Gateway Ecological Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...A large...

1

Rexford Ranger District

Kootenai National Forest

949 Highway 93 North

Eureka, Montana 59917

Phone: 406-296-2536

USDA Forest Service January 2017

Gateway Ecological

Restoration Project

Proposals Include:

Vegetation management

Hazardous fuels reduction

Wildlife habitat restoration

Transportation system

management

Map 1

2

Introduction The Rexford Ranger District is proposing to conduct vegetation management, hazardous fuels reduction, wildlife habitat restoration, and

transportation system management activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Gateway area, approximately 6 miles north of

the town of Eureka, Montana (see Map 1 on page 1 of this document). The 2,147 acre Gateway Ecological Restoration Project area is ad-

ministered by the Kootenai National Forest (KNF), Rexford Ranger District and is located entirely in Lincoln County (the legal location is

T37N, R27W, sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 17). Project activities are only proposed on NFS lands. The Gateway Ecological Restoration Pro-

ject is located on the international boundary with Canada and lies within the Wildland Urban Interface, directly downwind from the Gate-

way Subdivision. It is also designated as a priority landscape to address insect and disease threats under the 2014 Farm Bill.

This area has traditionally provided important native bunchgrass and bitterbrush winter range for elk and mule deer. A large portion of the

north Tobacco Valley is private land which has been and continues to be developed. Agriculture, urban development, cattle, horses, dogs,

fences and golf courses are replacing winter range and potentially hindering wildlife movement within the valley. The Gateway project area

and the adjacent Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) owned section provides a major portion of the public land available in

the north end of the valley.

History The first Euro-American to enter the valley was the Hudson Bay fur

trader, surveyor and map maker, David Thompson in 1808. At this

time, the Kutenai (Kootenai or Tunaxa) Tribe lived along the entire

length of the Kootenai River. Upon learning that the Kutenai grew

tobacco in the area, he named the valley “Tobacco Meadows.” Even-

tually, the name changed to the “Tobacco Valley.” After fur trappers

discovered the area, surveyors for the railroad and Boundary Com-

mission passed through in the 1850s. Miners chased gold through the

area in the 1860s, and by 1882, ranchers took advantage of the

bunchgrasses to raise cattle. Homesteader settlements soon fol-

lowed, and smooth brome was planted in some areas for erosion con-

trol and winter feed for domestic cattle.

Transportation in and out of the valley was by river or horseback until

the Great Northern Railway Company constructed a branch into Cana-

da along the east side of the Kootenai River in 1901. Needing a cus-

toms office, the railroad company constructed the town of

“Gateway.” This town became the focal point of businesses and near-

by ranchers and homesteaders. The railroad abandoned this line in

the 1930s, and the grade become a county road. The Boundary Com-

mission moved the customs office to its present location at Roosville

in 1936. The town continued to decline until purchased by the Army

Corps of Engineers for the construction of the Libby Dam and associ-

ated reservoir.

The Forest Service named the project area “Gateway” because of its

proximity to the historical town of Gateway that now lies under the

surface of Lake Koocanusa. A series of private individuals originally

owned all lands within the project area. Julius Neils Lumber Company

owned portions of the Gateway area from 1950 until merging with St.

Regis Lumber Company in 1957. The Army Corps of Engineers later

purchased much of this land in preparation for implementation of the

Libby Hydroelectric Project. The remainder of the lands within the

Gateway area underwent a series of private exchanges with the final

result being Forest Service management of the entire area known as

Gateway in the early 1990s.

Evidence of past logging and home-

stead activity within the Gateway ar-

ea. Above: what remains of an old

cabin. Below: Portable sawmill from

the mid 1900s.

3

Background Information In the mid-1980s, restoration efforts began within the Gateway area to include fuels reduction thinning and piling, prescribed burning, and

commercial improvement harvest. Fire scar data collected south of the project area near Sophie Lake indicates an average fire return inter-

val of 6 years, with a range of 1 to 15 years. These fires were typically low intensity, ground-based fires that moved quickly across the ter-

rain; consuming grasses, needle cast, and down woody fuels; and killing most but not all tree seedlings, while generally not affecting the

mature trees. The fire cycle and natural burn characteristics were disrupted by a decade of aggressive fire suppression activities within the

area. The intent of these initial efforts was to mimic the natural role of fire on the landscape and provide fuels reduction benefits to adja-

cent landowners. When prescribed burning operations were first initiated in the 1980s, the project area was divided into burn blocks rang-

ing in size from 200-500 acres, utilizing existing roads, trails and natural barriers as burn block boundaries. Most areas within the Gateway

Ecological Restoration Project Area have been treated with prescribed fire two or three times.

Additionally, the existence of smooth brome (Bromus inermis) has been identified as a resource concern within the project area. Smooth

brome is a non-native, non-palatable invasive grass for wild ungulates which has created a monoculture in the meadows of the project

area and is also invading the understory of the ponderosa pine savannah. Smooth brome extent surveys have been conducted on both the

NFS lands within the area and the adjacent State of Montana DNRC land. Through these surveys, approximately 885 acres and 41% of the

project area have been identified as being infested with smooth brome, the presence of which is degrading the quality of this important

winter range habitat.

In 2013, the District wildlife biologist, silviculturist and fire management personnel initiated a collaborative effort in an attempt to address

concerns about the expanding smooth brome problem and a wider restoration effort beyond fuels treatment alone. A series of field re-

views and meetings followed, including personnel from the Kootenai National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Forest Service Northern Region

Wildlife and Vegetation Specialists, local and regional Natural Resource Conservation Service representatives, the Montana Fish Wildlife

and Parks Biologist, the Montana DNRC Special Uses Forester, the Lincoln County Weeds Manager, representatives from Rocky Mountain

Elk Foundation, and interested members of the public. From these fieldtrips and conversations, a better understanding of the comprehen-

sive need for action was established, and the planning effort for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project was initiated.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act -2014

Farm Bill Every five years, Congress passes a bundle of

legislation (commonly called the “Farm Bill”)

that sets national agricultural, nutrition, con-

servation, and forestry policy. Among the pro-

visions that pertain to the Forest Service, Sec-

tion 8204 of the 2014 Farm Bill amends Title VI

of the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act

(HFRA; 16 U.S.C. 6591) by adding section 602

(Designation of Treatment Areas) and section

603 ( Administrative Review) to address quali-

fying insect and disease infestations on Nation-

al Forest System lands.

On May 20, 2014, Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced the designation of approximately 45.6 million acres of National Forest System lands across 94 national forests in 35 states to address insect and disease threats that weaken forests and increase the risk of forest fire. The Kootenai National Forest, including the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project Area, lies within these designated are-as. The Governor of Montana has asked that priority be given to project development within these designated insect and disease areas, and created the Forests in Focus Initiative to help facilitate this effort.

State of Montana Department of Natural Re-

sources Conservation Forests in Focus Initiative The State of Montana DNRC Forests in Focus Initiative is a strategy intended to accelerate the pace, scale and quality of forest restoration within Montana. A key focus of this initiative is for the State of Montana to work in partnership with the US Forest Service to sup-port projects that meet the broader goals of Forests in Focus. These goals include forest health improvement, reducing wildfire risk, and working within a collabora-tive framework to best manage our forests for a varie-ty of objectives.

Under authority granted by the state Legislature, the Governor made up to one million dollars available from the state fire suppression account to engage di-rectly in Forest Service projects. Priority was given to projects that met certain criteria including collabora-tive development with interested stakeholders, providing vegetation and wildlife habitat restoration, and locations within the priority landscapes designat-ed in the 2014 Farm Bill.

In the summer of 2016, the Rexford Ranger District was awarded a Forests in Focus grant to assist in fund-ing of the planning process for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project. This funding will allow the Gate-way Project to be completed in addition to the normal workload that is currently occurring on the District.

Snags provide im-

portant habitat for

cavity nesting birds

and small mam-

mals.

4

Collaborative Effort In December of 2016, a collaborative planning group was formed

to develop a proposal for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Pro-

ject. A request for participation in this collaborative planning

group was sent to land owners within close proximity to the pro-

ject area, members of the public known to have an interest in the

area, recreational groups and outfitter and guides known to use

the area, local timber industry representatives, and an ad was

placed in the Tobacco Valley News. The group that was formed

was composed of a representative of the local Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS), the local Montana Fish, Wildlife and

Parks Biologist, six interested members of the public, and mem-

bers of the Interdisciplinary Team (Forest Service employees).

Between December 20th, 2016 and January 11th, 2017 members of

the group met on three occasions to discuss options for project

proposals within the Gateway Project Area. The Proposed Action

outlined in this document is the result of these collaborative

efforts.

Land Management Plan The current Kootenai National Forest Land Management and Resource

Plan (Forest Plan) was approved in 2015, providing a framework for

management of all forest resources. The 2015 Forest Plan guides all

resource management activities on the Kootenai National Forest for

the next 10 to 15 years. Under the 2015 Forest Plan, all NFS lands fall

under certain Management Area (MA) direction. MA allocations are

specific to areas across the Forest that have similar management needs

and desired conditions. Each MA has a certain emphasis to direct man-

agement activities on that piece of land. The entire 2,147 acres within

the Gateway Project Area are designated as both MA 3 defined as a

Special Botanical Area, and MA 7 defined as a Primary Recreation Area.

Management Area 7 (Primary Recreation) in the Lake Koocanusa Area

offers year-round recreation opportunities and provides an array of

recreational opportunities and water related experiences in a forested

environment. The Gateway Project Area is popular for activities such as

hunting, horseback riding, hiking, camping, fishing, wildlife viewing,

cross country skiing and snowshoeing.

Management Area 3 (Special Botanical Area) is defined as “a unit of

land that contains plant specimens, plant groups, or plant communities

that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat,

location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features.”

These areas have outstanding natural characteristics or unique recrea-

tion or cultural values and are managed to maintain their special val-

ues. The Gateway Prairie Botanical Area is a forested extension of the

remnant Palouse prairies of the Tobacco Valley. It contains prickly pear

cactus, mariposa lilies, and bitterroot. The area also contains suitable

habitat for the threatened Spalding’s catchfly, although none have

been located within the Gateway Project Area.

Vegetation Existing and Desired Conditions The vegetation of the Gateway area is part of the warm and dry biophysical setting and is typically described as a mix of forested and non-forest sites. When tree cover is present, it is ordinarily composed of open-grown park-like stands of mature large diameter ponderosa pine at low stocking levels, with thickets of Douglas-fir and a bunch grass understory (USDA 1999). Trees tend to be clumped where moisture is adequate (USDA 1999). This description captures much of the Gateway vegetation communities.

These low elevation dry sites historically developed through disturbance such as frequent low severity fires, which maintained the open ponderosa pine stands and grasslands. The nature and impact of these frequent fires varied in severity, from a light underburn that es-sentially left the forest structure intact, to areas of higher severity fire that reduced vegetation in a function that resembles natural thin-ning. During fire-free periods, dense thickets of Douglas-fir commonly develop beneath the mature overstory causing the overstory trees to become susceptible to future crown fires. Mixed severity fires were generally limited to small areas and resulted in a combination of underburning and stand replacement.

As with most sustainable forest ecosystems, insects and pathogens are the major nutrient recyclers. In this biophysical setting disease generally does not play a major role in forest succession, however some pathogens have been located in or adjacent to the project area. The root disease, Heterobasidion annosum that decays tree roots and colonizes the root collar cambium is found adjacent to the project area. Spores from this root disease can infect freshly cut stumps and allow the disease to spread. A needle cast disease, Elytroderma that generally does not have lethal implications to large trees, but can cause growth loss, deformation, and occasionally death of small trees, has been identified at low levels within the project area. Mature ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir are highly susceptible to western pine beetle and Douglas-fir beetle respectively. Currently endemic levels of these insects can be located within and/or adjacent to the project area, though hazard rating for stand conditions is high in some stands. Pine engraver beetles (Ips var.) though usually secondary attackers, can cause significant tree mortality during dry weather or following stand disturbances. Insect outbreaks can be brought about by dry weather, fire weakened trees or in conjunction with root disease. Other disturbances that influence stand dynamics may be caused by weather events such as blowdown from windstorms and lightning caused fires. Physical damage to trees from snow is typically very minor within the project area. However, winter desiccation (needles dying due to warm weather during the winter) can cause wide-spread injury to tree crowns. This phenomenon is typically found adjacent to large bodies of water and was most recently experienced in the winter of 2013 south of the project area. Periodic drought on these warm and dry sites is characteristic and influential in the func-tioning of the site and the resulting vegetation patterns (USDA 1999).

Gateway Project Area with the Canadian Rockies in the background.

5

Vegetation Existing and Desired Condition Continued

Vegetation distribution within the project area is primarily deter-mined by aspect and effects of historic fire. Typically north and east aspects will have higher stocking densities, while south and west aspects are more moisture limited and generally have a pattern of lower stocking and small (<1 acre) to medium (2-5 acre) openings. Much of the project area is composed of varying densities of 7-16 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. In general these trees are 80-120 years old, though some older remnants are present in excess of 200+ years old.

Large meadows are present within the project area. Tree en-croachment within these meadows has slowly occurred over the last century. Meadows were historically maintained by the fre-quent fires. These typically killed a portion of the encroaching trees, although single trees and occasionally patches did survive. Current conditions reflect higher levels of encroachment when compared to historical photos.

In low lying areas, in potholes, and adjacent to Swisher Lake rem-nant aspen clones may be present. Typically there is little to no regeneration occurring due to browsing by large ungulates. Most of the mature trees are 70-100+ years old and are becoming deca-dent, with rot, cavities, and limb and top breakage.

Understory vegetation is typically dominated by bunchgrasses and shrubs. Typical grasses and forbs for this biophysical setting include Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, elk sedge, pine grass, arrowleaf balsamroot, and heart-leaf arnica. Habi-tat for threatened and sensitive plants such as Spalding’s catchfly, western moonwort, Howell’s gumweed, common clarkia, and Geyer’s biscuit-root may occur in unique micro-sites. Additional vegetation surveys will be conducted to as-certain presence of potential threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants. Dominant shrubs generally include snowber-ry, western serviceberry, bitter-brush, Oregon grape, and spi-raea. Prickly-pear cactus has been located within the project area in the past. Coarse woody debris is present at low levels within this warm, dry biophysical setting. The 2015 Forest Plan describes standards and guidelines for the required retention of coarse woody debris.

The Gateway area is a low productivity site. Soils are moisture

limited, typically exhibiting drought conditions in late summer.

The project area is not part of the suitable timber base under

the 2015 Forest Plan.

The desired future condition for vegetation is determined by

the site. Meadows should be free of most woody vegetation,

though single trees and small clumps may be present. It is de-

sirable to maintain an aspen component on the land-

scape. Opportunities for this desired condition are limited, but

in areas where moisture is sufficient promote a healthy multi-

aged aspen clone. In general forested areas, maintain a multi-

aged, low density savannah with a species mix of ponderosa

pine and Douglas-fir. Palouse prairie vegetation species should

be present in the savannah understory and openings.

Aspen clone within the project area currently

exhibiting no new sprouting.

Vegetation conditions typical throughout

the project area, exhibiting openings and

areas of higher tree stocking. This is typical

of a savannah ecosystem.

6

Hazardous Fuels Existing and Desired Condition Wildland fires are a part of the natural ecological cycle of forest

ecosystems (Lincoln County Montana, 2005, p. 1). Historically,

low-intensity wildfires occurred frequently (every 10-40) years in

low elevation, dry, fire-dependent ecosystems such as those

within the Project Area. Fire scar data collected just south of the

project area near Sophie Lake indicates an average fire return

interval of 6 years, with a range of 1 to 15 years (Heyerdahl,

2008). With these high frequency/low severity fires, most small-

diameter understory trees were killed but the larger diameter,

fire-resistant trees survived, which maintained a relatively open

forest condition composed primarily of widely-spaced pondero-

sa pine and occasional Douglas-fir trees. The fires kept naturally

occurring fuel accumulations low.

In the early 1900s, fire suppression efforts increased and be-came very effective. These efforts have disrupted the historical fire frequencies and the natural role it has played in these eco-systems. The results are areas of previously open forest that are now replaced by dense thickets of small-diameter ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. These areas have higher tree densities and more dead and down fuels than would be expected under his-torical conditions, which has resulted in an increase in aerial/ladder and surface fuel loadings. The buildup of fuels increases the risk that a fire will escape suppression actions and escalate into a stand-replacing fire. Approximately 90% of the project area falls within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)**, which incorporates private landholdings, homes, and the Gateway Sub-division. High intensity wildfires threaten lives and property. Fuels within the WUI need to be treated to reduce the intensity of wildfires that may occur and the risk which they present. Restoration efforts including fuels reduction thinning and piling,

prescribed burning, and commercial improvement harvest initi-

ated in the 1980s within the project area have effectively re-

duced fuel loadings and lowered tree densities in some stands

within the project area. Some areas still remain in a densely

stocked state and are being proposed for additional thinning.

Almost the entire project area has been treated with prescribed

fire two to three times between 1986 and 2016. Regular mainte-

nance burning is an effective tool used to maintain fuel profiles

within the WUI that provide a zone of reduced fire intensity and

allow the safe and efficient control of wildland fires.

The Gateway project area provides a major portion of the public

land available in the north end of the valley and historically pro-

vided important native bunchgrass and bitterbrush winter range

for elk and mule deer, as well as a major wildlife movement corri-

dor across the international boundary. This open growing ecosys-

tem also provides important wildlife habitat for ground nesting

songbirds, chipping sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, flycatchers,

turkeys and flamulated owls. The project area also contains suita-

ble vegetation habitat for the threatened Spalding’s catchfly, alt-

hough none have been located within the Gateway Project Area.

Results of a study conducted on the Dancing Prairie Nature Pre-

serve southeast of the Project area “suggest that fire has a posi-

tive effect on the population dynamics of S. spaldingii by remov-

ing litter and creating safe sites for recruitment. Prescribed fire

should be an important tool for managing populations of this rare

plant” (Lesica 1998).

The desired condition for fuels is characterized by stands that

maintain the lower fuel loadings established within the past 30

years, and are closer to those that previously occurred. The risk

of fire starts becoming stand-replacing events will be reduced in

treated areas. The continuity of fuels across the landscape will be

broken, thereby reducing the potential for fires to spread. Fire-

fighter safety will be improved where intensities and rate of

spread allow for direct attack fire suppression. Treated areas may

provide safety zones for people and equipment. The quality and

quantity of understory forage for big game is improved through

the stimulation of browse and shrub regrowth. The open savan-

nah and prairie characteristics are maintained by preventing

small conifer ingrowth, thus benefitting other wildlife species

dependent on these ecosystems. Overall the vegetation composi-

tion and structure, and healthy ecosystem functions are main-

tained through regular disturbance cycles.

**“The Wildland Urban Interface is commonly described as the

zone where structures and other human development meet and

intermingle with undeveloped wildland and vegetative fuels. The

WUI zone poses tremendous risks to life, property, and infra-

structure in associated communities and is one of the most dan-

gerous and complicated situations firefighters face” (Lincoln

County, Montana – Community Wildfire Protection Plan, p.6).

Prescribed burn conducted on Block A in 2016. Picture taken from the Tobacco Plains Boat Launch.

7

Smooth Brome Existing and Desired Condition Within the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project Area, the non-

native invasive rhizomatous grass, smooth brome (Bromus inermis)

has been identified as a resource concern. Prior to Forest Service

ownership, the Gateway area was privately owned by timber com-

panies, cattle ranchers and homesteaders. During the severe winter

of 1892-1893, hundreds of cattle died, causing ranchers to respond

by planting more areas to non-native vegetation such as smooth

brome to feed domestic stock. Evidence also suggests that this grass

may have been planted in areas of ground disturbance on previous-

ly privately owned land as a means of erosion control.

Although suitable as feed for domestic livestock, smooth brome is

unpalatable for wild ungulates such as elk and mule deer. Some

areas that still exist as open, grassy meadows, are now dominated

by smooth brome cover. Smooth brome extent surveys were con-

ducted over the summers of 2014 and 2015 on the NFS lands within

the project area and on the adjacent State of Montana DNRC land.

Although smooth brome is present throughout all locations within

the project area, the degree to which it has displaced the native

vegetation varies. Approximately 885 acres and 41% of the project

area have been identified as infested with smooth brome. Surveys

have also been conducted and similar smooth brome conditions

were found.

Approximately 1,238 acres within the project area are categorized

as Low Infestation Areas with smooth brome cover on approximate-

ly 25% of the ground. These areas have maintained the majority of

the native vegetation that previously existed and are still showing

healthy ecological functions, however if left unchecked, smooth

brome is expected to spread throughout these areas as well.

Approximately 690 acres within the project area are categorized as

Moderate Infestation Areas. These areas contain smooth brome

over approximately 60% percent of the ground. The smooth brome

present within these areas may exist as patches that are 100%

smooth brome with no other vegetation, or as smooth brome

spears intermixed with other ground vegetation consisting of desir-

able grasses and forbs.

Approximately 180 acres are categorized as High Infestation Areas.

Smooth brome comprises approximately 90% of the vegetation cov-

er and has almost completely displaced all other vegetation within

the area. Wildlife such as elk and mule deer have stopped grazing

within this area completely, and due to the smooth brome mono-

culture, the Palouse prairie vegetative characteristics no longer exist

within this portion of the project area. See Map 4 for Infestation

Area category locations.

A desired condition within the project area is to reduce the amount

of smooth brome cover and restore native vegetation to these are-

as. The open meadows would be comprised of the native grasses

and forbs that define the remnant Palouse prairie characteristics of

the Tobacco Valley. Smooth brome presence throughout the entire

project area would be limited, therefore reducing the potential

spread and future encroachment onto the native vegetation.

Noxious Weeds Existing and Desired Condition The Gateway Project Area has very few state of Montana listed noxious weeds. Those known to occur are St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoe-be), and Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta). These are all in the Priority 2B category on the Montana Noxious Weed list mean-ing they are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties.

St John’s wort is the most widespread noxious weed present within the project area, covering many acres in varying amounts ranging from a few scattered plants to some areas being nearly 100% St John’s wort. This plant is found mostly in the more open non-forested areas, intermixed with smooth brome grass. Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) is not currently known to be present, but there are infestations of this plant in close proximity on similar soils and vegetation cover types. Some locations within the project area could support Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), but there is no known presence at this time.

The desired condition for noxious weeds within the project area is for limited introduction, intensification and spread of weed infestations. Newly discovered populations are con-tained, and existing weed populations are reduced or eradicat-ed through effective prevention and control measures.

Smooth brome

patches in

moderate in-

festation areas

under the tree

canopy and in

the meadows.

8

Transportation System Existing and Desired Condition All lands within the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project Area were acquired by the Forest Service in the mid to late 1900s

through a series of land exchanges and acquisitions. Prior to Forest Service ownership and the implementation of the Libby Hydro-

electric Project, many roads existed to provide access to the Gateway bridge spanning the Kootenai River, the town of Gateway

that now lies under the surface of Lake Koocanusa, and numerous farms, ranches and homesteads scattered throughout the area.

Many of these roads still physically exist on the ground.

Under the 2015 Forest Plan, the Gateway Area is designated as a Special Botanical Area (Management Area 3). As such, the area is

managed to provide recreational opportunities and experiences that are consistent with semi primitive non-motorized public use.

Public access on all existing roads within the project area is restricted year long to motor and snow vehicles.

The majority of the existing roads within the Gateway Project area were not included in the 2005 Forest Travel Atlas, with the ex-

ception of FS Road 7160B that accesses the Swisher Lake recreation site. 36 CFR 212.1 defines a Forest Road as a road wholly or

partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protec-

tion, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources. A National Forest

System (NFS) Road is a forested road other than a road that has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by

State, county, or other local public authority. An Unauthorized Road is a road that is not designated as a forest road or temporary

road and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas.

A desired condition for the Gateway Project area is to provide a transportation system that meets administrative needs, and pro-

vides safe and efficient access for emergency response vehicles and law enforcement. NFS roads would be repaired and main-

tained to support administrative uses for the purpose of fire suppression and fuels reduction activities, recreation infrastructure

maintenance, vegetation surveys and management, and noxious weeds management. The Department of Homeland Security has

also identified the area as an important location for timely and efficient border security response. Roads identified as being no

longer needed for the long term system would be decommissioned.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The Gateway Ecological Restoration Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) completed an assessment of the Project Area through the

summers of 2014, 2015 and 2016. The assessment utilized an ecosystem approach where physical, biological, and social factors

for each resource were considered both on a landscape and site-specific basis. This assessment indicated a need for action

within the Gateway Project Area. Through a collaborative process the ID Team identified the following Purpose and Need for

action to trend the project area toward the desired conditions identified above.

Restore vegetative composition and stand structures that are more resilient to disturbances such as insect and disease in-

festations and wildfire, and can adapt to the effects of climate change over time. Maintain or enhance the existing charac-

teristics that define the remnant Palouse prairies of the Tobacco Valley.

Maintain fuel profiles within the Wildland Urban Interface that provide a zone of reduced fire intensity to allow the safe

and efficient control of wildland fires that may threaten private structures, natural resources and infrastructure along the

international border.

Improve and maintain wildlife habitat values, primarily for species reliant on the open growing Palouse prairie ecosystems

and elk winter range. Convert the existing non-native vegetation to more desirable species. Simulate natural disturbances

to promote browse production and improve forage quality in plant species that have evolved over time with fire. Provide

movement corridors to and from Canada and within the Project Area. Avoid or minimize management activities during the

winter.

Provide a transportation system that meets administrative needs, and provides safe and efficient access for emergency

response vehicles and law enforcement.

The identified purpose and need for action provide the framework for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Proposed Action.

Each type of proposed action is designed to address one or more of these statements.

9

Gateway Ecological Restoration Proposed Action The proposed action was developed in response to the existing condition and desired future condition identified for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project. The areas proposed for treatment are integrated to maximize the effectiveness of treatments in meeting the purpose and need of this project. Please refer to the enclosed maps for locations of proposed activities. Table 1 provides a general summary of the proposed activities. The proposed actions are described in further detail in the treatment descriptions that follow.

Vegetation Management Proposed Action Detailed information on the proposed vegetation management units is contained in the Table 2. The proposed action is shown on Map 2. The shapes of proposed treatment areas are for representation purposes only; actual unit boundaries may be modified during layout to conform to natural patterns or identifiable landmarks on the landscape.

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Action

Vegetation Management

Harvest without Restocking 510 acres

Improvement Cutting 166 acres

Understory Thinning 12 acres

Encroachment Reduction 154 acres

Aspen Enhancement 44 acres

Fuel Treatment

Maintenance Burn 2,147 Acres

Excavator or Hand Piling/Pile Burning 211 Acres

Smooth Brome Treatment

High Infestation Treatment 180 Acres

Moderate Infestation Treatment 690 Acres

Low Infestation Treatment 1238 Acres

Road System Management

Road Maintenance to Meet Current BMPs 6.61 Miles

Temporary Roads to be Constructed 2.75 Miles

Roads to be added to the National Forest System 6.25 Miles

Roads to be Decommissioned 0.45 Miles

One year post maintenance

burn conditions in the

grassy meadows.

10

Vegetation Management Proposed Action Continued Harvest without Restocking: This harvest type is proposed for stands where the objectives are to reduce tree density and enhance the Palouse prairie characteristics. This is proposed as a commercial removal. Trees would be removed in a manner to create openings and clumps of trees such as those found in the historic savannah structure. Openings could be 0.5 acre to five acres in size. Remaining vegeta-tion may exist as evenly spaced trees or occur in groups or clumps of 3-40 trees. Stands would be more resistant to insect and disease attack, have reduced woody fuel accumulations, be more resilient to future changes in climate, and capture the economic value of the den-sity reduction. Desired outcomes of this treatment include 1) restoring the savannah conditions of the remnant Palouse prairie by reducing tree density; 2) maintaining landscapes composed of long-lived seral species and fire adapted forest structures; 3) development of effective fuel breaks through the strategic use of large openings in proximity to private land and the international border; and 4) increase in forage for large ungulates and species that rely on Palouse prairie vegetation.

These harvest openings would not be for regeneration, therefore a Regional authorization for regeneration harvest units over 40 acres in size is not required. The objectives of creating these low stocking levels and openings are to meet the purpose and need described above by enhancing the remaining Palouse prairie characteristics in the project area and improving and maintaining wildlife habitat values for spe-cies reliant on the open growing Palouse prairie ecosystems.

Vegetation felled to meet the silvicultural prescription would be removed from the site as much as feasible. This may fluctuate depending on market conditions at the time of the activity. The residual fuels may be left on site as coarse woody debris and for nutrient cycling or treated through a combination of entire tree yarding, excavator or hand piling (not to exceed 15% of the acres), pile burning, and/or under-burning.

Units 2, 10, 12, 14, and 17 totaling 510 acres would be treated with harvest without restocking. Please see Table 2 for unit information and Map 2 for the location of units.

Understory Thinning: This treatment is proposed on unit 7 where there is a need to reduce understory fuels in close proximity to private land or values at risk. Veg-etation felled to meet the silvicultural prescription will be removed from the site as much as feasible. This may fluctuate depending on market conditions at the time of the activity. Treatment would generally consist of thinning understory trees and hand or machine piling of high concentrations of natural or activity fuels that re-main. Any resulting piles would subsequently be burned under favorable condi-tions. Coarse woody debris would be retained on site to meet 2015 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The unit would be maintenance burned during the next burn cycle.

This treatment meets the purpose and need of the project for maintaining fuel profiles with reduced fire intensity close to values at risk, and the purpose and need for restoring vegetation composition and stand structure more resilient to disturbance.

Unit 7 totaling 12 acres would be treated with understory thinning. Please see Table 2 for unit information and Map 2 for the location of units.

Improvement Cutting: This action is a commercial cutting made in a stand past the sapling stage primarily to improve composition and quality by removing less desirable trees of any species. In practice this method improves the overall vigor of a stand by removing trees with short crowns, those with low vigor, those with poor form, trees competing with more vigorous or more desired species, or trees in excess of desired density levels. The residual stand would be considered adequately stocked to meet most management objectives. In some situations regeneration may be initiated by the new cohort, but would not be actively managed; the major emphasis would be on the residual stand.

Vegetation felled to meet the silvicultural prescription would be removed from the site as much as feasible. This may fluctuate depending on market conditions at the time of the activity. Coarse woody debris would be retained on site to meet 2015 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Additional fuels are proposed to be treated through a combination of entire tree yarding, excavator or hand piling (not to ex-ceed 50% of the acres), pile burning, and/or underburning.

This treatment meets the purpose and need of the project for restoring vegetation composition and stand structures that are more resili-ent to disturbance, and the purpose and need for improving and maintaining wildlife habitat values.

Units 11, 13, 15, and 18 totaling 166 acres would be treated with improvement cutting. Please see Table 2 for unit information and Map 2 for the location of units.

Hand piles created in an understory thin unit

completed in 2016 near the Gateway Boat Camp

11

Vegetation Management Proposed Action Continued Meadow Encroachment Reduction: This treatment would be implemented in units where there is a need to reduce the woody vegeta-tion encroachment in historic meadows. This treatment would utilize mechanical methods (generally chainsaws) to remove woody vege-tation that has encroached into meadows that historically existed within the project area. These areas have been identified by reviewing aerial photography from the early 20th century. This treatment helps to meet the purpose and need for restoring vegetation structure and composition that is more resilient to disturbance, enhancing the remnant Palouse prairie vegetation, maintaining fuel profiles with a lowered fire intensity, and improving wildlife habitat values for species relying on Palouse prairie ecosystems.

Vegetation felled to meet the silvicultural prescription would be removed from the site as much as feasible. This may fluctuate depending on market conditions at the time of the activity. Coarse woody debris will be retained on site to meet 2015 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Additional fuels are proposed to be treated through a combination of excavator or hand piling (not to exceed 25% of the acres proposed for this treatment), pile burning and/or underburning.

Units 3, 4, 5, and 16 totaling 154 acres would be treated with meadow encroachment reduction. Please see Table 2 for unit information and Map 2 for the location of units.

Aspen Enhancement: This treatment would be used to revitalize existing aspen stands that are declining. Methods to promote aspen regeneration include cutting of existing aspen and encroaching conifers, underburning, and fencing. This treatment meets the purpose and need for action described in improving and maintaining wildlife habitat.

Vegetation felled to meet the silvicultural prescription would be removed from the site as much as feasible. This may fluctuate depend-ing on market conditions at the time of the activity. Coarse woody debris would be retained on site to meet 2015 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Additional fuels are proposed to be treated through a combination of excavator or hand piling (not to exceed 25% of the acres proposed for this treatment), pile burning and/or underburning.

Units 1, 6, 8, and 9 totaling 44 acres would be treated for aspen enhancement. Please see Table 2 for unit information and Map 2 for the location of units.

Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Treatment Units

Unit Acres Silvicultural Treatment Fuels Treatment Harvest

System

1 8 Aspen Enhancement Excavator Pile/Underburn N/A

2 89 Harvest w/o Restocking Excavator Pile/Underburn Tractor

3 39 Encroachment Reduction Underburn N/A




7 12 Understory Thinning Excavator Pile/Underburn N/A




11 51 Improvement Cutting Excavator Pile/Underburn Tractor








12

Prescribed Burning Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action prescribed burning would be used to

emulate the “natural ecological role” of fire by not only reducing

the surface fuels which have built up since the last prescribed burn

treatment, but also stimulating the growth of forage, and improv-

ing the overall health of the forest. Proposed prescribed burning

treatments for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project are

composed of systematically burning all identified burn blocks with-

in the Project Area every 8-12 years. Exact burn block scheduling

may depend upon other management activities within the area

and weather factors, but will generally follow the schedule estab-

lished during the current burn cycle. Burn areas will exhibit a mosa-

ic pattern, with some areas (north slopes, moist areas) that may

not carry fire at all, and some areas that may burn with hotter in-

tensities (south slopes, areas with heavy down fuel accumulations).

This diversity of fire effects is desired across the landscape. In each

burn block, opportunities exist to divide the block into smaller are-

as if desired for management reasons.

Table 3 shows a summary of all burn blocks

within the Gateway Ecological Restoration Pro-

ject Area. Proposed prescribed burn activities

consist of repeated maintenance burning of

each block every 8-12 years. See Map 3 for burn

block boundaries and locations.

Smooth Brome Reduction Proposed Action In 2014, one acre plots were established to test the effectiveness of various treatments in the heavily infested smooth brome

meadow area. These plots were subject to a variety of eradication methods including three different herbicides, prescribed

burning, mowing, plowing and combinations of these treatments together. Plots were broadcast seeded (some areas after one

season of treatment and some areas after two seasons of treatment) with a grass seed mix that was developed from surveys of

the other grasses that are present in the project area.

An initial strategy has been developed based on existing literature on smooth brome eradication, and the initial results from

treatment effectiveness monitoring done within the project area. The proposed strategy is designed to slow the spread of

smooth brome to currently unaffected areas, reduce the amount of smooth brome that already exists, and once cleared of

smooth brome, establish more desirable vegetative species (such as those that define the Palouse prairies and those that pro-

vide good forage for wild ungulates) within the project area. This initial smooth brome strategy is proposed for implementation

over the next 7-10 years. This strategy helps meet the purpose and need statement to improve and maintain wildlife habitat

values, primarily for species reliant on the open growing Palouse prairie ecosystems and elk winter range by converting the ex-

isting non-native vegetation to more desirable species.

Rejuvenated bitter-

brush after 2015

prescribed burn.

Prescribed burn under young ponderosa pine in 2014.

Table 3. Prescribed Burn Block Summary

Burn Block Acres Most Recent Burn Treatment

Block A 313 Acres 2016

Block B 334 Acres 2012

Block C 300 Acres** 2014

Block C 81 Acres** 1999

Block D 414 Acres 2013

Block E 395 Acres 2015

Block F 288 Acres 2002 (scheduled for 2017)

** Total acres for Block C is 381. Approximately 81 acres were not underburned

during the spring of 2014 due to ongoing thinning and hand piling activities within

the area. The remaining area is scheduled for underburning within the next two to

three years. Future underburns in Block C may be scheduled over the entire burn

block during the same season.

13

Smooth Brome Reduction Proposed Action Continued

Priority 1 - High Infestation Areas:

The area of highest smooth brome infestation is approximately 180 acres within the project area and directly adjacent to the section of

State of Montana DNRC land. This area would receive highest priority for treatment.

Litter Reduction – Organic litter would be removed from the treatment area by prescribed burning, mowing or plowing. By reducing

the litter on a site, smooth brome becomes more vulnerable to herbicide treatment.

Herbicide Treatment – Herbicide treatments would occur targeting smooth brome over the entire treatment area. Multiple applica-

tions over more than one growing season may be necessary.

Seeding – A desired mixture of vegetation would be seeded over the treatment area.

Forb establishment – The seeded areas will be monitored to determine if native forbs are revegetating the area. If forb restoration is

needed, a technique known as seed source islands may be implemented. Small areas would be fenced off to protect from wildlife

grazing, and forbs would be planted, either by seeding or plugs. These protected islands would then provide a seed source for fur-

ther spread and establishment of forbs throughout the area. Seed source islands would be interspersed throughout the high infesta-

tion areas.

Priority 2 - Moderate Infestation Areas:

In moderate infestation areas, treatment priority would be given to infestations along main travel corridors (both roads and trails), pro-

ject area borders, and areas that receive ground disturbing vegetation treatments. Brome treatments would also be coordinated with

prescribed burning activities.

Brome patches of one acre or more

Litter Reduction – Organic litter may be removed from the treatment area by prescribed burning, mowing or plowing if terrain

and other existing vegetation allow. By reducing the litter on a site, smooth brome becomes more vulnerable to herbicide

treatment.

Herbicide Treatment – Herbicide treatments would occur targeting smooth brome, potentially multiple applications over more

than one growing season in the treatment area.

Seeding – A desired mixture of vegetation would be seeded over the treatment area.

Brome patches of less than one acre

Herbicide Treatment – Spot herbicide application would occur targeting smooth brome.

Priority 3 - Low Infestation Areas:

Herbicide Treatment – Spot herbicide application would occur targeting smooth brome. In low infestation areas, treatment priority

would be given to infestations along main travel routes (both roads and trails) and areas receiving ground disturbing vegetation

treatments, and would be coordinated with prescribed burning activities.

High infesta-

tion area com-

posed of 100%

smooth brome

grass cover.

14

Smooth Brome Reduction Proposed Action Continued

Brome Treatment Maintenance and Monitoring of all areas:

Maintenance with herbicide- spot herbicide treatment would occur on any new smooth brome found within and bordering the treat-ment areas throughout the life of the project. Priority will be given to main travel routes, project area boundaries, and areas receiving ground disturbing vegetative treatments, and would be coordinated with prescribed burning activities.

Noxious Weeds Proposed Action Priorities for noxious weed treatments within the project area will consist of targeting main travel ways, project area boundaries, and areas where ground disturbing activities are implemented. Noxious weed surveys will be conducted within the area annually, and the Integrated Weed Management strategy will be utilized to determine the best approach for noxious weed treatments. All noxious weed treatments proposed for the Gateway Ecological Restoration Project Area are authorized under the 2007 Kootenai National Forest Invasive Plant Management FEIS.

Transportation System Management Proposed Action Road maintenance is the ongoing upkeep of each road necessary to meet the approved Road Management Objectives. The present

focus of Road Management Objectives is to meet the current Best Management Practices (BMPs) for each road. The BMP objectives

for road maintenance are to: reduce the concentration of sub-surface and surface water runoff; minimize road surface erosion; filter

ditch water before entering streams; and decrease the risk of culvert failures during peak runoff events. Maintenance work could in-

clude, but would not be limited to: culvert installation, replacement of existing culverts with larger diameter culverts, installation of

drainage dips or surface water deflectors, placement of riprap to armor drainage structures, replacement of aggregate surfaces,

placement of aggregate to reinforce wet surface areas, ditch construction and cleaning, and surface grading to restore the drainage

efficiency of road surfaces. These actions would bring the roads up to current BMP standards. Approximately 6.61 miles of existing

road surface would be maintained in the project area by these methods.

Temporary roads would be required for vegetation management activities in units 2 (0.75 miles), 10 (0.25 miles), 12 (0.5 miles), 14

(0.5 miles), 17 (0.5 miles) and 18 (0.25 miles). A total of 2.75 miles of temporary road would be utilized in the proposed action. Tem-

porary roads would only be available for administrative use to accomplish vegetation management activities and would not provide

public motorized access. Temporary roads are obliterated and re-contoured immediately after cessation of use. Roads are scarified to

reduce compaction, and care is taken to make the road template invisible. The work is generally accomplished within the timber sale,

and completed before the sale is finalized. The exact location of proposed temporary roads will be determined during the timber sale

preparation stage of the project.

All herbicides proposed for use within all treatment areas have been analyzed for environmental effects under the 2007 Kootenai Na-

tional Forest Invasive Plant Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

The treatment of smooth brome and noxious weeds within the Gateway Project Area would utilize an Adaptive Management Ap-proach as described in the 2007 Kootenai National Forest Invasive Plant Management Plan FEIS. This approach would be used to treat new sites and new species within the Project Area based on site characteristics, weed species, and locations. Also as new techniques, technologies and results from monitoring of ongoing treatments come to light, they may be incorporated. Field personnel would con-tinue to monitor the study plots that were established in 2014 to gain further insight into the most effective method for controlling smooth brome. Monitoring techniques would be improved by providing field personnel with additional training on assessing plant identification and cover percentages on plots.

Table 4. Smooth Brome Treatment Summary

Treatment Area Category Size of Treatment Area Approximate Acres of Smooth

Brome Cover

High 180 Acres 162 Acres

Moderate 690 Acres 414 Acres

Low 1238 Acres 310 Acres

Total 2,108 Acres** 886 Acres

**The difference between the total treatment area size and total project area size is due to the

exclusion of Swisher Lake and other non-vegetated ground such as that adjacent to Lake

Koocanusa.

15

Transportation System Management Proposed Action Continued

The unauthorized roads proposed as additions to the transportation system are, in fact, existing forest roads deemed necessary to meet

administrative needs. They are “unauthorized” only because they were not included in the Forest Transportation Atlas completed in

2005. A total of 6.25 miles of roads are proposed to be added to the system as year long restricted National Forest System Roads.

There are two remaining unclassified roads that were deemed no longer needed as part of the long-term system and are recommended

for decommissioning. Decommissioning is defined as the reestablishment of vegetation and, if necessary, initiating restoration of eco-

logical processes interrupted or adversely impacted by the unneeded road. Decommissioning may include various treatments such as

reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, restoring vegetation, blocking the entrance to the road, installing water bars

and restoring natural contours and slopes. The sum of road distances to be decommissioned is 0.45 miles. See Table 1 and Map 5 for all

transportation proposals.

The proposed activities for transportation system management would meet the purpose and need statement to provide a transporta-

tion system that meets administrative needs, and provides safe and efficient access for emergency response vehicles and law enforce-

ment.

Project Design Features Project specific design features will be devel-

oped and refined through the project analysis

process. All design features will be included

in the decision document.

Project Timelines The decision for this project is expected by summer

of 2017.

Attached maps show each of the project proposals.

Literature Cited Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2005. Lincoln County, Montana.

Heyerdahl, E., Morgan, P., Riser, J. (2008). Crossdated fire histories (1650 to 1900) from ponderosa pine-dominated forests of Idaho

and western Montana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. P. 42.

Lesica, Peter (1998). Effects of fire on the demography of the endangered, geophytic herb Silene spaldingii (Caryophyllaceae) Amer-

ican Journal of Botany Vol. 86 No 7: 996-1002.

USDA Forest Service. (1999). Vegetation response unit characterizations and target landscape prescriptions. Libby, MT: USDA Northern Region, Kootenai National Forest.

Examples of typical vegetation and animals found within the Palouse prairie ecosystem.

Gateway Boat Camp

Swisher Equestrian Trailhead

Swisher Lake & Campground

CanadaUSA

Sophie Lake

Lake Koocanusa

T37N R27W

2

12

1410

43

16

18

11 17

13

95

67

1

15

88 97

1718

4

16

56 3

10

15

212019

13

22

12

1

24

Map 2Gateway Analysis Area

Proposed Vegetation Treatments

LegendGateway BoundarySection

Proposed Vegetation TreatmentAspen EnhancementEncroachment RemovalHarvest w/o restockingImprovement CutPre-commercial ThinForest Service LandsState LandsPrivate LandsCanada

.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125

MilesThis map was generated from electronic data files (GIS coverages)which were scanned or digitized from information at 1:24000 scale.The data on this map is based on the accuracy and precision of the 1:24000 USGS quad maps and 10-meter resolution satellite imagery which were used to generate or rectify map data. This map is to be used as reference only and is not intended for use

in site specific planning. The information on this map is subject to revision as field data and technical processes improve.

NOTE: Not all roads nor their status are displayed on this map.

Gateway Boat Camp



CanadaUSA

Sophie Lake

Lake Koocanusa

T37N R27W

8 97

1718

4

16

56 3

10

15

212019

13

22

12

1

24


Proposed Prescribed Burn Treatments

LegendGateway BoundarySectionPrescribed Burn Unit BoundariesForest Service LandsState LandsPrivate LandsCanada

.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125




Block B - 334 AcresPreviously Burned in 1995 & 2012Block C - 381 Acres

Previously Burned in 1999 & 2014

Block D - 414 AcresPreviously Burned in 1997 & 2013

Extension of Block CPreviously Burned in 1999

Block A - 313 AcresPreviously Burnded in 1990, 2001, & 2016

Block E - 395 AcresPrevioulsy Burned in 1998 & 2015

Block F310 Acres

Previously Burnedin 1986 & 2002

Anticipated Burnin 2017.

All preidentified burn blocks areproposed for future maintenance burning on an 8-12 year cycle.The exact year may depend on weather condtions and schedulingof other proposed activities within the analysis area.

Gateway Boat Camp



CanadaUSA

Sophie Lake

Lake Koocanusa

T37N R27W

8 97

1718

4

16

56 3

10

15

212019

13

22

12

1

24


Proposed Smooth Brome Treatments

LegendGateway BoundarySectionLow InfestationModerate InfestationHigh InfestationForest Service LandsState LandsPrivate LandsCanada

.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125




Gateway Boat Camp



CanadaUSA

Sophie Lake

Lake Koocanusa

T37N R27W

8 97

1718

4

16

56 3

10

15

212019

13

22

12

1

24


Proposed Travel System

LegendGateway BoundarySectionTrailsProposed National Forest System RoadsProposed Roads for DecomissioningExisting Roads Outside the Analysis AreaForest Service LandsState LandsPrivate LandsCanada

.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125




Gateway Ecological Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...A large...

Documents

Transcript of Gateway Ecological Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...A large...