Appendix H and J.pdf

APPENDIX H

STANDARD CONSULTATION PROTOCOL

FOR RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

Developed pursuant to Stipulation IV.A. of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement

Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities

In administering multiple-use management of National Forest System lands, Region 3 manages rangeland resources in conformance with Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 222, Subpart A, Grazing and Livestock Use on the National Forest System) and policies (FSH 2209.13 – Grazing Permit Administration Handbook). Livestock, which share the rangelands with deer, elk, antelope and other wildlife, were introduced in the Southwest by the Spanish in the late 16th Century. By the late 1800s, cattle grazing on open ranges in Arizona and New Mexico grew to more than 1,500,000 head. Around the turn of the century, the number of cattle slowly declined as sheep increased to more than 1,000,000 head on the newly established Forest Reserves.

Range conditions were deteriorating as a result of years of overgrazing. Establishment of the National Forests in 1905 provided the opportunity for the implementation of a program that would manage the grazing of livestock. Over the years, efforts to reduce the numbers of livestock and implement sound rangeland management practices have been successful in improving range conditions. Today, approximately 237,000 cattle and 79,000 sheep are permitted to graze on Forest Service Lands in Region 3, with half that number actually grazing during dry years. Most of the National Forest System land in Region 3 is included in grazing allotments. Currently, Region 3 National Forests manage 1,520 grazing allotments, covering more than 18 million acres, through the administration of 1,836 grazing permits. Various activities associated with rangeland management have the potential to affect historic (i.e. listed, eligible and undetermined) properties. In most cases, this effect will not be adverse.

Stipulation IV.A.4 of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities (Programmatic Agreement) provides for the development of “Standard Consultation Protocols” for certain classes of undertakings where effects on historic properties and resulting protection and treatment are similar and repetitive.

Such protocols specify standard procedures for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, in developing this protocol the Forest Service consulted with the Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and 50 Indian tribes for whom properties within National Forests might have traditional cultural or religious significance.

Once approved by the Forest Service, the Council, and the SHPOs and once formally incorporated into the Programmatic Agreement as Appendix H, the Forests may implement the procedures in this protocol, in lieu of standard consultation in the Programmatic Agreement or the Council’s regulations, to take into account the potential effects of range management activities on historic properties.

The following discussion of the NEPA process and range management is intended to illustrate the manner in which range management is carried out and is not intended to indicate that the Section 106 responsibilities will be met using the NEPA process. The Section 106 process, as described in this protocol and the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, will be carried out concurrently with the NEPA process.

Current Forest Service policy uses a strategy known as “adaptive management” to manage grazing allotments. Adaptive management is a formal, systematic, and rigorous approach to learning from the outcomes of range management actions, accommodating change, and improving management. Range management actions and monitoring programs are designed to generate reliable feedback. Actions and objectives are adjusted based on this feedback.

This strategy for range management includes several steps:

1. identification of desired conditions

2. identification of existing conditions

3. identification of resource management needs (to move from existing to desired conditions)

As part of this broad-scale assessment, possible management practices are identified, some or all of which are carried forward into a proposed action for a grazing allotment(s) NEPA analysis.

The NEPA process: 1) identifies purpose, need, and management objectives; 2) identifies proposed management practices (i.e., a range of livestock use levels, seasons, durations, plus any associated vegetative or erosion control treatments – both immediate and possible future needs);

3) identifies proposed range improvements (e.g., fences, water developments - both immediate and possible future needs); 4) analyzes the environmental effects and effects to historic properties of the proposed action and one or more alternatives; 5) identifies mitigation measures to avoid or minimize effects to historic properties and 6) identifies appropriate monitoring to be used to determine if management objectives are being met or if adjustments within the prescribed range of practices are needed. The NEPA scoping process and the procedures in Section II of the Programmatic Agreement will be used to meet the requirements of Section 106 for public involvement.

The NEPA analysis results in a grazing decision. If grazing is authorized, an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) is then developed (or modified) to formalize the direction in the decision with the permittee(s). The AMP becomes Part 3 of the 10-year term grazing permit that is then issued to the grazing permittee(s) within 90 days of final agency action (NEPA decision or final appeal decision).

Adaptive management allows for adjustments to range management actions and objectives based on changing conditions. The adjustments will stay within the range of management options that were analyzed during the NEPA process. Such adjustments may include, for example, reducing livestock numbers or duration of grazing during times of drought or if monitoring reveals that vegetation or other objectives are not being met, or, conversely, increasing livestock numbers or duration of grazing if forage conditions improve significantly and desired conditions are being met or exceeded. Adjustments may be made to protect historic properties. Adjustments also may include the development and construction of range improvements identified in the selected alternative. The strategy is based on continuous monitoring, feedback, and fine-tuning.

Achieving and maintaining allotment desired conditions is expected to benefit historic properties by providing improved vegetation cover and more stable soils, thereby reducing the potential for direct or indirect impacts to historic properties.

This protocol defines the procedures by which historic properties (listed, eligible and undetermined sites) will be considered in planning and conducting rangeland management activities in Region 3. It is recognized that these historic properties have been subjected to grazing for hundreds of years, at levels much higher than current grazing practices, and that some degree of impacts may have already occurred. The procedures in this protocol were developed in consultation with the Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas SHPOs in the 1990s and documented in informal signed agreements. This protocol formalizes and updates the existing process and brings it under the guidance of the current Programmatic Agreement.

PROCEDURES

Forests shall ensure that the following procedures are carried out:

I. SCOPE. The issuance of grazing permits by the Forest Service is recognized as an undertaking that has the potential to affect historic properties. This protocol addresses the potential effects to heritage resources from the authorization of livestock grazing in allotment NEPA decisions, including management practices and range improvements. Management practices include the range of livestock numbers, the range of timing, intensity, frequency and duration of grazing within an allotment, and any associated vegetation or other treatments that are authorized in the decision. Range improvements include facilities such as fences, corrals, stock tanks, water troughs, water pipelines, etc. The Area of Potential Effect (APE), generally considered to be the boundaries of the grazing allotment, will be determined following the procedures in Section V(B) of the Programmatic Agreement.

II. APPROACH

A. Inclusion of Heritage Resources in the Grazing Allotment NEPA Analysis.

1. A professional cultural resource specialist will be included in or will provide input to inter-disciplinary teams set up to assess an allotment’s desired future conditions and management needs and to conduct the subsequent NEPA analysis.

2. The range staff and the heritage staff will discuss the existing and potential impacts to historic properties from both current grazing and the proposed grazing system and management practices, including any known impacts or areas of concern.

3. Existing and potential impacts of grazing on historic properties will be discussed in the Section 106 cultural resource report and subsequent NEPA analysis, along with any site-specific mitigation measures. Where appropriate, protection measures and heritage monitoring requirements will be included in the Section 106 report, and incorporated in the NEPA analysis and associated grazing decision.

4. The NEPA decision document will include a statement that future improvements and other ground-disturbing management practices that are scheduled beyond the first two years and were not included in the Section 106 cultural resource report will be contingent upon the completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with all applicable provisions of Section 106 of NHPA.

B. Analysis of Impacts to Heritage Resources from Cattle Grazing

1. This section describes the procedures to be followed in analyzing the potential effects of cattle grazing on heritage resources. Using available heritage information (maps and GIS layers, heritage databases, past heritage AMP reports) and range information (use pattern maps, proposed management practices), areas of high grazing use, including a possible shift to a more intensive grazing system, and known sensitive sites or site concentrations will be reviewed. Sensitive sites may include, but are not limited to, ruins with free-standing walls, historic structures and TCPs. In locations where cattle are likely to be attracted to or congregate, rock shelters and rock art sites may also be sensitive sites.

2. The level of need and extent of new field surveys or inspections for grazing impacts will be determined by the Forest Archaeologist. This stipulation will take the place of pre-consultation with SHPO concerning the level, extent, and design of inventory for grazing impacts. If new surveys for grazing impacts are determined necessary, they will be conducted prior to the signing of the NEPA decision. Complete (100%) field survey of any given allotment or groupings of allotments will not be required. Rather, field surveys or inspections for grazing impacts will be conducted in areas where there are known or potential impacts to heritage resources or specific areas of concern in order to identify and assess site conditions. In making the decision on the level of survey to be conducted, the Forest Archaeologist will consider the following and document the decision in the heritage resource report:

a. grazing history

b. proposed changes in grazing management practices

c. known incidents of or high potential for damage to sites

d. presence of grazing-sensitive sites

e. presence of areas where cattle congregate

f. amount of the allotment previously surveyed for cultural resources

g. site density

h. information provided by employees, permittees or other users

C. Analysis of Impacts to Heritage Resources from Range Improvements and Ground

Disturbing Management Practices.

1. Immediate Implementation. The standard Section 106 Process (as defined in Section V of the PA) will be implemented on all range improvements and ground disturbing management practices that are planned and have been identified on the ground at the time of the NEPA analysis, and are certain to be implemented within two years of signing the NEPA decision. This includes new range improvements, vegetation treatments, or other ground disturbing practices and activities.

2. Long-Term Implementation. The parties agree that Forests may use a phased approach for the standard Section 106 process regarding improvements and ground disturbing management practices scheduled beyond two years that are identified on the ground (specific location) and analyzed during the initial NEPA analysis, but not planned for implementation within the first two years. These improvements and management practices would be implemented through adaptive management as previously described.

If it is determined that these improvements or practices are needed, and prior to implementation, the standard Section 106 process (as defined in Section V of the PA) would be completed.

3. Whether planned for immediate implementation (within the initial two-year period), or as part of a phased long-term approach, a 100% survey will be performed on all proposed ground-disturbing range improvements scheduled for development except for hand-constructed fences and exempt undertakings as defined in Appendix A Part II of the PA.

Less than 100% survey may be appropriate for certain ground disturbing management practices, for example large area vegetation treatments in locations previously disturbed.

The forests shall pre-consult with SHPO when proposing less than 100% survey on these projects on a case-by-case basis. Areas previously surveyed to current standards, as defined in paragraph V.C.2 of the Programmatic Agreement, do not have to be resurveyed.

4. New Mexico Forests will utilize Appendix G of the Programmatic Agreement, Standard Protocol for Hand-Constructed Fences on National Forests in New Mexico, in consulting on fences. Arizona Forests will treat fences as screened exemptions as defined in the Programmatic Agreement.

D. Monitoring.

Monitoring not specified as part of the Section 106 consultation report or NEPA decision document will be conducted as part of the day-to-day activities of the professional cultural resource specialists. Grazing allotments cover most of any given forest, and when archaeologists are in the field conducting surveys for timber sales or fuelwood sales, for example, they are most likely surveying within a grazing allotment. The archaeologists will use these opportunities to observe and report on grazing activities, the effectiveness of the grazing strategy, and potential impacts to heritage resources. Any incidents of damage to historic properties from grazing will be reported, and the archaeologists will draw upon the protection measured outlined in Section VI below to ensure the effects are avoided or minimized. Results of these informal monitoring activities will be discussed in the annual meetings with the SHPOs as provided for in Section XIII(D) of the Programmatic Agreement.

III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. Each Forest shall use the NEPA scoping process and the procedures in Section II of the Programmatic Agreement to seek and consider the views of the public regarding range management activities and their potential effects on historic properties.

IV. TRIBAL CONSULTATION. The Forest shall use the principles and procedures in Section III of the Programmatic Agreement to assure that tribes are consulted as early as possible in the planning process and that any tribal concerns about properties of traditional cultural and religious significance are addressed. If traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are identified, the Forest shall consult with the affected tribes regarding inventory, evaluation, effect, and protection or treatment measures. The SHPO will be a party to these consultations if the traditional cultural properties are also architectural or archaeological sites.

V. CONSULTATION PROCEDURES. Where not specified in this protocol, Forests shall use the consultation procedures contained in Section V of the Programmatic Agreement.

VI. PROTECTION MEASURES. Where impacts to specific historic properties are documented or likely to occur, mitigation measures will be developed and implemented. The Forests may draw from but not be limited to the following mitigation measures to ensure that effects to historic properties are avoided or minimized:

1. fencing or exclosure of livestock from individual sensitive historic properties or areas containing multiple sensitive historic properties being impacted by grazing.

2. relocation of existing range improvements and salting locations sufficient to ensure the protection of historic properties being impacted by concentrated grazing use.

3. relocation or redesign of proposed range improvements and ground-disturbing management practices to avoid direct and indirect impacts to historic properties.

4. periodic monitoring to assess site condition and to ensure that protection measures are effective

5. other mitigation measures involving data recovery, for example, will be developed and implemented in consultation with the SHPO. The appropriate tribes will be consulted if the mitigation is invasive or if it affects a TCP or other property of concern for them.

VII. REPORTS

A. Reports for grazing allotment NEPA analysis and Section 106 consultation will include:

1. a brief description of the allotment and its grazing history

2. nature of the decision to be made and brief summary of proposed action and alternatives, including proposed improvements and ground-disturbing management practices

3. percent of allotment inventoried to current standards and brief summary of the nature and distribution of historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, if any, and results of tribal consultation (the report need not repeat general overview information contained in prior AMP reports, which should be appropriately referenced)

4. nature and results of inventories and inspections conducted

5. determination of effect

6. recommendations (site-specific protection measures, monitoring, mitigation etc.)

7. a statement that future improvements and ground-disturbing management practices will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with applicable provisions of NHPA. This will include acceptance of the inventory report by the Forest Archaeologist or other FS archaeologist with delegated responsibilities and appropriate SHPO and tribal consultation.

B. Reports for future improvements and ground-disturbing management practices will follow the guidelines in Stipulation V.C.4 of the Programmatic Agreement. These reports, along with any monitoring or inspection reports, will be submitted to SHPOs in accordance with Stipulation V.E of the Programmatic Agreement.

VIII. DISCOVERY SITUATIONS. Previously unrecorded properties that are encountered during the course of implementing a ground-disturbing range management activity shall be protected in the same manner as other eligible or unevaluated properties, using the protection measures in Item VI above. If a Forest determines that an eligible or unevaluated property has been damaged, the Forest shall halt all activities that could result in further damage to the property and shall notify SHPO and any affected tribes concerning proposed actions to resolve adverse effects. The SHPO shall respond within 48 hours of notification. The Forest shall carry out the agreed-upon treatment actions.

IX. ANNUAL REVIEW. As part of the Annual Meeting carried out pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation XIII.D), the Forests, the SHPOs, and the Council, if it chooses to participate, shall discuss the activities carried out pursuant to this protocol, reevaluate its procedures, and determine whether continuation, modification, or cancellation is appropriate.

Since individual projects will be submitted to SHPOs for review in accordance with the normal procedures in the Programmatic Agreement, a separate annual report summarizing these activities will not be prepared. The results of the opportunistic monitoring outlined in Section D will be a topic of discussion in the annual meeting.

X. MODIFICATION. The Forest Service, Council, or the SHPOs may request modifications to this protocol whereupon the signatories to the programmatic agreement will consult to consider such changes. Changes may be made by written consent of the Regional Forester, SHPOs, and Council after appropriate consultation.

XI. CANCELLATION. Signatories to this agreement may terminate this protocol by providing thirty (30) days written notice provided the party wishing the termination has first made a good faith effort to follow the dispute resolution process as outlined in Stipulation XII of the Programmatic Agreement. In the event the protocol is terminated, the Forests shall comply with the process outlined in the Programmatic Agreement or 36 CFR 800 with regard to individual undertakings that otherwise would be covered by this protocol.

XII. IMPLEMENTATION. This protocol becomes effective on the date of the last signature below and may be implemented immediately.

SIGNATURES:

______ /s/ Lucia M. Turner _________________ 3/28/2007 __ ____ Harv Forsgren Date Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service – SW Region

______ /s/ James W. Garrison ______ ______ ____5/3/2007_ __ James W. Garrison Date Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer

_____ /s/ Katherine Slick _________ _____ ____4/10/2007 _ Katherine A. Slick Date New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer

___ _ /s/ Bob L. Blackburn ____ ___ _ _____ 4/28/2007__ ___ Bob L. Blackburn Date Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer

___ _ /s/ F. Lawrence Oaks____ __________ ____5/4/2007_ _____ F. Lawrence Oaks Date Texas State Historic Preservation Officer

___ _ /s/ John M. Fowler_______ ____ _______ ____5/17/2007___ ___ John M. Fowler, Executive Director Date Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APPENDIX J

STANDARD CONSULTATION PROTOCOL

FOR LARGE-SCALE FUELS REDUCTION, VEGETATION TREATMENT,

AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

The USDA Forest Service (FS) and other federal land managing agencies are directed by Congress to implement an accelerated, multi-year program of large-scale hazardous fuels reduction, vegetation treatment, and habitat improvement projects under a variety of legislation including the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

Improving forest health, reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire to communities and forests across the landscape, and moving the nation closer to energy independence through the use of woody biomass will provide jobs, a primary emphasis of ARRA.

The Federal Fire Policy emphasizes that wildland fire is a critical natural process that must be reintroduced into the ecosystem. Currently, unmanaged fuel loads in many areas support large, hot, uncontrolled, and devastating wildfires that destroy life and property, including historic properties. Mechanical treatments, such as thinning and timber sales, in combination with prescribed fire will reduce fuel loading and stand density in areas adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface, for example, so that wildfires approaching these areas will “go to the ground” where they can be effectively and safely suppressed.

Fuels reduction projects and other vegetation treatment and habitat improvement projects will also help protect historic properties from the devastating effects of catastrophic wildfires and the associated suppression activities and subsequent erosion. Although beneficial to historic properties over the long-term, these projects are undertakings that have the potential to affect historic properties, particularly fire-sensitive sites, and steps should be taken to avoid or minimize those effects.

Stipulation IV.A.4 of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities (Programmatic Agreement) provides for the development of “Standard Consultation Protocols” for certain classes of undertakings where effects on historic properties and resulting protection and treatment are similar and repetitive.

Such protocols specify standard procedures for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic properties. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, in developing this protocol the Forest Service consulted with the Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), and 50 Indian tribes for whom properties within National Forests might have traditional cultural or religious significance.

Once approved by the Forest Service, the Council, and the SHPOs and once formally incorporated into the Programmatic Agreement as Appendix J, the Forests may implement the procedures identified in this protocol in lieu of standard consultation procedures in the

Programmatic Agreement or the Council’s regulations, when taking into account the potential effects of these types of projects on historic properties. This protocol will fully supersede all provisions of the 2004 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer and The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Wildland Urban Interface And Other Large-Scale Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects.

STIPULATIONS

The FS shall ensure that the following stipulations are carried out:

1. SCOPE. This protocol covers ARRA projects, WUI projects, and other large-scale (larger than 1,000 acres) fuels reduction, vegetation treatment, and habitat improvement projects.

Activities covered by the protocol include: hand thinning; mechanical thinning; use of equipment such as Hydro-ax, Agra-ax, brush crushers and brushhogs; timber sales; slash disposal, including lopping and scattering, chipping, pile burning, and windrow or jackpot burning; broadcast burning; and fuelwood use, including free use, fuelwood permits, and commercial fuelwood sales.

2. INTERNAL COORDINATION AND TRACKING. The FS shall ensure that heritage specialists are brought into the planning process for projects as early as possible so that the potential effects to cultural resources can be evaluated. The FS shall also ensure that a system is in place to track implementation of heritage resource protection and monitoring requirements, and that necessary communication and coordination between heritage and fuels treatment and/or other appropriate specialists will continue throughout the implementation of projects carried out under this protocol.

3. TRIBAL CONSULTATION. The FS shall follow the procedures for tribal consultation contained in Stipulation III of the Programmatic Agreement. As early as possible in the planning process, the FS shall consult with American Indian tribes to determine if any properties of traditional cultural or religious importance are present within the project’s area of potential effect. If specific properties are identified, the FS shall consult with the appropriate tribes concerning evaluation, determination of effects, and protection measures. If agreement cannot be reached or if adverse effects cannot be avoided, the FS shall consult case-by-case with interested tribe(s) and the SHPO as provided for in the Programmatic Agreement.

4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. The FS shall use the procedures in Stipulation II of the Programmatic Agreement to seek and consider the views of the public.

5. IDENTIFICATION. The Forest Archaeologist shall determine or approve the level of field survey for each project using the guidelines in Section I of this protocol. Alternatively, a Forest or Forests may opt to develop a Forest-wide survey strategy for WUI and other large-scale fuels reduction, vegetation treatment, or habitat improvement projects in consultation with the SHPO and thereby further eliminate the need for individual project notifications for sample surveys.

6. EVALUATION. The FS and the SHPOs agree that certain classes of properties (Appendix B of the Programmatic Agreement) may be determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for Section 106 purposes based on survey information without further case-by-case SHPO consultation. The FS shall ensure that properties that will be affected by an undertaking are evaluated conclusively for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register by applying the National Register criteria (36 CFR 63) in consultation with the SHPO and any Indian tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to the properties. Forests are encouraged to make eligibility determinations for other properties in consultation with the SHPO whenever possible; however, the eligibility of a property may remain unresolved, provided it is treated as eligible and the property will not be affected by the undertaking.

7. EFFECT. Following completion of the survey approved by the Forest Archaeologist in accordance with Section I, the FS shall determine the effects of the project on historic properties:

a) No Historic Properties Affected. If no properties are identified within the area of potential effect or if properties are present and all eligible and unevaluated properties are avoided through application of the site protection measures in Section II, and provided that none of the conditions requiring case-by-case consultation specified in the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.6) apply, a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” will be made for the project in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1). This will include only those projects in which a 100% survey is conducted and all eligible and unevaluated properties will be protected.

b) No Adverse Effect. If portions of the area of potential effect have not been surveyed because an approved sample survey strategy was implemented, or if eligible and/or unevaluated properties are present and will be affected, but through application of the protection measures in Section II potential adverse effects on eligible and unevaluated properties have been minimized to the extent that they do not meet the criteria of Adverse Effect contained in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), and provided that none of the conditions requiring case-by-case consultation specified in the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.6) apply, a finding of “No Adverse Effect” will be made for the project in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(b).

c) Adverse Effect. If the Forest Archaeologist determines that one or more properties may be adversely affected, the FS shall consult case by case on the project in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.5 and 6).

8. PROTECTION. The Forest Archaeologist shall draw from the protection measures in Section II to ensure that effects to historic properties are avoided. Site protection requirements shall be documented in the inventory report and on the FS Inventory Standards and Accounting (IS&A) form.

9. MONITORING. Terms and conditions of Section 106 compliance shall include appropriate post-project monitoring requirements as determined necessary by the Forest Archaeologist, to assess the effectiveness of protection measures. One purpose of post-treatment monitoring is to gather data that will be used to improve planning for protection of heritage resources in future projects. For prescribed fires, Forests are encouraged to assess the effects of prescribed fire on both fire-sensitive and non fire-sensitive sites to expand available information on the effects of prescribed fire on historic properties. All site monitoring shall be documented on a site update form and/or monitoring report as appropriate. Each Forest shall maintain an updated list of sites/projects to be monitored which will include the date monitoring is completed and the monitoring results.

10. INVENTORY REPORT. Inventory reports shall conform to the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.C.4). The FS shall also ensure that reports include a description of all planned activities, equipment to be used, expected impacts, and a detailed discussion and rationale for the survey strategy if less than 100%.

11. APPROVAL. When all of the above stipulations are complied with and the inventory report has been approved by the Forest Archaeologist, and provided that the undertaking will not have an adverse effect on historic properties and none of the conditions requiring case-by-case consultation specified in the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.6) apply, the Forest Supervisor may approve the report and proceed with the undertaking, provided all site-specific protection measures are implemented. The Forest Supervisor shall forward a copy of the report, IS&A form, and associated site forms to the SHPO within 30 days, unless otherwise agreed to with the SHPO.

12. CASE-BY-CASE CONSULTATION. The FS shall follow the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.6) for direction on when case-by-case consultation is necessary.

13. DISCOVERY SITUATIONS. There is the potential for encountering previously unrecorded properties or for affecting properties in an unanticipated manner during the course of these projects. Previously unrecorded properties that are encountered during the course of a project shall be documented and protected in the same manner as other properties, using the protection measures in Section II. If the FS determines that a property has been damaged, the FS shall halt all activities that could result in further damage to the property and shall notify the appropriate SHPO concerning proposed actions to resolve adverse effects. The SHPO shall respond within 48 hours of notification. The FS shall carry out the agreed-upon actions. If human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered, the provisions of NAGPRA (25 USC 3002(d)) and NAGPRA regulations (43 CFR 10) shall be followed. All work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and the FS shall take all reasonable steps necessary for the protection of the remains and objects.

14. PHASING. A phased approach should be used only when a large-scale project is to be implemented in phases spanning more than one fiscal year and it is not reasonably possible to complete Section 106 compliance for all aspects of the undertaking prior to reaching a NEPA decision. Where deemed necessary by the Forest Supervisor, consultation for such a project may be carried out in two or more phases corresponding to the implementation phases of the project.

In this phased approach, a final NEPA decision on the project may be made prior to completion of the identification and evaluation of properties in the entire project area provided that all of the following requirements are met:

a. none of the conditions in the Programmatic Agreement Stipulation V.E.6 apply to the project;

b. the requirements in Stipulations 2-8 in this protocol have been completed for the first phase of the project or a justification has been provided to the SHPO as to why completion of the first phase is not feasible;

c. an initial Section 106 compliance report and signed IS&A form are completed prior to the NEPA Decision and clearly state that the identification and protection requirements of this protocol shall be completed prior to the authorization of on-the-ground work in each phase of the project

d. the expected nature and distribution of properties in the entire project area and anticipated effects are discussed and considered in the initial project-wide Section 106 compliance report and in the NEPA analysis;

e. the protection measures in Section II will be sufficient to protect properties in the entire project area, and;

f. the NEPA decision document clearly states that initiation of work in any phase of the project will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with applicable provisions of NHPA in accordance with this protocol.

If the FS subsequently determines that adverse effects on historic properties in any phase of the project cannot be avoided, the FS shall consult with the SHPO and other consulting parties in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.E.5 and 6) and will amend its decision if necessary to disclose the effects.

15. ANNUAL REVIEW. As part of the Annual Meeting carried out pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation XIII.D), the Forests, the SHPO, and the Council, if it chooses to participate, shall discuss the activities carried out pursuant to this protocol, re-evaluate its procedures, and determine whether continuation, modification, or cancellation is appropriate.

16. REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS. Any signatory to this protocol may request that it be revised or amended, whereupon the parties shall consult to consider the change. Changes may be made by written consent of the Regional Forester, SHPOs, and Council after appropriate consultation.

17. TERMINATION. Any signatory to this protocol may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days notice to the other parties. The signatories will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the FS shall comply with the Region’s Programmatic Agreement, or 36 CFR 800, with regard to individual undertakings that otherwise would be covered by this protocol. Termination by an individual SHPO shall only terminate the application of the protocol within the jurisdiction of that SHPO.

18. EXECUTION. Execution and implementation of this protocol satisfies the Forest Service’s Section 106 responsibilities for all WUI and ARRA projects and other large-scale fuels reduction, vegetation treatment and habitat improvement projects in the Region that are treated in conformance with the stipulations herein.

19. IMPLEMENTATION. This protocol becomes effective on the date of the last signature below and will be implemented immediately.

SIGNATURES:

_/s/ Corbin L. Newman Jr.______________________ _12/23/2009____________ Corbin L. Newman Jr., Regional Forester Date USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region

_ /s/ James W. Garrison________________________ _1/22/2010____________ James W. Garrison, State Historic Preservation Officer Date State of Arizona

_/s/ Jan Biella________________________________ _1/4/2010_____________ Jan Biella, Interim State Historic Preservation Officer Date State of New Mexico

_/s/ Bob Black_______________________________ _2/12/2010____________ Bob L. Blackburn, State Historic Preservation Officer Date State of Oklahoma

_/s/ Mark Wolfe______________________________ _1/14/2010____________ Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer Date State of Texas

_/s/ Ralston Cox______________________________ _1/27/2010____________ for John M. Fowler, Executive Director Date Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

SECTION I

HERITAGE RESOURCE SURVEY STRATEGIES

FOR LARGE-SCALE FUELS REDUCTION, VEGETATION TREATMENT,

AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

The following guidelines will be used to determine survey strategies under this protocol.

Pre-field Research The Forests will utilize relevant information to assess the project’s potential to affect heritage properties and the expected nature and distribution of historic properties that may be affected.

Expected nature and severity of project impacts (this should include consideration of all planned activities and entries) based on:

• type and intensity of mechanical treatment

• type and intensity of prescribed burn, including fuel loading and fire prescription

• type and intensity of fuelwood use

• other associated ground disturbing activities

Expected nature and distribution of heritage resources based on:

• heritage GIS survey and site layers or hard-copy survey and site atlases

• previous heritage reports and site forms

• cultural resource overviews and planning assessments

• information obtained through tribal consultation and public input

• information provided by other resource specialists familiar with the project area

• topographic maps, aerial photographs, ortho-photo quads

• other available GIS layers and maps including soils, vegetation type, slope

• determination of known/expected fire-sensitive sites

Field Survey Not all situations will require 100% survey. In most cases, the Forest Archaeologist will be able to determine the level of survey needed based on the following guidance. Where not specifically required below, forest archaeologists are encouraged to discuss sampling survey designs with SHPO. The following will guide the identification of areas selected for survey and the level of survey coverage.

1. Areas previously surveyed to current standards, as defined in paragraph V.C.2 of the Programmatic Agreement, do not have to be resurveyed.

2. Activities conducted on slopes greater than 40% may or may not be surveyed at the discretion of the Forest Archeologist without prior SHPO consultation.

3. For activities conducted within areas that were previously disturbed by chaining, discing, plowing, windrowing, crushing, or other extensive ground disturbing treatments, a sample survey strategy may be approved by the Forest Archaeologist without prior consultation with the SHPO.

The nature, degree and extent of previous ground disturbing activities and the likelihood of finding cultural resources or locations within the treated areas that remain undisturbed shall be considered when making the decision to survey at less than 100%. This information will be documented and discussed in the survey report.

4. Hand thinning. Activities involving hand cutting and /or thinning, with no use of mechanized equipment and no follow-up prescribed burning, are low impact activities, and may or may not be surveyed at the discretion of the Forest Archeologist without prior SHPO consultation.

5. Prescribed burns. Surveys for prescribed burn areas will include all locations likely to contain fire-sensitive sites based on pre-field research, expected fire behavior, and other relevant data.

Additional survey may be conducted at the Forest Archeologist’s discretion. The survey strategy shall identify the types of sites that are considered fire-sensitive for each prescribed burn area, using the guidelines in Section III of this protocol. This should include both known fire-sensitive sites and other sites considered fire-sensitive for the specific burn based on fuel loading, site characteristics, and expected fire behavior. If existing inventories indicate the presence or likelihood of fire-sensitive properties throughout the area of potential effect, the area will be surveyed 100% or a proposed sample survey strategy will be submitted to the SHPO for review in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.C.3).

6. Other Fuels Reduction, Vegetation Treatment, and Habitat Improvement Projects. Except for the provisions in 1 through 3 above, all high impact treatments resulting in intensive ground disturbance that would likely adversely affect any historic properties that may be located in the area of potential effect will receive 100% survey. These treatments include but are not limited to:

• construction of roads, landings and skid trails

• intensive mechanical treatments: machine piling, windrowing, chaining, plowing, mechanical crushing

• clearcuts

• timber sale cutting units

• hand and mechanical fire line construction

• staging areas

• constructed safety zones

• installation of water bars and other constructed erosion control features For other mechanical fuels reduction, vegetation treatment, and habitat improvement projects with potential impacts that are not considered to be high impact treatments, including but not limited to pre-commercial thinning of small diameter trees and fuelwood areas dispersed over a large area (e.g. District-wide), a sample survey strategy may be approved by the Forest Archaeologist without prior consultation with the SHPO if existing inventories indicate the site density in the area of potential effect is lower than the average site density for the forest and the level of impact is such that the Forest Archaeologist determines that it is unlikely that any historic properties that may be present outside the surveyed areas will be adversely affected by the activity. Information concerning the nature of the undertaking, site density, and evaluation of potential effects that led to this determination will be discussed in the survey report. If existing inventories do not indicate the site density is lower than the forest average, or if the Forest Archaeologist determines that the undertaking will result in intensive ground disturbance, the areas will be surveyed at 100%, except for the provisions in 1 through 3 above, or a proposed sample survey strategy will be submitted to the SHPO for review in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.C.3).

7. Any deviation from the above survey procedures that involves less than 100% survey will require prior SHPO consultation in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (Stipulation V.C.3).

SECTION II

AGREED-UPON STANDARD SITE PROTECTION MEASURES

Various combinations of the following protection measures may be approved by the Forest Archaeologist to protect sites for projects listed in this protocol without additional SHPO consultation.

Prescribed Burning

Protect fire-sensitive sites:

• Exclude from project area

• Hand line

• Black line

• Wet line

• Foam retardant

• Structural fire shelter

• Remove heavy fuels from site by hand

• Prevent in-situ heavy fuels that cannot be removed from ignition (e.g., flush-cut & bury stumps)

• Implement same protective measures for future maintenance burns.

Protect selected other sites from burning (optional).

Allow burning over non fire-sensitive sites provided:

• No ignition points within site boundaries

• No staging of equipment within site boundaries

• No slash piles within site boundaries.

Allow construction of safety zones and additional lines in 100% surveyed areas, with archaeological monitoring as appropriate to assure historic properties are avoided.

Thinning, Hand and Mechanical Treatments

No treatments or ground disturbance within site boundaries -or-

Allow treatments within site boundaries, provided:

• Cutting is accomplished using hand tools only

• Large diameter trees are felled away from all features

• materials removed from the site are removed by hand

• No dragging of logs, trees, or thinned material across or within site boundaries.

No use of vehicles or other mechanized equipment within site boundaries.

No staging of equipment within site boundaries.

No slash piles within site boundaries.

Fuelwood Sales

No fuelwood cutting or vehicles within site boundaries -or-

Allow fuelwood cutting within sites provided that:

• no vehicles allowed within site boundaries

• No dragging of logs, trees, or cut material across or within site boundaries

• materials removed from the site are removed by hand.

Allow fuelwood cutting in areas of large, continuous, low-density artifact scatters that cover large portions of a landscape provided that:

• all features and artifact concentrations are recorded and avoided

• use of vehicles is prohibited during wet ground conditions

• periodic monitoring is used to assess impacts and if impacts are noted, fuelwood cutting will be prohibited in the area.

The Forest Archaeologists may approve additional measures to further protect sites.

SECTION III

FIRE-SENSITIVE SITES

A review of available literature on the effects on fire on cultural resources and on the experience of Forest Service heritage resource specialists and the SHPO indicates that there are two categories of fire-sensitive sites. The first consists of sites long-known to be vulnerable to the effects of even low-temperature fires and/or light fuel loads, such as sites that contain organic materials, exposed wooden architecture, etc. The second group includes sites that have generally been considered to have less risk for fire effects in most situations, including prehistoric and historic sites with deeply buried cultural deposits; prehistoric and historic artifact scatters; and prehistoric and historic sites with non-flammable surface features. However, depending on field conditions -- especially fuel loading -- as well as specific site characteristics and expected fire behavior, these other site types may be fire-sensitive in certain fuels reduction projects.

Known Fire-Sensitive Site Types in the Southwestern Region:

• Historic sites with standing, or down wooden structures or other flammable features or artifacts

• Rock art sites (depending on rock type, exposure, fuel type, and fuel loading)

• Cliff dwellings

• Prehistoric sites with flammable architectural elements and other flammable features or artifacts

• Prehistoric sites with exposed building stone of soft or porous material such as volcanic tuff

• Culturally modified trees, including aspen art and peeled/scarred trees

• Certain traditional cultural properties (based on consultation with tribes) Other Project-Specific Fire-Sensitive Sites:

• Other sites, based on local field conditions and Forest-specific concerns

• Other sites, based on consultation with SHPO staff

• Other sites, based on consultation with fire management staff, fire behavior specialists or fire effects researchers

Forest Archaeologists will use site assessment and monitoring data, and will consult with fire management staff, to identify known and other project-specific fire-sensitive sites for individual Forests or project areas.