Marshall Woods Restoration Project Heritage Report Prepared by: Sydney Bacon 9/30/2014 1 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 2 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 3 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. 4 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