3.10 HERITAGE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS METHODS

Transcription

1 3.10 HERITAGE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS METHODS For Heritage resource purposes, the area of analysis for the Trapper Bunkhouse project comprises all National Forest lands within and immediately contiguous to the Project Area boundaries. When a project is proposed on the Bitterroot National Forest, Heritage program specialists participate in its planning and in the analysis of potential project effects. This participation consists of 1) review of historical materials, archival documents, and overviews relevant to the Project Area; 2) analysis of the nature of the project and its potential to affect cultural resources; 3) review of public concerns regarding the project and its potential effect; and 4) consultation with interested Tribes, Heritage interest groups and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. In the process, the Heritage specialist determines the project s area of potential effect (APE) based on the geographic area in which a project may alter the character or use of any existing historic properties. Based on this information, Heritage specialists determine whether existing cultural resource data is adequate to complete the environmental analysis and disclose potential effects on cultural resources. If the information is insufficient, additional research and/or inventory will be undertaken. Where additional inventory is needed, Heritage personnel design a survey strategy to locate all historic properties within the area of potential effect. This strategy is designed in accordance with the criteria defined in Site Identification Strategy Prepared for the Bitterroot, Flathead and Lolo National Forests (SIS). If a survey discovers previously unknown cultural resources, those resources are recorded and their National Register eligibility status determined in consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (MTSHPO). Both background research and fieldwork are documented in a report submitted to the MTSHPO. The Heritage program manager consults with MTSHPO to determine the nature of the project s effects on significant properties. If needed, the Heritage program manager and MTSHPO work together to determine appropriate project redesign, restrictions, designation of sensitive areas or mitigation measures. The Heritage program manager coordinates recommendations, actions and monitoring with the project leader, MTSHPO and interested Tribal preservation and culture committee officials. A project is determined to affect an historic property when project activities alter the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In determining the effect, alteration to features of the property s location, setting, or use may be relevant, depending on the property s significant characteristics. An adverse effect results when the project may diminish the integrity of an historic property s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects include (but are not limited to) physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; isolation of the property from its setting; alteration of the setting s character when that character contributes to the property s National Register eligibility; introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements out of character with the property or its setting; and neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction. (National Register Bulletin #15; How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, US Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, rev. ed., 1995) The Forest Service Heritage Program is responsible for management of cultural resources to prevent loss or damage before they can be evaluated for scientific study, interpretive efforts or other appropriate uses. This requires projects to be implemented in a manner that avoids adverse effects on historic properties. Where a proposed project would result in impacts to historic properties, project design should anticipate that treatment of the property will conform to sound preservation practice and be consistent with all applicable preservation standards. Project design should ensure that the essential form and integrity of historic properties is not impaired. If the potential for adverse effects cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation treatments are determined in accordance with 36 CFR As an example, mitigation of impacts for timber harvest may include establishment of buffer zones, directional falling, alteration of harvest unit boundaries, changes in road locations, location of skid trails away from historic properties, limiting the harvest methods in certain areas, Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

2 seasonal limitations, and restrictions on slash disposal or tree planting activities. Where a project has the potential to impact a property of Tribal concern, the Forest Service will consult with Tribal representatives to develop appropriate mitigation measures REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The primary legislation governing modern heritage resource management is the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992). All other heritage resource management laws and regulations support, clarify or expand on the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources) and Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM2360) provide the basis of specific Forest Service heritage resource management practices. These laws and regulations guide the Forest Service in identifying, evaluating and protecting heritage resources on National Forest system lands. The Forest Service is required to consider the effects of agency actions on heritage resources that are determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or on heritage resources not yet evaluated for eligibility. Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation are also an important element of federal agencies management of cultural resources on public lands. Several other laws address various aspects of heritage resource management on the National Forests, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, as amended in 1988 (ARPA). ARPA and two other regulatory acts describe the role of Tribes in the federal decision-making process, including heritage management. ARPA requires Tribal notification and consultation regarding permitted removal of artifacts from federal lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) recognizes Tribal control of human remains and certain cultural objects on public lands and requires consultation prior to their removal. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on traditional Tribal cultural sites. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) also specifically calls for Tribal participation in the NHPA Section 106 consultation process. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation regard the entire Bitterroot Forest as an area of concern, and are consulted on all projects occurring within the Forest. The Nez Perce Tribe has identified cultural concerns on the Forest within the Selway River and West Fork Bitterroot watersheds, and within the corridor of the Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail. Consultation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes regarding this project was completed on September 10, The Project Area does not lie within an area of cultural concern for the Nez Perce Tribe AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Since 1976, eleven archaeological surveys have been conducted in or within a half-mile of the Project Area. Performed in conjunction with earlier Forest Service management activities, these inventories were conducted by or under the supervision of professional cultural resource specialists and complied with all applicable Federal standards. These surveys included the following projects: Waddell Creek Area (76-BR-2-1,) Trapper Creek- Conner Area (76-BR-2-3), Little Tin Cup Creek TS (79-BR-2-4), Pierce Creek Timber Sale (81-BR-4-2), Hart Bench/Huckleberry Creek TS (83-BR-2-1A), Spoon-McCoy Salvage (93-BR-2-6), Tin Cup Trail Reconstruction (94-BR-2-1), Huck Trap TS (94-BR-2-3), Rock Creek Trail Reconstruction (97-BR-2-3), Floch s Log Structure CRI (01-BR-2-17), Hart Bench ATV Trail (02-BR-2-2) and Trapper-Bunkhouse EIS Cultural Resource Inventory (05-BR-2-6). As a result of these surveys, 90 % of the moderate-to-high probability terrain within or adjacent to the proposed project units has been surveyed for cultural resources by July 24, A total of eleven Heritage sites have Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

3 been identified within the project analysis area. Eight were previously recorded during other projects. The eight sites consist of a logging camp site, three log ruins, a historic orchard, the Trapper Creek CCC camp, an unidentified log cache, and Tin Cup Trail #96. Three others a logging camp, a homestead, and a log ruin were recorded during the 2006 field season. Of the eleven sites, seven three cabin ruins, two log structures, a homestead site, and a logging camp site have been determined Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places through consultation with MTSHPO. Two other sites a historic orchard and the Trapper Creek CCC camp are unevaluated, but are well outside the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for all proposed Trapper- Bunkhouse actions. The two remaining sites, Tin Cup Trail #96 and a logging camp site, have been determined Eligible for the National Register, but only the Tin Cup Trail lies within potential treatment units. The Montana SHPO has concurred that the project will have No Adverse Effect on either the trail or the logging camp site. Implementation in units containing Eligible or unevaluated sites will be monitored by the Forest s Heritage program manager. The desired condition for Heritage resources within the project boundary is that all moderate-to-high probability terrain is inventoried for cultural resources and the results are documented. The sites associated with the 1907 Lick Creek Timber Sale and Anaconda Copper Mining Company logging activities would be interpreted. Interpretation of these sites is not part of the proposed action. Survey of all moderate-to-high probability terrain within the Trapper-Bunkhouse analysis area was completed on July 24, Results of the Trapper Bunkhouse EIS Cultural Resource Inventory were reported to the MTSHPO, as required under 36CFR800, on September 10, On October 2, 2007, MTSHPO concurred that the Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project will have No Adverse Effect on significant cultural properties ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 (No Action) Because no vegetative or fuels treatments, timber harvest, or other proposed actions would occur, there would be no potential for direct effects to Heritage resources resulting from those activities within the Project Area. Failure to reduce fuels could contribute to a greater long-term risk to heritage sites within and around the Project Area from severe wildfires and related erosion, flood events, and noxious weed invasions. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct Effects The types of activities associated with this alternative have the potential for direct adverse effects to Heritage sites. Fuel reduction and timber harvest activities proposed under Alternative 2, such as tree falling, skidding, decking, slash disposal, and underburning all have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources. An extensive literature search, tribal consultation and field surveys have revealed one Eligible Heritage site within the area of potential effect (APE) of proposed treatment units. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, Alternative 2 has little potential to directly affect known Heritage sites (Chapter 2). Culturally sensitive areas in or near burning or ground disturbing activity units will be protected during operations by area of avoidance designation on contract maps, by modification of unit boundaries, or by elimination of the unit. Indirect Effects One Eligible site, Tin Cup Trail #96, could be affected by indirect effects of activities associated with actions proposed in this alternative. These indirect effects would consist of auditory disturbance during implementation, and possible visual disturbance of the trail viewshed during and after implementation Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

4 Alternative 3 Direct Effects The types of activities associated with this alternative have the potential for direct adverse effects to Heritage sites. Fuel reduction and timber harvest such as tree falling, skidding, decking, slash disposal, and underburning all present potential threats to cultural resources. An extensive literature search, tribal consultation and field surveys have revealed one eligible Heritage site within the area of potential effect (APE) of proposed treatment units. However, with the mitigation and avoidance measures prescribed for this project, the MTSHPO has concurred with the Heritage program manager s recommendation of No Adverse Effect. Therefore, if the recommended avoidance/mitigation measures are followed, Alternative 3 has no potential to directly affect eligible sites. Alternative 3 does not include small tree plantation thinning and it treats slightly fewer total acres. Because small tree plantations have experienced previous heavy ground disturbance from logging and reforestation activities, and are considered low probability terrain for cultural site occurrence, the exclusion of small tree plantation thinning from Alternative 3 has little to no effect on potential impacts to unknown Heritage sites. Because of the reduced acreage treated, it s possible that Alternative 3 could pose a greater longterm risk to heritage sites from severe wildfires and related erosion, flood events and noxious weed invasions. Indirect Effects Due to the nature of the sites involved, indirect effects such as auditory or visual disturbances, would be limited to the period of project implementation. Alternative 4 Direct Effects The types of activities associated with this alternative have the potential for direct adverse effects to Heritage sites. Fuel reduction and timber harvest such as tree falling, skidding, decking, slash disposal, and underburning all present potential threats to cultural resources. Extensive literature search, tribal consultation and field surveys have revealed one eligible Heritage site within the area of potential effect (APE) of proposed treatment units. However, with the mitigation and avoidance measures prescribed for this project, the MTSHPO has concurred with the Heritage program manager s recommendation of No Adverse Effect. Therefore, if the recommended avoidance/mitigation measures are followed, Alternative 4 has no potential to directly affect this eligible site. Alternative 4 treats 1,737 more acres than Alternative 3 and 984 more acres than Alternative 2. This greater acreage includes small tree plantations. These plantations have experienced previous heavy ground disturbance from logging and reforestation activities, and are considered low probability terrain for cultural site occurrence. The inclusion of small tree plantation thinning in Alternative 4 has little-to-no effect on potential impacts to unknown Heritage sites. Because of the greater acreage treated, it s possible that Alternative 4 could benefit to heritage sites by greater longterm reduction of risk from severe wildfires and related erosion, flood events, and noxious weed invasions. Indirect Effects Due to the nature of the sites involved, indirect effects such as auditory or visual disturbances would be limited to the period of project implementation. B. Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives Prior to establishment of the Forest Service Heritage Resource Program in 1976, timber harvest, reforestation, and trail, road, and recreational facility development occurred with little analysis of cultural resources impacts. Areas logged, roaded, or otherwise subjected to extensive ground disturbance or subsequent erosion experienced Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

5 substantial cultural resource destruction. Other adverse effects occurred from livestock grazing, irrigation development, and dispersed recreation. Little or no effort was made to deter private collection of historic or prehistoric artifacts on National Forest lands, and losses of cultural resources were extensive in certain locations. While adoption and enforcement of federal cultural resource protection legislation and regulations over the past 30 years has reduced the rate of cultural resource deterioration, it is unrealistic to expect that deterioration could be completely eliminated. Forest management practices over the past century, resulting in fuel accumulation, have contributed to the occurrence of intense, stand-replacing wildfire. While many types of cultural resources can survive low-severity fire with little or no damage, high-severity burns destroy or damage a wide range of cultural sites and artifacts. Centuries-old cambium-peeled trees marking many tribal trails and camping areas are an example. On the Bitterroot Forest, many of these peeled trees survived a succession of low-intensity burns over the past 300 years, only to be destroyed by fire in Plants important to the lives of the Bitterroot Salish, Pend d Oreille and Kootenai Indians, and the areas where the tribes traditionally gathered these plants have been progressively affected by loss of habitat, herbicide use, livestock grazing, and a variety of other impacts associated with use of National Forest lands. Tribal access to and use of traditional cultural areas has also been affected by development of private lands, resource extraction on Forest lands, and increased recreational use in traditional areas. Cumulative effects will continue, and will be intensified by additional impacts such as increasing population and new technology resulting in new uses for Forest lands. Where recreational damage to cultural sites was once limited to areas adjacent to heavily used trails, roads and campsites, the increase in modern motorized recreation has resulted in more site damage from vehicles running over archaeological sites. Deliberate looting and vandalism of Heritage resources in remote areas has also increased with improved motorized access. Alternative 1 Failure to reduce accumulated fuels would increase the potential for severe wildfire, increasing the potential for adverse effects by fire to cultural resources throughout and beyond the Trapper-Bunkhouse Project Area, particularly to cambium-peeled trees, trails, structures and combustible artifacts. Wildfire also increases the risk of site looting and vandalism due to exposure through erosion and lack of vegetative cover. Alternative 2 Reduction of accumulated fuels will have the long-term beneficial effect of reducing the threat of wildfire damage to cultural resources in the Trapper Bunkhouse area. Alternative 3 Reduction of accumulated fuels will have the long-term beneficial effect of reducing the threat of wildfire damage to cultural resources in the Trapper Bunkhouse area. However, fewer acres are treated under this alternative. Alternative 4 Reduction of accumulated fuels will have the long-term beneficial effect of reducing the threat of wildfire damage to cultural resources in the Trapper Bunkhouse area. With the additional acres treated under this alternative, the potential benefit might be greater than that in Alternatives 2 and CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLAN, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS Heritage and Tribal interests are regulated by federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in identifying, Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS

6 evaluating and protecting cultural resources. All of the alternatives would comply with federal laws. The Bitterroot Forest Plan tiers to these laws, therefore the proposed action alternatives will meet Forest Plan standards CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS The Bitterroot National Forest has completed its cultural resource consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (MTSHPO) as required under terms of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Sec.106 and 36CFR800. MTSHPO concurred with the Forest s recommendations regarding the eligibility status of known sites within the proposed Project Area and concurred that the Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship project would have No Adverse Effect on significant cultural resources. Alternative 4 was analyzed for its potential effects on cultural resources within the project analysis area. The increased acreage did not involve any areas or cultural resources not already analyzed for alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Trapper-Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project Final EIS