaining acres of ponderosa pine, including Northern Goshawk PFAs (about 9,319 acres), the following actions are proposed: 6.1 Mechanical Treatment  Use group selection cuts varying in shape to create a heterogeneous forest mosaic, characterized by treatments from ¼ to 4 acres in size, with a maximum width of 200 feet  Strategically place treatments and vary size of thinned areas on the landscape, taking advantage of topography and roads, particularly East-West roads, to achieve fire management objectives  Generally, treat more intensively on south-facing slopes and areas upwind of NOGO nest areas, old growth patches, and other areas of denser trees of particular value or vulnerability to fire  Generally forego mechanical treatment in areas where fire models predict passive surface fire  Maintain structural diversity, including areas with interlocking crowns and wildlife hiding cover at the stand level, as possible.  Maintain at least 3 size classes in roughly even proportions across any 100-1,000 acre unit 6.2 Wildland Fire  When possible, use wildland fire in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre- or post-mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

7. Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Up to 358 acres) Approximately 358 acres of the project area are designated as MSO habitat. In these areas, forests will be managed consistent with MSO guidelines, treatments will generally be light and will not involve mechanical thinning, except as identified below, and in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 358 acres of MSO habitat, 180 acres are also areas of steep slopes and sensitive soils and will be treated under those guidelines. 7.1 Mechanical Treatment  Thin from below up to 12” if trees pose risk for crown fire  Retain large snags, large downed logs and large trees  Retain habitat elements required by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (2012) for 358 acres of Recovery Habitat within the Burnt Corral project area. These elements include hardwoods, large snags (>18 inches DBH), large downed logs (>18 inches diameter at any point), and large trees (>18 inches) 7.2 Wildland Fire  Use wildland fire in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre- or post-mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

Other Proposed Actions  Encourage reestablishment of aspen in ponderosa pine-dominated stands by centering thinning efforts in areas with remaining aspen trees when feasible

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 120  Retain existing stands of gambel oak including all oak >8 inches diameter at root collar. Encourage reestablishment in ponderosa pine-dominated stands by centering thinning efforts in areas with oak  Install artificial bat barks near permanent and ephemeral water sources in the southern project area  Reduce fuels at fire-sensitive cultural resource sites, and avoid adversely affecting cultural sites through project-related activities by limiting vehicular access and the use of fire at these sites

4. Design Features Through surveys and group discussion, a number of issues and concerns were identified for consideration in the project. Many of these issues address how treatments are designed and implemented, such that they maintain or augment desired features across the project area, and avoid or mitigate possible undesirable impacts. These issues are considered design features because they refer to consistent practices to implement across the entire project area.

Of the many issues identified, several were discussed in detail during the collaborative process and synthesized into proposed action language by the LCI: wildlife habitat, old trees and large trees, as well as the protection of sensitive areas. We describe the design features discussed in-depth, though not always agreed upon, during the collaborative. We have also attached relevant Kaibab Forest Plan sections including guidelines for management actions applicable to a number of stakeholder concerns (e.g. threatened species, smoke impacts, climate change, recreation), and the Design Features and Specifications, including Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices used by the North Kaibab Ranger District across projects (Attachment A & B).

Old growth protection Outside of the old growth patches, all old growth, as defined in the Forest Plan Vegetation Management Guidelines (Attachment B) will be retained with the following exceptions:

1. Public safety 2. Specific operational considerations (e.g., landing areas) 3. Large contiguous areas that have not been impacted by timber harvest, where fire exclusion has created forest structure conditions that are distinctly outside of the natural range of variability for the Kaibab Plateau, and where current predicted fire behavior suggests high risk of unnaturally severe wildfire and/or other degradation or desired characteristics. In these areas, if any old (“pre-settlement”) trees are cut, they will be retained on site up to the maximum amount allowable in the Forest Plan, to provide understory dead and down components consistent with old growth characteristics. Firewood gathering and other thinning activities will be managed and/or restricted in these areas, so as to retain old growth components. Large tree retention Across the project area, large trees (those greater than 18” diameter dbh) will be retained except where ecological restoration and biodiversity objectives cannot otherwise be met – specifically wet meadows, seeps, springs, riparian areas, encroached grasslands, aspen groves or oak stands where enhancement is desired, where within-stand openings are desirable to regain structural heterogeneity, and where heavily stocked stands with high basal area are characterized by a preponderance of large, young (“post settlement”) trees. Recognizing that desired intensity and configuration of treatments will significantly influence how exceptions to a large tree retention policy play out, treatments will be designed to restore

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 121 composition, structure, and function taking full advantage of reference sites across the North Rim such as Powell Plateau and other sites that have been subject to fire at regular intervals, as guides.

Wildlife habitat Across the project area, maintain screening and hiding cover wherever possible:  Where mechanical thinning and wildfire result in significantly reduced tree density, maintain and stimulate well distributed patches of cover. Proximal to roads but not continuous with old growth patches and other areas where management objectives call for the retention of denser stands with interlocking crowns, encourage regeneration stands for cover  Use topography or seeding to create hiding cover  When feasible, maintain slash piles and unlopped slash for turkey cover and nesting in treated areas until post-treatment vegetation response provides natural cover and nesting sites  Across the project area, refer to habitat parameters for Merriam’s turkey (Shaw and Mollohan 1992) and mule deer guidelines (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group 2009)

Across the project area, retain a variety of vegetation types and structures to provide a range of habitats for wildlife species:  Merriam’s turkey roost sites (Ponderosa pine groups of 5-9 ponderosa pine 15” dbh)  Gambel oak as a transition habitat for Mule deer and forage for Merriam’s turkey  Interspersed trees ranging from 8-18 inches DBH, including areas of interlocking crowns, as quality pine habitat for Kaibab squirrel  Snags around waters for bat roosts

Protection of sensitive areas Across the project area, mitigate and avoid negative impacts to sensitive areas by using best management practices and design features such as buffers from heavy equipment around:  Caves and karst features  Heritage sites  Scenic areas  Springs, sinks and draws  Plants of cultural importance  Sensitive soils and steep slopes  Areas of recreational interest

Attachments: Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications: Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab Forest Plan

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 122

Attachments to Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Proposed Action

Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications: Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices….….2

Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab Forest Plan……………………………………….…………………….12

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 123

Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications (Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices)

The following is a listing of Design Features and Specifications, including Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) by resource area (Project Record #). These Design Features and Specifications include watershed conservation practices and relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as other applicable requirements:

Silviculture . Silvicultural prescriptions and design criteria would follow Kaibab NF Land Management Plan Standards and Guidelines. . Opening size would follow Forest Plan guidelines for up to 4 acres with maximum width of 200 feet. . Vegetation treatments would adopt stocking guidelines for basal area and Stand Density Index from recommendations for northern goshawk habitat on the Kaibab NF. . Interlocking canopy structure: Maintaining existing canopy structure (as measured in VSS 4, 5, & 6 only) during the creation or restructuring of groups of trees within stands to protect resident wildlife habitat. . Old Growth allocation consisting of landscape percentages meeting old growth conditions and not specific acres. The standard for old growth in the Forest Plan (FP, pp. 32-34) is to manage for 20percent of each cover type in old growth conditions. . Within mixed conifer areas of the forest, vegetation treatments would adopt stocking guidelines for basal area and Stand Density Index from recommendations for Mexican Spotted Owl recovery plan on the Kaibab NF. Range Each protocol on this list is formed from the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds for the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests; Appendix B-Design Features, Best Management Practices, and Required Protection Measures. . Conducting a pre-treatment inventory inside the project area. Areas to be inventoried will be prioritized in chronological order of anticipated activity timing before the project implementation begins. Areas likely to receive higher traffic like staging areas and along roads will be monitored first and random sampling of areas planned for treatment will follow in a timely manner. Areas where high infestations of aggressive invasive species are found, planned activities in that area will be delayed until the species is controlled. . Prioritizing treatment of invasive species found during inventory. Invasive species found during inventory will be lumped together with current known infestations and treated using the most efficient means possible and in accordance with the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott ROD for Noxious and Invasive Weeds (2005). Once the invasive species is controlled, planned activity can begin. . Continuation of monitoring during treatment. During project activity treatments, monitoring will be ongoing for additional species undetected during initial inventory and ensuring compliance. In the event that a new population is detected, the activity that site will be stopped until invasive species is controlled.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 124

. Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives. This includes the design and need of slash piles, utilizing existing roads where applicable to decrease the need for new skid trails and fire lines. . Washing equipment and vehicles related to activities prior to entering project area. Contracting officer will be responsible for ensuring this occurs on all equipment tied to a contract. The district will also require this policy for any vehicles and equipment used on project that came from off the district. Equipment and vehicles will also be washed before leaving the district at a pre-determined “clean location”. . Ensuring weed free gravel and other materials sources. Providers of gravel and other materials used will have the source of material inspected prior to importing into the project area. If deemed necessary, material will be staged at pre-determined location for additional monitoring. . Optimize prescribed burning for appropriate timing. Burning will be conducted during seasons of the year that promotes lower fire intensities and hinders possible weed infestation. Burning in dry years will also be avoided for improved native plant response. . Utilizing Certified Weed Free Seed Sources. In the event that an area needs to be seeded post treatment, seed purchased will be from a reputable dealer that can provide official weed free certification for each species utilized. Seed mix will consist only of native species and/or certified sterile annuals and require approval of District Range Conservationist or Forest Botanist. In the event that local seed harvesting is available and certified as “weed free”, that source will be utilized. . Monitor after restoration treatment activity is completed. Random sampling will occur in areas that have been treated for at least two years after completion to monitor for invasive species that may have been introduced or spread. Soil and Watershed To meet the objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1987, the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region in 1990 entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Arizona, Department of Environmental Quality. It was agreed that the most practical and effective means of controlling non-point source pollution sources from forest and rangelands was through the development of preventative land management practices generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMP’s), and to ensure the control of non-point source pollution through the implementation of BMP’s. Each project is required to identify and implement site specific Best Management Practices designed to protect soil and water quality (Interagency Agreement, 1990). Unless monitoring proves contrary, implementation of the following BMP’s constitutes complying with Arizona State and Federal Water Quality Standards for designated uses in downstream perennial waters. The following BMP’s are designed to minimize the impacts of timber harvest and fuel treatment activities to soil and water resources. They apply to all action alternatives: A. Use of TES Map in Timber Sale Design - Cutting units are designed in a manner that minimizes soil disturbances and facilitates BMP implementation. Obtain a TES map for location of site specific BMP’s in specified TES map units. B. Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality Protection – Locations of designated stream courses and/or drainages, will be shown on the sale area map. Sink holes, meadows, springs seeps, and other surface waters (stock watering tanks) to be protected are also shown on sale area maps. C. Stream Course/Drainage Protection – Stream course and/or drainages to be protected are shown on the sale area map. Stream course and/or drainages are crossed perpendicularly only at designated crossings. Tractor skidding, decking of logs, fire lines, machine and hand piling of slash are not permitted within stream courses and/or drainages. Drainage features such as lead out ditches, water

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 125

bars, etc., are not constructed in such a manner that surface runoff is permitted to enter a stream course and/or drainage. D. Activity generated fuels from timber harvest activities are removed from stream courses and/or drainages. Trees are to be felled outside the stream course and/or drainages. The timber sale administrator has the authority to approve skid trails and log landings outside stream courses and/or drainages. E. Log Landings – All log landing locations are approved in advance of logging activities by the Forest Service. Existing log landings will be utilized unless locations are deemed unacceptable by the Forest Service (drainage channels, steep slopes, etc). Log landings are not located in sink holes and meadows (TES map unit 9). Log landings will be located where a minimum of clearing or excavating is needed and at least 100 feet away from stream channels/drainages. Landings will be kept to the minimum size necessary to allow safe operations. Log landings are permitted within these map units if the area is less than 15percent slope and is large enough to facilitate a log landing and is accessible by an existing haul road. F. Erosion Control of Skid Trails, Landings, and Fire lines – All skid trails and fire lines will be water barred and reseeded with an erosion control native seed mix following completion of mechanized equipment operations. Lopping and scattering of slash can be substituted for water barring if the Purchaser and Forest Service agree. Skid trails and fire lines accessible from open roads will be blocked or disguised to discourage vehicle travel. Depressions such as ruts and berms are filled in or removed, restoring skid trails and fire lines to the natural grade of the slope where possible. A Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix will be applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre on all skid trails, landings and fire lines. In addition, skid trails and fire lines located in TES map units 294, 298, 620, and 624 shall have water bars constructed by hand where excessive slope prevents improper water bar construction by machine. Lopping and scattering of slash can be substituted for water barring in these areas if the Purchaser and Forest Service agree. G. Limit the Operating Season – The operation of equipment will be prohibited when soil conditions are such that accelerated soil erosion, excessive soil surface displacement, or excessive compaction would occur. Ground-based mechanical falling, skidding, decking, machine piling and other off-road ground based operations will be stopped in units where soil conditions are such that soil damage is likely. The Sale Administrator will consult with soil and watershed specialist if necessary. Operations may occur outside the normal operating season (May 1 to November 15) when erosion control work is up to date and when the prohibitive soil conditions described above are not present. Guidelines for winter operations include reasonably dry conditions or a combination of frozen soil and snow cover conditions sufficient to minimize or eliminate soil displacement, compaction, and ground cover disturbance will be required during winter logging operations. The objective is to minimize soil compaction and displacement (rutting, etc). This applies to soils in all TES map units. H. Soil Loss at Tolerance – Maintain acceptable effective ground cover levels to prevent soil loss from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits. Table 4 in this report presents effective vegetative ground cover (expressed as a percent) at tolerable soil loss levels. Permit light to moderate ground disturbances (vegetative ground cover is disturbed, but not displaced or removed). The Sale Administrator has the authority to require skid trail designation prior to felling to limit ground disturbance. In those areas where severe disturbance has resulted in removal of vegetative ground cover, apply harvest slash, reseed or other erosion control measures to restore the disturbed area. This applies to all TES map units. BMP’s C, D, E, F, and G apply to designated skid trails and log landings. BMP’s N, O, and P apply to roads. I. Coarse Woody Debris – To maintain or improve long-term soil productivity, manage towards a minimum of 5 to 7 tons/acre of coarse woody debris. In TES map unit 624, manage towards a minimum of 8 to 16 tons/acre. Coarse woody debris is defined as material greater than 3 inches in diameter. Coarse woody debris should be scattered evenly across the soil surface and represent all size

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 126

classes where possible. Unmerchantable or cull trees are to remain on site and not brought into landing or decking areas. In areas (TES map unit 293 in the Marble Canyon Watershed, TES map unit 620 in the Kanab Creek Watershed and TES map Unit 624) where coarse woody debris is deficient, lop and scatter slash to meet this guideline. Also, lop and scatter slash in TES map unit 9. This BMP does not apply to urban interface areas or fuel breaks. J. Machine Piling of Slash – Machine pile activity generated fuels at log landings and where fuel loading exceeds target levels for Coarse Woody Debris. All machine piling will be accomplished using a Forest Service approved brush rake in order to minimize displacement of soil and rock. Machine pile when soils are frozen or dry. Machine piling of slash is not permitted in TES map unit 9. Lop and scatter activity generated fuels in TES map unit 9. A Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix is applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre on all landings. Reseed with native grass species. K. Hand Piling of Slash – Do not hand pile slash in designated stream courses or drainages, springs, seeps, or other designated protected areas. Lop and scatter activity generated fuels in TES map unit 9. Hand piling and burning of PCT slash can occur in Map Unit 9 only in those locations where resulting fuel loads exceed 10 tons per acre. Where appropriate, reseed with native grass species. L. Broadcast Burns – Conduct broadcast burns when moisture and temperature conditions are suitable for burning that reduces fuels without totally consuming forest duff, completely removing effective vegetative ground cover and exposing bare soil. Do not allow complete consumption of heavy concentrated fuels where the potential exist for heat to expose and damage soils. Maintain acceptable effective ground cover levels to prevent soil loss from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits. Table 3 in this report presents effective vegetative ground cover (expressed as a percent) at tolerable soil loss levels. Reseed severely burned areas with a Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre. Reseed with native grass species. No broadcast burning is permitted in TES map unit 9 due to unsatisfactory soil conditions. M. Road Maintenance – Existing and roads to be opened for administrative use are maintained throughout the life of the timber sale. Ensure that existing drainage structures (rolling dips, culverts, rock crossings, etc.) are functioning correctly. Lead out ditches are maintained in a manner that does not allow sediment laden runoff to enter stream courses and/or drainages. Road debris and spoil material as a result of road maintenance activities is not permitted to enter any stream courses and/or drainage. Roads are to receive maintenance prior to winter shut down of logging operations. Forest Service will determine if additional or new drainage structures are needed. N. Traffic Control During Wet Periods – To prevent road damage, the use of existing and temporary roads is not permitted during wet periods. Restrictions are decided by the timber sale administrator. O. Administrative Roads to Be Closed – Roads are lightly scarified and reseeded with native grasses species effective in controlling surface erosion. Road berms are removed and ruts are filled in. Existing drainage control structures are cleaned, maintained and are working effectively. If possible, camouflage or block the road entrance to disguise the road closure. P. Servicing and Refueling Equipment – During servicing and refueling of equipment, pollutants from logging and road maintenance equipment are not permitted to enter stream courses or drainages. Select servicing areas well away from surface waters, seeps, springs, stream courses and drainages. The timber sale administrator will designate the location, size and allowable uses of service and refueling areas. Q. Conduct Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring – Refer to the soil and water monitoring plan.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 127

meet this requirement: . Phase 1 – During Timber Sale Activities The timber sale administrator will monitor the implementation of BMP’s during timber harvesting activities. Notes taken by the timber sale administrator will be used to track any issues or problems with BMP implementation. The Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist will provide assistance as needed by the timber sale administrator to provide clarification of BMP’s specified in the Environmental Assessment. . Phase 2 – Timber Sale Closure The timber sale administrator will verify that the timber sale purchaser has implemented all erosion control measures prior to the closure of the timber sale. Primary responsibility will be that of the timber sale administrator with assistance from the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist if needed. . Phase 3 – Broadcast and Pile Burning The District Fire Management Officer will verify that all erosion control measures associated with all burning activities has been implemented. The Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist will be provided assistance, if needed. . Phase 4 – Effectiveness Monitoring Within the first 5 years following timber sale closure, BMP’s are evaluated for effectiveness. Monitoring will concentrate on such items as erosion control measures for skid trails, log landing or decking areas, road maintenance and burned areas. Conduct a soil condition evaluation within cutting units. Focus on such items as vegetative ground cover, coarse woody debris, erosion, soil compaction and displacement. All monitoring results are documented. Primary responsibility is with the District Ranger and the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist. . Phase 5 – Follow Up Documented information obtained from monitoring is used to adjust BMP’s as necessary, to improve implementation and effectiveness of BMP’s. Information regarding monitoring results and recommended changes to BMP’s will be made available to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review as specified in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Primary responsibility is with the District Ranger and the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist

Heritage Resources . In order to protect heritage resource sites, all sites have been identified and documented using cultural resource survey standards as per the North Kaibab Survey Strategy (Reid and Hanson 2006). The sites will be flagged for avoidance prior to project implementation. The standard survey procedures are designed to identify and document sites visible on the surface of the ground, so in the event that an undocumented site is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, implementation activities will cease and the North Zone archaeologist will be contacted to assess the remains and complete any legal consultation required. . Adverse effects to unevaluated heritage resource sites or sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be avoided as standard practice. All design criteria will meet site protection standards in accordance with the provisions in the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities Among the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3 and associated appendices. The most common design criteria include no ground disturbing activities, pile burning or burning of slash within site boundaries. Prescribed burning is only permitted within boundaries of non-fire sensitive sites. Additional design criteria are found in the programmatic agreement.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 128

. In the event that an adverse effect cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be designed in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and culturally affiliated tribes if applicable, following the procedures in the 36 CFR 800 regulations, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Fire and Fuels Activities . A prescribed fire burn plan would be prepared for each unit utilizing the interagency prescribed fire burn plan template and in accordance with silvicultural and range management prescriptions . Other than the burning of slash piles, or broadcast burning when there is no mechanical treatments, prescribed burning would not be implemented in the same year as mechanical treatments . Mechanical units would be evaluated annually to ensure that follow up prescribed burning does not create more mortality then stated in silvicultural prescription . A 2 year rest/rotation is given to areas that are burned within grazing allotment units and can be adjusted based on annual use and site monitoring . Leave at least 2 snags per acre, 3 downed logs per acre, and 5-7 tons of woody debris per acre including the downed logs . All prescribed fire activity would be conducted consistent with wildlife restrictions . Ignite prescribed burns when fuel moistures are high enough to prevent frequent torching of larger trees . Clear dead material away from the base of the trees to prevent torching or root damage on trees specifically designated for protection . Schedule burns that avoid weather conditions, which would impact smoke sensitive areas and create excessive smoke particulate emissions

Recreation and Visuals . Mark trees on side facing away from road on trees found within 200 ft of the road edge. Do the same on trails found within 50 ft of the trail edge. . If "leave" trees are marked within 200 feet of any Forest Service system road or within 50 feet of any system trail, use a bark-colored paint mix to cover such marks no later than the end of the season that harvest occurs, and mark on the side facing away from the road or trail. . Sign trails/trailheads to advise of vegetative or prescribed burning treatments, schedule, closures. . Keep stump heights low (6 inches) within 50 ft. of trail edges. . If sanitation cuts are used to reduce mistletoe, feather edges up to the treatment areas to avoid abrupt changes in tree densities. . Do not agree to skid trails that intersect Forest Service system roads at right angles. Do not skid onto or up to Hwy. 89A or 67 (skid away from highway corridors). . Rehabilitate skid trails, log decks, or other disturbed areas by restoring the original contours, fine grading, and seeding with native seed mix. . Treat slash consecutively during commercial and non-commercial thinning.

Engineering and roads . District engineer will establish a suitable road system to implement the vegetation management project. . District engineer will open any closed roads for the project and re-close at project completion.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 129

. Project should follow USDA – U.S. Forest Service, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP technical Guide (April 2012) as applicable.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 130

Wildlife Condor Conservation Measures . Prior to the start of construction activities, the district will contact personnel monitoring California condor locations and movement on the district to determine the locations and status of condors in or near the project area. . If non-nesting condors occur within one mile of the project area, actions will be reviewed for condor concerns, and possibly postponed until the condors leave or are hazed by permitted personnel. . If condor nesting activity is known within one mile of the project area, then loud activities will be restricted during the active nesting season. The active nesting season is February 1- September 30. These dates may be modified based on the most current information regarding condor nesting and consultation with the district biologist (Kyra Sanders or Michael Swaim @ 928 643 7395) and the Fish and Wildlife Service. . If condor nesting activity is known within 0.5 mile of the project area, then light and heavy noise producing activities in the project area will be restricted during the active nesting season. . If a condor occurs at a construction or other activity site, activities will cease in the immediate area until the condor leaves on its own or until techniques are employed by permitted personnel which results in the individual condor leaving the area (e.g. hazing). . Construction workers and supervisors will be instructed to avoid interaction with condors and to immediately contact the appropriate district biologist or Peregrine Fund personnel if and when condor(s) occur at a construction site. . The activity site will be cleaned up at the end of each day the work is being conducted (e.g., trash removed, scrap materials picked up) to minimize the likelihood of condors visiting the site. District staff will complete a site visit to the area to ensure adequate clean-up measures are taken. . To prevent water contamination and potential poisoning of condors, a vehicle fluid-leakage and spill plan will be developed and implemented for each project utilizing vehicles larger than pickup trucks and fire engines/pumpers and water tenders (i.e. 18-wheelers and skidders). It will include provisions for immediate clean-up of any hazardous substance, and will define how each hazardous substance will be treated in case of leakage or spill. The plan will be reviewed by the district biologist to ensure condors are adequately addressed. . If a new structure occurs on the rim or above tree line in other areas, there may be a need to install condor deterrent devices on the structure. This possible need will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the district wildlife biologist. . All helicopter dip tanks will be covered when not in use . All fire personnel performing at the crew leader and higher level positions will be provided literature or be instructed regarding condor concerns. . Any presence of condors in the project area will be recorded and reported immediately to the district or assistant biologist. . If condors arrive at any area of human activity associated with permitted activities, the birds will be avoided. The district or assistant wildlife biologist will be notified, and permitted personnel will haze the birds from the area. . No non-permitted personnel will haze condors. . All camp areas will be kept free from trash. . Aircraft use along the rim of the Grand Canyon will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. . Aviation personnel will contact the Peregrine Fund daily (at 520-606-5155 or 520-380-4667) during wildland fire use operations involving aviation to check on locations of condors.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 131

. If any fire retardant chemicals must be used, the application area will be surveyed and any contaminated carcasses will be removed before they become condor food sources unless safety concerns override this restriction. . Aircraft will remain 437 yards (400 meters) from condors in the air or on the ground unless safety concerns override this restriction. . If airborne condors approach aircraft, aircraft will give up airspace to the extent possible, as long as this action does not jeopardize safety. . The district will adhere to the air quality standards set by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. . Smoke from wildland fire use projects will be prevented from negatively affecting condor breeding. A given potential wildland fire use event will not be initiated, or an existing fire use event will be modified or terminated, in order to prevent or stop significant amounts of smoke, or smoke that will remain in place for an extended period of time, or chronic smoke events, from occurring in area(s) where condors are attempting to breed.

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines Recommendations for avoiding disturbance at foraging areas and communal roost sites: . Minimize potentially disruptive activities and development in the eagles’ direct flight path between their nest and roost sites and important foraging areas. . Avoid recreational and commercial boating and fishing near critical eagle foraging areas during peak feeding times (usually early to mid-morning and late afternoon), except where eagles have demonstrated tolerance to such activity. . Do not use explosives within ½ mile (or within 1 mile in open areas) of communal roosts when eagles are congregating, without prior coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and your state wildlife agency. . Locate aircraft corridors no closer than 1,000 feet vertical or horizontal distance from communal roost sites. Additional recommendations and management practices that landowner and planners can exercise to benefit bald eagles: . Protect and preserve potential roost and nest sites by retaining mature trees and old growth stands, particularly within ½ mile from water. . Where nests are blown from trees during storms or are otherwise destroyed by the elements, continue to protect the site in the absence of the nest for up to three (3) complete breeding seasons. Many eagles will rebuild the nest and reoccupy the site. . To avoid collisions, site wind turbines, communication towers, and high voltage transmission power lines away from nests, foraging areas, and communal roost sites. . Employ industry-accepted best management practices to prevent birds from colliding with or being electrocuted by utility lines, towers, and poles. If possible, bury utility lines in important eagle areas. . Where bald eagles are likely to nest in human-made structures (e.g., cell phone towers) and such use could impede operation or maintenance of the structures or Jeopardize the safety of the eagles, equip the structures with either (1) devices engineered to discourage bald eagles from building nests, or (2) nesting platforms that will safely accommodate bald eagle nests without interfering with structure performance. . Immediately cover carcasses of euthanized animals at landfills to protect eagles from being poisoned.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 132

. Do not intentionally feed bald eagles. Artificially feeding bald eagles can disrupt their essential behavioral patterns and put them at increased risk from power lines, collision with windows and cars, and other mortality factors. . Use pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other chemicals only in accordance with Federal and state laws. . Monitor and minimize dispersal of contaminants associated with hazardous waste sites (legal or illegal), permitted releases, and runoff from agricultural areas, especially within watersheds where eagles have shown poor reproduction or where bio-accumulating contaminants have been documented. These factors present a risk of contamination to eagles and their food sources.

Northern goshawks . All established northern goshawk guidelines in RM 217 and the Kaibab National Forest Plan will be followed to protect the species, its habitat and its associated prey species. . Limit human activities in or near nest sites and post-fledgling family area's (PFA’s) during the breeding season so that goshawk reproductive success is not affected by human activities. The breeding season extends from March 1 through September 30. . In northern goshawk replacement nest areas, tree-groups may be thinned from below; removing, in order: (1) mistletoe infected, (2) suppressed, (3) intermediate, and (4) co-dominant individuals. Promote varied, irregular spacing between trees. . In northern goshawk replacement nesting areas, preferred method for treating woody debris is fire use, next, lopping and scattering, and last, hand piling. Avoid slash piling with crawler tractor. . For nest stand areas (Forest Plan, p. 30): (1) Preferred treatments to maintain the desired structure are to thin from below with non-uniform spacing and use of hand tools and fire use to reduce fuel loads. (2) Lopping and scattering of thinning debris is preferred if prescribed fire cannot be used. (3) Piling of debris should be limited. When necessary, hand piling should be used to minimize compaction within piles and to minimize displacement and destruction of the forest floor and the herbaceous layer. (4) Do not grapple or dozer pile debris. (5) Use small, permanent skid trails in lieu of roads for timber harvesting.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 133

Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab Forest Plan

Note: Full plan is available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf

Fine-scale (10 acres or less) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

Trees typically occur in irregularly shaped groups and are variably spaced with some tight clumps. Trees within groups are of similar or variable ages and may contain species other than ponderosa pine. Tree groups are made up of clumps of various age classes and size classes that typically occur in areas less than one acre, but may be larger, such as on north-facing slopes. Crowns of trees within the mid-aged to old groups are interlocking or nearly interlocking and consist of approximately 2 to 40 trees per group. The interspaces between groups are variably shaped, are comprised of a native grass/forb/shrub mix, and may contain individual trees or snags. Regeneration openings occur as a mosaic and are similar in size to nearby groups. Organic ground cover and herbaceous vegetation provide protection for soil and moisture infiltration, and contribute to plant and animal diversity and ecosystem function. Herbaceous vegetation reflects the site potential. Where historically occurring, Gambel oak thickets with various diameter stems and low growing, shrubby oak are present. These thickets provide forage, cover, and habitat for species that depend on them such as small mammals, foliage nesting birds, deer, and elk. Gambel oak mast (acorns) provides food for wildlife species. Large tree form oaks, snags, and partial snags with hollow boles or limbs are present. Where Gambel oak comprises more than 10 percent of the basal area, it is not uncommon for canopy cover to be greater than 40 percent. Isolated infestations of Southwestern dwarf mistletoe may occur, but the degree of severity and amount of mortality varies among the infected trees. Witches’ brooms may form on infected trees, providing habitat and food for wildlife and invertebrate species. Fires generally burn as surface fires, but single-tree torching and isolated group torching is not uncommon.

Mid-scale (100 to 1,000 acres) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 134

Forest conditions in some areas contain 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest (e.g., goshawk post-fledging family areas, Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, drainages, and steep north-facing slopes). Patches of even-aged forest structure are present, but infrequent. Disturbances sustain the overall variation in age and structural distribution. Snags 18 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater average 1 to 2 snags per acre. Snags and green snags of various sizes and forms are common. Downed logs (greater than 12 inches diameter at mid-point and greater than 8 feet long) average 3 logs per acre. Coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter (including downed logs), ranges from 3 to 10 tons per acre. Fires burn primarily on the forest floor and typically do not spread between tree groups as crown fire.

Landscape-scale (over 10,000 acres) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

The ponderosa pine forest vegetation community is a mosaic of forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. The forest is generally uneven-aged and open. Groups of old trees are mixed with groups of younger trees. Occasional areas of even-aged structure are present. Denser tree conditions exist in some locations such as north-facing slopes, canyons, and drainage bottoms. The ponderosa pine forest is composed predominantly of vigorous trees, but declining trees are present. Snags, green snags, and coarse woody debris occur across the landscape. Where it naturally occurs, Gambel oak is present with all structure classes represented. It is reproducing and maintaining or expanding its presence within its natural range. Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, generally in small areas as individual old growth components, or as clumps of old growth. Old growth components include old trees, snags, coarse woody debris, and structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality). The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all components, processes, and conditions associated with endemic levels of disturbances (e.g., fire, dwarf mistletoe, insects, diseases, lightning, drought, and wind). Forest vegetation conditions are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances and climate variability. Grasses and needle cast provide the fine flashy fuels needed to maintain the natural fire regime. Fire and other disturbances are sufficient to maintain desired overall tree density, structure, species composition, coarse woody debris loads, and nutrient cycling. The risk of uncharacteristic high-severity fire and associated loss of key ecosystem components is low. Frequent, low-severity fires (Fire Regime I) occur across the entire landscape with a return interval of 0 to 35 years.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 135

Objectives for Ponderosa Pine

To make progress toward the desired conditions and reduce the potential for active crown fire in ponderosa pine communities at a rate that would maintain the desired conditions over time: Mechanically thin 11,000 to 19,000 acres annually. Treat an average of 13,000 to 55,000 acres annually, using a combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited wildfires.1

Management Approach This plan emphasizes restoration of ponderosa pine forests because these forests are highly departed from desired conditions and were identified as a priority need for change. Projects in ponderosa pine are aimed at restoring forest structure and process (e.g. natural disturbances such as low-severity fire and dwarf mistletoe, watershed function, and nutrient cycling). Additionally, project design features may seek to increase diversity that was historically present by promoting oak, aspen, openings, and understory production. Treatments typically strive to mimic the structure and patterns of reference conditions using historical evidences and soil characteristics. However, treatments may consider other circumstances, desired conditions, and objectives, such as species specific habitat needs. As a result, reconstructed reference conditions are general guides rather than rigid restoration prescriptions. In ponderosa pine, reintroducing fire as a disturbance agent is critical to restoration. Fire-only treatments may be appropriate for some areas with open canopies and low fuel loads, but mechanical fuel reduction is needed in many areas before fire can be safely reintroduced. Fire management needs to maintain an appropriate balance between smoke impacts and public concerns (health, visibility, etc.). Southwestern dwarf mistletoe is also a natural disturbance agent in ponderosa pine, but in some areas the degree of infection is unsustainable and exceeds desired levels. Treatments for controlling dwarf mistletoe are typically aimed at maintaining infection levels that allow for development of a diversity of age classes across the landscape, not to eliminate this naturally occurring disturbance agent. Tools for creating desired stand conditions and openings include a variety of treatments and uneven-aged cutting methods such as matrix thinning, all-size free thinning, single tree selection, group selection, sanitation and salvage, limited even-aged regeneration cutting, thinning, and managed fire. In pine-oak forests many individual large Gambel oak trees and oak copses have become over-topped with pine trees. Treatments to promote oak regeneration and establishment are fairly effective, because oak sprouts prolifically after release treatments. Oaks may be cut or burned to stimulate new growth, maintain growth in large-diameter trees, or to stimulate mast production. Incorporation of design features in thinning and planting prescriptions can also be used to create “living snow fences” for shade, snow accumulation, wind protection, and slow snowmelt, and protect from sublimation caused by prevailing winds. This may help offset the effects of climate change. Pine-oak forests are managed as Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) habitat as discussed under the approved revised Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (2012). The Kaibab NF works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to address the habitat needs of the Mexican spotted owl by minimizing disturbance and providing nest/roost habitat, which includes managing for areas of closed canopy and desired levels of key structural elements such as large old trees, snags, and downed woody debris.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 136

Illegal wood cutting is probably the biggest threat to oak, as it reduces both the amount and quality of oak habitat. Enforcement, education, and site-specific planning will be necessary to ensure quality oak habitat over the long term. Firewood collection opportunities are managed so site-specific planning and permits may specify the amount and size of oak that can be collected in areas where live and dead woody oak habitat components are limited. Due to time and budget constraints in the face of increasing risk, the Kaibab NF intends to prioritize and design treatments so they will be most effective. One strategy includes designing treatments that make progress toward desired conditions and retain those characteristics for at least 20 years. In terms of prescriptions, this means that the post-treatment conditions may need to be on the more open end of the desired range to accommodate the growth that is anticipated in the interval between treatments. Additionally, within a given project boundary, some acres may be left untreated if they are already at low risk, or if leaving them untreated meets specific wildlife habitat needs but does not promote undesirable fire behavior at the mid-scale in surrounding treated acres. Restoration activities would be prioritized in the areas identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) and then move to other areas of high risk and high value. The KFHF was a multi- stakeholder collaborative process that prioritized areas most in need of treatment. Primary indicators were related to high risk and high value such as those with closed canopies containing large trees. These areas were identified as high priority for restoration because they already contain many components of the desired condition and a single treatment may come close to meeting the desired condition, but if lost, would take centuries to replace. The KFHF report can be accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf.

Desired Conditions for Aspen (General)

Aspen stands are characterized by disturbances that may include fire, mechanical treatments, insects, pathogens, and abiotic factors. Collectively, these agents of change promote healthy tree regeneration, decadence, and nutrient cycling. These processes further contribute to high quality wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Aspen occurs in natural patterns of abundance and distribution at levels similar to or greater than those at time of plan approval. Aspen is successfully regenerating and recruiting into older and larger size classes. Size classes have a natural distribution, with the greatest number of stems in the smallest classes. Fire intervals are similar to reference conditions and maintain aspen. Understory vegetation consists of shrubby or herbaceous species, providing forage and cover for wildlife and habitat for invertebrates such as pollinators. Aspen provides opportunities for scenic enjoyment, recreation, and cultural or spiritual experiences.

Standards for Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities

The maximum size opening that may be created in one harvest operation for the purpose of creating an even-aged stand shall not exceed 40 acres except when it is following a large-scale disturbance event such as a stand replacing fire, wind storm, or insect or disease outbreak. When openings are created with the intent of regeneration, effort shall be made to ensure that lands can be adequately restocked within 5 years of final harvest.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 137

Clearcutting shall only be used where it is the optimum harvesting method for making progress towards the desired conditions.

Guidelines for Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities

Projects in forested communities that change stand structure should generally retain at least historic frequencies of trees by species across broad age and diameter classes at the mid-scale. As such, the largest and oldest trees are usually retained. On suitable timberlands, projects should retain somewhat higher frequencies of trees across broad diameter classes to allow for future tree harvest. Project design should manage for replacement structural stages to assure continuous representation of old growth over time. Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not remove: ○ Large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, flattened tops, with moderate to full crowns and large drooping or gnarled limbs (e.g. Thomson’s age class 4, Dunning’s tree class 5 and/or Keen’s Tree Class 4, A and B [appendix C]). ○ Mature trees with large dwarf mistletoe induced witches’ brooms suitable for wildlife nesting, caching, and denning, except where retaining such trees would prevent the desired development of uneven-aged conditions over time. ○ Large snags, partial snags, and trees (>18 inches d.b.h.) with broken tops, cavities, sloughing bark, lightning scars >4 inches wide, and large stick nests (>18 inches in diameter). ○ Gambel oak >8 inches, diameter at root collar. ○ Known bat roost trees. The location and layout of vegetation management activities should effectively disconnect large expanses of continuous predicted active crown fire. Vegetation management prescriptions should provide for sufficient canopy breaks to limit crown fire spread between groups, allow for the redevelopment and maintenance of a robust understory, and mimic the spatial arrangement of the reference conditions. Vegetation management activities in mixed conifer forests should incorporate experimental design features and monitoring to accelerate learning and adaptive management. Trees established after 1890 should generally not be retained in areas where biophysical conditions would have supported stable openings over time. Vegetation management activities should meet or exceed goals for scenic beauty (scenic integrity objectives) by creating natural patterns, structure and composition of trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants. Vegetation management should favor the development of native understory species in areas where they have the potential to establish and grow.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 138

Even aged silvicultural practices may be used as a strategy for achieving the desired conditions over the long term, such as bringing dwarf mistletoe infection levels to within a sustainable range, or old tree retention. Seed and plants used for revegetation should originate from the appropriate PNVT and general ecoregion (i.e. southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area. Heavy equipment and log decks should not be staged in montane meadows.

See also “Recreation and Scenery,” “Nonnative Invasive Species,” “Wildlife”, ”Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species”, and relevant major vegetation communities.

Management Approach The above Standards for Vegetation Management are required for meeting the intent of the National Forest Management Act. On the Kaibab NF, the predominate vegetation management strategies are uneven-aged management systems. This is because vegetation management objectives were only developed for the ponderosa pine and frequent fire vegetation types, both of which have uneven aged desired conditions. Even aged management prescriptions are, however, used as a strategy for achieving the desired uneven-aged conditions over the long term. Even-aged prescriptions are appropriate when they would increase or maintain a trajectory toward desired conditions such as to regenerate aspen or when mistletoe infections are moderate to severe and the ability of the area to achieve the desired conditions would be significantly impaired.

Guidelines for Soils and Watershed Management

Projects should incorporate the national best management practices for water quality management and include design features to protect and improve watershed condition. In disturbed areas, erosion control measures should be implemented to improve soil conditions. Seeds and plants used for revegetation should originate from the same PNVT and general ecoregion (i.e. southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area.

Desired Conditions for Wildlife

Native wildlife species are distributed throughout their potential natural range. Desirable nonnative wildlife species are present and in balance with healthy, functioning ecosystems. Habitat is available at the appropriate spatial, temporal, compositional, and structural levels such that it provides adequate opportunity for breeding, feeding, nesting, and carrying out other critical life cycle needs for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species. Species with specific habitat needs (e.g. snags, logs, large trees, interlocking canopy, and cavities) are provided for. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs provide forage, cover, fawning, and nesting sites. Interconnected forest and grassland habitats allow for movement of wide ranging species and promote natural predator-prey relationships, particularly for strongly interactive species (e.g., mountain lions).

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 139

Habitat configuration and availability allow wildlife populations to adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging, etc.) in response to climate change and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations. Human-wildlife conflicts are minimal. Hunting, fishing and other wildlife based recreation opportunities exist, but do not compromise species populations or habitat.

Guidelines for Wildlife Management

Project activities and special uses should be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and critical life cycle needs of wildlife, particularly for raptors. Project activities and special uses should incorporate recommended measures for golden eagle management such as temporary closures to limit human disturbance in the vicinity of golden eagle nests. Potentially disturbing project-related activities should be restricted within 300 yards of active raptor nest sites between April 1 and August 15.

Management Approach The Kaibab NF strives to create and maintain natural communities and habitats in the amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative plant, aquatic, and wildlife species within the planning area while contributing to broader landscape-scale initiatives where appropriate. This is accomplished in an integrative fashion by working closely with range, fire, timber, and other resource areas to coordinate and maximize activities for wildlife benefit. Cooperation with State and federal wildlife management agencies also helps to minimize conflicting wildlife resource issues related to hunted, fished, and trapped species. The Kaibab NF coordinates with Rocky Mountain Research Station and other entities to identify future areas of research that would support management decisions and enable the adaptive management process. The Kaibab NF continues to support the AGFD in various capacities directed toward managing wildlife, fish, and habitat. Areas for potential collaboration include (but are not limited to) achieving management goals and objectives specified in Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), carrying out memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and the cooperative agreement for management of the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, and management of recreation fisheries. The Kaibab NF works closely with the BLM, Grand Canyon National Park, and AGFD in managing desert bighorn sheep, and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). Kaibab NF has been working and will continue to collaborative with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup to implement strategies identified in the “Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment” as well as the “Coconino County Wildlife Corridor Assessment.” The Kaibab NF cooperates with State, Federal, and nongovernmental organizations to reestablish naturally occurring species that have been affected by anthropogenic activities. These include species such as the California condor and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), and where feasible and appropriate, the recovery and/or restoration of strongly interactive species within their historical range. 18

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 140

Potential climate change, drought, El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the resulting potential effects of management activities are considered during project planning. Particular species that are sensitive to changes in weather may need special consideration. Changes in typical weather patterns can affect migration habitat use, breeding seasons, and fecundity (i.e., in hotter, drier years, mitigations may be needed to reduce physiological stress on breeding wildlife). Climate change is an important consideration when managing habitat for wildlife species. The Kaibab NF references current literature and the best available science when making site specific decisions relevant to project planning. This is done in an interdisciplinary context with input from other resource specialists. For example; the wildlife guideline specifying disturbance buffers around raptor nests is intended as a minimum buffer. Some raptor species (e.g., osprey) are more adapted to disturbance and are likely to tolerate a buffer of just 300 yards during the breeding season while other, less tolerant species (e.g. peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus)) may require buffers of up to a ½ mile. Wildlife biologists work with other IDT resource specialists to identify and define the appropriate site specific buffers (within the context of plan guidance) for other raptors on a case-by-case basis.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Threatened and endangered species are those listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. On the Kaibab NF, these species currently include the California condor, Mexican spotted owl, Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache), and Fickeisen Plains cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae) (proposed). Region 3 Sensitive Species2 are those plants and animals identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The primary needs for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TES) are addressed through law, regulation, and policy (e.g., recovery plans and conservation agreements). As a result, this plan provides the framework for implementing the recommendations from these higher-level laws, regulations, policies, plans, and agreements for TES, with limited needed additional (below) direction.

Desired Conditions for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species have quality habitat, stable or increasing populations, and are at low risk for extirpation. Goshawk nest areas are multi-aged forests dominated by large trees with interlocking crowns and are generally denser than the surrounding forest.

Guidelines for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

2 The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southwestern Region can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/plants-animals/?cid=FSBDEV3_022105 19

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 141

A minimum of six goshawk nest areas (known and replacement) should be located per territory. Nest and replacement nest areas should generally be located in drainages, at the base of slopes, and on northerly (NW to NE) aspects. Nest areas should generally be 25 to 30 acres in size. Goshawk PFAs (post-fledging family areas) of approximately 420 acres in size should be designated surrounding the nest sites. Potentially disturbing project-related activities should be minimized in occupied goshawk nest areas during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.

Management Approach The Kaibab NF maintains strong partnerships between the State, other federal agencies, academia, and nongovernment organizations to provide for TES species. Emphasis is placed on the protection and replacement of key habitats that contain threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species of plants and animals. The Kaibab NF works with the USFWS and other partners to develop conservation measures (e.g. public education to reduce human impacts) to prevent listing and to aid to in the recovery and delisting of federally listed species. For 10(j) species, such as the California condor, this applies inside and outside the designated experimental range. See also “Wildlife”, “Natural Waters,” “Caves, Karsts, and Mines,” “Cliffs and Rocky Features,” “Pediocactus Conservation Area,” and “Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area.”

Rare and Narrow Endemic Species Some species face threats simply by virtue of their relatively limited distribution. Species (or subspecies) are considered to have a restricted distribution if they are limited in extent in the Southwest. A species is considered to be a narrow endemic if it has extremely limited distribution and/or habitat in northern Arizona. Due to limited distributions and potential susceptibility to perturbations, some species may require specific management considerations. On the Kaibab NF there are currently 74 known species for which restricted distribution is considered a threat; of these, 48 are narrow endemics, some of which are one the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (see above).

Desired Conditions for Rare and Narrow Endemic Species

Habitat and refugia are present for narrow endemics or species with restricted distributions and/or declining populations. Location and conditions of rare and narrow endemic species are known.

Guidelines for Rare and Narrow Endemic Species

Project design should incorporate measures to protect and provide for rare and narrow endemic species where they are likely to occur.

Management Approach Species-specific information and management recommendations can be found in the Kaibab NF endemic species guidebook, which is to be maintained as a living document and updated with new species, information, and locations as they become available. 20

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 142

Desired Conditions for Nonnative Invasive Species

Invasive species are contained and/or controlled so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of ecosystems or impact native wildlife. Visitor experiences are not adversely impacted by the presence of invasive species.

Guidelines for Nonnative Invasive Species

All ground-disturbing projects should assess the risk of noxious weed invasion and incorporate measures to minimize the potential for the spread of noxious and invasive species. New populations should be detected early, monitored, and treated as soon as possible. Treatment approaches should use integrated pest management (IPM) practices to treat noxious and nonnative invasive species. IPM includes manual, biological, mechanical, and herbicide/pesticide treatments. Use of pesticides, herbicides, and biocontrol agents should minimize impacts on non-target flora and fauna.

Desired Conditions for the Grand Canyon Game Preserve

The Grand Canyon Game Preserve provides quality habitat for game animals. There are a variety of vegetation types, in all stages of development, which provide a range of habitats for native and desired nonnative wildlife species, including natural predators.

Management Approach for the Grand Canyon Game Preserve The Kaibab NF cooperates with the AGFD in carrying out the cooperative agreement for managing the Grand Canyon Game Preserve. The game preserve is managed in the spirit of the original proclamation, informed by advances in scientific information and societal values, with an emphasis on the wise use of natural resources.

Desired Conditions for the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark

The Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark provides quality ponderosa pine habitat for the Kaibab squirrel.

Management Approach for the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark The needs for the Kaibab Squirrel NNL are addressed in the Forestwide direction for the ponderosa pine vegetation type. The Kaibab NF continues to work collaboratively with the NPS NNL Program Intermountain Regional Coordinator, as well as other interested parties, in developing a better understanding of the habitat use, distribution, and conservation needs of this unique species. Direction for areas with NNL designations requires Federal agencies to consider the unique properties of the NNL in their planning and impact analysis (Fed. Reg. 64: 25718) and provides opportunities to secure funding and develop partnerships to achieve management and conservation goals.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 143

Desired Conditions for Cultural Resources

• Cultural resources, including known traditional cultural properties, are preserved, protected, or restored. • Historic artifacts are preserved in situ or, when necessary, curated following current standards. • All historic properties are evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register and properties that are appropriate are listed to the National Register of Historic Places. • Cultural resource findings will be synthesized and shared with the scientific community and public through formal presentations, publications, and educational venues. • Public understanding about the cultural resources and historic preservation issues contribute to their protection. • The Kaibab NF historic documents, including photographs, maps, journals, and Forest Service program management records, are available to the public for research and interpretation.

Management Approach for Cultural Resources Protection The Kaibab NF has been working and will continue to work to identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources. Collaborative partnerships and volunteer efforts that will assist the Kaibab NF in historic preservation will be developed and maintained. The Kaibab NF uses a proactive approach in protecting cultural resources from adverse impacts and conducts outreach to educate the public on the history of the area and historic preservation issues. Additionally, the Kaibab NF seeks opportunities to do additional survey beyond the stated objective of 200 acres per year when funding and other resources are available. Partnerships with federally recognized tribes help to protect ancestral sites and manage cultural resources through meaningful collaboration. The Kaibab NF recognizes that there are important tribal sacred sites, ethnographic resources and traditional use areas that may not meet the definition of a historic property. The Kaibab NF works to protect these resources using existing authorities in collaboration with federally recognized tribes. Memoranda of understanding with federally recognized tribes promote strong working relationships by addressing issues of mutual concern. Desired Conditions for Nonnative Invasive Species • Invasive species are contained and/or controlled so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of ecosystems or impact native wildlife. • Visitor experiences are not adversely impacted by the presence of invasive species.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 144

• Conservation education actively engages children and adults resulting in increased forest stewardship, ecological awareness, partnerships, and volunteerism. Information and educational programs provide opportunities to connect youth, low-income, and minority populations with nature. • Visitors have access to information that enriches their recreation experiences and contributes to an understanding of their role in public land stewardship. “Leave No Trace,12” “Tread Lightly,13” fire prevention, wildlife awareness (e.g. lead reduction, Be Bear Aware14, Animal Inn15, etc.), and archaeological resource protection principles are promoted and practiced by the visiting public. • Opportunities for off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding and driving for pleasure are available on the designated system of NFS roads and motorized trails. • Recreation management activities complement and support local economies and tourism. • User conflicts are infrequent. • The Great Western Trail16 route can be driven boundary to boundary through each of the districts where it occurs. Signage helps to identify and highlight the route. • The historic character of the Beale Wagon Road and Overland Road trails is preserved.

Management Approach for Recreation and Scenery Recreation management decisions on the Kaibab NF are guided by three primary approaches. These approaches are aimed at providing managers a more complete framework for considering management actions. Their purpose is to minimize new development in remote settings and to protect and manage both low and high use areas and facilities. These approaches guide actions in response to changing or increasing use. Provide a range of recreation opportunities. Manage in a way that maximizes the opportunities available to all types of recreationists to the degree allowed by this plan and other agency regulations. Concentrate use at specific sites or locations rather than dispersing use within the area or to other areas. In keeping with the principles of recreation ecology, this approach would assure that impacts associated with recreational use are constrained to particular areas. Minimize the extent to which forest management actions disperse use from high to low use areas. This would help accomplish the goal of constraining the number and size of areas impacted by recreational use where possible. The ultimate goal of these approaches is to maintain the visitors’ perceived freedom to recreate how and where they choose, while retaining healthy, sustainable public lands. When impact and user capacity questions arise, indicators and standards to determine how and where to allocate visitor use should be employed. These approaches would not preclude the Kaibab NF from developing new sites or adapting old sites to accommodate new uses, provided appropriate analyses are conducted to make those decisions.

As the population in northern Arizona and the popularity of mountain biking and OHV use continues to grow, the pressure for more trails will likely increase. Any new trail development needs to strike a balance between opportunities for different types of recreation and other resource concerns. Due to the nature of motorized, equestrian, and bicycle trail use, regular maintenance is needed. Partners, volunteers, and potentially a fee system could help to provide increased capacity and revenue for maintenance materials, operation, education, and enforcement of regulations. Many forest users have expressed concerns about recreation use impacts and a desire for opportunities to engage in shared stewardship of the Kaibab NF. With limited Forest Service budgets and increased recreation pressure, volunteers and partners will likely play an increasingly important role in helping to construct and maintain trails and manage dispersed camping, especially at popular areas such as viewpoints. The Kaibab NF places emphasis in its specific niches. As such, recreation opportunities on the North Kaibab Ranger District emphasize dispersed recreation, nonmotorized trail and wilderness opportunities, while on the Williams and Tusayan districts, the recreation emphasis is on day-use areas, developed recreation opportunities, and facilities such as campgrounds.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 145

Desired Conditions for Air Quality • Air quality meets or surpasses State and Federal ambient air quality standards. • Management activities on the Kaibab NF do not adversely impact Class I airshed visibility as established in the Clean Air Act.

Management Approach for Air Quality Public tolerance for nuisance smoke, rather than law, regulation, or policy, effectively sets the social limit to the number of acres that can be treated with wildland fire. Community public relations and education, coupled with preburn notification, greatly improve public acceptance of fire management activities. In order to maintain public support for prescribed burns and the use of wildfires to accomplish resource benefits, it is important that land managers be responsive to the public’s tolerance thresholds to balance ecological benefits with social and economic values. The public will tolerate several days of nuisance smoke in a row, and up to several weeks total a year, but even the most supportive have tolerance limits. Public acceptance of smoke varies greatly from year-to-year. Acceptance of smoke from prescribed fires and wildfires is high following seasons with high profile, high-severity events, and during extremely dry years when the threat of large, high-severity incidents is elevated. Conversely, acceptance wanes during wetter years when the threat of uncharacteristic fires is low. Control measures developed for site specific projects can reduce these localized particulate matter emissions. Examples include reducing travel speeds on unpaved surfaces, ceasing work activities during periods of high winds, applying gravel or soil stabilizers on dust problem areas, covering loads, and covering ground surfaces with water during earth moving activities. Desired Conditions for Natural Waters • Stream channel stability and aquatic habitats retain their inherent resilience to disturbances and climate fluctuations. Stream channel morphology reflects changes in the hydrological balance, runoff, and sediment supply appropriate to the landscape setting. • Springs and ponds have the necessary soil, water, and vegetation attributes to be healthy and functioning. Water levels, flow patterns, groundwater recharge rates, and geochemistry are similar to reference conditions. Springs, streams, and ponds have appropriate plant cover to protect banks and shorelines from excessive erosion. • Hydrophytes and emergent vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and springs in levels that reflect climatic conditions. Overhanging vegetation and floating plants such as water lilies exist where they naturally occur. • The necessary physical and biological components, including cover, forage, water, microclimate, and nesting/breeding habitat, provide habitat for a diverse community of plant and wildlife species. • Riparian dependent plant and animal species are self-sustaining and occur in natural patterns of abundance and distribution. Within its capability, stream flow and water quality are adequate to maintain aquatic habitat and water sources for native and desired nonnative species.7 Native macroinvertebrates are appropriately abundant and diverse. • Native amphibians are free from or minimally impacted by nonnative predation and diseases. Unwanted nonnative species do not exert a detectable impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems • Where springs or other natural waters have been modified for livestock and/or human consumption, developments are operational. • The location and status of springs and water resources are known, organized, and available.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 146

activities include fencing or other physical protections, restoration of diversions, and revegetation with native species. Develop collaborative strategies and partnerships for spring inventory, assessment, restoration, monitoring, and research when appropriate. Use volunteers to maintain and improve fence exclosures and decrease agency maintenance costs. The Forest Service and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) share the common objective of improving and protecting the nation’s waters. ADEQ serves as the designated management agency within the context of the Arizona Water Quality Management Program for all NFS lands within Arizona. The Kaibab NF coordinates with ADEQ to ensure Forest Service projects meet the requirements of State Water Quality Management Plans and the Nonpoint Source Management Program developed pursuant to Federal regulations and the Clean Water Act. To meet common objectives, the Kaibab NF works with partners and stakeholders (i.e., Museum of Northern Arizona, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, The Nature Conservancy, Grand Canyon Trust , National Park Service (NPS), AGFD, and USFWS) to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer of northern Arizona springs and seeps. The Kaibab NF also collaborates with stakeholders and uses public education and outreach to garner support for spring restoration.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 147

Appendix C. Large Tree Retention Classes for Ponderosa Pine

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 148

Age Class Descriptions Dunning (1928) Age Class 5: Overmature; usually largest trees in stand; bark light yellow with wide, long and smooth plates; tops flat with terminals rarely discernible; nearly all branches are drooping, gnarled, and crooked. Keen (1943) Age Class 4: Overmature; making no further height growth; diameter growth very slow; bark light yellow, uniform for entire bole (except in extreme top), with wide, long and smooth plates and often shallow fissures; tops usually flat or occasionally rounded or irregular; branches large, heavy, and often gnarled or crooked and mostly drooping except in extreme top. Thomson (1940) Age Class 4: Mature to overmature; trees usually large; bark reddish-brown to yellow with wide, long and smooth plates; tops usually flat and making no further height growth; branches mostly large and drooping, gnarled or crooked.

References Dunning, D. 1928. A tree classification for the selection forests of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Agricultural Research 36(9): 755–771. Keen, F. P. 1943. Ponderosa pine tree classes redefined. Journal of Forestry 41(4): 249–253. Thomson, W. G. 1940. A growth rate classification of Southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 38(7): 547–553.

Appendix D. Kaibab National Forest’s Climate Change Approach for Plan Revision

Wildfire Historically, wildfires have played an important role in the vitality of fire-adapted ecosystems. Past forest management and fire suppression practices have changed the dynamics of fire on the landscape within the Southwestern Region’s national forests and grasslands, resulting in greater fuel loads and risk of wildfire. Federal land management agencies in the West routinely exceed expenditures of over $1 billion per year for wildfire suppression. Since about the mid-1970s, the total acreage of area burned and the severity of wildfires in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest have increased. Fire frequency and severity are likely to increase as temperatures rise and precipitation decreases. Severe wildfires reduce the land’s ability to sequester and store carbon. Population growth in the Southwest may also lead to greater numbers of human-caused wildfires. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fires and the 2011 Wallow Fire in Arizona were started by humans. Combined, these fires burned over a million acres.

Outbreaks of Insects, Diseases, and Nonnative Invasive Species Disturbances associated with climate change can have secondary impacts indirectly caused by wildfire and climate related extremes. Increased variation in temperature and moisture can cause stress and increase the susceptibility of forest ecosystems to invasions by insects, diseases, and nonnative species. New environmental conditions can lead to a different mix of species that tend to favor plants and animals that can adapt their biological functions or are aggressive in colonizing new territories (Whitlock 2008). However, changes in adaptability may be too slow given the predicted rate of change. Species that are

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 149

already broadly adapted may become more prevalent and species with narrow adaptability may become less prevalent. Disturbance factors that create more vulnerability in native ecosystems or require extensive controls to maintain the status quo are likely to adversely affect the health and diversity of forests. Desired conditions for healthy forests include resilience to dramatic changes caused by abiotic and biotic stressors and mortality agents (e.g. pine beetle) and a balanced supply of essential resources (light, moisture, nutrients, growing space). Insects and diseases typically invade in cycles followed by periods of relative inactivity. Nonnative invasive species, such as cheatgrass and saltcedar, are expected to continue to increase in numbers and extent. Vulnerabilities to forest threats from an environment that may be much different from the historic range of natural variability is an active area of research, and includes developing new management approaches for changing conditions.

Diminishing Water Resources Locations of most snowpack and upland reservoirs are on national forests in the Southwest. In much of the Southwest, less precipitation is falling as snow and spring melting is occurring earlier in the year. The Colorado River, Rio Grande, and several other southwestern rivers have streamflows that appear to be peaking earlier in the year, suggesting that the spring temperatures in these regions are warmer than in the past, causing snow to melt earlier. Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce, calling for tradeoffs among competing uses, potentially leading to conflict. In the Southwest, intense debate is likely to occur over resource allocation and conservation of available supplies.

Climate Related Socioeconomic Demand Populations in Arizona and New Mexico are growing at an unprecedented rate. As of the American Communities Survey in 2006, Arizona’s population was over 6 million. The total increase for Arizona between 1980 and 2006 was 123 percent. The combination of population growth and climate change would likely exacerbate climatic effects, putting even greater pressure on water, forests, and other resources. Climate change could have long-term impacts on many of the amenities, goods, and services from forests, including productivity of locally harvested plants; local economics through land use shifts from forest to other uses; forest real estate values; and tree cover and composition in urban areas and associated benefits and costs.

Climate Change and Wildlife Habitat While climate change has the potential to affect all wildlife species, some are inherently more vulnerable than others, particularly species with specialized niches, limited mobility, and limited physiological adaptability. Certain habitats are more vulnerable to a changing climate. For example, springs and seeps are a valuable natural water source for a variety of birds and mammals, particularly in arid environments. These areas may offer critical refugia for rare and narrow endemic species. However, springs are especially sensitive to variable precipitation and likely to dry up during prolonged drought. As such, the unreliability of natural water resources would make it harder for wildlife species to persist, pushing the limits of their natural range. Managing for landscape connectivity will be important, as connectivity facilitates movement of species among habitats (Taylor et al. 1993, Millar et al. 2007). Connectivity has two components, structural and biological connectivity and biological components. Structural connectivity, the spatial structure of a landscape, can be described from map elements. Biological connectivity is the response of individuals to the scale of landscape features (Brooks 2003). Promoting connectivity in landscapes with flexible management goals that can be modified as conditions change may assist species to respond naturally to changing climates. Reducing fragmentation and planning at landscape scales to maximize habitat connectivity will become increasingly important (Millar et al. 2007).

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 150

Management Strategies to Address Key Climate Change Concerns Actions to address climate change factors of most concern are those that: 1. Reduce vulnerability by restoring and maintaining resilient native ecosystems; 2. Anticipate increases in forest recreation; 3. Use markets and demand for wood and biomass for restoration, renewable energy, and carbon sequestration; 4. Enhance adaptation by anticipating and planning for intense disturbances; 5. Conserve water; and 6. Monitor climate change influences.

Managing ecosystems under uncertainty necessitates flexible and adaptive approaches that are reversible, are implemented in incremental steps, allow for new information and learning, and can be modified with changing circumstances (Millar et al. 2007). Southwestern ecosystems have evolved under a long and complex history of climate variability and change. Taking into consideration the number of mega- droughts and other climate related variation, through time, southwestern systems have some built-in resilience. The revised plan focuses on restoring and maintaining resilience in forest and grassland ecosystems. Risks of increased wildfire, insects and disease outbreaks, and invasive species represent ongoing, broad-scale management challenges. These issues are not new. However, climate change has the potential to increase and exacerbate the impacts of these ecosystem risks. Because our understanding of climate change is rapidly evolving, management decisions that are robust to uncertainty, while being both strategic and tactical in nature, would likely be most effective at managing for climate change. Peterson et al. (2011) have developed a guidebook for climate change response on national forests. It recommends the following strategies that incorporate both science and management: (1) become aware of basic climate change science and integrate that understanding with knowledge of the local resource conditions and issues (review); (2) evaluate sensitivity of natural resources to climate change (rank); (3) develop and implement options for adapting resources to climate change (resolve); and (4) monitor the effectiveness of on-the-ground management (observe) and adjust as needed. Restoring and maintaining resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to retain or return to desired conditions after being influenced by climate change related impacts and variability. Managing for resistance (e.g., maintenance thinning to prevent catastrophic fire, forest insect or disease pandemics) and resilience (e.g., noxious weed control) offer meaningful responses to climate change. Prescribed fires are a management tool that can serve multiple purposes, from sustaining desired conditions for fire-adapted ecosystems and sustaining habitat for threatened and endangered species to reducing fuel loads. Prescribed burning is also a management strategy that will be important for maintaining desired habitats in a changing climate with more natural disturbances. With projections of more frequent storms and other more extreme weather events and increased stress from forest pests in a warmer, drier climate, prescribed burning will continue to be an important management strategy for the future. Forests serve as significant carbon reservoirs; however, large-scale fire events can counter this benefit by releasing significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Fuel treatments (e.g., thinning, prescribed fire), as identified in the proposed action, promote low-density stand structures characterized by larger, fire resistant trees. This strategy should afford greater carbon storage in southwestern fire-adapted ecosystems over time (North et al. 2009, Hurteau and North 2009). Although fire-excluded forests contain higher carbon stocks, this benefit is outweighed in the long term by the loss that would be likely from uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires (Hurteau et al. 2011) if left untreated.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 151

Prescribed burning helps to mitigate the negative impacts of stand-replacing fire in dry, dense forests by consuming less biomass and releasing less carbon into the atmosphere (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). Further, research has shown that the long-term gains acquired through prescribed fire and mechanical thinning outweigh short-term losses in sequestered carbon. In the long term (e.g., 100 years), thinning and burning would create more resilient forests that are less prone to stand-replacing events, and subsequently able to store more carbon in the form of large trees. Slash resulting from mechanical thinning can be used in place of fuels (North and Hurteau 2011, Sorenson et al. 2011). Not all forest products sequester carbon equally. For example, products with longer on average lifespans (e.g., houses), have a greater potential to store carbon than short-lived products such as fence posts. In addition, biomass products created from slash can be used in place of fossil fuels, greatly reducing carbon emission into the atmosphere (Ryan et al. 2010). These types of discussions of tradeoffs in emission and carbon storage rates are likely to be increasingly relevant in decision making. Wood products that can substitute for building materials such as steel and concrete produce far less greenhouse gas emissions during their production while simultaneously sequestering carbon (Ryan et al. 2010). Although current programs and guidance are already in place to limit introduction of nonnative species, treat invasive species, and control insects and diseases, these efforts are likely to become more critical to maintaining desired conditions for healthy forests under a changing climate. Due to the fragmented land ownership patterns, success in reducing forest pests requires going beyond national forest boundaries, and continued collaboration with partners will be needed. In addition, management practices (such as prescribed selection cutting for age class diversity) that sustain healthy forests and provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce the potential for disturbance and damage. The Wildlife Society with the Inkley et al. (2004) recommended several actions to help wildlife adapt to climate change and its potential effects on wildlife. These include: (1) managing for diverse conditions; (2) reducing nonclimate stressors on ecosystems; (3) reducing the risk of uncharacteristic high-intensity fires; (4) conducting medium and long-range planning; (5) ensuring ecosystem processes; and (6) employing monitoring and adaptive management, as well as controlling for invasive plant species. Finally, it will be important to set priorities by appropriately balancing sensitive and vulnerable species and systems with those that are resistant and resilient (Glick and Edelson 2011). On the Kaibab NF, existing collaborations between the AGFD and Coconino County generally encourage the protection of open lands and the preservation of the land’s natural character within local and regional contexts. These collaborative strategies should decrease the potential for future land fragmentation while improving the overall integrity of the landscape. This should also provide for more resilience with regard to climate change for those wildlife species that may need to adjust migration routes, foraging corridors, or breeding grounds.

Appendix V. Draft proposed action and design features 152

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to the draft proposed action

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 153 Stakeholder responses to the draft proposed action

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sasha: Per your request, we offer the comments below. We are trying to keep up with development of the project, but it is not yet clear how general or specific you want to make the mixed conifer/Mexican spotted owl section. We will be discussing the project with Cassie on December 10. Perhaps more details may result from that discussion. Please let us know if you need anything else. Thanks. Bill

Page 8. Item e) refers to the “ponderosa pine component.” But the first bullet under that item refers to Mexican spotted owl habitat considerations. Ponderosa pine is not Mexican spotted owl recovery habitat in the relevant recovery unit, but mixed conifer is. In order to reduce confusion regarding ponderosa pine and mixed conifer, perhaps a separate item (f?) for mixed conifer should be added and the bullet placed under that item. That addition should also indicate that other items described for ponderosa pine are not intended for mixed conifer. Alternatively, if the intent actually is to manage ponderosa pine as if it was Mexican spotted owl recovery habitat, then the proposed action may need more modification.

Page 10. The table suggests that only thinning from below to 12 inches will occur in Mexican spotted owl habitat. Is that correct? But does the fact that that description is under the “Fire and mechanical” subheading mean that prescribed fire will also be conducted in Mexican spotted owl habitat? If fire will occur in Mexican spotted owl habitat, then perhaps that table or the narrative needs to be clarified.

Page 12. Does item 2. mean that only fire and hand thinning and piling will occur in Mexican spotted owl habitat that is also determined to be "steep slope?" What will the hand thinning and piling in steep slopes consist of? Still thinning up to 12 inches, or something else?

Page 13. Something should be added to item 7. to confirm that the discussion of Mexican spotted owl recovery habitat is directed at mixed conifer and not ponderosa pine.

Page 13. In item 7., it would be appropriate to change “MSO guidelines” to “the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan.”

Page 13. In item 7., the bullets regarding retention of Mexican spotted owl key habitat components are only under the mechanical thinning subheading. However, if the intention is to follow the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan, then retention of those components should be included under the fire subheading as well.

Page 13. In item 7. , if the intent is to also ensure that the primary constituent elements of Mexican spotted owl critical habitat will be retained, then there should be a sentence or bullet that states that intent.

Page 13. In item 7., it is not clear what will occur in Mexican spotted owl habitat and Mexican spotted owl habitat that is also on steep slopes. All mixed conifer, whether on steep slopes or not, is Mexican spotted owl recovery habitat and should be considered as such for designing treatments. However, if, for example, treatments in Mexican spotted owl habitat that is also on steep slopes will be different

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 154 (e.g., perhaps less intensive?), then those differences need to be made clearer, and in relation to the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan.

Page 14. Does “Across the project area, large trees (those greater than 18” diameter dbh) will be retained….” mean that no trees greater than 18 inches will be removed from Mexican spotted owl habitat?

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 155

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Sasha,

Please forgive the late nature of this response as well as its brevity, busy time of the year. I'm comfortable with the proposed action as drafted with one minor exception. I believe in discussions with Ariel that she stated some mention of the intent to refurbish existing water developments and potentially build new developments utilizing KV funds was needed in the proposed action. I assume this could fit under the wildlife heading.

Thank you,

Todd Buck

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 156

Jim Matson and Jim Koons

Commentary - Burn Corral Vegetation Management Draft By Jim Matson & Jim Koons, Kanab, Utah (12/9/14) We appreciate the opportunity to have been involved and to be able to comment regarding the proposed Burnt Corral Project. As noted in the draft proposed action, there are certain Burnt Corral aspects including physical and structural elements which are adequately represented in the project’s assessment and information as made available from a variety of sources within the Forest Service and the Landscape Conservation Initiative (LCI), Northern Arizona University.

There are however two main areas of concern regarding the draft and its impact on the final proposed action as facilitated by LCI.

 The Purpose and Needs documentation appears to be fixating on Burnt Corral’s old (geriatric) growth trees rather than on known and necessary structural components or the range of trees sizes needed for certain vegetative structural components, i.e. for goshawk habitats across the ponderosa pine type. We must plan for a ratio of smaller trees and intermediate size trees that will eventually become bigger and older over time. As noted in the field and again several times in our discussions the North Kaibab Plateau and its resident populations of plants and wildlife is uniquely different from forest conditions found south of the Colorado River. Several times there were references made to south side forest and stand conditions. All of that unnecessarily reflects on North Kaibab forested conditions as if south side conditions are resident on the north side. The only condition common to north and south is one of political jurisdiction only.

 Overlooked in this draft under the purposes and somewhat aggregately so is that we emphasized that the project must recognize and consider local economies, culture and capacities for building and sustaining community infrastructure, local sources of labor and tools needed in order to carry out each of the tasks resulting from a Burnt Corral project. Purpose #6 in this draft minimally lists a one liner referring to “Offset treatment costs and benefit local rural economies.” The draft goes on in greater detail to involve transportation, recreation, cultural sites and carbon stocks in greater detail. A more complete analysis must detail associated impacts and benefits to the local culture and economy in the Arizona Strip and in Kane County, Utah.

Thank You.

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 157

Grand Canyon Trust

Overall Comments

This draft represents a solid first step toward a final product, but there is still work to be done. These are our comments—

Most important, we were hoping to see a more complete description of a new/different approach to forest restoration, that is somewhat unique to the North Kaibab. We see this project as an opportunity for the FS to break new ground and take a leadership role in new approaches to restoration while keeping within the bounds of the new Forest Plan. The group touched on this a number of times during our various discussions and elements of a new approach are in here, but they are not featured or presented in a cohesive whole by any means. The document ends up feeling like a variation of any other standard project, with management exceptions embedded in the doc, versus presented in a compelling fashion (also read sold) front and center

The document contains lots of grammatical errors/typos, the drafts’ organization is somewhat confusing, and has a liberal sprinkling of Forest Service “targets” that seem arbitrary and/or inappropriate and /or outside the bounds of our group discussion (even distribution of age classes, removal of half of volume, 60-80 BA, SDI targets).

We applaud that the document “places emphasis on restoring the ponderosa pine component of the forest because it has changed significantly from desired conditions and is an area identified as a priority need for change.” (page 5). We want to see this statement influence specific management actions more than the current draft appears to do; the North Kaibab is unique, but this document does not fully recognize this uniqueness.

Specific comments--

Page 3: It would be helpful to describe somewhere in this document “reference conditions” for the Kaibab Plateau. Right now, these conditions are described generally in a footnote on page 4. Instead, these conditions should be placed front and center (not in a footnote). These conditions are somewhat different than those found elsewhere in the region, yet these differences are not recognized explicitly in the document. Also, some of the later language in the document suggests management approaches that are reference condition-based, but it would be essential to clarify those conditions somewhere here (even in an appendix).

Page 5: General “reference conditions” for ponderosa pine are described here. Again, it would be helpful to ground those general descriptions in a place-based characterization of such conditions from the published literature and/or from assessment of reference sites such as the Powell Plateau, Fire Point, Rainbow Plateau, etc.

“Tools” for accomplishing restoration are listed on this page; we recommend sticking to the tools discussed by the group, and stay away from approaches such as sanitation and salvage logging

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 158 that were not discussed by the group. It is inappropriate to refer to management techniques outside of the bounds of group considerations because it does not represent the work of the group and therefore cannot be considered to be a group recommendation.

Page 6: Bark beetle infestations are described as climatic condition changes. These two phenomena, insects and climatic conditions, are likely to be related in the future, but can and do occur separately from one another. In fact, recent (last 50 years) fire suppression may be more of a driver of current conditions than climate. The group discussed this briefly, and there seemed to be resonance with the notion that “endemic” levels of bark beetle infestations are not of concern, but those that significantly exceed endemic levels are of concern.

Page 7:  Not sure where this SDI target comes from—is this from Forest Plan? The group did not discuss this much or at all.  60-80 BA target –this comes from the Forest Plan but does not necessarily square with reference conditions known for the Kaibab Plateau. The group discussed this extensively, and there seemed to be agreement that targets should be more clearly based on place-based reference conditions vs. general conditions proposed for ponderosa pine forests across the region from the Forest Plan. The Forest Service agreed that there was flexibility in the Plan targets to accommodate this variation in targets. We need more specific language in this document that recognizes this.  The commercial and pre-commercial thinning descriptions are confusing in terms of acreage. We are also not sure that describing activities as commercial thinning is helpful and the group spent little /no time discussing commercial treatments.  This is critical--large tree retention and old growth protection concepts/values aren’t anywhere to be found in the purpose statements of the document. They need to be front and center.  Areas deemed priority for restoration should be defined by current ecological conditions rather than type and extent of previous -- management activities (“Reduce the risk of hazardous, stand-replacing crown fire events in the entire project area, especially portions of the project area that have received no timber treatments nor experienced fire events in the last 25 years).  The origin of the “removal of more than half of the existing cubic foot volume” target is unknown to us. When did we discuss this? It doesn’t seem we’ve discussed and/or assessed how much specific volume needs to be removed.  Last bullet point under c: referring to mosaic pattern, we ask that “random” be added in front of the term mosaic—this is an example of what appears to be a FS cookie cutter approach where a “mosaic” result seems to be a prescription design outcome; but forest processes are random, even if mosaic patterns may result.

Page 7/8: There is an extensive general description of existing and desired conditions here. We can’t stress enough how important it is to describe desired conditions not in a Forest Plan general fashion, but in a Kaibab-specific fashion. This kind of description would reasonably lead many to assume that this project is a cookie-cutter project. The Kaibab Plateau is different. This project and its approach to restoration of

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 159 fire and forests should be different and provides the FS with an opportunity to do something unique with a leadership approach that recognizes the uniqueness of the North Kaibab and not just fit this project in to the Forest Plan.

Page 9: The administrative roads statement implies that there could be a significant increase in miles of administrative roads improved then used as administrative in the future (though there is a discretion statement). It should be clearer that any roads (administrative or not) that are created to facilitate restoration activities should be closed after restoration activities cease.

Page 9: Cheatgrass “elimination” is not feasible – thus the statement should simply refer to control and/or reduction.

Page 13: The following statement (especially regarding “even” proportions) seems problematic: “Maintain at least 3 size classes in roughly even proportions across any 100-1,000 acre unit”. We don’t believe reference conditions for this area suggest that these three size classes were even; what is the scientific basis for this statement? What is the origin of this target?

Page 14: The following statement should be used more explicitly as a guide for the project as a whole: “treatments will be designed to restore composition, structure, and function taking full advantage of reference sites across the North Rim such as Powell Plateau and other sites that have been subject to fire at regular intervals, as guides”.

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 160 Jim Koons

1. NORTHERN GOSHAWKS It is interesting to note that there are 19 designated goshawk nest areas (3,300 acres) and PFA's (9,400 acres) within the defined BCVM Plan project area of about 28,000 acres. The nest sites and PFA's cover about 45% of the project area. According to Attachment A Design Features and Specifications: Mitigation Measures And Best Management Practices, page 11, NORTHERN GOSHAWKS, the USFS is required to "Limit human activities in or near nest sites and post-fledging family areas (PFA's) during the breeding season so that goshawk reproductive success is not affected by human activities. The breeding season extends from March 1 through September 30". Timber cutting and skidding can be managed to avoid these specific area. The primary concern would be the timing of log hauling activities. If log hauling activities can take place "in or near nest sites and post-fledging family areas (PFA's)" I do not see a problem. However, if log hauling cannot take place within or near active nest sites and PFA's, the USFS and the contractor will need to coordinate their activities to minimize potential impacts.

2. REFERENCE CONDITION

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding big trees and old growth. As a result, I re-read AFTER 100 YEARS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT: "THE NORTH KAIBAB" research paper authored by Garret, Soulen and Ellenwood. Today there is a great deal of debate about how to manage the existing NKRD PP type (200,000 acres) to minimize the risk of stand replacing wild fires. Today the term "REFERENCE CONDITION", defined as "conditions existing prior to the suppression or exclusion of the primary processes and mechanisms influencing a system along a natural trajectory" is or could be applied to the PP type on the NKRD. Within the research paper (page 136) there is a graph (Fig. 3 titled - Trees per acre in the North Kaibab ponderosa pine type: 1910-1993). Using the graph data ( 5.6 inch to 47 inch dbh) I compared the difference in number of trees per acre by DBH class that occurred between 1910 and 1993. I also converted trees per acre to basal area per acre. The ballpark numbers I came up with indicates that the number of trees per acre in 1910 increased from 57 trees per acre to 120 trees per acre in 1993 or a 109% increase in trees per acre. When I converted trees per acre to basal area per acre by dbh category I learned that the basal area in 1910 had increased from 113 square feet per acre to 208 square feet per acre in 1993 or a 85% increase in tree basal area. It is important to keep in mind that these numbers are BALLPARK.

This information could be used to compare REFERENCE CONDITIONS to the existing stand conditions on the BURNT CORRAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT. If you do decide to make a comparison, I suggest you review historical detailed USFS CFI and/or FIA cruise plot data.

3. WILDLIFE - SNAG RECRUITMENT SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER LEAVING LARGE (20"+) KEEN TREE CLASS 4B PP TREES THAT HAVE BEEN BADLY DAMAGED BY LIGHTENING STRIKES. THE WILDLIFE FOLKS WILL HAVE THE BEST IDEA AS TO HOW MANY ACRES PER SNAG.

4. LADDER FUELS THE BCVMP AREA HAS A MAJOR PP WILDFIRE LADDER FUELS PROBLEM. THE COSTS TO REDUCE THE PROBLEM WILL BE SIGNIFICANT. JUSTIFYING SPENDING A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM WILL BE A CHALLENGE. A "BASIC CASE" TO SPEND NEEDED DOLLARS CAN BE MADE. AS I RECALL, THE WARM FIRE BURNED ABOUT 58,000 ACRES AND COST ABOUT $7,000,000 TO

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 161 PUT OUT. THE COST PER ACRE WAS ABOUT $120. THE FIRE ALSO BURNED UP ABOUT 200,000,000 BD. FT. OF TIMBER, DID MAJOR WATERSHED DAMAGE, ETC., ETC. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE USFS CAN SPEND $200+ PER ACRE ON THE BCVMP TO MINIMIZE THE WILDFIRE RISKS TO ALL RENEWABLE RESOURCES. THE REALITY IS- "DO YOU WANT TO PAY NOW -- OR PAY LATER".

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THE INFO YOU HAVE PROVIDED HAS PROVIDED FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 162 Mohave Sportsman Club Sasha: I apologize for being late on this, just got back from a desert bighorn sheep hunt and reading this as fast as I can.

One concern I have is about the issue of proposed closure of 20% logging roads to the public. Almost all of these roads have been there for many, many years, and have and are continuing to be used by sportsmen and others, IF they are the ones I’m thinking about.

Don Martin Mohave Sportsman Club

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 163 Grand Canyon Chapter ● 202 E. McDowell Rd, Ste 277 ● Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 253-8633 Fax: (602) 258-6533 Email: [email protected]

December 9, 2014

Re: DRAFT Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Proposed Action, December 1st, 2014

Dear Tom and Sasha:

We have given the Draft Proposed Action for Burnt Corral a preliminary review and are extremely concerned about the direction the project is taking. We have several issues with the Proposed Action and with the conversation that occurred at the last planning meeting on November 19, 2014.

The North Kaibab is a special place and contains some of the last large swaths of old growth forests in Arizona. As the draft notes, the majority of the Burnt Corral project area lies within the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve and the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark, both of which are special areas. There is no valid justification for cutting old growth trees in this area, and, in fact, there is an even stronger imperative for retaining all of the remaining old growth in the area.

We engaged in the Burnt Corral planning process meetings with the hope that the Forest Service was trying to move in a different direction, employing forest management techniques more in line with ecological principles and conservation. We were told that Jacob Ryan planning was a long expensive process, and were led to believe that the Forest Service wanted to work with us to create a new trust and a better outcome. As you know, we continue to be outraged by the Jacob Ryan project and its failure to protect old growth, canopy, and the species that depend on these habitats.

Instead, the discussion at the last meeting WAS “more of the same” conversations about why the Forest Service needs to log large trees without providing baseline data about what size trees are actually found within the project area. What kind of assessment has been made?

We agree with the statement that“[p]rojects in ponderosa pine should be aimed at restoring forest structure as well as processes such as low-intensity fire, natural levels of disturbance, and nutrient cycling.” (Draft at pg 5). We are concerned, however, that this draft does not really move in that direction. We also agree that“[i]n ponderosa pine, reintroduction of fire as the primary disturbance agent is critical to restoration.” (Draft at pg 5). That is why a project that focuses less on mechanical treatment and logging and more on restoration of fire is desirable.

Purpose and Need Under this section, it states, “[m]ove vegetation toward the desired conditions defined in the Forest Plan (USDA FS, 2014) and consistent with prioritized areas as identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009). . . .” (Draft at pg 6). We have significant concerns about focusing on moving this area to the conditions in a forest plan to which we have objected and which may be further challenged.

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action Printed on 164recycled paper Additionally, it states that the purpose is to “[r]estore the ponderosa pine forest type to increase resilience to disturbance, improve forest health, and improve habitat.” (Draft at pg 7) We are supportive of this objective, but question the need to commercially thin 15,000 acres in the project area to accomplish it.

We are being asked to agree with group selection cuts on approximately 10,000 acres, but we don’t trust that this method will improve the ecology of the forest. We don’t have enough information to understand how the post-treatment forest should be structured, and don’t agree with the desired outcomes identified in the Forest Plan. We need to see a data-driven, scientifically justified, and sufficiently detailed plan so that we know the Proposed Action will move forests to a healthier and more resilient condition.

“Protect Northern goshawk nest areas . . . .” Why is the proposal limited to protecting northern goshawk nest areas, when it should be focused on the protected activity centers (PACs)? (Draft at pg 9)

Old Growth Protection This section does not protect old growth as the section title indicates, but rather could result in significant loss of old growth. We vociferously object to the “exceptions” to retaining old growth (Draft at pg 14). We are concerned that this would result in significant degradation of old-growth blocks within the Burnt Corral project area, particularly exception that states, “3. Large contiguous areas that have not been impacted by timber harvest, where fire exclusion has created forest structure conditions that are distinctly outside of the natural range of variability for the Kaibab Plateau, and where current predicted fire behavior suggests high risk of unnaturally severe wildfire and/or other degradation or desired characteristics.” The only exception that should be considered is a significant public safety exception, which will affect a limited number, if any, old growth trees.

Large tree retention A better assessment of the current conditions across the area is needed, but considering that most of the ponderosa pines throughout the region are smaller, we recommend focusing thinning on the smaller trees and retaining trees larger than 12” in diameter at breast height (dbh). Further, we are again concerned that the exceptions will swallow the rule, especially relative to the following language, stating that these larger trees will be logged in “. . . encroached grasslands, aspen groves or oak stands where enhancement is desired, where within-stand openings are desirable to regain structural heterogeneity, and where heavily stocked stands with high basal area are characterized by a preponderance of large, young (“post settlement”) trees. Recognizing that desired intensity and configuration of treatments will significantly influence how exceptions to a large tree retention policy play out, treatments will be designed to restore composition, structure, and function taking full advantage of reference sites across the North Rim such as Powell Plateau and other sites that have been subject to fire at regular intervals, as guides.” (Draft at pg 14-15). The data from these “reference sites” should be used to explain whether the Purpose and Need for this project is justified, and then to define exactly what actions really need to be taken. Data from reference sites should provide support for a much larger density of old growth trees. Old growth is a function of age not size, so as constructed this thinning from below project could include taking old growth trees up to 24 inches in diameter.

These exceptions are being improperly applied and should not be used here for several reasons:

 Those exceptions were developed for a restoration-focused project, not a commercial timber sale.  These exceptions were to be used in conjunction with an old tree retention strategy that does not log old growth trees except for public safety and operational concerns (log landings).

Printed on Recycled Paper

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 165  The North Kaibab has applied the criteria to trees larger than 18 inches dbh without providing data on numbers and sizes of the trees in the project area.

Other Proposed Actions This section includes an objective to “[e]ncourage reestablishment of aspen in ponderosa pine-dominated stands by centering thinning efforts in areas with remaining aspen trees when feasible.” (Draft at pg 13) Considering that there has been extensive regeneration of aspen on the North Kaibab in areas where fires have burned in recent years, such as the Warm Fire area, we question why it is necessary to include this objective.

Overall, we are concerned that the approach to this project will likely result in the aggressive removal of too many trees during the initial entry, which may seriously constrain ecosystem response and management options for the future. Given the relatively slow growth rates of ponderosa pines in this area, existing trees represent a form of biological capital that should be conserved. Multiple, incremental treatments, using combinations of fire and thinning, would be more conservative and ecologically justifiable.

Those involved in the Burnt Corral planning process should take a step back and insist on development and consideration of a full range of alternatives, including a defensible alternative where old growth is protected, large trees are retained, and the species that rely on these forests have healthy habitat.

The North Kaibab is too important to subject it to more “business as usual” timber sales.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Alicyn Gitlin Grand Canyon Project Coordinator Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter

Sandy Bahr Chapter Director Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter

Printed on Recycled Paper

Appendix VI. Stakeholder comments in response to draft proposed action 166

Appendix VII. Revised proposed action and design features

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 167

Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Project Proposed Action March, 2015

I. Project Area and Background: The Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Project is the first in a series of efforts to restore forest health, beneficial fires regimes, and wildlife habitat in the ponderosa pine belt on the west side of the Kaibab Plateau. Inspiration for the project stems from the 2009 Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF), a collaborative landscape assessment that identified priority management areas for each of the Kaibab National Forest’s three districts, and from its 2014 Land and Resources Management Plan. The overarching goal of this effort is to improve forest health and vigor, while improving habitat conditions which are more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and/or other climatic condition changes. In working toward this goal, the project also seeks to work collaboratively with diverse stakeholders to reach a general consensus on recommendations and approaches to guide management and develop and sustain public support for on-the-ground restoration actions.

General Project Location:

The Burnt Corral project area, about 28,060 acres in size, lies within the southwest portion of the Kaibab Plateau, south-southwest of Lookout Canyon and Forest Service Road (FSR) 22, on the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD), of the Kaibab National Forest (KNF). The project lies within Townships 35-37 North, Ranges 1 West -1 East, in Coconino County, Arizona, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian. Within the proposed project area, the majority of the ponderosa pine vegetation type is located west of FSR 22, with the project area bounded by FSR 447 to the north, FSR 226 to the east, FSR 203/203A and the FSR 425 to the south, and FSR425 and 427 to the west. The majority of the Burnt Corral project area falls within a Priority Landscape identified by the KFHF, encompassing the western ponderosa pine belt of the Kaibab Plateau. This led the KNF to select Burnt Corral as the first phase the larger, landscape-level restoration approach based on a collaborative, science-based assessment of forest composition and predicted fire behavior data1. The western edge of the Burnt Corral project corresponds to the ecotone between ponderosa pine forest and the pinyon- juniper- oak woodland area, with approximately 7,530 acres in the west-northwest portion overlapping into the 1996 Bridger Knoll Fire area. The Bridger Knoll Fire area is now dominated by patches of oak, New Mexico locust and open areas supporting bunch grasses and other low-lying vegetation. Some salvage activity along with some ponderosa pine reforestation (about 1,550 acres) has been completed since the 1996 fire. The Mill Fire (2008) area (1,710 acres) also lies within the northeast corner of the Burnt Corral planning area. There is less than 400 acres of Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat in the southeast corner of the project area. The project area is currently open to firewood gathering by permit. The majority of the Burnt Corral project area lies within the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark, and Arizona Game and Fish Game Management Unit 12A west. The lower elevations of the project area on the west side of the Kaibab Plateau are a key asset to the NKRD due to heritage/cultural, range, recreation and wildlife resource values. Planning Effort: In September 2009, the Kaibab Forest Health Focus recommended vegetation management treatments designed to reduce fuels and increase canopy spacing, thereby lessening the risk to potential loss of

1 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 168

ecosystem components due to uncharacteristic high severity stand replacement fire. The KFHF collaborative group viewed this ponderosa pine portion of the NKRD as a single priority area divided into four priority treatment areas (“High 1A-1D”), each of which would receive a configuration of treatments that most efficiently meet ecological restoration goals, including the return of natural fire regimes (Figure 1). In addition, the group expressed an interest in moving towards a forest structure in the pine type that favors the groups or clumps of multi-storied, uneven aged stands 2. The group recognized that the western ponderosa pine belt of the Kaibab Plateau represents a significant management challenge and that conditions are sufficiently variable to demand more detailed guidance when performing project-level planning, as the 2009 Forest Health Focus was more landscape oriented.

Figure 1. The Burnt Corral project area lies within the areas of the ponderosa pine belt prioritized by the 2009 Kaibab Forest Health Focus. The western project boundary extends beyond the priority area in order to utilize an existing road to facilitate logistics and fire management.

Project level planning is the mechanism for Forest Plan implementation and translates the desired conditions and objectives of the Forest Plan into proposals that identify specific actions, design features, and monitoring efforts. The proposal development for projects should address site-specific needs developed locally, with input from experts and stakeholders, and the most current and relevant information. If warranted, project level decisions and modifications may be made following public

2 Uneven-aged forests, as defined in the Kaibab National Forest Plan, are composed of three or more distinct age classes of trees, either intimately mixed or in small groups.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 169

involvement and analysis. This process follows the new “Project-Level Pre-Decisional Administrative Review Process” (36 CFR 218). The Burnt Corral Vegetation Management project was initially included in the U.S. Forest Service’s May 2011 North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) 5-year Vegetation Management Plan, a tool used for future resource planning and allocation purposes. The area was selected because it was identified as a priority in the KFHF, and modest adjustments to boundaries and location were made in order to conform with NKRD priorities and related, recently completed and ongoing projects (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Burnt Corral project area is about 28,060 acres.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 170

Within the project area, the ponderosa pine forest vegetation community occurs at elevations ranging from 6,800 to 7,800 feet. Topography within the project area ranges from the flatter, higher elevation areas of the Kaibab Plateau, located in the eastern portion of the project area, to lower-elevation bench areas on the western side. The project area contains numerous canyons and ridgelines, most of which trend in an east-to-west direction. Steep sloped areas (i.e., greater than 40 %) and sensitive soils are present along most of the ephemeral drainages in the western half of the project area. A large component of the forest within the Burnt Corral project area (approximately 21,200 acres) is typed as Ponderosa pine (Figure 3). The ponderosa pine vegetation type (“pine component”) is generally denser and more continuous across all developmental states than forest structures characteristic of reference conditions3.

Figure 3. Vegetation types across the project area. Predictive vegetation map created using 2010 Landsat imagery by the Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology for the Kaibab National Forest monitoring project, with support from the Grand Canyon Trust. (Note: Acreages for vegetation types are estimates that may be adjusted based on stand data and field verification for specific vegetation types. Acreages presented in this Proposed Action may differ modestly from acreages utilized in the environmental analysis.)

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 171

Building on the spirit and outcomes of the KFHF, the Burnt Corral project was convened in mid-2014 by the KNF and Northern Arizona University’s Landscape Conservation Initiative (LCI) as a collaborative project-level planning effort to develop a Proposed Action to guide the pre-scoping phase of the project, which will inform National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. The purpose of the collaborative was to address key pre-scoping issues prior to the actual scoping phase of the Proposed Action for the project. During the NEPA analysis each resource area will evaluate past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities (including fires) which may influence this and other future treatment options within the Burnt Corral planning area. The Purpose and Need statements below, as well as the Proposed Action, were derived from a basic outline that was reviewed and refined by the collaborative, and represents a Proposed Action that benefitted from considerable deliberation, vetting, debate and compromise. Throughout, the KNF and LCI strived to craft a Proposed Action that was acceptable to all parties. Forest Plan: The new Forest Plan (i.e., Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest, March 2014) places emphasis on restoring the ponderosa pine component of the forest, which has departed significantly from desired conditions and, therefore, constitutes a priority need for change (see Forest Plan, pp. 16-20, 30-32, & 191-192). Projects in ponderosa pine should be aimed at restoring forest structure as well as processes such as low-intensity fire, natural levels of disturbance, and nutrient cycling. Design features may increase diversity within treatment areas by promoting aspen and oak (see Forest Plan, “Aspen” - pp 27-29; “Oak” – pp 39-40), and openings and understory production. While treatments strive to mimic the structure and patterns of reference conditions, they can also reflect other desired conditions and objectives. As a result, reconstructed reference conditions are general guides rather than rigid restoration prescriptions. The Forest Plan (USDA FS 2014) briefly discusses the existing and desired conditions of the ponderosa pine forest as follows: “Ponderosa pine forests on the Kaibab NF are generally denser and more continuous across all developmental states than in reference conditions. The open, park-like stands characteristic of the reference conditions for ponderosa pine forests promoted greater floral and faunal diversity and fire resilience than the dense stands of today. Accumulations of forest litter and woody debris are much higher than would have occurred under the historical disturbance regime. Lack of fire disturbance has led to increased tree density and fuel loads that heighten the risk of uncharacteristically intense wildfire and drought-related mortality. When fires occur under current (2014) conditions, they tend to kill a lot of trees, including the large and old trees. These trees take longer to replace, moving the Kaibab NF further from desired conditions, and increasing the time it would take to return to desired conditions. There is currently a moderate risk of insect and/or disease outbreak, which is also a function of increased tree density.” (Forest Plan, pg. 16) In ponderosa pine, reintroduction of fire as the primary disturbance agent is critical to restoration. Due to capacity and efficiency needs, mechanical thinning and burning treatments are often needed to effectively progress toward the desired conditions, including the return of historical fire regimes, and insure that those conditions can be retained for at least 20 years. Tools for creating desired stand conditions and openings include a variety of treatments and uneven-aged cutting methods, such as single tree and group selection, limited even-aged regeneration cutting, thinning, and managed fire (i.e., wildfires managed for both protection and resource management objectives). Besides presenting the

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 172

desired conditions at various scales (i.e., fine, medium, and landscape), the Forest plan (pp. 19-20) presents a “Management Approach” for the ponderosa pine component. Listed below is part of the rationale for treatment within the Burnt Corral planning area, which is an area that is at moderate risk and scheduled for treatment now instead of the future: “Restoration activities would be prioritized in the areas identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) and then move to other areas of high risk and high value. The KFHF was a multi-stakeholder collaborative process that prioritized areas most in need of treatment. Primary indicators were related to high risk and high value such as those with closed canopies containing large trees. These areas were identified as high priority for restoration because they already contain many components of the desired condition and a single treatment may come close to meeting the desired condition, but if lost, would take centuries to replace. The KFHF report can be accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf.

II. Purpose and Need for Action: The overall objective of the Burnt Corral vegetation management project, which is consistent with the Forest Service’s mission statement, is to improve ecosystem resilience and function at the landscape scale in order to sustain healthy forests and watersheds for future generations. Based on collaboration efforts and internal Forest Service review, the following comprise the purposes and needs identified for the Burnt Corral project: Purpose 1: Make progress toward desired conditions defined in the Forest Plan (USDA FS, 2014) and consistent with prioritized areas, as identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009), with an emphasis on: a) Improving forest health and vigor, while enhancing habitat conditions to make them more resilient to change in the event of wildfire and other changes in climate or related stressors (i.e., drought, large bark beetle infestations). To achieve this, there is a need to: . Return ponderosa pine forest to a Fire Adapted Ecosystem (i.e., high frequency – low intensity surface fires). . Manage fire in first entry and follow-up prescribed fire treatments (i.e., maintenance burns for secondary treatment). . Retain large and old ponderosa pine trees while reducing heavy fuel loads and overly dense stands of smaller trees present in many portions of the project area. . Restore forest structure and process (including natural disturbances such as low-severity fire, watershed function, and nutrient cycling). More specifically this entails:  Reducing the risk of uncharacteristic and undesirable wildland fire effects (i.e., either active or passive crown fire), with an emphasis on restoring and maintaining desirable plant community attributes, including fuel levels, fire regimes, and other ecological processes.  Maintaining and restoring upland area vegetation, and reducing erosion within the ephemeral drainage system (i.e., within drainages and bare ridgelines that drain to the west and southwest and comprise a significant part of the Kanab Creek watershed).  Improving watershed conditions and reducing road-related impacts to natural and cultural resources. To achieve this, there is a need to:  Increase diversity in forest stand structure and species composition.  Increase native grasses forbs and shrubs within openings throughout the project area.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 173

 Maintain existing system of roads and prevent development of new roads. Reduce the acres of non-native vegetation, and allow for native vegetation succession. b) Restoring the ponderosa pine forest type to increase resilience to disturbance, improve forest health, and improve habitat. To achieve this, there is a need to: . Reduce tree density and Stand Density Index (SDI) to the lower range of site occupancy, about 35 – 40% of max SDI in ponderosa pine. c) Meet KNF Forest Plan objectives at the mid-scale for desired basal area ranges in the 60 – 80 sq. ft. per acre range with larger trees (i.e. > 18 inches in diameter) contributing the greatest percent of the total basal area, with some areas containing 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest (e.g. goshawk post-fledging family areas Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, drainages, and steep north-facing slopes). . Mechanically thin up to about 15,000 acres. . In up to about 5,000 additional acres, perform hand thinning and light mechanical treatment using low-ground pressure equipment for preparation thinning for use and management of prescribed fire and managed wildfire . Stimulate oak regeneration. . Stimulate aspen regeneration in the project area especially where it currently exists and at the head of draws, ephemeral streams, and hollows. . Retain remnant, surviving pine trees in the overlap of the burned area left over after the 1996 Bridger Knoll fire (about 60,000 acres burned). . Protect existing ponderosa pine plantations that have been established from the reforestation programs following the Bridger Knoll salvage timber sales. . Reduce the risk of hazardous, stand-replacing crown fire events in the entire project area, especially portions of the project area that have received no timber treatments nor experienced fire events in the last 25 years. . Promote uneven-aged forest where lacking, maintain current uneven-aged forest, and create openings in even-aged older stands with patch cuts from one-half to four acres distributed randomly across the landscape. . Restore fire-prone stands to more open, historic condition . Establish fuel breaks along major forest roads like FSR422, 255, and 425 to provide public safety and protection for firefighters if a high intensity, fast moving crown fire event occurred. . Create openings (utilizing “Group Selection” cuts), which range in size from ½ acre, up to 4 acres, with a maximum width of 200-feet for any opening 2 acres or greater in size. Openings would be laid out in a random mosaic pattern within treatment units. Selected seed trees would be left in openings greater than 2 acres to maintain and promote desired or healthier genetic traits. d) Maintain and promote a ponderosa pine/frequent fire forest vegetation community that is a mosaic of forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. Existing Condition: The current condition of the majority of blackjack4 stands within the Burnt Corral project area is represented by dense patches of young ponderosa pine trees in even-aged condition. Many of these are in an unhealthy condition because natural ground fires and mechanical tree thinning and active forest management have been absent for decades. These stands support more

4 Blackjacks are young trees which possess all the biological advantages of youth. They are characterized by a dark almost black bark, a pointed or rounded top and ascending upper branches. 7

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 174

than four times the number of trees identified in the statement of desired condition, and some show signs of competition-induced mortality (SDI >57% of Max), and have high susceptibility to disease. Often, the forest floor is a thick layer of pine needles and duff with very little forage growth and no regeneration of ponderosa pine seedlings. Tree growth is suppressed, and vigor is low; these trees are susceptible to attack from Dendroctonus bark beetles, especially Mountain Pine beetle and the Western Pine beetle. Given these conditions, desirable ground fire could quickly move into the tree crowns and run through the stand, causing higher than desired tree mortality. Desired Condition: The ponderosa pine forest vegetation community is a mosaic of forest conditions composed of structural stages ranging from young to old trees. The forest is generally to be uneven- aged and open. Groups of old trees are mixed with groups of younger trees. Occasional areas of even-aged structure are present. Denser tree conditions exist in some locations, such as north- facing slopes, canyons, and drainage bottoms. Desirable ponderosa pine stands include a mix of age and tree sizes, openings available for forage and grass production, space between groups that break up the continuity of the canopy, fire resistance, and a young forest component to help ensure sustainability. The desired condition within the ponderosa pine is to move towards an uneven aged structure that is somewhat open. To achieve this, there is a need to: . Balance age / size classes (3 classes minimum) to achieve an un-even aged structure; . Reduce basal area stocking by thinning the matrix through the size classes that are in excess, to promote or increase forest health and vigor; . Establish clumps and groups in a fashion that forms more of a mosaic at the fine and midscale; . Improve forest health and availability of moisture, nutrients, and light; . Increase production of forage; . Create more openings; . Create gaps in the canopy so natural surface fire will tend to remain on the forest floor; . Enhance tree vigor and growth conditions to produce large, thick-barked fire-resistant ponderosa pine trees; and . Create more healthy wildlife habitat capable of supporting a variety of animal species. e) Improve forest habitat for wildlife species. To achieve this, there is a need to: . Manage for or retain habitat elements required by the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (2012) for 358 acres of Recovery Habitat within the Burnt Corral project area. These elements include hardwoods, large snags (>18 inches dbh), large downed logs (>18 inches diameter at any point), and large trees (>18 inches). . Create grass-forb-shrub interspaces within an uneven-aged forest structure to create habitat for goshawk prey species as well as various other wildlife including but not limited to songbirds and deer. . Protect Northern goshawk nest areas, which should be denser than the surrounding forest with large trees being dominant, but not homogenous, and have interlocking crowns. . Maintain or improve the variety of vegetation types and structures to provide a range of habitats for wildlife species including but not limited to:  Merriam’s turkey roost sites (ponderosa pine groups)  Gambel oak as a transition habitat for Mule deer and forage for Merriam’s turkey  Interspersed trees ranging from 8-18 inches dbh, with some continuous areas of interlocking crowns, as quality pine habitat for Kaibab squirrel (Sciurus aberti kaibabensis)  Maintain snags around waters for bat roosts

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 175

Consideration of Secondary or Related Activities and Benefits: Related Activity / Benefit 1: Maintain and/or improve current motorized public transportation system: . Roads – approximately 20% of the roads within the project area are logging roads which were not included as part of the Travel Management System, these road may be utilized under the administrative use rules within TMR, but will remain closed to public motorized use. . No new roads should be created, and administrative use should be used with discretion. The goal is to prevent resource damage from both administrative and public use. Related Activity / Benefit 2: Manage recreation uses with an emphasis on maintaining scenic integrity while providing for visitor safety. Related Activity / Benefit 3: Desired condition is to reduce the risk of damage to fire-sensitive cultural resource sites in the event of a high intensity wildland fire, and to provide for the sustainability of archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, forest resources and areas associated with traditional practices. To achieve this, there is a need to: . Reduce fuels on fire-sensitive cultural resource sites. . Control erosion affecting cultural resource sites. . Provide local tribes continued access to forest resources and opportunities to engage in traditional practices. Related Activity / Benefit 4: Manage cheatgrass with an emphasis on reducing spread and eradicating localized populations, while enhancing the conditions for the reestablishment of native vegetation. . Reduce and/or control cheatgrass, with objectives and methods based on field survey data. Related Activity / Benefit 5: Offset treatment costs and benefit local rural economies. There is a need to: . Use wood products from restoration treatments, where appropriate. Related Activity / Benefit 6: Identify baseline carbon stocks and consider this information in management of the Forest in accordance with the 2012 Planning Rule and the Forest Service’s Climate Change Performance Scorecard (i.e., Utilize information gathered to help understand how much carbon is currently stored in forest ecosystems and harvested wood products.)

The desired conditions for this project are based upon the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kaibab National Forest, (USDA Forest Service, Feb. 2014) and the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) (See Attachment B of the Proposed Action for specific plan sections, or the full plan here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf).

III. Proposed Action The USDA Forest Service (FS), Kaibab National Forest, North Kaibab Ranger District, through a collaborative process with interested stakeholders, proposes to mechanically thin up to about 15,070 acres and use wildland fire (including, for this project, both managed and prescribed fire) alone or in conjunction with mechanical treatment on up to about 28,060 acres. This proposed action is based on consultation with diverse stakeholders and guided by a quantitative exploration of existing data that allowed explicit consideration of multiple values and perceived risks associated with this project and the 2009 Kaibab Forest Health Focus. In pursuing this stakeholder process, the NKRD has endeavored to integrate the broad experience and expertise of stakeholders into a proposed action that will achieve

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 176

project objectives at multiple scales, consistent with the results from the Kaibab Forest Health Focus and the Forest Plan. A preliminary map of the strata used to address proposed treatments across the project area and tables of treatment types and estimated acres are provided below, for illustrative purposes only. Formal analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act will follow a public scoping period, thus the estimated acreages and the locations of proposed treatments presented here should be seen as a means for identifying treatment categories and approximate areas to guide the development of this Proposed Action. Acreages presented here are based on preliminary Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and may vary based on field verification and review performed during NEPA analysis planned for 2015. Based on that analysis, refined acreages will be presented in a Draft Environmental Analysis.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 177

This Proposed Action is stratified based on treatment types and relevant vegetation. The proposed treatments, including some fire-only treatments and some treatments using both mechanical treatments and fire, are as follows:

Wildland Fire Treat up to 12,990 acres using wildland fire management. Throughout this document, wildland fire refers to prescribed fire as well as managed wildfire, and includes activities such as preparation thinning (typically achieved through hand thinning and/or the use of mastication head or similar small, low- ground pressure equipment), the construction of control lines, and other treatments associated with appropriate use and management of prescribed fire and managed wildfire. 1. Actions in the Bridger Fire Area (up to about 7,560 acres)  Use wildland fire and spot treatments of prescribed fire, as needed, to achieve management objectives  Protect existing regenerating trees from fire and mechanical activities as appropriate to meet management objectives  Minimize seed-dispersing agents and soil disturbance activities to lessen or avoid the spread of cheatgrass.  Monitor and implement control measures for invasive species, such as cheat grass  Develop burn plans in consultation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to ensure wildlife habitat objectives are met 2. Sensitive Soils and Steep (40% or greater) Slopes (up to about 5,010 acres)  Use wildland fire to burn when needed to achieve management objectives  Where fuel loading could result in undesirable fire effects, use preparation thinning (either hand thinning or small, low-ground pressure equipment) and piling in preparation for wildland fire  Mitigate and avoid negative impacts to sensitive areas by using best management practices and design criteria for soils protection 3. Ponderosa Pine Seed Tree Cuts Approaching Desired Conditions (up to about 420 acres)  Use wildland fire to burn when needed to achieve management objectives

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 178

Mechanical Thinning and Wildland Fire Treat up to 15,070 acres using both mechanical thinning and fire.

4. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Northern Goshawk Nest Areas (up to about 2,580 acres). Within areas designated for Northern Goshawk nests or replacement nest areas, about 415 acres are also areas of steep slopes and sensitive soils and would be treated under those guidelines. 4.1 Mechanical Treatment  Where needed to protect and/or enhance nesting habitat, thin from below up to 14”dbh in goshawk nest areas  Manage for or retain snags, downed logs, woody debris and old trees, whenever possible 4.2 Wildland Fire  Where possible, use wildland fire in preference to or in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre-or-post mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

5. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Old Growth Patches (up to about 2,600 acres5) This is a significant portion of the project area that supports relatively dense stands of pre-European settlement trees and retain conditions consistent with pre-European settlement ponderosa pine ecosystems. Some of these areas have been identified as candidate old growth protection sites (henceforth “old growth patches”). However, currently available data are not sufficient for mapping the locations of old growth patches. Access to Forest Service stand data, combined with field validation of both stand data and LCI forest structural models will allow spatially explicit depiction of these patches during NEPA analysis. Preliminary analysis based largely on previous LCI models and guidance provided at the Kanab meeting of the Burnt Corral Stakeholders Group, suggest that a combined area of approximately 2,600 acres would capture most continuous patches of ponderosa pine forest exhibiting old growth conditions. The intent of identifying these old growth patches is to protect areas recognized as current and future reservoirs of old growth forest composition, structure and function. These areas will be managed in conjunction with design features for retaining old and large trees, generally (see below), to ensure the adequate representation of the composition, structure and function of old growth stands, including their living and non-living components, into the future. 5. 1 Mechanical Treatment  Conduct limited mechanical treatments that thin post settlement trees less than 16 inch dbh trees as necessary to reduce ladder fuels  Retain structural diversity  Retain old growth components including large snags, downed logs, large coarse woody debris, and large and old trees 5.2 Wildland Fire  Use wildland fire in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre or post mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

6. Ponderosa Pine Forest: Remaining Area (Up to about 9,530 acres)

5 Note: Estimated acreage which may be adjusted with further analysis and reconnaissance work in the project area. 12

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 179

For the remaining acres of ponderosa pine, including Northern Goshawk PFAs (about 9,320 acres), the following actions are proposed: 6.1 Mechanical Treatment  Use group selection cuts varying in shape to create opening that are an irregular and heterogeneous forest mosaic, characterized by treatments from ¼ to 4 acres in size, with a maximum width of 200 feet. The intent of these selection cuts is to manage for current and future uneven-aged conditions while reducing fuel loads and fuel continuity, without creating an homogeneous stand structure or a regular or repetitive “cookie cutter” structure of alternating dense stands and openings.  Strategically place treatments and vary the sizes of thinned areas on the landscape, taking advantage of topography and roads, particularly East-West roads, to achieve fire management objectives  Generally, treat more intensively on south-facing slopes and areas upwind of NOGO nest areas, old growth patches, and other areas of denser trees of particular value or vulnerability to fire  Generally forego mechanical treatment in areas where fire models predict passive surface fire  Develop and/or maintain structural diversity, including some areas with interlocking crowns and wildlife hiding cover at the stand level  Develop and/or maintain at least 3 age classes in roughly even proportions across any 100-1,000 acre subunit 6.2 Wildland Fire  When possible, use wildland fire in coordination with mechanical treatments  Wildland fire use may occur pre- or post-mechanical treatment, and multiple fire entries may occur over the project life

7. Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Up to 358 acres) Three hundred and fifty eight acres of the project is designated as Mexican spotted owl Recovery Habitat and will be managed consistent with the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (2012). About one hundred eighty acres of Recovery Habitat overlap with steep slopes and sensitive soils. Any guidelines developed for steep slopes and sensitive soils will be used as operational guidance and will conform to the Recovery Plan. All treatments will move the habitat towards Nesting/Roosting Habitat desired conditions within the Recovery Plan (Table C.3, pg. 278).

7.1 Mechanical Treatment  Thin from below up to 12” DBH, in some cases thinning may only occur up to 9” DBH to meet desired conditions.  Multiple mechanical entries may be required during the life of the project to meet desired conditions.  Retain Mexican spotted owl key habitat elements required by the Recovery Plan. These elements include hardwoods, large snags (>18” DBH), large downed logs (>18” DBH at any point), and large trees (>18” DBH).  Maintain the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of Mexican spotted owl Critical Habitat. Areas outside of Recovery Habitat (i.e. Ponderosa pine) will be treated to protect the habitat from uncharacteristic high intensity wildlife and other natural disturbances.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 180

7.2 Wildland Fire  Wildland fire will be implemented as appropriate to retain the key elements mentioned above in 7.1 as well Critical Habitat PCEs.  Prescribed fire may occur pre- or post-mechanical treatment. Multiple fire entries may occur over the life of the project within Recovery Habitat to meet desired conditions.

Other Included Actions  Encourage reestablishment of aspen in ponderosa pine-dominated stands by centering thinning efforts in areas with remaining aspen trees, when feasible  Retain existing stands of Gambel oak, including all oak >8 inches diameter at root collar. Encourage reestablishment in ponderosa pine-dominated stands by centering thinning efforts in areas with oak  Install artificial bat barks near permanent and ephemeral water sources throughout the project area.  Work in collaboration with Arizona Game and Fish Department to evaluate existing water developments and, where appropriate, refurbish for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat.  Reduce fuels and control erosion at fire-sensitive cultural resource sites.  Provide local tribes continued access to forest resources and opportunities to engage in traditional practices.

IV. Design Features Through surveys and group discussion, a number of issues and concerns were identified for consideration in the project. Many of these issues address how treatments are designed and implemented, such that they maintain or augment desired conditions across the project area, and avoid or minimize possible undesirable impacts. These design features refer to consistent practices implemented across the entire project area.

Of the many issues identified, several were discussed in detail during the collaborative process and synthesized into proposed action language by the LCI: wildlife habitat, old trees and large trees, as well as the protection of sensitive ecosystems and wildlife habitat. We describe the design features discussed in-depth, though not always agreed upon, during the collaborative process, and offer language that we believe best captures the “sense of the collaborative”. We have also attached relevant Kaibab Forest Plan sections including guidelines for management actions applicable to a number of stakeholder concerns (e.g. threatened species, smoke impacts, climate change, recreation), and the Design Features and Specifications, including Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices used by the North Kaibab Ranger District across projects (Attachment A & B).

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 181

Old Growth Protection In addition to the identified old growth patches (Section III, proposed action item 5, above), all old growth, as defined in the Forest Plan Vegetation Management Guidelines (Attachment B) will be retained with the following exceptions:

1. Where removal is required for reasons of public safety 2. Specific operational considerations (e.g., landing areas) 3. Large contiguous areas that have not been impacted by timber harvest, where fire exclusion has created forest structure conditions that are distinctly outside of the natural range of variability for the Kaibab Plateau, and where current predicted fire behavior suggests high risk of unnaturally severe wildfire and/or other degradation or desired characteristics. In these areas, if old (“pre-European settlement”) trees are cut, they will be retained on site to provide understory dead and down components consistent with old growth characteristics, except in cases where doing so would result in conditions that are clearly outside the desired range identified in the Forest Plan. Firewood gathering and other thinning activities should be managed and/or restricted in these areas, so as to retain all old growth components, including dead and downed material. Large tree retention Across the project area, large trees, those greater than 18” diameter at breast height (dbh), will be retained except where ecological restoration and biodiversity objectives cannot otherwise be met. Extensive deliberation, informed by existing data and incorporating diverse experience in managing these forests suggests that existing conditions across the project area will make it difficult to meet objectives over extensive areas without thinning some large trees. Thus, this design criterion is not a so- called “diameter cap” but rather a threshold that, when reached, requires that the removal of trees larger than 18” dbh be justified based on site-specific analysis of current conditions and their departure from desired conditions. This issue of large tree retention is arguably the most contentious aspect of forest management in the Burnt Corral project area, and the proposed threshold and practices are intended as a compromise that will allow management actions necessary for meeting landscape-level objectives, while providing site-specific reassurance to stakeholders who question the need for large tree removal. It is hoped that successful implementation of the Burnt Corral project, including monitoring the outcomes with respect to large tree retention, will provide reassurance now, while pursuing an adaptive approach that will inform and improve future projects in the ponderosa pine forests of the Kaibab Plateau. Areas where desired conditions might require removal of trees larger than 18” dbh, include the following:  Aspen groves or oak stands where enhancement is desired  Areas where within-stand openings are desirable to regain structural heterogeneity  Areas where heavily stocked stands with high basal area are characterized by a preponderance of large, young (“post-European settlement”) trees  Encroached meadows, riparian areas, or other rare or sensitive habitats

Recognizing that desired intensity and configuration of treatments will significantly influence how this large tree retention policy plays out, treatments will be designed to restore, wherever possible, pre- European settlement composition, structure, and function, while taking into account the likelihood of continued drought and probable climate warming. Treatments will also be informed indirectly by data from reference sites across the North Rim, such as Powell Plateau and other sites that have been subject to less interrupted or altered fire regimes.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 182

Wildlife habitat Across the project area, maintain screening and hiding cover wherever possible:  Where mechanical thinning and wildfire result in significantly reduced tree density, maintain and stimulate well distributed patches of cover. Proximal to roads but not continuous with old growth patches and other areas where management objectives call for the retention of denser stands with interlocking crowns, encourage regeneration stands for cover  Use natural landforms and existing topography when thinning or revegetating to create hiding cover for wildlife  When feasible and where beneficial, maintain strategically placed slash piles and unlopped slash for turkey cover and nesting in treated areas until post-treatment vegetation response provides natural cover and nesting sites  Across the project area, refer to habitat parameters for Merriam’s turkey (Shaw and Mollohan 1992) and mule deer guidelines (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group 2009)

Across the project area, retain a variety of vegetation types and structures to provide a range of habitats for wildlife species, including:  Merriam’s turkey roost sites (Ponderosa pine groups of 5-9 ponderosa pine 15” dbh)  Gambel oak as a transition habitat for Mule deer and forage for Merriam’s turkey  Interspersed trees ranging from 8-18 inches dbh, including areas of interlocking crowns, as quality pine habitat for Kaibab squirrel  Snags around waters for bat roosts, nesting birds and other species

Across the project area, encourage a diverse understory of native grasses, forbs and shrubs to increase primary productivity and enhance the food web to benefit biodiversity  Consider seeding with appropriate native species using reliable seed source partnerships Roads Maintain existing system of roads and prevent development of new roads. The existing system of open and administrative roads provides adequate access for project implementation. No need for new roads is anticipated, and no new permanent roads will be constructed to access the treatment units or stands. However, temporary roads or permanent road improvements (i.e., gravel overlay) may be considered or included as part of NEPA analysis, if deemed necessary. Any existing closed roads that are reopened temporarily to access treatment units will be closed following project completion. Some roads may be temporarily closed during project implementation as a public safety measure.

Protection of sensitive areas Across the project area, mitigate and avoid negative impacts to sensitive areas by using best management practices and design features such as buffers from heavy equipment around:  Caves and karst features, including sinks  Heritage/cultural sites  Recreation opportunity and scenic objective areas  Springs, seeps and draws  Plants of cultural importance  Sensitive soils and steep slopes; reduce active headcuts or downcuts in ephemeral drainages  Areas of recreational interest  Experimental or research study areas (i.e. Kane Ranch and silvicultural test plots).

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 183

V. Attachments: Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications: Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab Forest Plan

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 184 Attachments to Burnt Corral Vegetation Management Plan Proposed Action

Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications: Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices….….2

Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab National Forest Plan………………………………………………….11

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 185 Attachment A. Design Features & Specifications (Mitigation Measures & Best Management Practices)

The following is a listing of Design Features and Specifications, including Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) by resource area. These Design Features and Specifications include watershed conservation practices and relevant Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as other applicable requirements. The design features presented below may change based on actual data and field verification for specific vegetation and soil types; based on the environmental analysis performed for the project the revised design features will be included in the Final environmental analysis report, Monitoring requirements may also be added.

Silviculture Silvicultural prescriptions and design criteria would follow Kaibab National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines. . Opening size would follow Forest Plan guidelines for up to 4 acres with maximum width of 200 feet. . Protection of ponderosa pine plantations established after salvage timber harvesting following the Bridger Knoll fire of 1996. These areas are designated on the map and measures would be written into the burn plans and prescribed fire prescriptions to protect and keep alive during firing operations. . Vegetation treatments with mechanical thinning on steep slopes, and sensitive soils with the option to handpile where necessary, or masticate where appropriate, or lop and scatter where applicable.

. Within mixed conifer areas of the forest, vegetation treatments would adopt stocking guidelines for basal area and Stand Density Index from recommendations for Mexican Spotted Owl recovery plan on the Kaibab NF. Range Each protocol on this list is formed from the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds for the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests; Appendix B-Design Features, Best Management Practices, and Required Protection Measures. . Conducting a pre-treatment inventory inside the project area. Areas to be inventoried will be prioritized in chronological order of anticipated activity timing before the project implementation begins. Areas likely to receive higher traffic like staging areas and along roads will be monitored first and random sampling of areas planned for treatment will follow in a timely manner. Areas where high infestations of aggressive invasive species are found, planned activities in that area will be delayed until the species is controlled. . Prioritizing treatment of invasive species found during inventory. Invasive species found during inventory will be lumped together with current known infestations and treated using the most efficient means possible and in accordance with the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott ROD for Noxious and Invasive Weeds (2005). Once the invasive species is controlled, planned activity can begin. . Continuation of monitoring during treatment. During project activity treatments, monitoring will be ongoing for additional species undetected during initial inventory and ensuring compliance. In the

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 186 event that a new population is detected, the activity that site will be stopped until invasive species is controlled. . Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with project objectives. This includes the design and need of slash piles, utilizing existing roads where applicable to decrease the need for new skid trails and fire lines. . Washing equipment and vehicles related to activities prior to entering project area. Contracting officer will be responsible for ensuring this occurs on all equipment tied to a contract. The district will also require this policy for any vehicles and equipment used on project that came from off the district. Equipment and vehicles will also be washed before leaving the district at a pre-determined “clean location”. . Ensuring weed free gravel and other materials sources. Providers of gravel and other materials used will have the source of material inspected prior to importing into the project area. If deemed necessary, material will be staged at pre-determined location for additional monitoring. . Optimize prescribed burning for appropriate timing. Burning will be conducted during seasons of the year that promotes lower fire intensities and hinders possible weed infestation. Burning in dry years will also be avoided for improved native plant response. . Utilizing Certified Weed Free Seed Sources. In the event that an area needs to be seeded post treatment, seed purchased will be from a reputable dealer that can provide official weed free certification for each species utilized. Seed mix will consist only of native species and/or certified sterile annuals and require approval of District Range Conservationist or Forest Botanist. In the event that local seed harvesting is available and certified as “weed free”, that source will be utilized. . Monitor after restoration treatment activity is completed. Random sampling will occur in areas that have been treated for at least two years after completion to monitor for invasive species that may have been introduced or spread. Soil and Watershed To meet the objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1987, the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region in 1990 entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Arizona, Department of Environmental Quality. It was agreed that the most practical and effective means of controlling non-point source pollution sources from forest and rangelands was through the development of preventative land management practices generally referred to as Best Management Practices (BMP’s), and to ensure the control of non-point source pollution through the implementation of BMP’s. Each project is required to identify and implement site specific Best Management Practices designed to protect soil and water quality (Interagency Agreement, 1990). Unless monitoring proves contrary, implementation of the following BMP’s constitutes complying with Arizona State and Federal Water Quality Standards for designated uses in downstream perennial waters. Utilize applicable guidance from the National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide (FS-990a); April 2012: The Forest Service National BMP Program is the agency’s nonpoint source pollution control program for achieving and documenting water resource protection. The National BMP Program demonstrates the agency’s commitment to land stewardship and protection of water quality consistent with the CWA, State regulations, and other requirements. The National BMP Program is not intended in any way to circumvent or interfere with State and tribal CWA programs, rather it is intended to support and assist the States and tribes in their efforts to ensure compliance on NFS lands. The following BMP’s are designed to minimize the impacts of timber harvest and fuel treatment activities to soil and water resources. They apply to all action alternatives:

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 187 A. Use of USDA-FS, Southwester Region Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, (TES) Coconino County and Part of Yavapai County, Arizona (May 1991, as amended) Map in Timber Sale Design - Cutting units are designed in a manner that minimizes soil disturbances and facilitates BMP implementation. Obtain a TES map for location of site specific BMP’s in specified TES map units. B. Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality Protection – Locations of designated stream courses and/or drainages, will be shown on the sale area map. Sink holes, meadows, springs seeps, and other surface waters (stock watering tanks) to be protected are also shown on sale area maps. C. Stream Course/Drainage Protection – Stream course and/or drainages to be protected are shown on the sale area map. Stream course and/or drainages are crossed perpendicularly only at designated crossings. Tractor skidding, decking of logs, fire lines, machine and hand piling of slash are not permitted within stream courses and/or drainages. Drainage features such as lead out ditches, water bars, etc., are not constructed in such a manner that surface runoff is permitted to enter a stream course and/or drainage. D. Activity generated fuels from timber harvest activities are removed from stream courses and/or drainages. Trees are to be felled outside the stream course and/or drainages. The timber sale administrator has the authority to approve skid trails and log landings outside stream courses and/or drainages. E. Log Landings – All log landing locations are approved in advance of logging activities by the Forest Service. Existing log landings will be utilized unless locations are deemed unacceptable by the Forest Service (drainage channels, steep slopes, etc). Log landings are not located in sink holes and meadows (TES map unit 9). Log landings will be located where a minimum of clearing or excavating is needed and at least 100 feet away from stream channels/drainages. Landings will be kept to the minimum size necessary to allow safe operations. Log landings are permitted within these map units if the area is less than 15percent slope and is large enough to facilitate a log landing and is accessible by an existing haul road. F. Erosion Control of Skid Trails, Landings, and Fire lines – All skid trails and fire lines will be water barred and reseeded with an erosion control native seed mix following completion of mechanized equipment operations. Lopping and scattering of slash can be substituted for water barring if the Purchaser and Forest Service agree. Skid trails and fire lines accessible from open roads will be blocked or disguised to discourage vehicle travel. Depressions such as ruts and berms are filled in or removed, restoring skid trails and fire lines to the natural grade of the slope where possible. A Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix will be applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre on all skid trails, landings and fire lines. In addition, skid trails and fire lines located in sensitive soils mapping unites (according to TES and its associated maps)may utilize water bars constructed by hand where excessive slope prevents improper water bar construction by machine. Lopping and scattering of slash can be substituted for water barring in these areas if the Purchaser and Forest Service agree. G. Limit the Operating Season – The operation of equipment will be prohibited when soil conditions are such that accelerated soil erosion, excessive soil surface displacement, or excessive compaction would occur. Ground-based mechanical falling, skidding, decking, machine piling and other off-road ground based operations will be stopped in units where soil conditions are such that soil damage is likely. The Sale Administrator will consult with soil and watershed specialist if necessary. Operations may occur outside the normal operating season (May 1 to November 15) when erosion control work is up to date and when the prohibitive soil conditions described above are not present. Guidelines for winter operations include reasonably dry conditions or a combination of frozen soil

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 188 and snow cover conditions sufficient to minimize or eliminate soil displacement, compaction, and ground cover disturbance will be required during winter logging operations. The objective is to minimize soil compaction and displacement (rutting, etc). This applies to soils in all TES map units. H. Soil Loss at Tolerance – Maintain acceptable effective ground cover levels to prevent soil loss from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits. Analyze effective vegetative ground cover to determine tolerable soil loss levels. Permit light to moderate ground disturbances (vegetative ground cover is disturbed, but not displaced or removed). The Sale Administrator has the authority to require skid trail designation prior to felling to limit ground disturbance. In those areas where severe disturbance has resulted in removal of vegetative ground cover, apply harvest slash, reseed or other erosion control measures to restore the disturbed area. This applies to all TES map units. BMP’s C, D, E, F, and G apply to designated skid trails and log landings. BMP’s N, O, and P apply to roads. I. Coarse Woody Debris – To maintain or improve long-term soil productivity, manage towards a minimum of 3 to 10 tons/acre of coarse woody debris. In TES map unit 624, manage towards a minimum of 5 to 15 tons/acre. Coarse woody debris is defined as material greater than 3 inches in diameter. Coarse woody debris should be scattered evenly across the soil surface and represent all size classes where possible. Unmerchantable or cull trees are to remain on site and not brought into landing or decking areas. In areas (TES map unit 293 in the Marble Canyon Watershed, TES map unit 620 in the Kanab Creek Watershed and TES map Unit 624) where coarse woody debris is deficient, lop and scatter slash to meet this guideline. Also, lop and scatter slash in TES map unit 9. This BMP does not apply to urban interface areas or fuel breaks. J. Machine Piling of Slash – Machine pile activity generated fuels at log landings and where fuel loading exceeds target levels for Coarse Woody Debris. All machine piling will be accomplished using a Forest Service approved brush rake in order to minimize displacement of soil and rock. Machine pile when soils are frozen or dry. Machine piling of slash is not permitted in certain sensitive soils areas as determined by the TES. Lop and scatter activity generated fuels in TES map unit 9. A Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix is applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre on all landings. Reseed with native grass species. K. Hand Piling of Slash – Do not hand pile slash in designated stream courses or drainages, springs, seeps, or other designated protected areas. Within certain sensitive soils areas as determined by the TES vegetation will be lopped and scattered. Hand piling and burning of PCT slash can occur in Map Unit 9 only in those locations where resulting fuel loads exceed 10 tons per acre. Where appropriate, reseed with native grass species. L. Broadcast Burns – Conduct broadcast burns when moisture and temperature conditions are suitable for burning that reduces fuels without totally consuming forest duff, completely removing effective vegetative ground cover and exposing bare soil. Do not allow complete consumption of heavy concentrated fuels where the potential exist for heat to expose and damage soils. Maintain acceptable effective ground cover levels to prevent soil loss from exceeding tolerable soil loss limits. Reseed severely burned areas with a Forest Service approved erosion control seed mix applied at a rate of 4 pounds/acre. Reseed with native grass species. No broadcast burning is permitted in TES map unit 9 due to unsatisfactory soil conditions. M. Road Maintenance – Existing and roads to be opened for administrative use are maintained throughout the life of the timber sale. Ensure that existing drainage structures (rolling dips, culverts, rock crossings, etc.) are functioning correctly. Lead out ditches are maintained in a manner that does not allow sediment laden runoff to enter stream courses and/or drainages. Road debris and spoil material as a result of road maintenance activities is not permitted to enter any stream courses and/or drainage. Roads are to receive maintenance prior to winter shut down of logging operations.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 189 Forest Service will determine if additional or new drainage structures are needed. N. Traffic Control During Wet Periods – To prevent road damage, the use of existing and temporary roads is not permitted during wet periods. Restrictions are decided by the timber sale administrator. O. Administrative Roads to Be Closed – Roads are lightly scarified and reseeded with native grasses species effective in controlling surface erosion. Road berms are removed and ruts are filled in. Existing drainage control structures are cleaned, maintained and are working effectively. If possible, camouflage or block the road entrance to disguise the road closure. P. Servicing and Refueling Equipment – During servicing and refueling of equipment, pollutants from logging and road maintenance equipment are not permitted to enter stream courses or drainages. Select servicing areas well away from surface waters, seeps, springs, stream courses and drainages. The timber sale administrator will designate the location, size and allowable uses of service and refueling areas. Q. Conduct Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring – Refer to the soil and water monitoring plan.

Soil and Water Monitoring Plan The intergovernmental agreement currently in effect between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region requires implementation and effectiveness monitoring of Best Management Practices. The following monitoring schedule and methodology will meet this requirement: . Phase 1 – During Timber Sale Activities The timber sale administrator will monitor the implementation of BMP’s during timber harvesting activities. Notes taken by the timber sale administrator will be used to track any issues or problems with BMP implementation. The Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist will provide assistance as needed by the timber sale administrator to provide clarification of BMP’s specified in the Environmental Assessment. . Phase 2 – Timber Sale Closure The timber sale administrator will verify that the timber sale purchaser has implemented all erosion control measures prior to the closure of the timber sale. Primary responsibility will be that of the timber sale administrator with assistance from the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist if needed.

. Phase 3 – Broadcast and Pile Burning The District Fire Management Officer will verify that all erosion control measures associated with all burning activities has been implemented. The Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist will be provided assistance, if needed. . Phase 4 – Effectiveness Monitoring Within the first 5 years following timber sale closure, BMP’s are evaluated for effectiveness. Monitoring will concentrate on such items as erosion control measures for skid trails, log landing or decking areas, road maintenance and burned areas. Conduct a soil condition evaluation within cutting units. Focus on such items as vegetative ground cover, coarse woody debris, erosion, soil compaction and displacement. All monitoring results are documented. Primary responsibility is with the District Ranger and the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist.

. Phase 5 – Follow Up Documented information obtained from monitoring is used to adjust BMP’s as necessary, to improve implementation and effectiveness of BMP’s. Information regarding monitoring results and recommended changes to BMP’s will be made available to the Arizona Department of Environmental

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 190 Quality for review as specified in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Primary responsibility is with the District Ranger and the Forest Soil and Watershed Specialist

Cultural Resources

. In order to protect cultural resource sites, all sites have been identified and documented using cultural resource survey standards as per the North Kaibab Survey Strategy (Reid and Hanson 2006). The sites will be flagged for avoidance prior to project implementation. The standard survey procedures are designed to identify and document sites visible on the surface of the ground, so in the event that an undocumented site is unearthed during ground disturbing activities, implementation activities will cease and the North Zone archaeologist will be contacted to assess the remains and complete any legal consultation required. Adverse effects to unevaluated cultural resource sites or sites eligible to the National Register of Historic Places will be avoided as standard practice. All design criteria will meet site protection standards in accordance with the provisions in the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3 and associated appendices. Project-specific Design Criteria

○ Fuels will be reduced atop fire-sensitive cultural resource sites. Fuel removal treatments will be determined based on the degree of fire sensitivity and fuel loading and may include manual thinning and low-intensity prescribed burning throughout the project area where appropriate. ○ Erosion will be controlled at cultural resource sites across the project area. Treatments may include contour felling of trees, lopping and scattering of slash, hand-seeding with grasses, and application of mulch and placement of logs around sites through manual or mechanical means. . In the event that an adverse effect cannot be avoided, mitigation measures will be designed in consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and culturally affiliated tribes if applicable, following the procedures in the 36 CFR 800 regulations, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Traditional and Cultural Uses The forest will consult with tribes concerning project design and implementation. The forest will provide local tribes continued access to forest resources, and opportunities to engage in traditional practices

Fire and Fuels Activities . A prescribed fire burn plan would be prepared for each prescribed fire treatment utilizing the interagency prescribed fire burn plan template and in accordance with silvicultural and range management prescriptions . Broadcast burning operations would not typically occur within mechanical treatment units within the same year. The burning of slash piles would typically occur prior to broadcast burning operations. However, broadcast burning within mechanical treatment units may occur within the same year , pending North Kaibab resource management staff review and District

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 191 Ranger approval. . Mechanical units would be evaluated annually to ensure that follow up prescribed burning does not create more mortality then stated in silvicultural prescription . Grazing within post-fire treated areas should not be authorized until Forest service range staff confirm range readiness. . Develop prescribed fire treatment objectives that maintain or restore desired conditions for: snags and green snags, downed logs, and per acre fuel loadings of coarse woody debris, including downed logs at the mid-scale level for each major vegetation communities found within the project area. . All prescribed fire activity would be conducted consistent with wildlife restrictions (i.e. defined nesting-breeding seasonal resistrictions) . Ignite prescribed burns when fuel moistures are high enough to prevent frequent torching of larger overstory trees . Implement pre-burn preparation measures to mitigate potential negative effects to trees specifically designated for protection (i.e. known NOGO Nest trees, Superior trees used for cone collection) . Schedule burns that avoid weather conditions, which would impact smoke sensitive areas and create excessive smoke particulate emissions at critical smoke receptor sites. . Prescribed fire burn objectives for prescribed fire treatments within the Bridger Knoll fire history area will ensure wildlife habitat objectives are addressed when appropriate, in cooperation with Arizona Game and Fish. . Prescribed fire treatments within the mixed conifer vegetation type will utilize treatment prescriptions that are designed to reduce potential negative effects to the key structural elements of Mexican spotted owl habitat. . Develop prescribed fire treatment objectives that maintain or restore desired conditions for: snags and green snags, downed logs, and per acre fuel loadings of coarse woody debris, including downed logs at the mid-scale level for each major vegetation communities found within the project area. . Prescribed fire treatments within the mixed conifer vegetation type will utilize treatment prescriptions that are designed to reduce potential negative effects to the key structural elements of Mexican spotted owl habitat.

Recreation and Visuals

. Mark trees on side facing away from road on trees found within 200 ft of the road edge. Do the same on trails found within 50 ft of the trail edge. . If "leave" trees are marked within 200 feet of any Forest Service system road or within 50 feet of any system trail, use a bark-colored paint mix to cover such marks no later than the end of the season that harvest occurs, and mark on the side facing away from the road or trail. . Sign trails/trailheads to advise of vegetative or prescribed burning treatments, schedule, closures. . Keep stump heights low (6 inches) within 50 ft. of trail edges. . If sanitation cuts are used to reduce mistletoe, feather edges up to the treatment areas to avoid abrupt changes in tree densities. . Rehabilitate skid trails, log decks, or other disturbed areas by restoring the original contours, fine grading, and seeding with native seed mix. . Treat slash consecutively during commercial and non-commercial thinning.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 192 Engineering and roads . District engineer will establish a suitable road system to implement the vegetation management project. . District engineer will open any closed roads for the project and re-close at project completion. . Project should follow USDA – U.S. Forest Service, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP technical Guide (April 2012) as applicable.

Wildlife Condor Conservation Measures  Prior to the start of project activities, the North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD) will contact personnel monitoring condor locations and movement to determine the locations and status of condors in or near the project area.  All workers at the project site will be advised of the possibility of the occurrence of California condors in the project area.  All workers at the project site will be instructed to avoid interaction with condors and to immediately contact the appropriate NKRD or Peregrine Fund personnel if condor(s) occur at the project area. To avoid injury both to condors and personnel, project personnel will not haze condors.  If a condor occurs at a project site, only permitted personnel will employ appropriate techniques to cause the condor to leave the site. “Permitted” means those with the necessary federal and state permits.  Any project activity that may cause imminent harm to condors will temporarily cease until permitted personnel can assess the situation and determine the correct course of action. It may be necessary to postpone the activity until condors leave the area or are hazed by permitted personnel.  The project area will be kept clean (e.g., trash disposed of, tools and materials picked up) in order to minimize the possibility of condors accessing inappropriate materials.  To prevent water contamination and potential condor poisoning, a hazardous material (including vehicle fluids) leakage and spill plan will be developed and implemented. The plan will include provisions for immediate clean-up of any hazardous substance, and will outline how each hazardous substance will be treated in case of leakage or spill. The plan will be reviewed by the district biologist to ensure condors are adequately addressed.  If condors consistently occur at the project area, then additional conservation measures may be necessary. NKRD will report consistent condor occurrence at the project area to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in a timely manner, and will facilitate any necessary consideration of additional measures by NKRD and the FWS.  If condor nesting activity is known within one mile of the project area, then loud activities will be restricted to outside of the active nesting season. The active nesting season is February 1- September 30. Those dates may be modified based on the most current information regarding condor nesting and consultation with the district biologist and the Fish and Wildlife Service. NKRD will report such occurrences to the FWS in a timely manner, and will facilitate any necessary consideration of additional measures by NKRD and FWS.  Smoke from project activities will be prevented from negatively affecting condor breeding. A given project fire activity will be designed and managed to prevent significant amounts of smoke, or smoke that will remain in place for an extended period of time, or chronic smoke events, from occurring in area(s) where condors are attempting to breed.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 193 Northern goshawks . The Kaibab National Forest Plan will be followed to protect the species, its habitat and its associated prey species. . Limit human activities within ¼ mile of an active nest site during the breeding season so that goshawk reproductive success is not affected by human activities. The breeding season extends from March 1 through September 30. . In northern goshawk nest areas, tree-groups may be thinned from below; Promote varied, irregular spacing between trees.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 194 Attachment B. Relevant selections from the Kaibab National Forest Plan The purpose of this section is to provide a ready reference to the review of the proposed action. Each resource area will perform in-depth analysis during NEPA and additional sections of the Forest Plan identified as relevant. Full plan is available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf

Fine-scale (10 acres or less) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 195 Mid-scale (100 to 1,000 acres) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

The ponderosa pine forest vegetation community is characterized by variation in the size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. The mosaic of tree groups generally comprises an uneven-aged forest with all age classes and structural stages present. Stands are dominated by ponderosa pine, but other native hardwood and conifer species occur. The more biologically productive sites contain more trees per group and more groups per area. Basal area within forested areas generally ranges from 20 to 80 square feet per acre, with larger trees (i.e. >18 inches in diameter) contributing the greatest percent of the total basal area. Interspaces with native grass, forb, and shrub vegetation are variably shaped and typically range from 10 to 70 percent, with the more open conditions typically occurring on less productive sites. Forest conditions in some areas contain 10 to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest (e.g., goshawk post-fledging family areas, Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, drainages, and steep north-facing slopes). Patches of even-aged forest structure are present, but infrequent. Disturbances sustain the overall variation in age and structural distribution. Snags 18 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater average 1 to 2 snags per acre. Snags and green snags of various sizes and forms are common. Downed logs (greater than 12 inches diameter at mid-point and greater than 8 feet long) average 3 logs per acre. Coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter (including downed logs), ranges from 3 to 10 tons per acre. Fires burn primarily on the forest floor and typically do not spread between tree groups as crown fire.

Landscape-scale (over 10,000 acres) Desired Conditions for Ponderosa Pine

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 196 natural fire regime. Fire and other disturbances are sufficient to maintain desired overall tree density, structure, species composition, coarse woody debris loads, and nutrient cycling. The risk of uncharacteristic high-severity fire and associated loss of key ecosystem components is low. Frequent, low-severity fires (Fire Regime I) occur across the entire landscape with a return interval of 0 to 35 years.

Objectives for Ponderosa Pine

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 197 Incorporation of design features in thinning and planting prescriptions can also be used to create “living snow fences” for shade, snow accumulation, wind protection, and slow snowmelt, and protect from sublimation caused by prevailing winds. This may help offset the effects of climate change. Pine-oak forests are managed as Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) habitat as discussed under the approved revised Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (2012). The Kaibab NF works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to address the habitat needs of the Mexican spotted owl by minimizing disturbance and providing nest/roost habitat, which includes managing for areas of closed canopy and desired levels of key structural elements such as large old trees, snags, and downed woody debris. Illegal wood cutting is probably the biggest threat to oak, as it reduces both the amount and quality of oak habitat. Enforcement, education, and site-specific planning will be necessary to ensure quality oak habitat over the long term. Firewood collection opportunities are managed so site-specific planning and permits may specify the amount and size of oak that can be collected in areas where live and dead woody oak habitat components are limited. Due to time and budget constraints in the face of increasing risk, the Kaibab NF intends to prioritize and design treatments so they will be most effective. One strategy includes designing treatments that make progress toward desired conditions and retain those characteristics for at least 20 years. In terms of prescriptions, this means that the post-treatment conditions may need to be on the more open end of the desired range to accommodate the growth that is anticipated in the interval between treatments. Additionally, within a given project boundary, some acres may be left untreated if they are already at low risk, or if leaving them untreated meets specific wildlife habitat needs but does not promote undesirable fire behavior at the mid-scale in surrounding treated acres. Restoration activities would be prioritized in the areas identified by the Kaibab Forest Health Focus (KFHF; NAU 2009) and then move to other areas of high risk and high value. The KFHF was a multi- stakeholder collaborative process that prioritized areas most in need of treatment. Primary indicators were related to high risk and high value such as those with closed canopies containing large trees. These areas were identified as high priority for restoration because they already contain many components of the desired condition and a single treatment may come close to meeting the desired condition, but if lost, would take centuries to replace. The KFHF report can be accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5120031.pdf.

Desired Conditions for Aspen (General)

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 198 Standards for Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities

Guidelines for Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 199 Vegetation management activities should meet or exceed goals for scenic beauty (scenic integrity objectives) by creating natural patterns, structure and composition of trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants. Vegetation management should favor the development of native understory species in areas where they have the potential to establish and grow. Even aged silvicultural practices may be used as a strategy for achieving the desired conditions over the long term, such as bringing dwarf mistletoe infection levels to within a sustainable range, or old tree retention. Seed and plants used for revegetation should originate from the appropriate PNVT and general ecoregion (i.e. southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area. Heavy equipment and log decks should not be staged in montane meadows.

See also “Recreation and Scenery,” “Nonnative Invasive Species,” “Wildlife”, ”Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species”, and relevant major vegetation communities.

Guidelines for Soils and Watershed Management

Desired Conditions for Wildlife

Native wildlife species are distributed throughout their potential natural range. Desirable nonnative wildlife species are present and in balance with healthy, functioning ecosystems.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 200 Habitat is available at the appropriate spatial, temporal, compositional, and structural levels such that it provides adequate opportunity for breeding, feeding, nesting, and carrying out other critical life cycle needs for a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species. Species with specific habitat needs (e.g. snags, logs, large trees, interlocking canopy, and cavities) are provided for. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs provide forage, cover, fawning, and nesting sites. Interconnected forest and grassland habitats allow for movement of wide ranging species and promote natural predator-prey relationships, particularly for strongly interactive species (e.g., mountain lions). Habitat configuration and availability allow wildlife populations to adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging, etc.) in response to climate change and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations. Human-wildlife conflicts are minimal. Hunting, fishing and other wildlife based recreation opportunities exist, but do not compromise species populations or habitat.

Guidelines for Wildlife Management

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 201 The Kaibab NF continues to support the AGFD in various capacities directed toward managing wildlife, fish, and habitat. Areas for potential collaboration include (but are not limited to) achieving management goals and objectives specified in Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), carrying out memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and the cooperative agreement for management of the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, and management of recreation fisheries. The Kaibab NF works closely with the BLM, Grand Canyon National Park, and AGFD in managing desert bighorn sheep, and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus). Kaibab NF has been working and will continue to collaborative with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup to implement strategies identified in the “Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment” as well as the “Coconino County Wildlife Corridor Assessment.” The Kaibab NF cooperates with State, Federal, and nongovernmental organizations to reestablish naturally occurring species that have been affected by anthropogenic activities. These include species such as the California condor and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), and where feasible and appropriate, the recovery and/or restoration of strongly interactive species within their historical range. Potential climate change, drought, El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the resulting potential effects of management activities are considered during project planning. Particular species that are sensitive to changes in weather may need special consideration. Changes in typical weather patterns can affect migration habitat use, breeding seasons, and fecundity (i.e., in hotter, drier years, mitigations may be needed to reduce physiological stress on breeding wildlife). Climate change is an important consideration when managing habitat for wildlife species. The Kaibab NF references current literature and the best available science when making site specific decisions relevant to project planning. This is done in an interdisciplinary context with input from other resource specialists. For example; the wildlife guideline specifying disturbance buffers around raptor nests is intended as a minimum buffer. Some raptor species (e.g., osprey) are more adapted to disturbance and are likely to tolerate a buffer of just 300 yards during the breeding season while other, less tolerant species (e.g. peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus)) may require buffers of up to a ½ mile. Wildlife biologists work with other IDT resource specialists to identify and define the appropriate site specific buffers (within the context of plan guidance) for other raptors on a case-by-case basis.

2 The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southwestern Region can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/plants-animals/?cid=FSBDEV3_022105

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 202 Desired Conditions for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Guidelines for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Project activities and special uses occurring within federally listed species habitat should integrate habitat management objectives and species protection measures from approved recovery plans. Project activities and special uses should be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and critical life cycle needs of Forest Service Sensitive Species. Activities occurring near areas used by bald eagles should follow recommendations identified in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Arizona Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle. A minimum of six goshawk nest areas (known and replacement) should be located per territory. Nest and replacement nest areas should generally be located in drainages, at the base of slopes, and on northerly (NW to NE) aspects. Nest areas should generally be 25 to 30 acres in size. Goshawk PFAs (post-fledging family areas) of approximately 420 acres in size should be designated surrounding the nest sites. Potentially disturbing project-related activities should be minimized in occupied goshawk nest areas during nesting season of March 1 through September 30.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 203 Desired Conditions for Rare and Narrow Endemic Species

Habitat and refugia are present for narrow endemics or species with restricted distributions and/or declining populations. Location and conditions of rare and narrow endemic species are known.

Guidelines for Rare and Narrow Endemic Species

Project design should incorporate measures to protect and provide for rare and narrow endemic species where they are likely to occur.

Desired Conditions for Nonnative Invasive Species

Guidelines for Nonnative Invasive Species

Desired Conditions for the Grand Canyon Game Preserve

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 204 Management Approach for the Grand Canyon Game Preserve The Kaibab NF cooperates with the AGFD in carrying out the cooperative agreement for managing the Grand Canyon Game Preserve. The game preserve is managed in the spirit of the original proclamation, informed by advances in scientific information and societal values, with an emphasis on the wise use of natural resources.

Desired Conditions for the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark

The Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark provides quality ponderosa pine habitat for the Kaibab squirrel.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 205 Desired Conditions for Nonnative Invasive Species • Invasive species are contained and/or controlled so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of ecosystems or impact native wildlife. • Visitor experiences are not adversely impacted by the presence of invasive species.

Management Approach for Nonnative Invasive Species Strategies to prevent the spread of nonnative invasive species include education, inventory, and control guidelines. Educational programs that increase awareness are critical to effectively manage nonnative invasives. Treatments focus on those species that have the potential to permanently alter historical fire regimes or pose the greatest threat to biological diversity and watershed condition. To effectively manage invasive species populations, it is important to coordinate with other agencies, grazing permittees, and adjacent landowners in efforts for prevention and control. While management that provides for interconnected habitats is desirable for many native wildlife species. In some circumstances such as springs, connectivity can also provide vectors for nonnative species to spread (e.g., water and vehicles used in fire suppression). The use of best management practices can minimize and prevent the spread of non-native invasive species. Desired Conditions for Recreation and Scenery • A wide spectrum of high-quality recreation settings exists. Users have access to a variety of developed and dispersed opportunities. • The Kaibab NF provides sustainable recreation consistent with public demand. Use levels are compatible with other resource values. • Conservation education actively engages children and adults resulting in increased forest stewardship, ecological awareness, partnerships, and volunteerism. Information and educational programs provide opportunities to connect youth, low-income, and minority populations with nature. • Visitors have access to information that enriches their recreation experiences and contributes to an understanding of their role in public land stewardship. “Leave No Trace,12” “Tread Lightly,13” fire prevention, wildlife awareness (e.g. lead reduction, Be Bear Aware14, Animal Inn15, etc.), and archaeological resource protection principles are promoted and practiced by the visiting public. • Opportunities for off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding and driving for pleasure are available on the designated system of NFS roads and motorized trails. • Recreation management activities complement and support local economies and tourism. • User conflicts are infrequent. • The Great Western Trail16 route can be driven boundary to boundary through each of the districts where it occurs. Signage helps to identify and highlight the route. • The historic character of the Beale Wagon Road and Overland Road trails is preserved.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 206 The ultimate goal of these approaches is to maintain the visitors’ perceived freedom to recreate how and where they choose, while retaining healthy, sustainable public lands. When impact and user capacity questions arise, indicators and standards to determine how and where to allocate visitor use should be employed. These approaches would not preclude the Kaibab NF from developing new sites or adapting old sites to accommodate new uses, provided appropriate analyses are conducted to make those decisions.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 207 reference conditions. Springs, streams, and ponds have appropriate plant cover to protect banks and shorelines from excessive erosion. • Hydrophytes and emergent vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and springs in levels that reflect climatic conditions. Overhanging vegetation and floating plants such as water lilies exist where they naturally occur. • The necessary physical and biological components, including cover, forage, water, microclimate, and nesting/breeding habitat, provide habitat for a diverse community of plant and wildlife species. • Riparian dependent plant and animal species are self-sustaining and occur in natural patterns of abundance and distribution. Within its capability, stream flow and water quality are adequate to maintain aquatic habitat and water sources for native and desired nonnative species.7 Native macroinvertebrates are appropriately abundant and diverse. • Native amphibians are free from or minimally impacted by nonnative predation and diseases. Unwanted nonnative species do not exert a detectable impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems • Where springs or other natural waters have been modified for livestock and/or human consumption, developments are operational. • The location and status of springs and water resources are known, organized, and available.

Management Approach for Natural Waters Due to the limited information available, Kaibab NF efforts and emphasis are placed on improving knowledge on the distribution of water resources and aquatic or wetland biota, resource protection, and rehabilitation of springs, including groundwater flow and geochemical analyses. Potential management activities include fencing or other physical protections, restoration of diversions, and revegetation with native species. Develop collaborative strategies and partnerships for spring inventory, assessment, restoration, monitoring, and research when appropriate. Use volunteers to maintain and improve fence exclosures and decrease agency maintenance costs. The Forest Service and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) share the common objective of improving and protecting the nation’s waters. ADEQ serves as the designated management agency within the context of the Arizona Water Quality Management Program for all NFS lands within Arizona. The Kaibab NF coordinates with ADEQ to ensure Forest Service projects meet the requirements of State Water Quality Management Plans and the Nonpoint Source Management Program developed pursuant to Federal regulations and the Clean Water Act. To meet common objectives, the Kaibab NF works with partners and stakeholders (i.e., Museum of Northern Arizona, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, The Nature Conservancy, Grand Canyon Trust , National Park Service (NPS), AGFD, and USFWS) to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer of northern Arizona springs and seeps. The Kaibab NF also collaborates with stakeholders and uses public education and outreach to garner support for spring restoration.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 208 Appendix C. Large Tree Retention Classes for Ponderosa Pine Age Class

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 209 Descriptions

Dunning (1928) Age Class 5: Overmature; usually largest trees in stand; bark light yellow with wide, long and smooth plates; tops flat with terminals rarely discernible; nearly all branches are drooping, gnarled, and crooked. Keen (1943) Age Class 4: Overmature; making no further height growth; diameter growth very slow; bark light yellow, uniform for entire bole (except in extreme top), with wide, long and smooth plates and often shallow fissures; tops usually flat or occasionally rounded or irregular; branches large, heavy, and often gnarled or crooked and mostly drooping except in extreme top. Thomson (1940) Age Class 4: Mature to overmature; trees usually large; bark reddish-brown to yellow with wide, long and smooth plates; tops usually flat and making no further height growth; branches mostly large and drooping, gnarled or crooked.

Appendix D. Kaibab National Forest’s Climate Change Approach for Plan Revision

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 210 However, changes in adaptability may be too slow given the predicted rate of change. Species that are already broadly adapted may become more prevalent and species with narrow adaptability may become less prevalent. Disturbance factors that create more vulnerability in native ecosystems or require extensive controls to maintain the status quo are likely to adversely affect the health and diversity of forests. Desired conditions for healthy forests include resilience to dramatic changes caused by abiotic and biotic stressors and mortality agents (e.g. pine beetle) and a balanced supply of essential resources (light, moisture, nutrients, growing space). Insects and diseases typically invade in cycles followed by periods of relative inactivity. Nonnative invasive species, such as cheatgrass and saltcedar, are expected to continue to increase in numbers and extent. Vulnerabilities to forest threats from an environment that may be much different from the historic range of natural variability is an active area of research, and includes developing new management approaches for changing conditions.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 211 changing climates. Reducing fragmentation and planning at landscape scales to maximize habitat connectivity will become increasingly important (Millar et al. 2007).

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 212 fire resistant trees. This strategy should afford greater carbon storage in southwestern fire-adapted ecosystems over time (North et al. 2009, Hurteau and North 2009). Although fire-excluded forests contain higher carbon stocks, this benefit is outweighed in the long term by the loss that would be likely from uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires (Hurteau et al. 2011) if left untreated. Prescribed burning helps to mitigate the negative impacts of stand-replacing fire in dry, dense forests by consuming less biomass and releasing less carbon into the atmosphere (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). Further, research has shown that the long-term gains acquired through prescribed fire and mechanical thinning outweigh short-term losses in sequestered carbon. In the long term (e.g., 100 years), thinning and burning would create more resilient forests that are less prone to stand-replacing events, and subsequently able to store more carbon in the form of large trees. Slash resulting from mechanical thinning can be used in place of fuels (North and Hurteau 2011, Sorenson et al. 2011). Not all forest products sequester carbon equally. For example, products with longer on average lifespans (e.g., houses), have a greater potential to store carbon than short-lived products such as fence posts. In addition, biomass products created from slash can be used in place of fossil fuels, greatly reducing carbon emission into the atmosphere (Ryan et al. 2010). These types of discussions of tradeoffs in emission and carbon storage rates are likely to be increasingly relevant in decision making. Wood products that can substitute for building materials such as steel and concrete produce far less greenhouse gas emissions during their production while simultaneously sequestering carbon (Ryan et al. 2010). Although current programs and guidance are already in place to limit introduction of nonnative species, treat invasive species, and control insects and diseases, these efforts are likely to become more critical to maintaining desired conditions for healthy forests under a changing climate. Due to the fragmented land ownership patterns, success in reducing forest pests requires going beyond national forest boundaries, and continued collaboration with partners will be needed. In addition, management practices (such as prescribed selection cutting for age class diversity) that sustain healthy forests and provide adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce the potential for disturbance and damage. The Wildlife Society with the Inkley et al. (2004) recommended several actions to help wildlife adapt to climate change and its potential effects on wildlife. These include: (1) managing for diverse conditions; (2) reducing nonclimate stressors on ecosystems; (3) reducing the risk of uncharacteristic high-intensity fires; (4) conducting medium and long-range planning; (5) ensuring ecosystem processes; and (6) employing monitoring and adaptive management, as well as controlling for invasive plant species. Finally, it will be important to set priorities by appropriately balancing sensitive and vulnerable species and systems with those that are resistant and resilient (Glick and Edelson 2011). On the Kaibab NF, existing collaborations between the AGFD and Coconino County generally encourage the protection of open lands and the preservation of the land’s natural character within local and regional contexts. These collaborative strategies should decrease the potential for future land fragmentation while improving the overall integrity of the landscape. This should also provide for more resilience with regard to climate change for those wildlife species that may need to adjust migration routes, foraging corridors, or breeding grounds.

Appendix VI. Revised proposed action and design features 213