DALTON MOUNTAIN FOREST RESTORATION FUELS REDUCTION …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · The Helena National Forest (HNF) is proposing the Dalton Mountain Forest

LINCOLN RANGER DISTRICT—DALTON PROJECT

Dalton—Page 1—Oct-2011

DALTON MOUNTAIN FOREST RESTORATION & FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT LINCOLN RANGER DISTRICT—HELENA NATIONAL FOREST

1569 Hwy 200 • Lincoln, MT 59639 • 406.362.7000

Project Location, Purpose, and Area Description The Helena National Forest (HNF) is proposing the Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. The entire project area encompasses approximately 18,420 acres, and is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Lincoln, MT (see the vicinity map below). The project area is bordered by private property and residences on the north and south. Tree mortality from a mountain pine beetle epidemic is extensive. Much of the area is a mixed‐severity fire regime that is domi‐nated by lodgepole pine and lacks the desired forest structure and species diversity. Some tree species native to the area, including aspen, whitebark pine and ponderosa pine do not occur in the numbers desired and require active management to restore them. The analysis for the Dalton Project will be documented in an Environmental Impact Statement. Forest restoration and fuel reduction in the Dalton Mountain area is needed to move the area toward the goals of the HNF Plan (1986), specifically II.A.14: Provide a fire protection and use program which is responsive to land and resource manage‐ment goals and objectives; II.A.17: Coordinate Forest management activities with the land and resource management efforts of other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and adjacent private landowners; and II.A: Provide sustained timber yield that is responsive to local industry and national needs. The Lincoln Restoration Committee, a diverse group of volunteers participating in a multi‐party effort to promote restora‐tion efforts on the Helena National Forest has actively collaborated with the Forest Service on the development of this pro‐posed project The LRC is an open, voluntary, initiative, not convened or managed by the Forest Service. The membership is open and currently includes several local landowners, representatives of the Blackfoot Challenge, Conifer Logging, The Wilderness Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Sun Mountain Lumber, MT Dept of Natural Resources & Conservation/Rural Fire, MT Wilderness Association, Citizen Conservationists, Blackfoot Community Conservation Area, the local newspaper, and Pyramid Mountain Lumber.

Detailed Purpose and Need: Improve vegetative structure and fuels arrangement resulting in diversity of structure, patterns, and patch sizes across the landscape.

Enhance composition of aspen, whitebark pine, and ponderosa pine species and their habitats.

Modify fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions that may allow the reestablishment of fire as a natu‐ral process on the landscape.

Utilize economic value of trees with economic removal

Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes using both commercial and noncommercial treatments to accomplish the desired condition. These actions would include: mechanical harvesting, precommercial thinning, fuels reduction by hand felling, and prescribed burning. Ap‐proximately 6.4 miles of road would be built to facilitate commercial removal, then obliterated following timber removal. The proposed activities are further described in the Proposed Treatment Table on page 2. In addition, specific unit‐by‐unit infor‐mation can be found on our website or by request. The Proposed Action includes treatments in the Ogden Mountain and Nevada Mountain Inventoried Roadless Areas; commercial harvest and road construction would not occur in the roadless areas. Implementing the Proposed Action could include the use of me‐chanical treatments such as chainsaws, feller bunchers, and cable logging equipment. Prescribed burn treatments may include hand‐slashing of trees prior to burning, and jackpot, broadcast, and under‐burning, The Proposed Action also includes an adaptive management ap‐proach including a replicated design of silvicultural treatments for this project in the mixed severity fire regime where lodgepole pine is the dominant species. This includes utilizing a replicated study with un‐treated "controls" in addition to various variable retention harvests to compare treatment. The controls along with the retention harvests will ensure fair comparisons between treated and untreated sites. Intermixing the untreated controls in the project will also result in patchiness of live trees and snag characteristics within this mixed severity fire regime. Using this approach will also strengthen the learning and collaborative adaptive management of restoration in the mixed severity fire regime.



The following pages display detailed maps of the project area, including proposed treatment types and existing roads. Please see page 6‐7 for treatment descriptions. Additional maps can be found on the HNF website: www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/projects

Dalton Map—Northeast Treatment Descriptions found on page 6



Dalton Map—Southeast Treatment Descriptions found on page 6



Dalton Map Southwest

Treatment Descriptions found on page 6



Dalton Map—Northwest Treatment Descriptions found on page 6



Dalton Proposed Treatment Descriptions

Mechanical Harvest (8,726 total acres) Mechanical Harvest treatments may include the use of chainsaws, feller

bunchers, and cable logging equipment.

Mixed Conifer Aggregated Retention Restoration (438 acres) is proposed in mixed forests with a mixed severity fire regime.

Generally lodgepole pine‐dominated sites with components of Douglas‐fir, subalpine fir, and/or Engelmann spruce. Some areas contain a more equal mix of lodgepole pine and Douglas‐fir.

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) has killed most of the lodgepole pine greater than six inches in diameter.

Treatment would remove much of the dead and dying overstory but leave patches of live trees (Douglas‐fir, subalpine fir, rare spruce and surviving lodgepole pine) mixed with standing dead trees. The live trees would provide seed to naturally regenerate the stand, although some areas could also be planted to increase species diversity where desired.

Proposed treatments are regeneration harvests where residual trees are left onsite indefinitely in scattered individuals and patches ranging from 1/10th of an acre to several acres in size. In most units the harvest would be followed by prescribed burning to clean up logging slash and prepare a seedbed for regeneration.

Mixed Conifer Leave Seed Tree Restoration (547 acres) is also proposed in mixed forest types with a mixed severity fire regime that are similar to the Mixed Conifer Aggregated Retention Restoration mentioned above.

The proposed treatment would remove most of the dead and dying overstory and retain relatively well‐distributed individual or small clumps of living seed trees, primarily Douglas‐fir and spruce. Standing dead trees would not specifi‐cally be left except as needed to meet snag retention goals. The living trees retained would provide seed to naturally regenerate the stand, although some areas could be planted to increase species diversity where desired.

Mixed Conifer Control (681 acres) is proposed in a subset of areas that would otherwise be proposed for Mixed Conifer Aggregated Retention or Leave Seed Tree Retention Restoration as mentioned above.

These areas would not be treated, and utilized as control areas to monitor the success of restoration treatments. Harvest for Fuels Reduction (203 acres) is proposed to reduce fuels around the private property in and adjacent to the

project area.

These areas are primarily dry forests with a generally low severity fire regime containing a mix of Douglas‐fir, lodge‐pole pine, ponderosa pine, and aspen.

MPB has killed most of the lodgepole pine and some of the ponderosa pine. There are variable amounts of ladder fuels, primarily Douglas‐fir, in poor vigor due to western spruce budworm defoliation.

Treatment would focus on removal of infested individuals; thinning to promote surviving ponderosa pine and vigorous large diameter Douglas‐fir; conifer removal to allow for increased aspen vigor and expansion; reduction of small di‐ameter ladder fuels; and reduction of surface fuels.

Proposed treatments include regeneration harvests followed by use of prescribed fire. Dry Forest Harvest Restoration (566 acres) is proposed in dry forest types with a low severity fire regime; these sites sup‐

port primarily mature Douglas‐fir with some ponderosa pine. The highest elevation sites in this category also contain a component of lodgepole pine.

There is some MPB activity in the lodgepole and ponderosa pine as well as some Douglas‐fir barkbeetle activity in the large diameter Douglas‐fir. Western spruce budworm defoliation in Douglas‐fir is also present.

Treatment would mimic natural low‐severity disturbances by thinning out smaller diameter and less vigorous trees to enhance the growing space and vigor of healthy Douglas‐fir and ponderosa pine.

Proposed treatments include an improvement harvest or commercial thin followed by underburning, or, due to mor‐tality, a regeneration harvest to leave the best trees onsite and regenerate vigorous seedlings.

Precommercial Thinning (1,197 acres) is proposed in areas previously harvested and containing dense young trees.

Some sites are infested by MPB.

Thinning would enhance the best trees and provide them with increased growing space. This work may be done by hand with chainsaws or with mechanized equipment to limit the amount of fuels left onsite. Species such as ponder‐osa pine and aspen would be promoted where they occur.

Non‐Mechanical (291 acres) Fuels Reduction by Hand Felling (291 acres) is proposed in previously harvested areas with dense young trees in the

Roadless Areas.

Hand felling will augment fuels reduction goals in adjacent units where prescribed burning is proposed . Prescribed Fire (5,005 total acres) All prescribed fire treatments may include hand‐slashing of primarily smaller diameter trees prior to burning, to prepare the fuel bed and achieve the objectives specified in site‐specific prescriptions.

Retention (765 acres): Fire is excluded from these areas to retain existing habitat characteristics.



Dalton Treatment Descriptions continued No Ignition (355 acres): These areas were previously harvester or are important habitats where little change is desired,

but minimal fire effects are acceptable and necessary for feasibility. Up to 10% of the area may burn with low sever‐ity (generally a backing fire) causing less than 5% tree mortality.

Underburn (423 acres): Proposed in dry forest types with low severity fire regimes. Burn 60‐70% of the area causing 10‐20% mortality in living trees, with some scattered stand replacing patches (live and dead trees) less than 1 acre in size are acceptable.

Sage/Grass (52 acres): Proposed in habitats dominated by shrubs and/or grasses with variable amounts of undesirable conifer encroachment. Burn 50‐60% of the area with low severity. Where sagebrush is present, it is desirable to kill 30%.

Low Severity (334 acres): Proposed in drier mixed forests on a transition between fire regimes where mortality caused by MPB is variable. Burn 60‐70% of the area with low severity to cause less than 20% mortality in living trees, with some stand replacing patches (live and dead trees) 5‐10 acres in size. Regeneration requirements may be specified in the larger stand replacement patches within suitable timber areas.

Mixed Severity ‐ Moderate (1,057 acres): Proposed in moist mixed forests in a mixed severity fire regime, with a mosaic of mountain pine beetle‐caused mortality. The objective is to burn 70‐ 80% of the area to create 0‐20% mortality in living trees, with stand replacing patches (live and dead trees) up to 20 acres in size.

Mixed Severity ‐ High (2,019 acres): Proposed in mixed and stand‐replacing fire regimes, generally moist mixed forests and dense lodgepole pine‐dominated forests which have sustained high mortality from the MPB. The objective is to burn with mixed severity over 70% of the area, killing up to 30% of the live overstory and creating stand replacement patches (live and dead trees) 0‐75 acres in size.

Summary of Treatments in Roadless Areas Nevada Mountain IRA — 1,815 acres in the project area fall in this IRA. Proposed treatment includes prescribed burning on

405 acres, including non‐commercial hand slashing and pre‐treatment of the units.

Ogden Mountain IRA —4,906 acres in the project area fall in this IRA. Proposed treatment includes 248 acres of fuels re‐duction by hand felling, and 2,482 acres of prescribed fire. The prescribed burning includes non‐commercial hand slashing and pre‐treatment of the units.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The project area in‐cludes portions of the Nevada Mountain (#1606) and Ogden Mountain (#1605)

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs).

There will be no roads constructed or reconstructed in the IRAs, and no com‐mercial products re‐moved; only small diameter trees will

be cut for pre‐treatment.

Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project October 6, 2011



Development of the Proposed Action This project was brought to the Forest Service by the Lincoln Restoration Committee (LRC) of the Montana Forest Restora‐tion Committee (MFRC). The MFRC is a collaborative group with representatives from diverse interests who came together in 2007 to address forest stewardship issues. The LRC is a group of private citizens with diverse community interests and was formed in 2008 with the purpose of working within the framework developed by the MFRC and developing recommendations for restoration projects on the Lincoln Ranger District. The Forest Supervisor decided to pursue analysis of the project because it meets Forest Plans goals and objectives and will help move the area toward desired conditions. The Helena National Forest has been working collaboratively with the public in compliance with Executive Order 13352 of August 2004—Facilitation of Co‐operative Conservation. The MFRC adopted 13 restoration principles and an “Appendix C—Restoration in Complex Forest Types” for on‐the‐ground treatments that represent a zone of agreement for all parties. These principles informed the collaborative development of the proposed action. Please see the following website www.montanarestoration.org for more information.

13 Restoration Principles from Appendix C:

It’s easy to stay involved! The Forest Service is just beginning the environmental analysis process and we would like your participation.

Here’s how the process works: 1. We are sending you this proposal in order to get your thoughts about, and alternative suggestions to, the proposal. 2. Once we receive your comments or concerns, we will incorporate them into the proposal where possible. Alternatives to the proposal will be developed as appropriate.

3. We will then analyze the environmental effects of all the alternatives and send you a copy of the analysis.

Please visit the Forest website for more information on how this process works. Unit descriptions, photos, and a detailed

proposed action map will be available on the Forest webpage at : www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/projects/

Comments Written comments may be mailed to: Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District Attn: Amber Kamps 1569 Hwy 200 Lincoln, MT 59639 OR emailed to: [email protected] OR faxed to: (406) 362-4253. Please include the words “Dalton Scoping” in the subject line. Comments received by November 17, 2011 would assist us in developing alter‐natives to the Proposed Action. The formal comment period will occur upon release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

We know it takes an effort to participate in these projects. Thanks for being involved and having an interest in YOUR public lands

1. Restore functioning ecosystems 2. Apply adaptive management 3. Use appropriate scale of analysis to prioritize and design Ac‐

tivities 4. Monitor restoration outcomes 5. Reestablish fire as a natural process 6. Consider social constraints & seek public support for reintro‐

duction of fire 7. Engage the community & interested parties

8. Improve habitat & connectivity 9. Emphasize ecosystem goods & services & sustainable land

management 10. Integrate restoration with socioeconomics 11. Enhance education and recreation activities to build support

for restoration 12. Protect and improve overall watershed health 13. Establish & maintain a safe road and trail system that is ecol‐

ogically sustainable

Preliminary issues 1. Restoration of vegetation

communities 2. Lynx habitat and other

wildlife species 3. Wildfire hazard, risk, and

fuels

The Forest Supervisor will make the following decisions and document them in an Environmental Impact Statement:

Whether to implement the proposed action or an alternative to the proposed action

What monitoring requirements are appropriate to evaluate implementation of this project

Whether a Forest Plan amendment is necessary as a result of the decision for this project. Pre‐liminary analysis indicates there may be a need for a Forest Plan amendment to address open road density and big game hiding cover.

EEO: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, na-tional origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic infor-mation, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohib-ited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimina-tion, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Data Accuracy-The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on modeling or interpre-tation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification.

Documents

DALTON MOUNTAIN FOREST RESTORATION FUELS REDUCTION …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · The Helena National Forest (HNF) is proposing the Dalton Mountain Forest