West Zone Report Template

Marshall Woods Restoration Project Heritage Report

Prepared by: Sydney Bacon 9/30/2014

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Introduction

This report discusses the results of the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program’s evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources that may be caused by the proposed actions of the Marshall Woods Restoration Project. All materials referenced herein are maintained at the Heritage Program, Lolo National Forest in Missoula, Montana.

Cultural resources can span both prehistoric and historic temporal periods, and may include buildings, structures, sites, areas, and objects of scientific, historic, or social value. They are irreplaceable, nonrenewable resources documenting the legacy of past human use of the area currently administered by the Forest Service.

Forest Plan Direction and Regulatory Framework

The primary legislation governing cultural resource management is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended 1976, 1980, and 1992). Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources), and Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM 2360, Heritage Program Management) provides the framework for consultation, identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources on National Forest System lands.

In Montana, the Forest Service conducts cultural resources reviews of proposed actions in accordance with the “Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Montana” (USDA 1995). Stemming from this PA is the “Site Identification Strategy Prepared for the Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo National Forests” (McLeod 2003), which is used to help identify cultural resources on the Lolo National Forest.

Furthermore, the Lolo National Forest Plan (USDA 1986) identifies specific standards that are required for cultural resources in different management areas across the Forest. These Forest – wide standards are: 54. Cultural resources will be considered during the planning process for all proposed Forest undertakings. Inventories will be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities as an integral part of project planning. All sites located will be evaluated for possible nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Those properties determined eligible for the National Register listing will be managed in a manner consistent with the standards specified by the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) as well as applicable USDA regulations (p. II-20).

55. The Forest will coordinate, on a yearly schedule, with representatives from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to discuss the types and location of proposed Forest undertakings. This is a requirement specified within the American Indian

Religious Freedom Act to ensure that areas on National Forest System lands which are important to contemporary Native Americans for religious reasons are not inadvertently impacted.

Coordination with other Native American groups could occur if there was reason to believe traditional or contemporary religious areas, important to these groups, were present on the forest (II-20).

The Heritage Program refers to the Forest Plan for all projects to ensure that decisions are consistent with established standards for management of significant cultural resources. Management Areas within the project area relevant to Cultural Resources include: o MA 16 and MA 19 - The Forest cultural resources and recreation specialists will be consulted about mitigation measures to protect the values associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail as a part of the environmental analysis process for projects within the foreground viewing area from this trail. o MA 25- The Forest recreation specialist will be consulted about mitigation measures to protect the values associated with the National Historic and Recreation Trails (identified in the Management Area description) as part of the environmental analysis process for projects within the foreground viewing areas from the trails.

In addition, Appendix O-4 of the Lolo NF Plan Provides includes Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) for the Rattlesnake Drainage for MA 28 (O-4 as amended, 2009).

Analysis Area Boundary or Area of Potential Effect

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Marshall Woods Restoration Project is in Missoula County within the Rattlesnake and Marshall Creek drainages northeast of Missoula, Montana. While the project boundary (based on the watershed) encompasses land south to Interstate-90, its lower reaches are predominantly private land. It is located on topographical maps Blue Point (#106) and Southeast Missoula (#107). The 13,023-acre project boundary is defined by the Rattlesnake Watershed and encompasses areas well outside individual treatment units. It includes the lower ends of Spring Creek and Frasier Creek in the Rattlesnake portion of the project area. The APE boundary, however, is focused on the project units themselves.

Legal location for the APE is Township 13 North, Range 18 West, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6; Township 13 North, Range 19 West, Sections 1, 2 and 12; Township 14 North, Range 18 West, Sections 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34; Township 14 North, Range 19 West, Sections 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35 and 36. See Appendix D, Map 3 Area of Potential Effects.

Project Description

The Marshall Woods Project, which includes 3,959 acres of treatment units, was designed to: 1) restore functioning ecosystems by enhancing natural ecological processes; 2) emulate fire’s natural role on the landscape through vegetative treatments including prescribed fire; 3) provide education opportunities to build support for restoration; and 4) provide for diverse trail-based recreation opportunities and reduce road density in Section 31 previously owned by Plum Creek

Timberlands (PCT). Treatments to accomplish the project’s objectives include using tree thinning and slashing; prescribed fire including ecosystem management burns (EMB); and weed, road and trail treatments. Please see Appendix A for unit treatment table.

This project does not include proposals to construct new permanent road. Three segments of temporary road totaling about 1 mile would be constructed, and about 0.1 miles of non-system road would be constructed as temporary road. This temporary construction will facilitate removing larger material in the Woods Gulch area. These roads would be used for one to two years and then obliterated. Areas outside the Rattlesnake (FS Road 99/Trail #515) road/trail bed disturbed by project activities would be revegetated by seeding and mulching.

Existing Conditions

Prehistoric Context

Because Glacial Lake Missoula occupied Western Montana from approximately 17,500 BP to ca 6,000 BP, archaeological interpretation of the area has been compromised (McLeod and Melton 1986; Smith 2010). Margins of the lake may have been occupied by early man, as indicated by sites found along the South Fork of the Flathead River (Thompson 2010).

It is generally believed that western Montana has been habitable for the past 10,000 to 12,000 years (Malouf 1952a; McLeod and Melton 1986). The Rocky Mountains of western Montana link passage between the anadromous fish-bearing streams in Idaho to the bison-rich plains east of the Continental Divide (Griswold and Larom 1954; McLeod and Melton 1986; Whisennand 1993). People inhabited the valleys in between, following the harvests that each season produced; hunting, gathering and fishing (Malouf 1982; Juneau 2009; Smith 2010). Generally, tribes can be grouped into ‘Upper’ and ‘Lower’ subgroups, based on their territory. Upper groups traditionally were forest and mountain people hunting big game whereas the lower groups based their subsistence around water and fishing (Flathead Watershed Sourcebook 2010).

The earliest inhabitants of the area consist of the Flathead Group and the Kutenai (Malouf 1952c; Smith 2010). The Flathead Group consists of the Flathead, Pend d’Oreille, Kalispel and Spokan tribes; with the Semte’use and Tuna’xe either having assimilated into other neighboring groups or become extinct (Malouf 1952a; Boas and Teit 1927-1928). These tribes are combined because their Salish dialect was mutually understood by each other (Malouf 1998). Traditional homeland included territory from the Bitterroot Mountains extending east of the Continental Divide to the upper Missouri River. The centrally-located Missoula Valley was a favorite hunting, trapping, and gathering ground, although a large camp was located in the Bitterroot Valley (Malouf 1952c; Griswold and Larom 1954; Juneau 2009). Other cultural centers were located at Lake Pend d’Oreille and Flathead Lake.

The Kutenai occupied a small portion of what is now northwestern Montana, northern Idaho and a large part of southeastern British Columbia. Although considered a ‘linguistical island’ (Malouf 1952a), the Kutenai often shared culture and even intermarriage with the Salish (Juneau 2009). For the purpose of this report, they are discussed synonymously with the Flathead Group.

People would inhabit the mountainous regions in the summer months; collecting roots, seeds, berries and hunting big game such as deer, elk and mountain sheep (Frison 1991). They established temporary camps on either side of the Clark Fork River to seasonally fish and pick berries (Griswold and Larom 1954). Caribou was even hunted in the Missoula area until the early 1880’s (Malouf 1952a; McLeod 1986). Fishing was crucial to members of the Flathead; especially the Lower groups (Malouf 1952a; Juneau 2010; Curtis 2010; Smith 2010). Missoula was considered a prime fishing spot; and in turn the Flathead called it Isai (Bull Trout). Salish place names for the area include Snɫaycčstm “place to get small Bull Trouts” for Rattlesnake Creek, and Nɫʔay “place of the little Bull Trouts” for the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (Moran 2010). Se̓ liš / Qlispe̓ Place Names Missoula and Marshall Creek Area Place Name Translation English Description Nɫʔaycčstm Place of the little Bull Trouts The name for the area at the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek Snɫaycčstm Place to get small Bull trouts The name for Rattlesnake Creek Nɫʔay Place of the little Bull Trout The name for Missoula Sxʷtpqeyn Mountain with the end cut off (Mount Sentinel at the)NE end of UM campus Nm̓ q̓ ͏ʷe̓ nč Hump back Mount Jumbo Eslq̓ ʷ̓o̓ ̓ lex͏ʷ Flat open area Bandman flats Ep Sč̓ iɫt It has clay Mouth of Marshall Creek Ep Sč̓ iɫt Sewɫk͏ʷs Waters of it has clay Marshall Creek. In 2010 Moran letter in response to Marshall-Woods Scoping letter

Although thought of by whites as predominantly meat eaters, the indigenous people had an extensive knowledge of the nutritional and healing properties of plants. A single tree could yield as much as four foodstuffs (Malouf 1982). Bitterroot and camas, two important food sources, were cultivated in the spring and involved important ceremonies (Malouf 1952c). Cambium, the sweet-tasting inner pitch created by pine and cottonwood trees, was also collected in the spring and eaten quickly, as it did not preserve well (Malouf 1952a). Economy and technology did not allow for large surpluses of food and supplies; items had to be used shortly after cultivation. There was little reason to produce a great access of anything (Malouf 1952c; Smith 2010). However, due to the intensity of seasonal animal and plant life in the Rocky Mountains, they had mastered the art of ‘coping with abundance’ (Smith 2010).

Hellgate Canyon to the east was considered the ‘Great Salish Road to the Buffalo’ and was used by Kutenai and Nez Perce tribes among others (Griswold and Larom 1954). The Flathead maintained peaceful relations with other tribes, allowing them passage through their territory to the plains. The benefit was larger hunting parties allowing protection from the Blackfeet, bitter enemies residing in buffalo country.

Despite the rugged terrain, a myriad of prehistoric trails—leading from Flathead Lake Country up north, Lower Clark Fork Valley and Lolo Creek to the west and the Bitterroot Valley from the south—converged at the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek (Hamilton 1900; Griswold and Larom

1954). A large campsite was located along the Clark Fork River from the Hellgate corridor west (Malouf 1988). This surely includes where the river meets Rattlesnake Creek. Another occupation site, originally consisting of 13 culturally modified cottonwood trees and lithic material, was found near the confluence of Marshall Creek and the Clark Fork River (Griswold and Larom 1954). Burials have been found near the current University of Montana Campus as well as in the backyard of a residence in the Lower Rattlesnake (Malouf 1952a; Comer 2005) and are assumed to be along the Rattlesnake/Reservation Divide (McLeod 1986).

Prior to the onset of war with neighboring Blackfeet and infectious diseases such as smallpox and diphtheria, it is assumed that the upper numbers of the Flathead group was comprised of six bands and 15,000 individuals (Malouf 1998). Flathead and Kutenai lifeways consisted of subsistence, travel and spiritual endeavors; resulting in short-term occupations, trail systems and a possible vision quest along the Rattlesnake Divide (McLeod 1983). Flathead people possessed a tightly knit social structure, primarily thought to be in response to the predatory Blackfeet and other warring neighbors (Malouf 1952a).

By the 1800’s, the Flathead and Kutenai homelands had been infringed upon by Euro- Americans. In 1853-1854 Washington Territory Governor Isaac Stevens came through on an official survey of the area on behalf of the United States. On July 16, 1855, the infamous Treaty of Hellgate was signed at Council Groves, west of Missoula. Led to believe that the meeting would ensure protection from their enemies the Blackfeet, the native people didn’t realize that they were ultimately surrendering their land to the government (Malouf and White 1952; Curtis 2010). This formal meeting consolidated the Flathead, Kutenai and Upper Pend d’Oreille tribes as one nation and established a ‘reservation’ of land to the natives, including the present day Flathead Indian Reservation. By 1891, Chief Charlo and his tribe were forced out of the Bitterroot Valley to join their Salish family on the reservation (Curtis 2010; Smith 2010).

Very little diagnostic lithic material has been recovered from the Rattlesnake Drainage. Cutting tools and a possible pestle found at the confluence of Spring and Rattlesnake Creeks indicate the late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500-1700). A dart-type point, found in the high country in 1980 indicates use between 6000-2000 years ago (Martin 1988). MacDonald’s 2012-2013 pedestrian survey of the Rattlesnake Wilderness (north of project area) yielded evidence of prehistoric activity. A Pelican Lake point observed in the area places human occupation in the area around 3000 years ago (Nelson, et al, 2013).

Historic Context

Rattlesnake Creek already had its name when the 1853 Stevens survey came through (Aarstad et al. 2009). The most popular story of the name’s origin is that a woodcutter was bitten by a rattlesnake while gathering wood along the creek and died (Poe 1992; USDA 2011). Other versions suggest the name originated from the Salish word for Rattlesnake; pronounced “Heh- ooo-leh-wh” (Wendell et al. 1983; USDA 2011). The Salish place name for Rattlesnake Creek is “Place to get Small Bull Trouts” or Snɫaycčstm.

Lewis and Clark mention crossing Rattlesnake Creek on their 1806 return journey east towards Blackfoot Country. In 1858, John Mullan surveyed the area while constructing a military road from Fort Benton, MT to Walla Walla, WA. He determined the creek not worthy of a bridge;

6 wagons forded the creek about 150 feet north of its confluence with the Clark Fork River. A bridge was eventually built in 1869, only to be washed away in the 1875 flood (Reardon 1975: Wendell et al. 1983).

The first white man known to inhabit the Rattlesnake was William ‘Bill’ Hamilton, an American trader. From 1858-1864, he ran an Indian trading post near the mouth of Rattlesnake Creek and maintained peaceful relations with the locals (Hamilton 1900; Griswold and Larom 1954; Wendell et al. 1983; USDA 2011). In the early 1870’s, a small, slummy community by the name of ‘Shacktown’ sprung up along the west bank of the creek (Wendell et al.. 1983). In 1863, Missoula’s founding fathers Christopher Power Higgins and Frances Lyman Worden with David Pattee formed the Missoula Mills Company. A sawmill and a grist (flour) mill were constructed adjacent to the creek, using its water to transport logs downstream and power the plants (Reardon 1975; Mussulman 1977; Wendell et al. 1983; Martin 1988).

The Rattlesnake Watershed was the sole source for drinking water for the city of Missoula for many decades. The original water company in Missoula was run by two boys; one Indian and one white (Poe 1992; Mountain Water 2007). “One Eyed” Riley and his friend would haul water out in barrels and deliver it on a donkey cart to housewives in Missoula. By 1871, the growing community of Missoula had increased demands. Wooden pipes carried water down from Rattlesnake Creek along ‘Indian’ or Waterworks Hill (Martin 1988; Comer 2005). Around 1885, the Rattlesnake was dry at the mouth in late fall due to all the diverting upstream. In 1902, a wooden diversion dam was constructed on Rattlesnake Creek to better control water flow into Missoula. It was replaced by a concrete dam in 1924 (Martin 1988; Comer 2005).

As the Northern Pacific Railroad made its way into Missoula in 1883, it brought a ‘crescendo of demand’ (Mussulman n.d.) for wood to construct railroad ties. Several sections of land in the Rattlesnake and Marshall drainages were parceled off for the railroad company to ensure plentiful pine trees for railroad ties (Reardon 1975). For many years, entrepreneur Thomas L. Greenough had an army of ‘tie hackers’ to complete the woodcutting for this project. Upwards of 20,000 logs were floated down Rattlesnake Creek. A railroad bridge was constructed across the creek that same year (Mussulman 1977).

Settlers began to move in to the Rattlesnake as a result of the 1862 Homestead Act as early as the 1880’s, with the first being Sebastian Effinger in 1882 (Whisennand 1994). Wood cutting seems to have been the primary source of income; however by 1900, small farms and ranches and at least four dairies operated in the valley with scattered agricultural use. A school was built near the confluence of Spring and Rattlesnake Creeks, operating from 1907-1930. Exploratory mining of limited extent and profitability was conducted in the area; one in Spring Gulch, one near the ‘Hogback’ and another near the current intake dam. A lime kiln also provided lime for construction purposes in Missoula (Comer 2005). Most of what remains on the landscape today is from this homesteader period.

Aside from the Northern Pacific Railroad and private land ownership, the Forest Service also had a stake in the Rattlesnake drainage. The Missoula National Forest came to be in 1906. After this, much of the surrounding land came into Federal ownership. The Franklin Guard Station,

located 8 miles up the drainage, was a gateway to the mountains. In 1911, a phone line ran from the valley to the Guard Station, and up and over the ridge to Gold Creek (Comer 2005).

On August 19, 1919, a devastating fire was accidentally caused by a rancher to the west in Grant Creek. It blazed over the ridge destroying several homesteads. Many people chose not to rebuild afterwards. Several other factors including winter isolation, short growing season, diminishing cordwood marketability, the lure of city life and eventually the Great Depression, forced the remaining residents of the Upper Rattlesnake to consider relocating (Mussulman 1977).

The population of the upper drainage peaked at 142 people in 1910. In the early 1900’s, there were as many as 19 homes in the upper drainage, with amenities such as mail and newspaper delivery as far as Poe Meadows. People made a living cutting wood, trapping, hog farming, raising dairy cows, planting orchards, selling ice and even producing goat cheese feta. Small time mining operations are also present. By 1930, the population had declined to 44 inhabitants (USDA 2011). These folks experienced a tough but rewarding life, compiling as interesting a group found anywhere in western Montana at the time (Hartse n.d.; Mussulman n.d.).

Montana Power purchased the water system in 1929 with a vested interest in Rattlesnake Creek. By 1936 most residents had sold their land to the power company, with one year to move their possessions off the land. Any remaining buildings left were destroyed. By 1937, Montana Power Company had purchased all the private land in the upper drainage west of the creek in order to protect the watershed (USDA 2011).

Meanwhile, a ski area was budding in the adjacent Marshall drainage. What started with backcountry skiing and a crude rope tow in 1937 resulted in a popular family destination by 1950. Marshall Mountain boasted the first triple chairlift in Montana as well as night skiing– with lower runs originally lit by kerosene flames (Cohen 2007). The Missoula Ski Patrol was formed in 1938. They later became the Marshall Ski Patrol and remain the oldest registered ski patrol in the U.S. Due to financial problems and inconsistent snow conditions, Marshall Mountain ski area closed in winter of 2002-2003 (Montana Yesterday 2010).

Congress created the Rattlesnake Wilderness in 1980, protecting 33,000 acres of rugged mountains and pristine lakes and at the same time added a contiguous 28,000-acre National Recreation Area (Alpine Recreational Consultants 2001; USDA 2011). The proximity to an urban area makes this wilderness unique in Montana (Aarstad, et al. 2009).

By 1983 several cases of Giardia had been reported as a result of increased dog use. That same year the city shifted to take advantage of the Missoula aquifer for its main water source. Rattlesnake Creek is still considered an emergency backup for drinking water (Martin 1988; Mountain Water Company 2007).

Thanks to the NRA designation, the Rattlesnake is less developed today than it was a hundred years ago. The upper drainage was known for its farmsteads and associated cabins, mines, a schoolhouse, a Ranger Station, motorized use and firewood cutting among other uses (USDA 2011). The drastic change from private to corporate and then Forest Service brought closure to

8 major settlement in the area, assisting in the preservation of cultural resources in the Upper Rattlesnake drainage (Comer 2005).

Logging in the Rattlesnake consisted of two periods; the homesteader phase discussed above (1870-1930) and, after the Railroad and power company took ownership, the more intense commercial phase (1956-1964). During the commercial phase, a total of 3.5 million board feet (MMBF) was harvested on Strawberry Ridge and the hills above Pilcher Creek. An additional 20 MMBF was harvested in the upper reaches of the drainage near the lakes during this time. No logging has taken place in the Rattlesnake NRA since 1964 (Martin 1998).

Previous fire activity within the project area is limited to three within the last century. The 1919 Grant Creek wildfire was mentioned above. After Forest Service ownership in 1980, two EMBs occurred within the Rattlesnake NRA; the 1997 Strawberry Ridge EMB burned 1106 acres and the 1998 West Spring Gulch EMB burned 569 acres (USDA 2009).

Previous Investigations

Between 1976 and the present six cultural resources investigations have been conducted by the Lolo NF Heritage program in or near the current APE. Other investigations were conducted by University of Montana students between the years of 1984-1996. A graduate student compiled his thesis of historic settlement of the area in 2005; his research was integral in compiling this report and associated site forms.

1976 Marshall Ridge Road #16803 Construction (R1976011603008) located in the NE ¼ of Section 6, T 13N, R 18W, Unit 1 of the proposed project. Inventory consisted of pedestrian survey of proposed route from Sheep Mountain Road #2122 northeast towards Section 31. No cultural resources were recorded by the survey, totaling about ¾ linear mile.

1976 Marshall Timber Sale (R1976011603009). Pedestrian survey of Marshall Mountain Ski Area in the north half of Section 5, T 13N, R 18W. Survey focused on Jeep trails and ridgelines within the ski area boundary. No cultural resources were found. Total survey was approximately 40 acres.

1984 –1996 The University of Montana’s archaeological survey classes used the Rattlesnake as an outdoor classroom, providing students the opportunity to locally apply the methods of pedestrian survey, navigation, mapping and recording cultural resources. Professor Thomas A. Foor had groups of students survey and map the same areas to test their skill and ability. Many of the sites listed in the following section were recorded by these classes (Foor, personal communication, September 30, 2011).

1985 Rattlesnake NRA Trailhead Relocation (R1985011603001) in the east half of Section 25, T 14N, R 19W. This graduate student-led survey was a small part of a larger comprehensive study of the upper Rattlesnake drainage conducted by University of Montana students over the course of the next few years (see below). Pedestrian survey of proposed trailhead location yielded two cultural resources; a rock cairn of probable historic origin and an historic dump with associated depressions recorded as ‘Site 1’ and ‘Site 2’ respectively. No formal Smithsonian

9 number was assigned for these sites. Current parking and trailhead area has likely compromised these cultural resources.

1987 Stevens Waterline Special Use Permit (87.LL.03.07) in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 35, T 14N, R 19W. Project involved installing a water line from Rattlesnake Creek, across 300 feet of FS land onto the Stevens private property. The 5-acre pedestrian survey yielded no cultural resources.

1994 Lolo NF Wild and Scenic Rivers Evaluation (R19930116SO001) occurred in several watersheds across the Forest, including the Rattlesnake Drainage. Pedestrian survey of the upper reaches of the watershed was aimed at recording known but previously unrecorded sites in the headwaters of the Rattlesnake. The current project area was not surveyed because it was involved in an ongoing survey through the University of Montana (see below). This study is more of a source of background literature rather than field survey results.

2002 Woods Gulch Trail Relocation (02.LL.03.05/R2002011603004) in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 1, T 13N, R 19W. Project involved relocation of a portion of FS Trail 513 eroding into the creek. Pedestrian survey of the proposed trail relocation yielded no cultural resources.

A cultural survey report by the University of Montana Department of Anthropology was generated in 1984. This report discusses 16 sites recorded in the general area; they were never assigned Smithsonian numbers. Some of the sites in this document coincide with existing or new sites within the project boundary; and are noted on the site forms. Several others were either outside the project boundary or prehistoric in nature–any lithic material found on the surface has either been collected by looters or encroached by vegetation. Any sites overlapping with those recorded as part of this survey were noted on the site form.

Additionally, in 2005, University of Montana (UM) Anthropology graduate student Daniel Comer wrote his thesis “Historic Settlement of the Rattlesnake Creek Drainage: An Archaeological and Historical Perspective”. The intent was to comprise all the information gathered over the years by UM students and create a comprehensive overview of the occupation of the upper Rattlesnake. His meticulous research provided the Lolo NF Heritage program with the majority of the background information regarding the area. The site forms produced as a result of this project reflect his work.

Although some of the reports above mention obtaining Smithsonian numbers and evaluations of eligibility to the NRHP, follow up was never completed.

Previously Recorded Sites

Eight sites have been previously recorded within the APE. Five have been evaluated for NRHP- eligibility.

24MO0010–This site was visited on December 14, 2011. Thirteen culturally modified cottonwood trees were noted in the 1954 recording. Since then the land surrounding the site has been parceled off to private landowners and cleared for pasture. One scarred cottonwood was located during the 2011 site inspection. The tree has been wrapped with barbed wire and the bark

10 has grown around it. This site is not within or near any of the project units and would not be disturbed as a result of proposed actions.

24MO0310–Although several attempts were made to locate the ‘Horse Ring’ Site, it was not found. Access directions differed from its location on the original site form, resulting in sketchy information. The probable location is within Unit 71, proposed for noncommercial thinning and hand or machine piling and burning. The site, presumably somewhere within the first terrace above Rattlesnake Creek, would place it within the 100’ INFISH buffer zone. Due to the subsurface factor of the site and its location within the INFISH buffer, it would not be affected by the proposed action.

24MO0487–This historic occupation was visited on October 28, 2011. Remains of the site include several poured concrete foundations, depressions and trash dumps as well as the large ditch (UM60) running behind it towards the southwest. Upon further research, the site actually encompasses more than what was originally recorded and has been updated to reflect this. Please see site form for more detailed information. Many features of 24MO0487 are on the first terrace above the creek within Unit 71; an unvegetated area within the 300’ buffer zone of the creek and would not be affected by project actions. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0488–The Duncan Homestead site was visited on April 27, October 25, and October 28, 2011. Can dump, chimney remnants and one of the two depressions were located; original site record is poor and no maps or photos are included. Additionally, two historic features at the base of Strawberry Ridge (ditch and depression), originally recorded as part of prehistoric lithic scatter 24MO1081, were added to this site for its relevance to the homestead. These features are located between Spring Creek and Trail #517 near the western boundary of Unit 65- proposed for young stand thinning and EMB. They are, however, also within the 300’ stream buffer. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0491–The historic Effinger Bridge remnants were visited on April 27 and September 23, 2011. Only the concrete supports remain on either side of the creek. The bridge lies outside of the eastern boundary of Unit 100A, east of trail #515. The site form was updated and expanded to include several previously unrecorded features described as Effinger’s, as he owned the entire Section 35 for most of the habitable period. Please see site form for updated information. As this site is also within the 300’ buffer of Rattlesnake Creek, this site would not be affected by project actions. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0492–The historic Rattlesnake School remnants were visited on May 2 and September 23, 2011. Its rock foundation is visible in FS Trail 515.1. This site lies within Unit 100 proposed for aspen stand regeneration, which would again occur in the meadow to the west. 24MO0492 is within the 100’ RHCA stream buffer. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0956–this site was visited June 25, 2014. Vegetation is thick, and the site was identifiable due to the large Douglas-fir growing along the north wall of the cabin remains. Site is

dilapidated, and looting is probable. 24MO0956 is indicative of a later (1940’s-1950’s) habitation and not considered a contributing element of the Upper Rattlesnake Historic District. NRHP-Ineligible 9/24/14.

24MO1081–This prehistoric site’s area was visited on April 27 and September 23, 2011. No cultural material was found; possibly due to looting and/or vegetation encroachment. This area is highly popular for people and their dogs. It is along the outskirts of Unit 100, proposed for aspen stand regeneration by hand treatment. The regeneration project is to occur within the meadow, above the confluence of Spring and Rattlesnake Creeks. This site, however, is within 100’ of Rattlesnake Creek (RHCA buffer) and would not be affected by project actions.

New Sites Recorded Thirteen new sites were recorded within the APE. All were evaluated for NRHP-eligibility.

24MO0591–Historic Three Swedes (Matterhorn) Mine in NW ¼ NW ¼ SW ¼ of Section 19, T 14N, R 18W. This site, an historic mining adit, associated trail and occupation remains, was visited on May 4 and September 7, 2011. The adit is near the base of the slope in Unit 101. Occupation remains are downslope of the adit. This site was evaluated as NRHP-Ineligible as a result of R2012011603006- Matterhorn Adit Closure on February 21, 2012. See Appendix D, Maps 9 and 10; and site map for more information. As the site has been determined NHRP- ineligible, no resource protection measures were developed for this site.

24MO0592–The Fred Poe Homestead is in the SE ¼ NE ¼ SW ¼ of Section 19, T14N, R 18W. This site, consisting of two depressions, a lilac bush, and rock piles, is located within Unit 3, proposed for commercial thinning; and Unit 100B, proposed for aspen stand regeneration. The site itself is within an open meadow with no merchantable timber. Aspen stand regeneration (hand treatment) is proposed on the western end of the meadow, and would not affect 24MO0592 features. Resource protection measures are outlined for some features of this site. Other features are within the 300’ INFISH buffer; therefore would not be affected by project actions. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0593–Historic Walman (Wallman) Homestead in the SE ¼ NW ¼ SE ¼ of Section 24, T 14N, R 19W was visited on September 7 and 8 2011. It is within Unit 2 proposed for commercial thinning. Resource proptection measures are outlined for this site and its features. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0594–Historic Chapman Homestead in the NE ¼ NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 25, T 14N, R 19W was visited on September 8 2011. Site includes a root cellar, line of rocks, scattered household trash and possible foundation remains. It is within Unit 2- proposed for commercial thinning. Little merchantable timber exists near these features; however resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0595–Historic Mark Poe Homestead in the NE ¼ NE ¼ of Section 25, T 14N, R 19W. This homestead site contains foundations, a dugout/root cellar, rock walls, can dumps among scattered household artifacts. It is within Unit 2- proposed for commercial thinning. Resource

protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0596–Historic Ahren Homestead in the NW ¼ of Section 25, T 14N, R 19W was visited on October 25 2011. Site includes foundations, rock walls, a ditch, trash dumps, an orchard and remnants of fence lines. It is within Unit 71-proposed for non-commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0597–Historic Adams Homestead in NW ¼ of Section 25, T 14N, R 19W was visited on September 12 2011. Site includes an irrigation ditch and very vague occupation remains including a rock wall, small rock foundation and a smashed wood crate. It is within Unit 71- proposed for non-commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0598–Historic Burton Homestead in the SE ¼ SE ¼ of Section 26, T 14N, R 19W was visited on May 2 2011 and September 23 2011. This site, the most ephemeral of all sites within the project area, also includes possible remains of the Loya Residence, who owned the property prior to Burton. Site consists of foundation remains, fence lines and an old road bed. 24MO0598 is located within Unit 71- proposed for non-commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO0599–Historic Rattlesnake Valley telephone poles situated along Road 99/Trail515 from Spring Gulch to at least the Franklin Guard Station. Poles were visited daily as they were along the road. Legal description is the north ½ Section 25 and the SE ¼ of Section 26, T14N, R 19W as well as the south ½ Section 15; south half of Section 19; N ½ section 20; north half of Section 21 and the NW ¼ NW ¼ Section 30, T14N, R 18W. Poles are usually on the right (south) side of the trail. They are located within Units 100A (aspen stand regeneration); 71 (non-commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning); as well as 2 and 3(commercial thinning). Resource protection measures are outlined for the telephone poles. Determined NRHP-eligible 9/24/2014.

24MO0600–Historic Hammerly Homestead in the SE ¼ SE ¼ SW ¼ of Section 24, T 14N, R 19W was visited on September 12 2011. This site consists of a root cellar, trash dump, excavated area, road and rock mound. 24MO0600 is located within Unit 71 proposed for non- commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO1621–Historic Sutherland Rental in the SW ¼ SE ¼ Section 35 T 14N R 18W and the NW ¼ NE ¼ of Section 2, T 13N, R19W was visited on December 14 2011. Site consists of trees scarred by barbed wire fencing, vague rock and dirt foundation remains, privy depression, small can dump, and an historical orchard. The site is within Unit 70—proposed for non- commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Some features are within the INFISH

300’ stream buffer, and resource protection measures are outlined for other features. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO1622–Historic Fox Farm in the NW ¼ of Section 19, T 14N, R 19W was visited on September 13 2011. Site consists of a rock foundation, an historic dump, orchard and fence line. It is within Unit 2 proposed for commercial thinning and Unit 71 proposed for non-commercial thinning, hand/machine piling and burning. Resource protection measures are outlined for this site. Contributing element to 24MO1623-Upper Rattlesnake Historic District, 9/24/2014.

24MO1623-Historic Upper Rattlesnake Homesteading District, in Spring and Rattlesnake Drainages. Further research is needed to extend it to adjacent Sawmill Gulch. Several sites listed above comprise this district.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Analysis Methods

Section 106 Review investigation methods included literature review, tribal and SHPO consultation, and field reconnaissance. The majority of research and fieldwork for this project was completed by 2012; upon when the project was ‘shelved’ by the Lolo NF Heritage Program. By FY2014, the project has been considered back on as a Forest priority project.

Literature review of the APE entailed: research of site records, previous survey reports, manuscripts, and publications located at the Lolo NF Heritage Program, the Missoula Public Library and the University of Montana Mansfield Library; online examination of historic Government Land Office (GLO) records; and a review of the National Register of Historic Places for Missoula County.

Tribal consultation took place with Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead Nation. Ed DeCleva and Erika Karuzas traveled to Lapwai, Idaho in March 2011 to consult with Nez Perce THPO, Patrick Baird, and tribal Ethnographer, Nakia Williamson. Mr. Baird identified the Rattlesnake as an area of importance to the Nez Perce. In April 2011, DeCleva and Karuzas met with Francis Auld and Mike Durglo, Sr. of the CSKT Tribal Preservation Department in Pablo, MT. Messrs. Auld and Durglo indicated the CSKT are interested in locations of camas and bitterroot as well as fruit bearing shrubs and juniper. In May 2011 Karuzas led them through portions of Units 70, 71 and 100. DeCleva, Karuzas and Sydney Bacon met with the CSKT Tribal Preservation Department in Pablo again in November 2011 to share our survey results and address any concerns with the project. We will continue to consult with the CSKT Tribal Preservation Department for purposes of Section 106, and the Lolo NF will continue to consult with the CSKT for purposes of NEPA consultation.

The Site Identification Strategy (SIS) for the Forest (McLeod 2003) was considered in conjunction with a Geographical Information System (GIS) database slope and hydrology analysis to predict site probability within the APE. Based on field reconnaissance-based landscape interpretations, Ed DeCleva identified areas and intensity of pedestrian survey. Lolo

NF archaeologists Sydney Bacon, Erika Karuzas, and timber crew member Tim Foley conducted survey work during the 2011 field season.

Surveys consisting of 10- to 15- meter-wide pedestrian transects were implemented; varying by probability and environmental constraints. Older standing trees, exposed soils (especially beaches), and downed-tree root balls were inspected for cultural evidence. In steeper units clinometers were used to take sample slope readings. High probability areas (slopes <20% and within ¼ mile of Rattlesnake Creek) received 95-100% survey. Low probability areas (slopes >50%) in the Rattlesnake drainage such as the steep hillside above Strawberry Ridge received about 10% pedestrian survey coverage. There are little to no medium probability areas within the project area.

The Marshall Creek drainage received only a cursory review. The area contains steep slopes, generally greater than 45%, with no permanent water sources. Pedestrian survey along the ridges near the Marshall Ski area in 1979 yielded no cultural resources. Additionally, proposed project action is to occur primarily within two entire sections previously owned by Plum Creek Timber Company. In the past, all merchantable timber was removed from these sections (31 and 33), and they are highly disturbed.

Proposed temporary road construction locations in this area received a pedestrian survey during an interdisciplinary team field trip in September of 2010. In June of 2014 the one known previously recorded site was visited.

Issue/Topic: • Effects common to all alternatives – Cultural sites are non-renewable resources. Continued natural weathering and deterioration cannot be avoided. All heritage resources are subject to these processes; regardless of this project’s implementation, these sites will continue to naturally decay.

• Alternative A (No Action)-The 2,998- acre Rattlesnake NRA Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Ecosystem Maintenance Burning Decision Notice burn as proposed was analyzed by the Lolo NF Heritage Program in for the DN (USDA 1996). Result of analysis yielded No Effect to Historic Properties. This alternative is the existing condition.

o Direct and Indirect Effects – Ongoing routine road maintenance activities, including the 3.7 miles BMP Maintenance on FS Road 99/FS Trail #515 which will occur in all alternatives, as well as the 1.2 miles of road decommissioning approved in the Section 31 DM are generally not subject to cultural resource field inventory because disturbance is largely confined to an existing (disturbed) road prism. Additionally, FS Road 99/Trail #515 was used as the main point of access into the Rattlesnake Drainage; therefore received daily pedestrian survey by the Heritage Program.

o Cumulative Effects –Heritage resources are subject to natural weathering and vegetation encroachment. Dense ingrowth can occur in the rock-lined root cellars,

ditches and foundation features of within the project area. Furthermore, tree mortality and deadfall as well as catastrophic wind or fire events can instantly damage these sites. Alternative A, No Action would likely increase the probability of continued tree mortality and potential wildfire events in the Rattlesnake and Marshall Drainages (See Vegetation and Fire/Fuels Specialists’ Reports). Thinning of the suppressed understory can assist in the preservation of cultural resources.

• Effects Common to Alternatives B, C and D - These alternatives all include ground- disturbing activities of some kind; with changes in treatment prescriptions. The Heritage Program Mitigation Measures/Implementation Plan (See Appendix A) outline specific tasks required for each site and its features. • Prescribed underburning in the area would have no effect on the historic cultural resources, as: 1) there are no remaining combustible features related to these sites; 2) burning is not proposed near the historic telephone poles along FS Road #99; and 3) the cultural resource itself (ponderosa pine) is naturally fire-resistant. Two prehistoric sites within the Rattlesnake Drainage are within the RHCA buffer; project actions would not occur near these two sites. All three alternatives would assist in providing a visual landscape similar to the historic character of the area.

o Direct and Indirect Effects – Vegetation thinning would open up the landscape, helping to restore the Rattlesnake and Marshall drainages to appear as they once did when the area was actively homesteaded. Thinning near cultural resources could also increase the site’s visibility to the public, leading to possible looting and vandalism. As long as the Mitigation Measures and Implementation Plan are implemented, there would be no direct or indirect effects of the project.

o Cumulative Effects – Increased exposure to the cultural resources following project implementation can result in site vandalism or looting. Interpretation of the history of the area can assist by educating the public, thereby preserving the historic district. o Resource protection measures are needed for seventeen NRHP-eligible sites located within the Rattlesnake and Spring Creek Drainages. Please see the Appendix containing the resource protection measures outlining project-specific tasks. o Consistency with Forest Plan Direction and other Laws, Regulations. The proposed project is consistent with Heritage Standards for Forest Plan Direction for Management Areas. The Management Areas within the Marshall Woods Project area pertinent to cultural resources include 16, 19, 25 and 28, as amended. MA 16 and MA19 discuss standards for the Lewis and Clark Trail National Historic Landmark (NHL). The Lewis and Clark NHL passes through the southern boundary of the project area, paralleling the Clark Fork River. No treatments are proposed in this area. MA 25 addresses National Historic Trails and National Recreation Trails, of which none are in the proposed project area. MA28, as amended (2009) discusses cultural resource protection by inventory, evaluation and development of a protection plan. As mentioned in the Analysis Methods

section above, the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program has complied by Forest Plan Standards 54 and 55 for treatment of cultural resources.

Additionally, it complies with the Limits of Acceptable Change-based Management Direction for the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness (1992) in that existing and new sites identified during project survey have been recorded and evaluated for the NRHP.

Procedural review of the undertaking is consistent with 36 CFR Part 800 and the 1995 PA.

• Monitoring Plans/Requirements – Heritage monitoring is necessary in the Rattlesnake Drainage prior to project implementation as well as afterwards to assess site condition. Lolo NF Heritage Program staff will flag any cultural resources to be avoided prior to mechanical and/or hand treatment. Following implementation, Heritage Staff will visit the area to ensure site damage has not occurred. It will likely take two days for flagging and three days for post-implementation monitoring. Please see the Appendix A - Mitigation Measures and Heritage Implementation Plan for detailed information.

LITERATURE CITED

Aarstad, Rich, Ellie Arguimbau, Ellen Baumler, Charlene Porsild and Brian Shovers. 2009. Montana Place Names From Alzada to Zortman. Montana Historical Society Press, Helena, Montana.

Alpine Recreational Consultants. 2001. Rattlesnake National Recreation Area Management Plan. Montana Parks Planning Authority

Alt, David and Donald W. Hyndman. 2004 [1986] Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula Montana.

Brunton, Bill. 1998. Kootenai. In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 223-237. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

CSKT Font Resources. 2005. Electronic Download of Salish Font. http://web.mac.com/jereaux/CSKT_Font_Resources/Introduction.html

Cohen, Stan. 2007. Downhill in Montana: Early Day Skiing in the Treasure State and Yellowstone National Park. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc., Montana.

Comer, Daniel S. 2005. Historic Settlement of the Rattlesnake Drainage, Montana: An Archaeological and Historical Perspective. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula.

Curtis, Lori. 2010. A Brief History of the People (in Flathead Watershed Sourcebook). Electronic document, http://www.flatheadwatershed.org/cultural_history/history_people.shtml. Accessed November 8, and November 22, 2011.

Ferguson, David. 2003. A Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment of Eight Dams in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Lolo National Forest. Prepared for Mountain Water Company by GCM Services, Inc.

Flathead Watershed Sourcebook. 2010. Cultural History-Brief History of the People. Electronic Document, http://www.flatheadwatershed.org/cultural_history/history_people.shtml accessed November 8, 2011.

Frison, George C. 1991[1978]. Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains. San Diego: Academic Press.

General Land Office. 2011. Bureau of Land Management, State of Montana, General Land Office Maps for Township 13 North and 18 West; 13 North and 19 West; 14 North and 18 West; and 14 North and 19 West. Online review of records at http://glo.mt.gov.

Griswold, Gillett and Dave Larom. 1954. The Hellgate Survey: A Preliminary Archaeology Reconnaissance of the Hellgate Canyon Area, Montana. Anthropology and Sociology Papers, Montana State University, Missoula Montana. University of Montana, Missoula.

Hamilton, William T. 1900. A Trading Expedition among the Indians in 1858 from Fort Walla Walla to the Blackfoot Country and Return. Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana Volume III. State Publishing Company, Helena, Montana.

Hartse, Hans. ca. 1976. Early Residents of the Upper Rattlesnake Valley. Montana Historian, no editor.

Juneau, Denise. 2009. Montana Indians: Their History and Location. Montana Office of Public Instruction, Division of Indian Education.

Malouf, Carling. 1952a. An Archaeological Survey of the Missoula Valley. Manuscript on file, Lolo National Forest Heritage Program.

Economy and Land Use by the Indians of Western Montana, U.S.A. 1952b. Missoula, Montana.

A Study of the Prehistoric and Historic Sites along the Lower Clark Fork River Valley, Western Montana. 1982. Contributions to Anthropology, No. 7. Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.

Walker Jr., Deward E. (editor). 1998. Flathead and Pend d’Oreille. In Plateau, pp. 297-312. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Malouf, Carling and Thain White. 1952. Early Kutenai History. The Montana Magazine of History. Volume 2, Number 2. Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana.

Martin, Steven R. 1988. The Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness: A Report of Resources of the Rattlesnake. Prepared for the US Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Missoula Ranger District.

McLeod, C. Milo and Douglas Melton. 1986. The Prehistory of the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forests: An Overview. USDA Forest Service. On file Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula.

McLeod, C. Milo (with contributions by Timothy Light and Mary Horstman Williams). 2003. Site Identification Strategy Prepared for Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo National Forests: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. On file Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula.

Mountain Water. 2007. Mountain Water History. Electronic Document, http://mtnwater.com/history.htm, accessed November 23, 2011

Montana Yesterday. 2010. More Marshall Mountain Memories. Electronic Document, http://montanayesterday.com/?p=679, accessed November 30, 2011

Moran, E. T. “Bud”. 2010. CSKT Comments Responding to Marshall Woods Scoping Letter. Letter on file in Heritage Program and Missoula Ranger District, Lolo National Forest.

Mussulman, Joseph. ca 1975. A Short History of the RNRAW. Unpublished manuscript written for the Lolo National Forest, Montana.

Nelson, Matthew R; Michael D. Ciani and Douglas H. MacDonald, Ph.D., RPA. 2013. 2012- 2013 Archaeological Survey of the Rattlesnake Wilderness. Lolo National Forest, Missoula County, Montana. Contract Number 12-CS11011600-026.

Poe, Forrest and Flossie Galland-Poe. 1992. Life in the Rattlesnake. ArtText Publication Service, Missoula, Montana. Also published as Born in Rattlesnake Canyon. Birch Creek Press, Missoula, Montana.

Reardon, Pat. 1975. The Rattlesnake Watershed: A Comprehensive Study for the Montana Power Company. Unpublished Manuscript, available at Mountain Water Company.

Schwennesen, Don. 1977. The Rattlesnake: Missoula’s urban wilderness. Unpublished Manuscript, available at the Missoulian Newspaper.

Smith, Thompson. 2010. “aay u sqelixw A history of bull trout and the Salish and Pend d’Oreille people”, In Explore the River: Bull Trout, Tribal People, and the Jocko River. Natural Resource Department of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT.

Teit, James and Franz Boas. 1927-1928. Coeur’d Alene, Flathead and Okanogan Indians. Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1975. Forest Map

United States Department of Agriculture. 1984. The Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness Environmental Assessment. On file at the Lolo National Forest Missoula Ranger District, Missoula.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1988. Lolo National Forest Land Systems Inventory. On file Lolo National Forest, Missoula.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1992. Limits of Acceptable Change based Management Direction, Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1992. Programmatic Agreement Regarding Cultural Resources Management on National Forests in the State of Montana. On file at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1996. Section 106 Review of the Rattlesnake NRA Burn (96-LL-3-12), prepared by Timothy Light, November 1996.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Forest Service Manual 2360 Heritage Program Management. On file at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2009. Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness Limits of Acceptable Change base Management Decision- 2009 Annual Report. Missoula Ranger District/Lolo National Forest.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2011. Rattlesnake National Recreation Area brochure

Wendell, Nancy, Linda Malingo, Bonnie Flanagan, Connie Reynolds, Mary Jane Head and Penny George. 1983. The Rattlesnake Valley Schools. No editor, Missoula, Montana.

Whisennand, Kristin. 1994. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Rattlesnake Creek Wild and Scenic Rivers Corridor. On file at the Lolo National Forest Heritage Program, Missoula.

Sydney Bacon East Zone Archeologist, Lolo National Forest 9/30/2014

Appendix A- Heritage Mitigation Measures for the Marshall Woods Project

Seven units (Units 2, 3, 65, 70, 71, 100A, 100B, and 101) within the proposed project would require mitigation (resource protection) measures for the protection of historic properties (significant cultural resources that are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places).

Intensive pedestrian survey has occurred for this project. High probability areas along the Rattlesnake Creek were visited as well as temporary road locations, culvert replacements and the one previously recorded site in the Marshall Creek Drainage within Unit 62. Primary Resource Protection Resource Protection Measure* Units/Location Resource Resource Measure Objective Protection # Heritage To protect cultural Protect / do not cut historic telephone poles up Units 2, 3 and 71 72 and heritage the creek and along Rd 99 that look in some cases resources like old tall stumps or broken off snags. “ “ If previously unknown heritage resources are Project area 73 encountered during project implementation, activities will be halted and the Forest Archeologist will be notified immediately. “ “ All site features within areas of potential Project area 74 disturbance will be flagged prior to implementation and avoided during implementation. Flagging will occur by archaeologist within a reasonable time period prior to implementation, to reduce attention and possible removal of feature/flagging by recreationalists Protect cultural • Apply INFISH RHCA buffers (300 feet from Project area 47 resources near perennial fish bearing streams, 150 feet permanent water from perennial non-fish bearing streams sources and wetlands > 1 acre, 100 feet from intermittent streams and wetlands < 1 acre

in the Rattlesnake Ck. priority watershed, and 50 feet from intermittent streams and wetlands < 1 acre in the Marshall Ck. non- priority watershed). ). Any variations from these buffers will need to be approved by the project fisheries biologist or hydrologist PRIOR TO implementation. • The boundaries of all RHCAs will be flagged PRIOR TO on the ground activities. • Ground-based equipment is excluded from all RHCAs buffers except on existing road surfaces. Timber Harvesting Do not mark large ponderosa pine for harvest that Unit 71 75 have barbed wire grown into them. Commercial Thinning To protect surface and subsurface cultural Project area 5 & 6 and Fuel Reduction resources, activities must be conducted over dry Activities or frozen ground. Use standard timber sale or integrated contract language. “ Operation of harvesting and skidding equipment Project area 7 off of designated trails would be minimized unless dispersed skidding is approved during winter periods. Hand Piling Avoid piling on cultural resource features (e.g. can Units 2,3,65,70,71, 76 dumps, foundation remains, ditches, root cellar 100a, 100b and 101 depressions) “ Where practicable, slash would be piled and Project area 10 burned in areas where detrimental soil disturbance already exists (abandoned log landings, skid trails, and roads associated with past activity). Excavator Piling The archaeologist would be informed regarding Units 70 and 71 9

slash pile location and at that time decide whether field monitoring is necessary. Burning Apply fire suppression activities during prescribed Units 2, 3, 65, 70, 71, 77 burning treatments near ponderosa pine with 100a, 100b and 101 barbed wire grown into the bark and telephone poles. Project Interpretation If possible, sites within the Upper Rattlesnake Units 2, 3, 65, 70, 71, Historic district could be interpreted along with 100a, 100b, 101 the project implementation

Proposed Implementation Schedule for Heritage Resources Unit 2 Unit 2 contains all or portions of eight recorded historic sites, with a total of recorded 35 features. Unit 2 Commercial Thin/Fuels Reduction Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 2 days avoided include: 24MO1622 – Fox Farm – Feature 3 dump 24MO0597 – F2 foundation, tires 24MO0595 – Features 1-6 24MO0593 – Features 2-11 24MO0591 – 2 features (evaluated as NRHP-ineligible 3/4/2012) 24MO0594 – Features 1-6 24MO0592 – 1 Feature -fenceline 24MO0599 – Telephone line – 5 features (Feature numbers 10-15)

2. Heritage Program Manager briefs TMA and contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

3a. If winter operations, then no Heritage monitoring. No costs 3b. In no winter operations, then Heritage monitoring is required for all implementation within the entire unit. If any GS-11, 5 days previously unrecorded cultural resources are encountered during implementation, the Monitoring Archaeologist GS-11, 15 days notifies the Timber Sale Administrator (TSA) and contract operator, and redirects work away from the newly discovered cultural resource. In addition, the Monitoring Archaeologist notifies Heritage Program Manager and the resource is recorded and consultation is conducted with MT SHPO prior to continuing work within the resource. If the resource is prehistoric or of interest to tribal parties, consultation with interested tribal party is conducted prior to continuation of work within the resource area. 4a. If winter operations, then Heritage inspection of unit as soon as weather allows following implementation, and GS-11, 2 day inspection report and site updates to MT SHPO within ten days of inspection. GS-11, 5 days 4b. If no winter operations, then Heritage Program prepares and submits post-monitoring report to MT SHPO within GS-11, 1 day ten days of completion of monitoring. GS-11, 5 days C & D No timber harvest, thus no mitigation measure No costs

Unit 3 Unit 3 contains all or portions of two historic sites, with a total of 5 recorded features.

Unit 3 Commercial Thin/Fuels Reduction Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 1 day avoided include: 24MO0592-Poe Meadow Homestead. Feature 1 (garage), Feature 11 (ditch) 24MO0599 – Telephone line – 3 features (Feature numbers 15-17)

2. Heritage Program Manager briefs TMA and contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

4a. If winter operations, then Heritage inspection of unit as soon as weather allows following implementation, and GS-11, 2 day inspection report and site updates to MT SHPO within ten days of inspection. GS-11, 5 days 4b. If no winter operations, then Heritage Program prepares and submits post-monitoring report to MT SHPO within GS-11, 1 day ten days of completion of monitoring. GS-11, 5 days C & D No timber harvest, thus no mitigation measure No costs

Unit 65 Unit 65 contains one feature from one historic site, within RHCA stream buffer.

Unit 65-Noncommercial thin/Underburn Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 1 day avoided include: 24MO0488- Feature 2-chimney. Within RCHA buffer of 50’.

2. Heritage Program Manager briefs TMA and contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

3a. If winter operations, then no Heritage monitoring. No costs 3b. In no winter operations, then Heritage monitoring is required for all implementation within the entire unit. GS-11, 5 days GS-11, 15 days 4a. If winter operations, then Heritage inspection of unit as soon as weather allows following implementation, and GS-11, 2 day inspection report and site updates to MT SHPO within ten days of inspection. GS-11, 5 days 4b. If no winter operations, then Heritage Program prepares and submits post-monitoring report to MT SHPO within GS-11, 1 day ten days of completion of monitoring. GS-11, 5 days C & D Same as above No costs

Unit 70 Unit 70 contains portions of two sites with three features Unit 70-Noncommercial thin/ pile and burn or Underburn Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 1 day avoided include: 24MO0491- site spans into unit but no features in this area. 24MO1621-Feature 3-rock and dirt area, Feature 4-depression and F5-raised rock and dirt area.

2. Heritage Program Manager briefs TMA and contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

Unit 71 Unit71 contains portions of 10 sites with 62 features Unit 71-Precommercial thin/ hand/machine pile, Underburn Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 2 days avoided include: 24MO0599- telephone poles. Features 1-9 24MO0491- Feature 11-Flume remnants of Effinger Ditch 24MO0492-Features 2-6 (rock lined depressions, outhouse) 24MO0310-prehistroic site; subsurface components. Not found in 2011. 24MO0487-entire site compiling Features 1-20 24MO0596- entire site compiling Features 1-14 24MO1622-Feature 1- concentrated woodstove parts/metal 24MO0597-Feature 1-ditch, Feature 3- foundation (RHCA buffer?) 24MO0598-Feature 1-road bed; Feature 2-fenceline; Feature 3-ephemeral building remains; Feature 4-stone foundation; Feature 5-stone foundation; Feature 6- old road bed; Feature 7-foundation; Feature 8-stone foundation; Feature 9- rock foundation. 24MO0600- Feature 1-Root Cellar, Feature 4- rectangular excavation 2. Heritage Program Manager briefs contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

C & D Same as above No costs

Unit 100A Unit 100A contains portions of two recorded sites and two features. Unit 100A Aspen Stand Restoration/Fuels Reduction Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 2 days avoided include: 24MO0491-Effinger Homestead. 3-Wagon Axle upright in concrete 24MO0488- Feature 8-barbed wire. 2. Heritage Program Manager briefs contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

No timber harvest, thus no mitigation measure No costs

C & D Same

Unit 100B Unit 100B contains four features from 24MO0592-Poe Homestead. Unit 100B Aspen Stand Restoration/Fuels Reduction Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 2 days avoided include: 24MO0592-Poe Homestead-Feature 6-foundation/dump; Feature 7-concrete block; Feature 10-apple tree; Feature 12- line of rocks/hole 2. Heritage Program Manager briefs planting contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

No timber harvest, thus no mitigation measure No costs

C & D same

Unit 101 Unit 101 contains portions of 2 sites and three features Unit 101-Ecosystem Management Burn Alt Mitigation Measures Grade and Estimated Days B 1. Heritage Specialist flags all sensitive features at least five days prior to implementation. Features to be flagged and GS-11, 1 day avoided include: 24MO0591- Feature 3- adit (ineligible 3/14/12) 24MO0600- Feature 3-excavation; Feature 6- rock mound

2. Heritage Program Manager briefs contract operator at least one day prior to implementation. GS-11, 1 day

C & D Same as above No costs

Note: Any variations to actions within flagged features (eg., as a result of safety concerns, the presence of insect and diseased trees, or at the request of Heritage for the beneficial treatment of a feature) shall be discussed between and approved by both the Timber Management Assistant (TMA) and the Heritage Program Manager.

If any previously unrecorded cultural resources are encountered during implementation, the Monitoring Archaeologist notifies the Timber Sale Administrator (TSA) and contract operator, and redirects work away from the newly discovered cultural resource. In addition, the Monitoring Archaeologist notifies Heritage Program Manager and the resource is recorded and consultation is conducted with MT SHPO prior to continuing work within the resource. If the resource is prehistoric or of interest to tribal parties, consultation with interested tribal party is conducted prior to continuation of work within the resource area.

Treatment by Alternative Unit B C D Mitigation by other Resource(s) 2 CT, Rx Burn EMB w/slashing Same as C Snow or dry ground or hp 3 CT, Rx Burn No change Snow or dry ground 65 Non-comm thin, No change No change UB

100 Meadow/aspen No change No change rest 101 EMB No change No change 70 Non-comm thin, Non-comm thin, Same as C Excavator dry season hp/mp, UB hp, UB only 71 Non-comm thin, Non-comm thin, Same as C Excavator dry season hp/mp, UB hp, UB only