1. SBEADMR GIS Optimization Working Group Meeting 9/17/2015

2. Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization

3. Initial extent

5. Exclusion Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber

7. Initial extent Exclusion Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments

9. Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife

10. Prioritization - Accessibility High priority to treat Low priority to treat Accessible by skidder – no road construction needed Accessible by new road < 1 mi long Accessible by new road > 1 mi long 0 4

11. Prioritization – Drainage density High priority to treat Low priority to treat Low drainage density in the surrounding square mile High drainage density in the surrounding square mile 0 4

12. Prioritization – WUI Risk High priority to treat Low priority to treat Extreme WUI Risk Low WUI Risk Outside of the WUI 0 4

13. Values: (based on WUI types and parcel density for the Urban Interface type) Communication Site (3 - high) Developed Recreation Site (3 - high) RAWS Site (1 - low) Utility Corridor (3 - high) Urban Interface (classified based on # of parcels within 1 mi radius) (1-4) *Value ratings are summed when they overlap Hazards (fuels, slope, and aspect): FUELS Aspen mix (2 - moderate) Spruce - Aspen (3 - high) Spruce mix (4 - extreme) SLOPE 31+% Extreme (4) 21-30% High (3) 9-20% Moderate (2) 0-8% Low (1) ASPECT 170-240 degrees Extreme (4) 165-170 or 240-270 High (3) 90-165 Moderate (2) 0-90 or 270-360 Low (1) Classification based on VALUES and HAZARDS Areas within the WUI, and WUI areas of higher risk are a higher priority for treatment WUI Extent is defined by existing FS layer (1 mi buffer around communication sites, RAWS sites, Utility Corridor, and Urban Interface; 0.25 mi buffer around Rec Sites) WUI Risk is defined based on the classification below, within the WUI extent Prioritization – WUI Risk Urban interface parcel density classification (# parcels within 1 mi radius): 11+ parcels Extreme (4) 6 - 10 parcels High (3) 3-5 parcels Moderate (2) < 3 parcels Low (1)

14. Values: (based on WUI types and parcel density for the Urban Interface type) Communication Site (3 - high) Developed Recreation Site (3 - high) RAWS Site (1 - low) Utility Corridor (3 - high) Urban Interface (classified based on # of parcels within 1 mi radius) (1-4) *Value ratings are summed when they overlap Hazards (fuels, slope, and aspect): FUELS Aspen mix (2 - moderate) Spruce - Aspen (3 - high) Spruce mix (4 - extreme) SLOPE 31+% Extreme (4) 21-30% High (3) 9-20% Moderate (2) 0-8% Low (1) ASPECT 170-240 degrees Extreme (4) 165-170 or 240-270 High (3) 90-165 Moderate (2) 0-90 or 270-360 Low (1) Classification based on VALUES and HAZARDS Areas within the WUI, and WUI areas of higher risk are a higher priority for treatment WUI Extent is defined by existing FS layer (1 mi buffer around communication sites, RAWS sites, Utility Corridor, and Urban Interface; 0.25 mi buffer around Rec Sites) WUI Risk is defined based on the classification below, within the WUI extent Prioritization – WUI Risk Urban interface parcel density classification (# parcels within 1 mi radius): 11+ parcels Extreme (4) 6 - 10 parcels High (3) 3-5 parcels Moderate (2) < 3 parcels Low (1) These values and hazards will be weighted and summed for a total score: Weighting: Values.5 Hazards (Fuels).3 Hazards (slope).1 Hazards (aspect).1

15. Prioritization – Wildlife Neutral priority to treat Low priority to treat No lynx use High lynx use -4 0 High priority to treat Low priority to treat 0 4 Gunnison sage grouse habitat Not GSG habitat

16. Initial extent Exclusion Prioritization Exclude: Wilderness areas Roadless areas Unsuitable timber Past treatments Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife

17. Prioritization Accessibility Drainage density WUI Risk Wildlife Weighting 0.30 0.15 0.30 Lynx - 0.15 Grouse - 0.1

19. Flagging Identification of areas that may be undesirable to treat, regardless of their prioritization score Flagged areas include: – Questionable past treatments – Possible vegetation classification errors Questionable Past Treatments Fuel Break Shelterwood cut Wildlife habitat mechanical treatment Wildlife habitat regeneration cut Salvage cuts from 2003-2014 Broadcast burning Coppice cut >25 yo in aspen Coppice cuts in spr-aspen Possible vegetation classification errors Identified based on concurrence of vegetation data from: NLCD GAP data Landfire veg types