Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Introduction

87

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Introduction 

This section presents the biological, physical and socioeconomic environments of the affected project area 

and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives as described in Chapter 2.

This chapter is arranged by resource area, starting with an overall introduction to vegetation to provide 

the reader a better understanding of the overall vegetative condition. Following each resource description 

is a discussion of the potential effects (environmental consequences) to the resources associated with the 

implementation of each alternative. Potential effects, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are 

disclosed. Effects are quantified, where possible, and qualitative discussions are also included.

This analysis uses best available science, but recognizes that opposing science exists. A literature review 

of opposing science sent to the project by the public in scoping responses, and the Forest Service 

accompanying response, is available in the project record at the Lincoln Ranger District.

This DEIS incorporates by reference the resource specialist reports in the project record (40 CFR 

1502.21). Specialist reports contain detailed data, executive summaries, regulatory framework, 

assumptions and methodologies, analyses, conclusions, maps, references, and technical documentation 

that the resource specialists relied upon to reach conclusions in the DEIS. 

This DEIS incorporates the Forest Plan by reference and tiers to the FEIS completed for the Forest Plan, 

and amendments. The discussions of resources and potential effects take advantage of existing 

information included in the Forest Plan and other sources as indicated. Where applicable, such 

information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize duplication. The planning record includes 

all project-specific information such as resource reports, ecosystem analyses, and other results of field 

investigations. The record also contains information resulting from public involvement efforts. The 

planning record is available for review by contacting the Helena National Forest office. 

Analyzing Environmental Consequences

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the biological, physical, 

economic, and social environment. The Council of Environmental Quality regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act include a number of specific categories to use for the analysis of 

environmental consequences. Several form the basis of much of the analysis that follows. They are 

explained briefly here. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. 

Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity, but would 

occur in the foreseeable future. The project is expected to be active over approximately the next 7 to 10 

years, or from the time the decision is made to full implementation. Cumulative effects result when the 

incremental effects of actions are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. Past activities 

contributed to the existing condition and are considered in the affected environment. Present and 
Introduction – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

88

reasonably foreseeable future actions are assessed along with the effects of the proposed action to 

determine whether significant cumulative effects may occur. This analysis is consistent with the Council 

on Environmental Quality memo from James L. Connaughton titled “Guidance on the Consideration of 

Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” dated June 24, 2005, incorporated by reference. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, this analysis considers the current environmental conditions as a reflection of the aggregate 

impact of all prior human actions and natural events that affected the environment and might contribute to 

cumulative effects.

The cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding 

up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to 

obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century, and trying to 

isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, 

providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative 

effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less 

accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental 

impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last 

century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, we cannot focus on the impacts of past 

human actions and ignore the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to 

cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture 

all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or 

event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest 

or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality 

issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, 

“agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate 

effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The 

cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008). 

The Helena National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) was reviewed and forest and district 

personnel consulted to identify current and reasonably foreseeable projects on the Lincoln Ranger 

District. Contacts were made with adjacent Forests for proposed activities to be considered for affected 

resources cumulative effects analysis. 

Assessment areas vary by resource, and so do the other actions included in each cumulative effects 

analysis. Cumulative effects may include estimated effects from present logging (timber harvest, fuels 

treatments, road and landing construction and maintenance) and wildfire activities (e.g. suppression 

activities and the affected burn areas). Other actions may include but are not limited to grazing and fuels 

reduction and/or forest health projects in the vicinity. 

Ongoing activities include annual road maintenance, recreation trail use for hiking and snowmobiling, 

dispersed camping, hunting, and appropriate responses for fire suppression. The past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable actions considered for this project analysis are displayed in appendix C on figure 

C-1 (map) with impacts noted in tables C-4, C-5, and C-6. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

89

Vegetation 

Introduction

In this section we describe the current vegetative condition and the factors shaping the current condition 

of the project area, as well as the desired condition and how the current vegetative condition relates to the 

desired condition. This section discusses how three alternative management scenarios would or would not 

move the vegetation from the current condition to or toward the desired condition. We discuss changes in 

stand density, stand structure, species composition and how those changes address the purpose and need 

for the project. 

Methodology

In this section we identify information sources and assumptions used and briefly outline the analysis 

process.

Information Sources

A variety of information sources were used for qualitative and quantitative analysis. These information 

sources are listed below, and are explained in greater detail in volume 2, appendix B. Information sources 

used in this analysis includes:

Individual treatment unit diagnosis from field reviews completed by Helena National Forest 

personnel and last updated in fall 2009. These can be found in project records. 

30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) raster layers from 

which we attained elevation, percent slope and aspect

National Agricultural Imagery Program (USDA Farm Service Agency 2011) aerial photo digital 

imagery 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) grid-intensification sample plot data 

Formal stand exam data collected in 1989, 1991, and 2010 and housed in the Field Sampled 

Vegetation database 

Past management activity contained in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) 

database

Site visits during the summer of 2010 

GIS spatial data acquired from the Helena National Forest including:

VMAP spatial data including classification for tree dominance type, tree canopy cover class, and 

tree diameter

Helena National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) Management Area boundaries 

2001-2010 aerial insect and disease detection (ADS) survey data 

Property ownership boundaries 

Project area boundary

Historic wildfires

Past management activities

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) analysis data including classification for biophysical 

settings and vegetation-fuel classes 

Other literature representing the best available science referenced in this report.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

90

Assumptions

A number of assumptions are made in any analysis. These assumptions range from very small to large in 

scope. In this analysis we do not include as assumptions that natural processes which are certain to 

happen will continue to happen. For example, succession is a natural process constantly occurring due to 

differences in plants abilities to colonize, survive, grow, and propagate as conditions change. The process 

of succession will always happen, however we do include as assumptions factors such as changes in 

climate conditions and the occurrence or non-occurrence of disturbances which can modify the direction 

of succession. Read more about assumptions in volume 2, appendix B. 

Assumptions made in this analysis are listed below:

Current Forest Plan and other pertinent management direction would continue indefinitely into the 

future

In the long-term time frame of the analysis, no additional major disturbances, such as wildfire or bark 

beetle epidemics would occur, the analysis is of future risk and probable effects if the disturbance 

occurs and is not a future projection of the occurrence 

Climate change has occurred to some degree and will continue to occur in the future (Amell 2012), 

ramifications of a changing climate are likely to be (Amell 2012, Karl et al. 2009): 

More of the winter precipitation will fall as rain

Snow levels will raise in elevation

Snow melt will occur earlier in the spring 

The late-spring to summer dry season (fire season) will increase in length

Summer dry seasons will be drier and warmer

Prolonged drought periods will increase, but their occurrence will probably be variable

Storms will become more intense with a larger portion of annual precipitation falling in the 

heaviest storms

Night-time minimum temperatures will increase

Growing season and number of frost-free days will increase

Wildfires are likely to become more frequent and the area burned averaged annually likely greater

Weather conditions conducive to bark beetle mortality are likely to become more frequent 

Climate changes will most likely bring about some change in site characteristics leading to climax 

plant community changes and so Biophysical Setting changes, but the direction and magnitude of 

the changes are unknown and would be very small within the time frame of this analysis 

FIA grid intensification plot data can provide reliable estimates of average vegetation attributes at 

a landscape-level

ADS data can provide a reasonable estimate of the magnitude and spatial location of tree damage and 

mortality on the landscape 

Intensive (formal) stand exam data provide the most accurate estimates of individual stand attributes

Individual informal stand exams and diagnosis can provide reliable descriptions of stand conditions 

Formal and informal field exams from 2009 and 2010 represent the current condition and formal 

exam data taken before that time should be adjusted for bark beetle mortality 

The FACTS database contains the most current and accurate past management activity data

The accomplishment year for analysis purposes is 2012
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

91

No unforeseen occurrences such as fire, blowdown, or insect mortality would occur from 2010 until 

the time of implementation

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling can provide a reasonable estimate of the magnitude and 

direction of proposed treatment effects on individual stands or on forest types 

Remote-sensed data such as VMap can provide reliable landscape-level estimates of forest conditions 

and can be informative at the stand-level if used with caution

The Stonewall Vegetation Project area, at about 24,000 acres is sufficiently large to analyze and 

discuss landscape-level effects

Landscape-level desired conditions contained in the Stone Dry Vegetation Report (Milburn et al. 

2006, Milburn et al. 2006) can also be directly applied to the Stonewall Vegetation Project area.

Analysis Process

In the following analysis we summarize the current condition and reference condition from the Stone Dry 

analysis as the current and desired condition in terms of Biophysical Setting (BpS) and vegetation-fuel 

class (VFC) for the landscape. We also display current conditions for several stands as examples of stand 

structures, species compositions, and stocking levels with discussion of how they do not represent the 

desired condition. 

We analyzed alternative effects by comparing landscape-level changes in vegetation-fuel classes for each 

BpS due to treatment unit changes in vegetation-fuel class. We compare the effects of treatments 

qualitatively and we also model the effects of treatments on stand structure, species compositions, and 

stocking levels for representative stands using available formal stand exam data and the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator program. We also used the Forest Vegetation Simulator Fire and Fuels Extension with stand 

exam data and FIA grid-intensification plot data to model changes in crown bulk density, canopy base 

height, and percent canopy cover for use in modeling fire and fuel effects (Buhl 2012). See the Fire and 

Fuels section for a discussion of fire and fuels effects. 

Overview of Issues Addressed 

The purpose and need for the project includes:

Improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape that is diverse, 

resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects

Modify fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions that allow the 

reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape

Enhance and restore aspen, western larch, and ponderosa pine species and habitats

Utilize economic value of trees with economic removal

Integrate restoration with socioeconomic considerations 

On August 26, 2011 Region 1 Regional Forester Leslie A. C. Weldon designated whitebark pine as a 

sensitive species in the Region. Direction following the designation includes considering the species in 

new analysis.

Indicators

Indicators used in this analysis to discuss how the alternatives would address the purpose and need for the 

project as well as issues relating to wildlife identified from public comments are: 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

92

Within-stand changes in tree species compositions as a result of proposed treatments and the 

proportion of the analysis area on which quaking aspen, western larch, and ponderosa pine would 

increase in presence

Landscape-level changes in species compositions as measured by the acres treated in each 

alternative with an emphasis on benefits to aspen, western larch, ponderosa pine, and whitebark 

pine 

Within-stand changes in stand structures and species compositions in terms of tree diameter 

distributions for proposed treatment type groups 

Landscape-level changes in stand structures in terms of Biophysical Setting (BpS) and 

vegetation-fuel classes as measured by the acres and proportion of change within each 

BpS/vegetation fuel class combination

Forest health in terms of reduced susceptibility (increased resistance) of individual stands and the 

landscape to diseases and insects found within the project area of concern 

Affected Environment

Stonewall Desired Condition

In 2006, the Lincoln Ranger District completed a vegetation report (Stone Dry Vegetation Report, 

Milburn et al. 2006) as part of an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale (EWAS) for the Stone-Dry 

area that includes the Stonewall project area. In the analysis, they used the Fire Regime Condition Class 

(FRCC) system to describe reference vegetative, fuel and fire conditions and to compare them to current 

conditions based on site visits (Milburn et al. 2009, FRCC 2005). The FRCC analysis for the area was 

updated in 2010 (Olson 2010) including updates to the biophysical settings and vegetation-fuel 

classifications. See the discussion in chapter 1for more information about biophysical settings, vegetation 

fuel classes, habitat types, insects and diseases and tree canopies.

Existing Condition

The existing condition of the 24,000 acre project area has been shaped by management activities 

including: (1) many years of fire suppression, (2) 3,473 acres of harvest/regeneration treatments that 

created an early-seral stage following the treatment and of which a few are still providing most of the 

early-seral in the project area, and (3) 1,660 acres of other tree-cutting from 1950 to present. In natural 

fire events, 87 acres were burned in the Snow/Talon Fire (2003), and 261 acres were burned in the Keep 

Cool Fire (2006). In addition, natural processes such as succession, and natural events such as droughts 

are always occurring. 

Table 10 that follows displays the existing condition information for proposed treatment units. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

93

Table 10. Existing condition data for proposed treatment units

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

1 6 35-60 E 47-52 DF 50DF/45LP/5PP 14 200-

450

300-

400

80-

180 12" 100-

175 High

1 7 35-60 E 47-52 DF 50DF/45LP/5PP 17 200-

450

300-

400

80-

180 12" 100-

175 High

1 8 35-60 E 47-52 LP 60LP/40DF/tracePP 62 200-

450

300-

400

80-

180 12" 100-

175 Severe 

1 15 40-55 SW 48 DF 75DF/20PP/5LP/traceAS/

ES 15 250 400 80-

180 16" 100-

120 Low-High

1 23 40-55 E 48-52 LP 60LP/40DF 29 275 0-100 80-

180 12" 140 Severe 

1 24 30-40 NE 52-54 LP 50LP/40DF/trace WL/PP 5 300-

400 Trace 120-

180 12" 140 Severe 

1 26 40-60 E, SE 50-56 DF 65DF/35LP/5PP/ES/AF 65 300 Trace 120-

200 14" 130 Severe 

1 28 35 NW 53-55 LP 60LP/40DF 22 300 200-

600

60-

180 12" 120-

150 Severe 

1 30 15-45 E 52-57 DF 50DF/50LP 14 300 200-

600

80-

180 14" 85-

150 High

1 31 15-45 E 52-57 DF 75DF/25LP/tracePP/AS 16 300 200-

600

80-

180 14" 85-

150 High

1 32 15-45 E 52-57 DF 75DF/25LP/tracePP/AS 45 300 200-

600

80-

180 14" 85-

150 High

1 33 45-55 NE 54-60 DF 60DF/40LP 17 400 200-

600

140-

200 14" 120 High

1 44 50 SW 48-56 DF 50DF/30PP/20LP 97 250-

300 200 120-

200 16" 120 High

1 45 50 SW 48-56 Mix 45LP/35DF/20PP 38 250-

300 200 140-

220 16" 120 Severe 

1 46 0-30 SW 50 Mix 40DF/40LP/15PP/5AF/AS

/ES 251 300 300-

1000

80-

200 16" 180-

200 Severe 

1 47 0-20 S 50 Mix 40DF/40LP/15PP/5AF/AS

/ES 220 300 300-

1000

80-

200 16" 180-

200 Severe 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

94

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

1 54 45-55 NE 54-60 DF 60DF/40LP 20 400 200-

600

140-

200 14" 120 High

1 55 35-55 NE, 

SE 60-64 DF 50DF/40LP/10AF 29 350 200 120 14" 130 High

2 3 0-20 E, SE 46 LP 60LP/15DF/25AS/traceE

S 37 Trace 500 80-

120 6" 45 Low

2 14 0-25 SW 48 Mix 30PP/30DF/15LP/10AS/5

ES 11 400 200 40-

100 9" 30 Low

2 16 30-50 SW 48 DF 90DF/10LP 3 Trace 1000 0 2" 20-30 Low

2 18 0-25 SW 46-48 LP 95LP/5DF/tracePP/WL/A

S 21 Trace 800-1000 0 2" 29 Low

2 21 0-25 SW 46-48 LP 95LP/5DF/tracePP/WL/A

S 6 Trace 800-1000 0 2" 29 Low

2 48 20-35 SW 51-58 Mix 40PP/35LP/15DF 141 400-

500 100 120-140 8" 41 Low

2 49 20-35 SW 50-52 Mix 40DF/30PP/15LP/5AS 49 400-

500 100 120-

140 8" 41 Low

2 50 35-45 SW 51-54 DF 50DF/40DF/5LP/5PP/AS 49 400-

500 100 120-

140 8" 41 Low

2 51 20-35 SW 48-50 Mix 40DF/30PP/15LP/5AS 193 400-

500 100 120-

140 8" 41 Low

2 59 <35% E 60-62 LP WL/AF/LP 16 Trace 600 N/A 4-6" 41 Low

2 60 <35% N 46-50 LP LP/DF/WL 25 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 61 <35% NE 50-54 LP LP/WL/DF 34 Trace 600-

800 N/A 2-3" 29 Low

2 62 <35% NW 52-57 DF DF/LP/AS 37 Trace 600-

800 N/A 2-4" 12-20 Low

2 63 <35% E 57-62 LP LP/AF/DF 17 Trace 600-

800 N/A 8" 41 Low

2 64 <35% N, NE 53-60 LP LP/AF/WL 30 Trace 600 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 65 <35% NE 56-60 LP LP/AF/DF 25 Trace 600-

800 N/A 2-4" 44 Low
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

95

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

2 66 <35% NE 52-56 AF AF/WL/LP 26 Trace 800 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 67 <35% NE 49-52 LP LP/DF/WL 20 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 68 <35% NE 57-59 LP LP/DF/WL 15 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 69 <35% E 50-55 LP LP/DF/WL 31 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 19 Low

2 70 <35% E 48-51 LP LP/DF/WL 39 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 22 Low

2 71 <35% SE 50-52 LP LP/DF/WL 40 Trace 400-

500 N/A 1-2" 22 Low

2 72 <35% SE 48 LP LP/ES/AF 85 Trace 800 N/A 2-9" 49 Low

2 73 <35% SE 46-50 PP PP/DF/LP 33 Trace 600 N/A 4-8" 44 Moderate

2 75 <35% Flat 49 DF DF/LP/PP 148 Trace 600 N/A 2-4" 27 Low

3 1 0-35 E, NE 44-48 LP 80LP/20DF/trace PP/AS 96 300-

400

200-

1000

100-

240 12-14" 75-95 Severe 

3 9 0-30 NE,E 50-52 LP 85LP/15DF/traceAF 18 300-

400

200-

300 140 12" 100 Severe 

3 11 0-10 NE 45 Mix 30LP/20AS/20PP/20DF/1

0ES 23 250 200-

700

120-

200 16" 85/30 Severe 

3 12 0-10 NE 46 LP 50LP/20AS/10DF/15ES/5

PP 80 300 200-600

120-

140 14" 85/30 Severe 

3 13 20-40 E 47 LP 85LP/15DF/traceAS/ES/A

F 41 350 300-700

100-

220 14" 100 Severe 

3 20 5-35 SW 46-48 LP 80LP/20PP/traceDF/AS 32 250-

400

200-

600

120-

200 16" 100 Severe 

3 22 40-55 N 48-50 LP 65LP/30DF/5PP/traceWL/

AS 30 350 200 180 14" 140 Severe 

3 25 40-55 E 52-55 LP 75LP/25DF/traceAF 29 200-

400 300 180 14" 120 Severe 

3 29 10-35 E 50-55 LP 70LP/30DF 25 200 400-

1000

80-

180 11" 100 High

3 34 35-50 SE 54-60 LP 55LP/40DF/5AF 12 300 100- 80- 14" 130 Severe 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

96

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

400 180

3 39 5-25 E to 

SW 48-53 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF/ES/PP 42 400 100-

1000

100-

260 12" 110 Severe 

3 40 5-25 E to 

SW 48-53 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF/ES/PP 11 400 100-

1000

100-

260 12" 110 Severe 

3 41 5-25 E to 

SW 48-53 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF/ES/PP 12 400 100-

1000

100-

260 12" 110 Severe 

3 42 5-25 E to 

SW 48-53 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF/ES/PP 65 400 100-

1000

100-

260 12" 110 Severe 

3 43 5-25 E to 

SW 48-53 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF/ES/PP 104 400 100-

1000

100-

260 12" 110 Severe 

3 53 35-50 SE 54-60 LP 55LP/40DF/5AF 17 300 100-

400

80-

180 14" 130 Severe 

3 57 5-20 SW 50-53 Mix 30PP/30DF/30LP/10AS 93 300 200 80-

160 8" 47 Severe 

3 58 15-35 SW 53-55 Mix 30PP/30DF/30LP/10AS 15 300 200 80-

160 8" 47 Severe 

4 10 5-15 NE 46-48 LP 90LP/5DF/5PP 18 300 250-

700

120-

140 14" 100 Severe 

4 17 5-25 SW 48 LP 70LP/15DF/15PP/traceE

S/WL 38 200-

300 300 120-

220 16" 100 Severe 

4 19 5-35 SW 46-48 LP 80LP/20PP/traceDF/AS 15 250-

400

200-

600

120-

200 16" 100 Severe 

4 27 35-50 NE, 

SE 52-55 LP 60LP/40DF/tracePP/WL 31 400 50-75 100-

160 14" 120-

140 Severe 

4 35 45-55 NE 55-57 LP 85LP/10DF/5AF/ES 24 450 300-

900

100-

200 12" 120-

140 Severe 

4 36 35-65 NE, 

SE 56-59 LP 90LP/10DF/traceES/AF 20 300-

400 200 100-

200 14" 130 Severe 

4 37 20-55 E 58-64 LP 80LP/20DF/traceAF 8 300-

400

300-

500

140-

180 13" 130 Severe 

4 38 20-55 E 58-64 LP 80LP/20DF/traceAF 7 300-

400

300-

500

140-

180 13" 130 Severe 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

97

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

4 52 20-55 E 58-64 LP 80LP/20DF/traceAF 22 300-

400

300-

500

140-

180 13" 130 Severe 

4 56 35-55 NE, 

SE 60-64 LP 80LP/15DF/5AF 17 350 200 120 14" 130 Severe 

4 74 <35% SE 50-53 LP 75LP/25DF/traceAF 23 200-

400 300 100-

120 9-11" 120 Severe 

5 4 0-30 E, SE 45-48 Mix 40LP/25ES/25DF/10AS/tr

acePP 7 250 400 200 10" 90 High

5 5 0-30 E, SE 45-48 Mix 40LP/25ES/25DF/10AS/tr

acePP 18 250 400 200 10" 90 High

6 2 25-55 E, SE 46-53 DF 60DF/30PP/10LP 146 100-

400 100 40-

180 14" 100-

250 High

6 76 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 70DF/20LP/5AF/5WB 123 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variab

le High

6 78 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 70DF/10PP/10LP 38 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variab

le High

6 85 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 80DF/5PP/5LP/traceAF 143 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable 125 Low

7 80 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 80DF/10PP/5LP/traceAS 326 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variab

le Low

7 86 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 90DF/10PP/traceAS 47 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Moderate

7 87 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 60LP/35DF/5AS 36 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Moderate

8 77 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 50LP/5AF/30DF/10PP 736 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Low-High

8 79 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 50LP/40DF/10PP/AS/WB

/AF 337 Variable

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Low-High

8 81 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 70DF/15PP/15LP 629 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Low-High

8 82 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 70LP/15AF/15WB 776 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Low-High

8 83 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 70LP/15AF/15WB 457 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variable Low-High
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

98

DESCRIPTI

ON

GROUP

UNI

T

SLOP

E

ASPE

CT

ELEVATI

ON

FORE

ST 

TYPE

SPECIES COMP ACR

ES

EST. 

TPA 

O/S

EST. 

TPA 

U/S

EST. 

BA

AVERA

GE 

D.B.H.

AGE

MORTALI

TY 

RATING

8 84 Variab

le

Variabl

e

DF 50DF/50LP/5PP/trace AF 831 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variab

le

LowSevere 

8 88 Variab

le

Variabl

e

LP 50LP/20DF/20AF/10WB 892 Variab

le

Variab

le

Variab

le Variable Variab

le

LowSevere 

Asp – Aspect code: NE-northeast, E-east, SE-southeast, S-south, SW-southwest, W-west, NW-northwest

Elev – Elevation in 100’s of feet

Forest Type Code: DF-Douglas-fir, LP-lodgepole pine, Mix-mixed species, PP-ponderosa pine, AF-subalpine fir

Species Comp – Tree species and percent composition:

AF-subalpine fir

AS-aspen

DF-Douglas-fir

ES-Engelmann spruce

LP-lodgepole pine

Mix-mixed species

PP-ponderosa pine

WB-whitebark pine

WL-western larch

Est TPA O/S – Estimated trees per acre (TPA) overstory

Est TPA U/S – Estimated trees per acre understory

Est BA – Estimated basal area in ft2

/acre

Ave d.b.h. – Estimated average diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) in inches

Age – Estimated stand age

Mortality rating:

Severe – estimated more than one-half of basal area dead, High – estimated from one-quarter to one-half of basal area dead, Low – estimated up to one-quarter of basal area dead
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

99

Habitat Types

The project area is heavily dominated by subalpine habitat types which cover about 69 percent of the area, 

Figure 17 and Table 11. Second in presence are Douglas-fir habitat types which cover about 18 percent of 

the area. Whitebark pine-subalpine fir and spruce habitat types each cover only about 0.3 percent of the 

area. The rest of the area is covered by rock, grass, meadows, water or private land. 

For the habitat type coverage in the project area, species such as ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, quaking 

aspen, western larch, and whitebark pine are always or almost always a seral species, and as such would 

decline in presence and eventually die out of the stands without disturbance (Pfister et al.1977, Fischer 

and Bradley 1987). Douglas-fir would be seral to subalpine fir on about 69 percent of the area. More 

discussion of habitat types is in chapter 1.

Figure 17. Stonewall project area habitat types and units
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

100

Table 11. Habitat types for each prescription group and treatment unit

PRESCRIPTION GROUP UNIT NUMBER HABITAT TYPE ACRES

1 6 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 3 

1 6 Douglas-fir/twinflower 11

1 7 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 7 

1 7 Douglas-fir/twinflower 10

1 8 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 46

1 8 Douglas-fir/twinflower 15

1 15 Douglas-fir/snowberry 10

1 15 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 3 

1 23 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 8 

1 23 subalpine fir/beargrass 21

1 24 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 5 

1 26 Douglas-fir/snowberry 39

1 26 subalpine fir/beargrass 14

1 26 subalpine fir/menziesia 12

1 28 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 21

1 30 Douglas-fir/twinflower 13

1 31 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 15

1 32 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 22

1 32 Douglas-fir/snowberry 10

1 32 Douglas-fir/twinflower 10

1 32 subalpine fir/Sitka alder 3 

1 33 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 13

1 33 subalpine fir/huckleberry 2 

1 44 unknown 17

1 44 Douglas-fir/snowberry 80

1 45 unknown 12

1 45 Douglas-fir/snowberry 22

1 45 subalpine fir/beargrass 3 

1 46 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 3 

1 46 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 54

1 46 subalpine fir/beargrass 25

1 46 subalpine fir/twinflower 169

1 47 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 2 

1 47 Douglas-fir/snowberry 2 

1 47 subalpine fir/beargrass 215

1 54 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 18

1 54 subalpine fir/menziesia 2 

1 55 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 9 

1 55 subalpine fir/menziesia 18

2 3 Douglas-fir/snowberry 33

2 3 Douglas-fir/twinflower 3 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

101

PRESCRIPTION GROUP UNIT NUMBER HABITAT TYPE ACRES

2 14 trees-rock 9 

2 16 Douglas-fir/snowberry 2 

2 18 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 20

2 21 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 6 

2 48 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 103

2 48 Douglas-fir/snowberry 22

2 48 subalpine fir/beargrass 17

2 49 Douglas-fir/snowberry 6 

2 49 subalpine fir/Sitka alder 43

2 50 Douglas-fir/snowberry 46

2 51 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 181

2 51 Douglas-fir/snowberry 9 

2 51 subalpine fir/beargrass 3 

2 59 subalpine fir/menziesia 16

2 60 subalpine fir/twinflower 25

2 61 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 33

2 62 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 20

2 62 subalpine fir/Sitka alder 17

2 63 subalpine fir/menziesia 17

2 64 subalpine fir/menziesia 30

2 65 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 3 

2 65 subalpine fir/menziesia 22

2 66 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 2 

2 66 subalpine fir/twinflower 25

2 67 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 20

2 68 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 13

2 68 subalpine fir/menziesia 2 

2 69 subalpine fir/bedstraw 31

2 70 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 39

2 71 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 9 

2 71 spruce-moist 30

2 72 subalpine fir/twinflower 85

2 73 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 33

2 75 subalpine fir/beargrass 145

2 75 subalpine fir/twinflower 2 

3 1 Douglas-fir/snowberry 5 

3 1 Douglas-fir/twinflower 88

3 1 pvt 2 

3 9 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 18

3 11 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 12

3 11 subalpine fir/bluejoint 9 

3 12 unknown 79
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

102

PRESCRIPTION GROUP UNIT NUMBER HABITAT TYPE ACRES

3 13 unknown 2 

3 13 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 3 

3 13 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 32

3 13 trees-rock 2 

3 20 Douglas-fir/snowberry 20

3 20 subalpine fir/twinflower 12

3 22 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 27

3 22 subalpine fir/menziesia 2 

3 25 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 23

3 25 subalpine fir/beargrass 4 

3 25 subalpine fir/menziesia 2 

3 29 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 20

3 29 Douglas-fir/twinflower 5 

3 34 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 3 

3 34 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 2 

3 34 subalpine fir/twinflower 7 

3 39 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 12

3 39 subalpine fir/beargrass 4 

3 39 subalpine fir/pinegrass 4 

3 39 subalpine fir/twinflower 21

3 40 subalpine fir/beargrass 9 

3 41 subalpine fir/beargrass 10

3 41 subalpine fir/twinflower 2 

3 42 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 3 

3 42 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 19

3 42 subalpine fir/beargrass 10

3 42 subalpine fir/twinflower 32

3 43 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 6 

3 43 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 7 

3 43 subalpine fir/twinflower 92

3 53 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 13

3 53 subalpine fir/menziesia 4 

3 57 Douglas-fir/snowberry 93

3 58 Douglas-fir/snowberry 15

4 10 subalpine fir/twinflower 18

4 17 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 28

4 17 trees-rock 8 

4 19 subalpine fir/twinflower 15

4 27 Douglas-fir/snowberry 12

4 27 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 18

4 35 Douglas-fir/snowberry 5 

4 35 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 18
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

103

PRESCRIPTION GROUP UNIT NUMBER HABITAT TYPE ACRES

4 36 subalpine fir/beargrass 15

4 36 subalpine fir/menziesia 5 

4 37 subalpine fir/beargrass 6 

4 37 subalpine fir/menziesia 2 

4 38 subalpine fir/beargrass 7 

4 52 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 3 

4 52 subalpine fir/beargrass 12

4 52 subalpine fir/menziesia 7 

4 56 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 14

4 56 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 2 

4 74 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 15

4 74 subalpine fir/Sitka alder 6 

5 4 Douglas-fir/twinflower 7 

5 5 Douglas-fir/twinflower 9 

5 5 subalpine fir/twinflower 9 

6 2 Douglas-fir/snowberry 134

6 2 Douglas-fir/twinflower 3 

6 2 subalpine fir/twinflower 2 

6 2 spruce-moist 5 

6 76 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 48

6 76 subalpine fir/beargrass 68

6 76 subalpine fir/menziesia 7 

6 78 Douglas-fir/snowberry 30

6 78 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 8 

6 85 Douglas-fir/snowberry 106

6 85 subalpine fir/beargrass 37

7 80 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 66

7 80 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 14

7 80 Douglas-fir/snowberry 243

7 80 subalpine fir/beargrass 3 

7 86 Douglas-fir/snowberry 35

7 86 subalpine fir/beargrass 13

7 87 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 7 

7 87 Douglas-fir/snowberry 8 

7 87 subalpine fir/beargrass 11

7 87 subalpine fir/menziesia 5 

7 87 subalpine fir/twinflower 6 

8 77 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 17

8 77 Douglas-fir/snowberry 256

8 77 Douglas-fir/twinflower 32

8 77 pvt 5 

8 77 subalpine fir/Sitka alder 25
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

104

PRESCRIPTION GROUP UNIT NUMBER HABITAT TYPE ACRES

8 77 subalpine fir/queencup beadlily 24

8 77 subalpine fir/beargrass 349

8 79 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 72

8 79 Douglas-fir/snowberry 76

8 79 grass-trees 8 

8 79 subalpine fir/beargrass 180

8 81 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 43

8 81 Douglas-fir/snowberry 238

8 81 subalpine fir/beargrass 349

8 82 subalpine fir/beargrass 724

8 82 subalpine fir/menziesia 48

8 82 subalpine fir/twinflower 3 

8 83 rock 57

8 83 subalpine fir/beargrass 295

8 83 subalpine fir/woodrush 31

8 83 trees-rock 74

8 84 Douglas-fir/huckleberry 2 

8 84 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 168

8 84 Douglas-fir/snowberry 159

8 84 grass-trees 14

8 84 subalpine fir/beargrass 466

8 84 subalpine fir/menziesia 21

8 88 Douglas-fir/pinegrass 6 

8 88 rock 51

8 88 subalpine fir/beargrass 471

8 88 subalpine fir/twinflower 11

8 88 subalpine fir/woodrush 101

8 88 trees-rock 225

Biophysical Settings

Biophysical Settings are land delineations based on the physical setting, (e.g. elevation and aspect) and 

the potential vegetation community that can occupy the setting. A national team has established in the 

FRCC system a set of descriptions for BpS found within regions of the United States (FRCC 2005). HNF 

ecologists, fuel specialists, and silviculturists reviewed the BpS descriptions applicable to the Stone Dry 

area and determined that the descriptions could be used for the Stone Dry area without modification 

(Milburn et al. 2009). For the Stone Dry analysis, HNF personnel spatially assigned BpS based upon 

habitat type (Milburn et al. 2009). Table 12 identifies acres of biophysical settings by unit.

Table 12. Unit biophysical setting acreages

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

1 Barren 3 

1 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 134

10 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 44
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

105

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

11 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 50

12 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 130

13 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 95

14 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 47

15 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 51

16 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 12

17 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 95

18 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 62

19 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 50

2 Barren 5 

2 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 2 

2 Mountain Shrubland 0 

2 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 178

20 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 72

21 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 23

22 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 84

23 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 3 

23 Mountain Shrubland 5 

23 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 50

24 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 7 

24 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 14

25 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 21

25 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 3 

25 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 53

26 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 33

26 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 2 

26 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 96

27 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 3 

27 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 77

28 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 13

28 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 50

29 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 3 

29 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 60

3 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 68

30 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 2 

30 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 40

31 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 5 

31 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 46

32 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 39

32 Mountain Shrubland 0 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

106

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

32 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 58

33 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 23

33 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 2 

33 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 25

34 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 31

34 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 4 

35 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 53

35 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 6 

36 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 42

36 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 5 

37 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 28

38 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 9 

38 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 21

39 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 67

4 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 30

40 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 29

41 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 34

42 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 126

43 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 204

44 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 3 

44 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 185

45 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 25

45 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 74

46 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 365

47 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 284

48 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 14

48 Mountain Shrubland 1 

48 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 223

49 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 79

5 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 37

50 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 15

50 Mountain Shrubland 1 

50 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 89

51 Barren 4 

51 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 242

52 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 68

52 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2 

53 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 40

53 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2 

54 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 53
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

107

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

54 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2 

55 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 21

55 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 46

56 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 10

56 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 38

57 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 173

58 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 21

58 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 29

59 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 19

59 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 37

6 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 57

60 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 58

61 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 65

62 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 50

62 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 27

63 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 43

63 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 24

64 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 49

64 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2 

64 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 30

65 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 50

65 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 4 

65 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 3 

66 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 33

66 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 41

67 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 14

67 Mountain Shrubland 2 

67 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 41

68 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 29

68 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 15

68 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 5 

69 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 16

69 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 20

69 Mountain Shrubland 5 

69 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 39

7 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 39

70 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 70

71 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 90

72 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 158

73 Barren 3 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

108

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

73 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 63

74 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 7 

74 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 72

75 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 195

76 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 88

76 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 74

76 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 29

77 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 335

77 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 369

77 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 224

78 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 90

79 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 208

79 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 111

79 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 1 

79 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 96

8 Barren 3 

8 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 136

80 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 106

80 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 317

81 Barren 4 

81 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 264

81 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 333

81 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 202

81 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 3 

82 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 150

82 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 503

82 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 23

82 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 5 

82 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 237

83 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 109

83 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 37

83 Mountain Shrubland 4 

83 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 359

83 Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest 64

84 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 410

84 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 296

84 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 8 

84 Mountain Shrubland 3 

84 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 245

84 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 21
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

109

Unit Biophysical Setting Acres

85 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 86

85 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 62

85 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 84

86 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 3 

86 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 78

87 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 29

87 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 104

88 Barren 1 

88 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 154

88 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 334

88 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 41

88 Mountain Shrubland 16

88 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 2 

88 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 384

88 Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest 86

9 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 42

Table 13. Treatment group biophysical settings

Prescription 

Group Biophysical Setting Acres

Percent

of 

Group

1 Barren 3 0.1 

1 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 216 11.6 

1 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 48 2.6 

1 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 14 0.8 

1 Mountain Shrubland 5 0.3 

1 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 1571 84.6 

2 Barren 7 0.3 

2 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 318 14.6 

2 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 82 3.7 

2 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 34 1.5 

2 Mountain Shrubland 10 0.4 

2 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 1729 79.4 

3 Barren 9 0.5 

3 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 116 6.8 

3 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2 0.1 

3 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 5 0.3 

3 Mountain Shrubland 0 0.0 

3 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 1564 92.2 

4 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 186 29.5 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

110

Prescription 

Group Biophysical Setting Acres

Percent

of 

Group

4 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 88 14.0 

4 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 7 1.1 

4 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 350 55.4 

5 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 68 100.0 

6 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 173 33.8 

6 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 136 26.5 

6 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 204 39.7 

7 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 138 21.6 

7 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 499 78.4 

8 Barren 5 0.1 

8 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry) 1520 26.9 

8 Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist) 2056 36.4 

8 Mountain Grassland with Shrubs 110 1.9 

8 Mountain Shrubland 23 0.4 

8 Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 773 13.7 

8 Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest 1005 17.8 

8 Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest 150 2.7 

Insects and Diseases

Mountain Pine Beetle

The role of mountain pine beetle in ecosystems where lodgepole pine is seral is to remove the larger, 

dominant lodgepole pine and increase growing space for understory late-seral species such as subalpine 

fir and Douglas-fir, hastening succession (Amman 1977). Mountain pine beetle in these ecosystems also 

plays a role in converting stands from even-aged and single-story to uneven-aged and multi-story (Cole 

and Amman 1980). 

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestations are closely related to host tree age, size, and density. Larger 

diameter trees are attacked by mountain pine beetle at higher rates than smaller diameter trees, and trees 

less than 5 inches d.b.h. have very low levels of attack (Cole and Amman 1969, Roe and Amman 1970, 

Cole and Amman 1980, Klein et al. 1978). VMap data shows that before the recent MPB outbreak, about 

5,300 acres (22 percent of the project area) was dominated by lodgepole or ponderosa pine in or greater 

than a 5 to 9.9 inches d.b.h. size class. This could be considered a substantial portion of the landscape 

susceptible to mountain pine beetle, and does not include the area containing lodgepole or ponderosa pine 

where they are not dominant. Available stand data from recently examined stands in the project area 

containing lodgepole pine that has been severely impacted by MPB had average diameters greater than 8 

inches d.b.h. (table 10).

Mountain pine beetle risk increases in lodgepole pine stands with an average age greater than 80 years old 

(Amman et al. 1990). Available stand data indicates that examined stands in the project area containing 

lodgepole severely impacted by mountain pine beetles had stand ages greater than 80 (table 10). 

Mountain pine beetle risk also increases with stand stocking levels (Larsson et al. 1983, Anhold and 

Jenkins 1987, Negron et al. 2008, Obezinski et al. 1999, Oliver 1995, Olsen et al. 1996, Schmitz et al. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

111

1981) and the proportion of stocking in susceptible species. In terms of basal area stocking Olsen et al. 

(1996) found greater MPB mortality in ponderosa pine where tree density exceeded 200 TPA and where 

BAs were between 150 and 250 ft2

, Larson et al. (1983) found an attack threshold in ponderosa pine of 

about 91 ft2

, Amman and Logan (1998) described a basal area of 80 ft2/acre in lodgepole pine as a 

threshold for susceptibility. Available stand data indicates that examined stands in the project area 

containing lodgepole severely impacted by mountain pine beetles had stand basal areas greater than 80 

(table 10).

Available research indicates that mountain pine beetle epidemics continue until the available bark beetle 

habitat is sufficiently reduced that epidemic levels can no longer be sustained (Cole and Amman 1969, 

Roe and Amman 1970, Cole and Amman 1980, Klein et al. 1978, Mitchell and Preisler 1991). Available 

stand data from 2009 and 2010 show that most of the larger, mature lodgepole pines are dead. Given this, 

we suspect that the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic in the project area has probably peaked is now 

declining because the supply of host trees has been depleted. Ponderosa and whitebark pine are also 

present in the project area and extensive mortality has also been recorded on those species. 

Douglas-fir Beetle

Characteristics such as poor growth and stand density have been shown to be related to Douglas-fir beetle 

mortality (Negron 1998). Maintaining tree vigor and reducing moisture stress is important to reducing 

bark beetle hazard in interior Douglas-fir (Furniss and Carolin 1977, Schmitz and Gibson 1996). 

Douglas-fir beetle tends to attack trees that are mature or overmature, large-diameter, and in denselystocked stands (Schmitz and Gibson 1996, Furniss et al. 1979, Reid and Glubish 2001, Garrison-Johnson 

et al. 2003). 

Higher stand density and high density in Douglas-fir results in higher mortality with basal area of 

Douglas-fir being the best predictor variable for basal area (BA) killed (McMillin and Allen 2000, Negron 

et al. 2001). Weatherby and Thier (1993) developed a rating model for Douglas-fir beetle which included 

stand basal areas of greater than 27.5 m2

/ha (119 ft2) and proportion of stand basal area in Douglas-fir

greater than 50 percent integrated which stand age and average tree size as thresholds for susceptibility. 

Randall and Tensmeyer (1999) developed a hazard rating system for the Inland Northwest integrating 

average Douglas-fir d.b.h., average stand age, stand BA and Douglas-fir percent of stand BA. In their 

system, if percent stand BA in Douglas-fir was 30-50, and stand BA 120 to 250 then hazard was high. For 

values greater than those resulted in hazard being very high.

Douglas-fir beetle prefers old trees because of their abundance of food and lower defense mechanisms 

and so the oldest, largest trees are the most susceptible. Furniss (1962), when studying the infestation 

patterns of Douglas-fir beetle that trees from 150 to 250 years old were exclusively attacked. Weatherby 

and Thier (1993) used an age of 120 years as a threshold for susceptibility in their DBF risk rating system. 

Randall and Tensmeyer (1999) used an average stand age of 80-120 years as a parameter for a hazard 

rating of moderate, with age greater than 120 a parameter for a hazard rating of high or greater.

Douglas-fir beetle shows a preference for attacking large-diameter trees. Negron noted that they rarely 

attack trees less than 15.2 cm (6 inches) d.b.h. (Negron 1998). Weatherby and Thier (1993) included a 

stand average d.b.h. of all Douglas-firs greater than 22.9 cm (9 inches d.b.h.) as a threshold for 

susceptibility in their DFB risk rating system. Randall and Tensmeyer (1999) used an average Douglas-fir 

diameter of 10-14 inches d.b.h. a parameter for a hazard rating of moderate, with greater than 14 a 

parameter for a hazard rating of high or greater. 

Also, damage by fires has been shown to initiate Douglas-fir beetle attack. Douglas-fir injured by fires, 

especially by crown scorch, attract and can be susceptible to DFB (Furniss 1965, Cunningham et al. 2005, 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

112

Hood and Bentz 2007). Cunningham et al. (2005) found that 1 year after a fire event the Douglas-fir 

beetle selected and attacked large-diameter Douglas-fir with 60%–80% bole char, 60–80 percent crown 

volume scorch, and 50–70 percent probability of mortality due to fire. Hood and Bentz (2007) found that 

beetles were attracted to trees with high levels of crown scorch but not cambium injury. Hood and Bentz 

(2007) study also suggested that that tree size, stand conditions, and host availability were slightly more 

important in determining the likelihood of beetle attacks than fire injuries sustained by trees. 

ADS data suggests that DFB is present at endemic levels. Stand-level data is available for only a portion 

of the stands within the project area and so we did not be model DFB hazard on the landscape. We discuss

DFB hazard on the landscape from available exam data and the effects of alternatives on DFB hazard in 

individual treatment units. 

Available data does show that many heavily forested stands in the project area contain mature Douglas-fir 

which is susceptible to bark beetles. Of the FVS grid-intensification plots in the project area, 60 percent 

could be classified as high hazard under Randall and Tensmeyer’s (1999) rating scheme. 

Western Spruce Budworm

Western spruce budworm’s (Choristoneura fumiferana) primary hosts are Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, 

and true firs. Western spruce budworm (WSB) feeds on foliage, staminate flowers and developing cones 

(Fellin and Dewey 2012). WSB infestations can be prolonged, widespread and destructive. Regeneration 

and young stands are particularly vulnerable when growing beneath a canopy of overstory trees because 

larvae disperse from the overstory and feed on the small trees below. WSB’s greatest impact in mature 

stands is reduced growth, although repeated defoliation sometimes results in top-killing and tree 

mortality. Multi-story, dense stands are especially prone to developing high levels of WSB and 

susceptible to WSB damage (Carlson and Wulff 1989). Trees severely defoliated by the WSB may be 

predisposed to one or more species of tree-killing bark beetles, mainly the Douglas-fir beetle, and the fir 

engraver beetle (Scolytus ventralis). Budworm populations are usually regulated by combinations of 

several natural factors such as insect parasites, vertebrate and invertebrate predators, and adverse weather 

conditions. If stands become heavily defoliated during prolonged outbreaks, starvation can become

important in regulating WSB populations (Fellin and Dewey 2012). 

Swetnam and Lynch (1993) studied WSB outbreaks in New Mexico from 1690 to 1989 using tree ring 

records and found that WSB outbreaks tended to be cyclical with periods varying from 20-33 years, 

duration within stands of about 11 years. They observed that budworm activity in the 1900’s was 

unusually severe and tended to be more synchronous among stands than during earlier centuries, which 

they suggested was due to changes in stand structures due to man’s influence. Ryerson et al. (2003) in a 

reconstruction of SPB in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado, did not find significant 20th-century changes 

in the frequency of outbreak occurrence or magnitude of growth reduction. 

Acreage affected by WSB declined in 2010 continues to be present in the project area. Many of the stands 

in the project area are multi-story and dense, with a high proportion of the stocking being in susceptible 

species. Of the FIS grid-intensification plots, 60 percent have greater than one-half of the BA stocking in 

WSB host species and another 20 percent although BA stocking of WSB host species is less than 50 

percent, the TPA stocking in host species in high due to the large number of small trees. All of the plots 

can be considered multi-story. 

White Pine Blister Rust

White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) has led to a rapid and precipitous decline in whitebark pine 

throughout Montana (appendix B). Five units proposed for prescribed burning (Units 76, 79, 82, 83, 88) 

are shown in available data to contain whitebark pine. Although little data is available concerning the 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

113

condition of whitebark pine in those units, Forest and Inventory Analysis data for the Helena NF recorded 

white pine blister rust on about 19% of the live whitebark pine trees in the plots. However, blister rust 

surveys of whitebark pine in two stands south of the Stonewall project area on the Helena National Forest 

done in 2007 and 2009 found 74 and 97 percent WPBR infection levels (see WBP Survey_granite.xls and 

WBP Survey_redmtn6253.xls in project records). Given that the purpose of the blister rust surveys was to 

closely examine trees for the presence of blister rust, we suspect infection levels within the project area to 

be closer to the survey values than that shown in FIA data. Also, given the widespread presence and 

impacts of the disease throughout the Intermountain West (appendix B), there is no reason to believe that 

the condition is not similar to other places in the state. 

Dwarf Mistletoe 

Dwarf mistletoes (DMT, Arceuthobium spp.) are a family of native parasitic plants that extract water and 

nutrients from living conifers. DMT reduces tree vigor, causing irregular branching, branch kill, and top 

kill. Premature death eventually follows, usually aided by secondary bark beetles (Hawksworth and 

Johnson 1989). The parasitic activity of DMT causes reduced tree diameter and height growth, decreased 

cone and seed production, direct tree mortality, or predisposition of other pathogens and insects (Geils et 

al. 2002). In the long term, DMT in heavily invested seral-species stands can accelerate the shift toward 

climax non-host tree species (Geils et al. 2002). Stand data shows that in the project area, lodgepole pine 

is being affected in many stands by A. americanum at levels ranging from light to heavy. In most of the 

stands the infected overstory has been recently killed by MPB but remaining smaller understory lodgepole 

is probably infected also.

Armillaria

Stand data indicates that several stands contain root rot pockets, probably by armillaria root disease 

(Armillaria ostoyae) although the stand data did not definitively establish armillaria as the cause. The root 

rot pockets appear to be generally small. Armillaria root disease can result in tree mortality, growth 

reduction and wood decay. 

Armillaria can infect all conifers found in the area, but susceptibility varies between the species. The 

general descending order of susceptibility to armillaria root disease is: ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, 

Douglas-fir, western larch, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir (McDonald et al. 1987). Tree growth and 

vigor also affects susceptibility to armillaria, although study results are mixed. Filip and Goheen (1995) 

found that precommercially thinning 10- to 20-year-old mixed species stands significantly increased tree 

growth but after 10 years, difference in crop-tree mortality between thinned and unthinned stands was not 

statistically significant. In ponderosa pine, Filip and Goheen (1995) found that 20 years following 

precommercial thinning, crop-tree mortality in unthinned plots was twice that of thinned plots. In the 

same plots, Filip et al. (2009) found that seven years after commercial thinning was in leave trees less 

than thinned plots than in unthinned plots. Armillaria root rot is difficult to control because disease is 

nearly impossible to eliminate from a site (Rippy et al. 2005). The impacts of armillaria root disease can 

be reduced by: 

Favoring more resistant/tolerant tree species.

Maintaining tree species diversity.

Reforesting stands with locally adapted species suitable to the site.

Promoting tree vigor by minimizing stress and avoiding wounds. 

Reducing inoculum sources through the uprooting of stumps and removal of woody debris 

See more about tree mortality and damage for proposed units from insects and disease in chapter 1.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

114

Stand Structures and Species Compositions

It can be useful to display stand species compositions and structures through the use of “diameter 

distributions” which display the number of trees present within diameter ranges. In this analysis, we 

display example stand diameter distributions in terms of trees-per-acre (TPA) within 2-inch diameter-atbreast-height (d.b.h.) classes. Note that within the diameter distribution scheme used in this analysis, what 

is displayed as the “1-inch” d.b.h. class displays the TPA for trees less than a 1-inch d.b.h.; the 2-inch 

d.b.h. class displays TPA for trees greater than or equal to 1 inch and less than three inches, and so on. 

The 1-inch d.b.h. class is often not displayed because the large number of trees in that class makes it 

difficult to see the species compositions of larger d.b.h. classes. 

Figure 18 displays the diameter distribution for Stand 42303130. The stand has an estimated 1,442 total 

TPA live with 610 in the 1-inch class (not displayed) and 201 TPA dead due largely to the recent bark 

beetle outbreak (not displayed). The stand has about 167 ft2 of basal area. The distribution is a very steep 

“reverse-J” shape with large numbers of trees in the smallest d.b.h. classes indicating that it is multi-story 

with a dense understory. 

Figure 18. Stand 42303130 current condition diameter distributions

Figure 19 displays the diameter distribution for a plantation in the Stonewall Project Area. The species 

composition and diameter distribution suggests that the stand was planted to ponderosa pine and Douglasfir, the trees forming the 4-inch to 10-inch d.b.h. class. The trees in the 1-inch and 2-inch d.b.h. classes are 

likely naturally-established. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

115

Figure 19. Plantation current condition diameter distributions

Figure 20 displays the current condition of Stand 41502088 in the Stonewall Project area. Dead and live 

trees are displayed to show the degree of mortality due to the recent mountain pine beetle outbreak. Most 

of the larger lodgepole pines have been killed. The stand is proposed for a harvest/regeneration treatment 

in this analysis.

Figure 20. Stand 41502088 current condition diameter distributions

Figure 21 and figure 22 display the current condition of Stand 42502089 in the Stonewall Project area. 

Only live trees are displayed. The stand currently has 317 TPA and 110 ft2 BA. Figure 22 displays the 

diameter distribution with the smallest size class removed so that the minor lodgepole pine and ponderosa 

pine components show up better. The figures display a stand average species composition but it should be 

noted that the distribution of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine in the stand area was very clumpy. 

Mortality in the stand shows an average of 4 TPA dead for lodgepole and ponderosa pine and 15 TPA 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

116

dead for Douglas-fir greater than 10 inches d.b.h. The low average mortality for ponderosa and lodgepole 

pine reflects the proportion of stocking in the stand. Other stand data indicates that most of the larger 

lodgepole within the stand have died. The mortality for Douglas-fir indicates that Douglas-fir beetle may 

have impacted the stand in the last few years. 

Figure 21. Stand 41502089 current condition diameter distributions all d.b.h. classes

Figure 22. Stand 41502089 current condition diameter distribution without 1-inch d.b.h. class

Figure 23 displays the diameter distribution for Stand 415020066. Live and dead trees are displayed. The 

stand has about live 717 TPA and 187 feet2

 BA. It is proposed to have a pre-commercial thin and to have 

dead trees removed in the Stonewall Project.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

117

Figure 23. Stand 415020066 current condition diameter distributions

Figure 24displays the diameter distribution for Stand 41502043. Live and dead trees are displayed. The 

stand has about live 385 live TPA, 126 dead TPA and 90 ft2

 BA. It is proposed to be thinned under 

alternative 2 and underburned under alternative 3 in the Stonewall Project. 

Figure 24. Stand 41502043 current condition diameter distribution

Figure 25 displays the diameter distribution for Stand 415020056. Live and dead trees are displayed. The 

stand has about live 575 live TPA, 239 dead TPA and 73 ft2 BA. It is proposed to be regenerated under 

alternative 2 and underburned under alternative 3 in the Stonewall Project. 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

118

Figure 25. Stand 41501056 current condition diameter distributions

Tree Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine

VMap data classifies 147 acres (about 0.6 percent) of the project area as having ponderosa pine as the 

dominant tree species with greater than 40 percent of the total tree canopy cover. About 32 percent of the 

area is within the Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir BpS indicating that following the FRCC system based upon 

the physical setting and potential vegetation community we could expect to find ponderosa pine in a 

substantial portion of the area. Exams are available for only a portion of the project area, but available 

exams in proposed treatment units show ponderosa pine as a minor component (less than10 percent of 

stocking) in about 23 percent of the proposed treatment area and as a substantial component (equal to or 

greater than10 and less than 40 percent) on about 37 percent of the proposed treatment area. 

The available data indicates that ponderosa pine is present on a substantial portion of the landscape, 

roughly ranging from about 32 to 60 percent, but is the major species on a very small portion of the 

landscape. The ponderosa pine can be considered as a seral species.

Quaking Aspen 

VMap data does not show any quaking aspen-dominated stands within the project area which indicates 

that quaking aspen within the project did not dominate in sufficiently large area to be classified as the 

VMap data was created. Available exam data shows that aspen can be found in a number of units 

proposed for treatment, but always as a minor component. Although not observed and recorded in stand 

exams, very small aspen clones may be found in other units. The aspen can be considered seral to either 

subalpine fir or Douglas-fir, depending upon the unit and site. In many unit exams, the aspen is simply 

recorded as being present, as rare, or as a trace; while in several other units it comprises a substantial, 

although still minor, portion of the stocking( e.g. Unit 3). Comments concerning the aspen in unit exams 

range from “suppressed in the understory” to “vigorous in the overstory, but proportionally not much 

suckering.” In general, we can characterize aspen in proposed units and the project area as: (1) small 

clones, (2) heavily competing with to suppressed by conifers, and (3) a minor stand component (with a 

few exceptions).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

119

Western Larch

VMap data does not classify any area as being dominated by western larch indicating that the species is 

not present in sufficient quantities to be classified. Western larch is present in the project area, but 

available exam data for proposed treatment units shows the species as a minor component on about 3 

percent of the proposed treatment area, except for one stand, which is a plantation. Available data, then, 

suggests that western larch is a very minor component on the landscape and in almost all stands, but many 

sites in the area could probably support it. 

Whitebark pine

VMap data shows whitebark pine as the dominant tree species on about four percent of the project area, 

most in the highest elevations in the north side of the area. Available data mentions the species as present 

in treatment within Groups 6, 7, and 8, (Units 76, 79, 82, 83, 88) and although not recorded in available 

treatment unit diagnosis sheets (see analysis file), available FIA grid intensification plots in the project 

area recorded whitebark pine as present within about 11% of the plots. There are only 16 FIA grid 

intensification plots within the project area, but they are uniformly distributed whereas the treatment 

units, except for the treatment units listed above, are generally lower elevation. 

As stated above, a substantial portion (19%) to most (74% to 97%) of the whitebark pine on the Helena 

NF area can be considered infected by white pine blister rust (appendix B). In all FIA plots on the Helena 

NF, about 27 percent of the whitebark pine trees recorded were dead.

Whitebark pine in the Stonewall Project units is considered seral to subalpine fir. On sites where it is a 

seral species in the Northern Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine depends upon fire to maintain its 

dominance or presence (Arno 2001, Keane 2001, Kendall and Keane 2001, Morgan and Murray 2001). In 

the absence of fire, subalpine fir has increased in presence, and the combination of increases in subalpine 

fir and whitebark pine mortality and lack of regeneration due to white pine blister rust and mountain pine 

beetle have resulted in a decline in whitebark pine.

Environmental Consequences

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

We used three spatial scales for the effects analysis that follows. The spatial scale used depends upon the 

measurement indicator discussed. First, we discuss treatment effects on individual trees or classes of 

trees, for example, the increase in growth, vigor or size of small aspen clones due to the removal of 

competing conifers. Second, we discuss treatment effects on stand-level or unit-level attributes, for 

example, changes in species compositions. Third, we discuss treatment effects on a landscape scale, for 

example, the mixture of stand structures over the landscape. We chose the project area as the largest 

spatial scale for this analysis because it includes all Forest System land that: (1) includes the proposed 

treatment areas, (2) is bounded on the north, northwest, and west sides by drainage divides, and (3) at 

about 24,000 acres, is sufficiently large to analyze and discuss effects to forest vegetation on a landscapelevel without ‘diluting’ the magnitude of the effects with a large area.

The year 2010 is the existing condition baseline used for this analysis. Proposed treatment stands were 

last examined in fall 2009 and 2010, briefly visited in summer 2010, and the last ADS survey used in this 

analysis was done in 2010. Short-term effects refer to effects over the 10-year period from the time the 

activity was accomplished which, for the purpose of modeling in this analysis, is assumed to be the year 

2012 (although we do not know exactly when the activity would be accomplished). Long-term effects 

refer to effects from 10 to 50 years from the time the activity was accomplished. All pertinent past 

activities and events are incorporated into the previous existing condition discussion. In the cumulative 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

120

effects analysis that follows, cumulative effects are discussed as changes in the existing condition due to 

present and future activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. 

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

Past Activities

Past activities that have shaped the existing condition discussed and displayed in this document include: 

(1) 3,872 acres of harvest/regeneration treatments, (2) 373 acres of other harvests cutting, (3) 822 acres of 

pre-commercial thinning, and (4) 7,922 acres of fuels treatments from 1950 to present (table 10), although 

some of these treatments were on the same area and so the acreages are not accumulative. In addition to 

the management actions, vegetation has been shaped by (1) 87 acres in the Snow/Talon Fire (2003), (2) 

261 acres in the Keep Cool Fire (2006), and (3) insect and disease activity as discussed previously. Other 

past actions, such as livestock grazing and recreational activities have played a small role in shaping 

forest vegetation in the project area, or played a localized role. As mentioned above, these activities have 

been considered in describing the current condition. 

Present Activities

Appendix C displays all of the past, ongoing and foreseeable projects identified by the HNF for possible 

consideration in this analysis. Activities that when combined with the proposed activities could contribute 

to cumulative effects were considered in this analysis. Some of the activities listed are not considered in 

this analysis because they are (1) outside of the analysis area used in this analysis, or (2) have no effect on 

the forest vegetation issue indicators addressed in this analysis, or (3) have such a small effect on the 

forest vegetation issue indicators used in this analysis that they are inconsequential to the analysis.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The continuing effects on forest species composition and structures due to fire exclusion, succession, 

insect infestations, and diseases would be the same under all alternatives for areas not proposed for 

treatment in Alternatives 2 and 3. In the short-term these changes would be slight but in the long-term 

could be substantial. These effects would be the continuing decline in area within all Biophysical Settings 

in the earlier vegetation-fuel classes and an increase in the later vegetation-fuel class. In general terms, (1) 

overall stand structures would become more closed-canopy and multi-story, and (2) species compositions 

would become more dominated by climax, shade-tolerant tree species, which would largely be subalpine 

fir.

Insects and Diseases

Mountain Pine Beetle

In stands receiving no treatment, mountain pine beetle activity would continue to some degree, but as 

discussed above, we suspect that the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic in the project area has 

probably peaked would decline to endemic levels in the short-term because the supply of host trees has 

been depleted. MPB risk would be lower than before the recent epidemic into the long-term because 

stands are moving successionally from dominance by lodgepole pine toward Douglas-fir and subalpine 

fir.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

121

Douglas-fir Beetle

Douglas-fir beetle in the short-term would continue at recent levels. In the long-term due to the increase 

in Douglas-fir stocking, tree size, and total stand stocking, Douglas-fir beetle populations can be expected 

to increase and an outbreak would most likely occur.

Western Spruce Budworm

In the short-term WSB populations are likely to continue at current levels. In the long-term WSB 

populations can be expected to increase due to an increase in host species-Douglas-fir and subalpine firdominance on the landscape and the increase in multiple-storied stand structures.

Dwarf Mistletoe

Dwarf mistletoes would continue in the short-term at levels described above, and in the long-term would 

increase in presence and degree of impact. Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe would continue to increase the 

impacts of lodgepole pine and would accelerate the decline of lodgepole pine as a stand component. 

Armillaria

In the short-term armillaria root disease pockets would generally remain as described above, growing 

slowly larger. In the long-term the disease would have greater impacts in stands and on the landscape due 

(1) to the increase in dominance by tree species such as subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and Douglas-fir 

which are less resistant than seral species such as ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine, and (2) due to 

increases in stand stocking leading to deceases in tree vigor and disease resistance.

Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine

As mentioned above, ponderosa pine is a shade-intolerant seral species on habitat types found in the 

project area and over time would decline in presence and eventually disappear without disturbance. It is a 

relatively long-lived species and to the decline and disappearance would be a long-term process 

punctuated by rapid declines brought about by events such as the recent mountain pine beet outbreak. 

Quaking Aspen

Quaking aspen as a relatively short stature and very shade-intolerant seral species would continue to 

decline from its already small presence and without disturbance would almost disappear. Aspen stems are 

relatively short-lived but the decline and disappearance would continue into the long-term.

Western Larch

As with ponderosa pine, western larch is a shade-intolerant but relatively long-lived seral species on 

habitat types found in the project area and in the long-term would decline in presence and eventually 

disappear without disturbance. 

Whitebark Pine

Whitebark pine is a shade-intolerant seral species on almost all habitat types found in the project area and 

over time would decline in presence and almost disappear without disturbance. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Effects common to all action alternatives include the effects of different proposed treatment regimes, the 

differences between the action alternatives being largely the amount of treatment area and in several 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

122

proposed treatment units, the proposed treatment regime. Treatments proposed in this project are 

described in eight treatment groups (USDA Forest Service 2010b): 

Prescription Groups

Group 1 (Intermediate Harvest)

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and mixed-species forest types mostly on 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS with small inclusions of shrubland and barren BpS. 

Detailed information about the habitat types found within units in this prescription group can be found in 

table 11. This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (36%) and subalpine fir (59%) habitat types 

with minor amounts of unknown habitat types.

Treatment objectives for this group are to develop mature, open forests comprised mostly of fire-resistant 

species. The proposed treatments would thin live trees, remove dead trees, and prescribe burn surface 

fuels. All tree thinning would be "from below" to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees except that 

thinning regimes would favor retaining smaller trees of a more desirable species over larger trees of a less 

desirable species, and would favor keeping smaller, healthier-and-disease-free trees over larger, diseased 

trees. In general, the species preference for retention would be aspen, western larch, ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir in descending order. This general order 

of preference may be modified for individual stands to address management objectives such as retaining 

species diversity, site factors, and other stand-specific factors such as relative species presence as noted in 

individual stand/unit prescriptions. Although not showing as present in these units, whitebark and limber 

pine would be retained if found. 

Trees would be thinned to an average spacing of 20 to 40 feet (109 to 27 TPA), but spacing could vary 

widely. Thinning would be by hand and/or machine. 

All cut live and dead trees of merchantable size would be removed for utilization except those needed to 

meet other resource concerns (e.g., snag and downed large woody debris requirements). 

Following thinning and removal, units would be underburned or jackpot burned to reduce fuels. 

Figure 26 displays the post-treatment species composition and structure for Stand 42303130 which 

partially forms Unit 46. The stand area is within the ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS and is currently 

mostly ELSC with a minor component of BMSC and a very minor component of AESP which is a former 

lightly-forested meadow that is filling in. The effects of the proposed treatment would be to reduce the 

subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir component and retain the ponderosa 

pine component. Stocking would be reduced to 258 TPA and 77 BA. The stand would have an almost 

“flat” diameter distribution and would be open and almost single-story but would still be uneven-aged. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

123

Figure 26. Stand 42303130 post thin and burn treatment

We displayed figure 26 above in the same vertical scale as figure 1 above for a direct comparison between 

the current and post-treatment condition. In figure 27 below we change the vertical scale to better display 

the species composition. 

Figure 27. Stand 42303130 post thin and burn treatment

Other treatment units in this prescription group (appendices I and L) vary from that shown above 

somewhat in species composition and current structure, BpS, and vegetation-fuel classes. The general 

effects of the treatment would be as shown above; (1) diameter distributions would become much 

“flatter” and (2) shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant tree species would decline in representation and shadeintolerant and fire-tolerant tree species would increase in relative representation. In terms of vegetationfuel classes, treatment effects would be to (1) move ELSC to DLSO, (2) retain DLSO, (3) retain CMSO, 

(4) move BMSC to CMSO, and (5) retain AESP. 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

124

Growth and vigor in the remaining trees would increase. Opening up the stand and prescribed burning can 

be expected to initiate a wave of tree establishment but the magnitude of the establishment would be 

moderated by overstory stocking. In the long-term, without additional treatments, the stand would again 

develop a dense understory and move back toward the current condition. Future treatments would be 

required to continue increasing ponderosa pine as a stand component and retain the open nature of the 

stands.

Group 2 (Precommercial Thinning) 

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10.This group contains Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and mixed-species forest types mostly on dry 

Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS with small inclusions of shrubland, 

shrubland-grassland, and barren BpS. Detailed information about the habitat types found within units in 

this prescription group can be found in table 11. This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir 

(50%) and subalpine fir (47%) habitat types with minor amounts of other habitat types. 

This group consists of previous harvest/regeneration units that are proposed for precommercial thinning. 

Treatments would thin small diameter trees of little to no merchantable value. All tree thinning would be 

from below but would favor retaining smaller trees of a more desirable species over larger trees of a less 

desirable species, and would favor keeping smaller, healthier-and-disease-free trees over larger, diseased 

trees. In general, the species preference for retention would be aspen, western larch, ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir in descending order. Post-thinning 

average tree spacing would range from 12 to 20 feet (109 to 303 TPA). Thinning would be by hand and/or 

machine, depending upon tree size. In several units, thinning slash would be piled by hand and burned. 

Figure 28 displays an example plantation from the Stonewall area after thinning. 

Figure 28. Plantation post-thinning diameter distribution

Following treatment, the stands would be more uniformly-sized because the smaller, slower-growing trees 

have mostly been removed. All of the stands would be more open and classified as CMSO. Growth and 

vigor would increase. In the long-term, trees would grow larger and canopy cover would increase, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

125

transitioning the stands into DLSO or ELSC depending upon the amount of canopy cover at the time the 

trees area greater than greater than nine inches d.b.h.

Group 3 (Seedtree and Shelterwood Harvest/Regeneration)

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains lodgepole pine and mixed-species forest types mostly on dry Douglas-fir 

and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS with small inclusions of shrubland, shrubland-grassland, and barren 

BpS. Detailed information about the habitat types found within units in this prescription group can be 

found in table 11. This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (41%) and subalpine fir (47%) 

habitat types with minor amounts of other habitat types. 

This group includes stands that have been severely impacted by the recent bark beetle outbreak but which 

do contain overstory trees that can be retained as seed sources and as shelter for seedlings. Treatments 

proposed are seedtree and shelterwood harvest/regeneration systems. Most trees, except as needed for 

shelter and seed production would be removed. In some of the shelterwoods, trees would be retained in 

groups; in others, the remaining trees would be relatively evenly distributed. All cut live and dead trees of 

merchantable size would be removed for utilization except those needed to meet other resource concerns 

(e.g., snag and downed large woody debris requirements). Many of the units would be burned to reduce 

fuel loads and prepare sites for natural regeneration or planting. Many of the units may be planted with 

some combination of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch where needed to regenerate the 

stands to the desired seral and fire-resistant species. 

Figure 20 shows an example stand in the Stonewall Project area that is proposed for a shelterwood 

treatment. The diameter distribution displays the current condition including dead trees. Most of the 

lodgepole pine in the stand was killed except for the very small trees and a few between six and 10 inches 

d.b.h. Figure 29 shows the stand immediately following a shelterwood treatment. Other stands in this 

group would vary in the species, remaining numbers of trees retained, and the distribution of the 

remaining trees but the general characteristics of the treatment, that is, a very open stand with a residual 

single-layer overstory would be the same.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

126

Figure 29. Stand 41502088 post-shelterwood

Following treatment, all of the stands would be classified as AESP. In the long-term, the stands would 

regenerate and transition out of AESP into CMSO. Many of the stands would develop in a two-story 

structure depending upon the number of seed and shelter trees retained. 

Group 4 (Clearcut Harvest/Regeneration)

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains the lodgepole pine forest type mostly on dry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir 

and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS with small inclusions of mountain grassland with shrubs. Detailed 

information about the habitat types found within units in this prescription group can be found in table 11. 

This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (21%) and subalpine fir (75%) habitat types with 

minor area of other habitat types. 

This group includes stands that have been severely impacted by the recent bark beetle outbreak. 

Treatments proposed are clearcut harvest/regeneration systems in which all trees would be removed 

except for scattered clumps or individuals. Retained trees would mostly be Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 

or western larch. All live and dead merchantable trees would be removed for utilization except those 

needed to meet other resource concerns. Following cutting and removal, units would be prescribed 

burned, the type of burn varying by individual unit fuels reduction and site preparation needs. Natural 

regeneration by Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine is expected to occur to some degree, and Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine, and western larch may be planted to achieve the desired species composition, the mixture 

differing by individual unit based upon site attributes. 

Since this treatment is a “clearcut with reserves” there would be a very open distributed to clumpy 

overstory remaining following the treatment. Each unit’s tree distributions would vary to some degree in 

species, number of retained trees, and distribution, but general characteristics of the treatment, that is, a 

very open stand with a patches and individual trees scattered throughout would be the same. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

127

Following treatment, all of the stands would be classified as AESP. In the long term, the stands would 

regenerate and transition out of AESP into CMSO. Many of the stands would develop in a two-story 

structure depending upon the number of seed and shelter trees retained.

Group 5 (Remove dead and dying trees, slash noncommercial-sized trees) 

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains the mixed-species forest type on ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS. Detailed 

information about the habitat types found within units in this prescription group can be found in table 11. 

This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (60%) and subalpine fir (30%) habitat types. This 

group includes two treatment units (4 and 5) comprising about 25 acres. The treatments would remove 

dead and dying trees, slash noncommercial-sized trees, and reduce fuels by handpiling and burning. Postthinning the units would have from 194 to 435 TPA (10-15 foot average spacing). All cut merchantable 

trees would be removed for utilization using ground-based equipment except as needed to meet other 

resource concerns. Figure 30 displays the post-thinning diameter distribution for Stand 415020066 in Unit 

4. Unit 5 differs somewhat from Unit 4 in species composition, but the general effects of reducing the 

small tree stocking would be the same. 

Figure 30. Stand 41020066 post-treatment

In terms of vegetation-fuel classes, the units would be moved to CMSO from DLSO or from ELSC to 

DLSO depending upon the pre-treatment class.

Group 6 (Low-intensity prescribed burning with 5-10 acre mortality patches) 

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains the Douglas-fir forest type on dry Douglas-fir, moist Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir. Detailed information about the habitat types found within units in this 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

128

prescription group can be found in table 11. This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (61%)

and subalpine fir (38%) habitat types with minor area of a spruce habitat type. 

This group includes three treatment units comprising about 449 acres. The treatments would cut small 

trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed burning. 

The prescribed burning would create openings less than 5 acres or in some cases up to10 acres, the 

opening size depending upon the unit. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional 

mortality of undesirable trees, and prepare sites for natural regeneration.

Figure 14 shows the current condition for Stand 41502089 which forms a part of proposed treatment Unit 

2. Note that we did not display present dead trees to keep the chart simple. Figure 31 shows the stand 

immediately following a modeled low-intensity fire. The modeled fire would kill most of the small trees 

but few of the large trees. The modeled fire would kill only two TPA greater than 17 inches d.b.h. 

Immediately following the treatment the stand would have about 92 TPA, 88 ft2

 BA, and 17 TPA greater 

than 17 inches d.b.h. The quaking aspen is shown as being killed but tree regeneration by sprouting or 

seed was not being modeled in the exercise. Following the treatment the aspen can be expected to 

resprout and conifers to become established in the understory.

In the short term we can expect the stands in this group to be complexes of all five vegetation-fuel classes 

including about 15 percent of early-seral. The diameter distribution shown in Figure 31 is a “stand 

average” and does not display the high degree of variability within the post-treatment units within this 

group. In the long-term, natural regeneration through sprouting and conifer seeds, would form a new 

cohort in the understory. The new understory would also be very variable in the numbers of trees, with 

many young trees in the small openings, and few under the dense overstory groups. A mixture of species 

would become established, but conditions would favor seral species.

Figure 31. Stand 41502089 post-underburn treatment

Group 7 (Mixed-severity prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 acre mortality patches) 

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains the Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest types on dry Douglas-fir and 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

129

ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir BpS. Detailed information about the habitat types found within units in this 

prescription group can be found in table 11. This prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (91%) 

and subalpine fir (9%) habitat types.

This group includes three treatment units comprising about 410 acres. The treatments would cut small 

trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed burning. 

Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut to create small openings around available 

whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir trees to enhance the regeneration of those 

species. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, 

and prepare sites for natural regeneration. The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 5, 10, or 

20 acres depending upon the treatment unit (appendices K and L). 

The general effects of these treatments would be similar to those in Group 6 but would be more variable 

with some larger patches of mortality. The cutting and burning would kill most of the small trees but few 

of the large trees. A mosaic of tree diameter distributions reflected in figures 2, 4-11, and 13-17 would be 

found within the treatment units due to the variable nature of the treatment. 

Following the treatment the aspen can be expected to resprout and conifers to become established in the 

understory especially in the small patches of mortality and small, deliberately created openings. A number 

of species would become established, but conditions would favor the establishment of seral species.

In the short term we can expect the stands in this group to be highly-variable complexes of all five 

vegetation fuel classes including about 15 percent of early-seral. In the long term, natural regeneration 

through sprouting and conifer seeds would form a new cohort in the understory. The new understory 

would also be very variable in the numbers of trees, with many young trees in the small openings, and 

few under the dense overstory groups. 

Group 8 (Mixed-severity prescribed burning with 30-75 acre mortality patches) 

Detailed information concerning biophysical settings found in each treatment unit can be found in table 

12. Detailed information concerning the biophysical settings found within this treatment group, and the 

proportion of the treatment group within the BpS can be found in table 13. Detailed information 

concerning the forest type and species composition of individual units within this group can be found in 

table 10. This group contains the Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forest types on dry Douglas-fir, moist 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir and interior west lower subalpine BpS. Detailed information 

about the habitat types found within units in this prescription group can be found in table 11 This 

prescription group is dominated by Douglas-fir (23%) and subalpine fir (67%) habitat types with 

inclusions of rock and grass. 

This group includes seven treatment units comprising about 4,604 acres. The treatments would cut small 

trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed burning. 

Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut to create small openings around available 

whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir trees to enhance the regeneration of those 

species. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, 

and prepare sites for natural regeneration. The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 30 or 75 

acres depending upon the treatment unit (appendix B). 

The general effects of these treatments would be similar to those in Group 7 but would have larger 

patches of mortality. The cutting and burning would kill most of the small trees but few of the large trees 

in areas, but due to the variable nature of the burning, patches of dense small trees can be expected to 

survive the fire. As with group 7, a mosaic of tree diameter distributions would be found within the 

treatment units due to the variable nature of the treatment. 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

130

Following the treatment the aspen can be expected to resprout and conifers to become established in the 

understory especially in the patches of mortality and deliberately created openings. A number of species 

would become established, but conditions would favor the establishment of seral species. 

In the short-term we can expect the stands in this group to be highly-variable complexes of all five 

vegetation-fuel classes including about 15 percent of early-seral. In the long term, natural regeneration 

through sprouting and conifer seeds would form a patchy new cohort in the stands. 

Alternative 1 – No-Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects to vegetation under this alternative. Stand structures, stocking levels, 

species compositions, and susceptibility to diseases and insects would not change from that described 

above in the existing condition. 

Biophysical Settings and Vegetation-fuel Classes

As succession continues, trees grow, understories fill in, and coverage increases, the proportion of 

vegetation-fuel class area in each BpS would continue to shift. The current condition displayed in table 14

is the result of those processes upon the reference condition and it can be expected that the direction of 

change reflected in table 14 would continue. Table 14 displays the relative current amount (Cur) and 

expected direction of future change (Dir) for each BpS/Vegetation-fuel class combination. With no action, 

we can expect the current condition to progress farther from the reference and desired condition. 

Table 14. Alternative 1 BpS and vegetation-fuel class current and future direction of change

BpS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC 

Cur/

Dir

Cur/

Dir

Cur/

Dir

Cur/

Dir

Cur/

Dir

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky 

Mountains (Dry) VL/D H/D L/D L/D VH/I

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky 

Mountains (Moist) VL/D H/D L/D L/D VH/I

Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir VL/D VH/D N/N VL/D VH/I

Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest VL/D L/D L/D VH/I VH/I

Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest N/N L/D L/D H/I VH/I

D – Declining

H – High (Yellow, Greater than desired but less than 180 percent of desired)

I – Increasing

L – Low (Orange, Greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than desired)

N – None

VH – Very High (Green, Greater than or equal to 180 percent of desired) 

VL – Very Low (Red, none to less than 20 percent of desired)

Stand Structures and Species Compositions

General indirect effects on species compositions would be, in the short term and long term, stands 

continue to progress successionally with continuing decreases in seral species and increases in climax 

species (Fischer and Clayton 1983, Fischer and Bradley 1987). Species compositions on the subalpine fir 

habitat types would continue to change as the seral species–ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, whitebark 

pine, aspen, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce–die out of the stands due to insect or competition-related 

mortality, to be replaced by subalpine fir. Species compositions on the Douglas-fir habitat types would 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

131

similarly change with species composition shifting toward Douglas-fir. Succession can be a relatively 

slow process, punctuated by abrupt shifts such as that caused by the recent bark beetle mortality, which 

reduced the seral overstory and mid-story components in many stands. The changes that have taken place 

within the last few years due to the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic are substantial. In the short 

term, any further change would be relatively small and easily reversible, but in the long term, the change 

would be profound and difficult to reverse due to the absence of seral tree species present to provide seed 

for natural regeneration. 

Along with the species composition shifts, shade-tolerant trees would increase and fill in lesser-stocked 

areas, including those created by the recent bark beetle mortality and natural openings (Copenheaver et al. 

2009, Skinner 1995), making individual stands and the landscape more homogeneous and less structurally 

diverse. 

Insects and Diseases

In this alternative, no actions would be taken. The effects described above for untreated stands under all 

alternatives would apply to stands in this alternative.

Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine

As discussed above, with no action, ponderosa pine would decline in presence due to succession under 

this alternative and in the long-term would almost disappear from the landscape.

Quaking Aspen

As discussed above, with no action, quaking aspen, already a very minor component on the landscape 

would decline in presence due to succession under this alternative and in the long-term would almost 

disappear.

Western Larch

As discussed above, with no action, western larch, already a very minor component on the landscape 

would decline in presence due to succession under this alternative and in the long-term would almost 

disappear.

Whitebark Pine

As discussed above, with no action, whitebark pine, which has declined as a landscape component due to 

insects and diseases (volume 2, appendix B), would decline in presence due to succession under this 

alternative and in the long term, would almost disappear. On a very small portion of the landscape, on the 

highest elevation ridges, it may continue to survive as a component with subalpine fir. 

Cumulative Effects

As mentioned above, all past activities are taken into account in this analysis in the current condition 

description and do not again need to be discussed in cumulative effects. Hence, cumulative effects in this 

analysis are the effects of the alternative being discussed, present, and foreseeable actions. Three ongoing 

activities: the Forestwide hazardous tree removal and fuels reduction HFRA project, continuing livestock 

grazing permits, and noxious weed treatments have the potential to affect forest vegetation. 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

132

Biophysical Settings and Vegetation-fuel Classes

Because of the very minor effects on forest vegetation from removing hazardous trees along roadsides, 

grazing livestock, and noxious weed treatments, cumulative effects for this alternative would be the same 

as direct and indirect effects discussed above.

Insects and Diseases

The current and ongoing activities would have no discernible effect on insect and disease levels in the 

project area. The insect and disease levels and risk would continue as described above for the direct and 

indirect effects. 

Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine, Western Larch, Whitebark Pine

Because of the very minor effects on stand species compositions from removing hazardous trees along 

roadsides, grazing livestock, and noxious weed treatments, cumulative effects for this alternative would 

be the same as direct and indirect effects discussed above.

Quaking Aspen

Removing hazardous trees along roadsides and noxious weed treatments would have very minor effects 

on this species. Continuing livestock grazing may have a localized impact on individual aspen clones 

within the grazing allotments ability to successfully regenerate through suckering. However, the effect of 

the grazing would be very minor because as discussed above, the condition of the aspen is what can be 

characterized as: a minor component in poor and declining condition due to competition with conifers. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

More information about compliance with standards and direction from the Forest Plan is in appendix B. 

Compliance of alternative 1 (no action) with Forest Plan forestwide standards pertinent to this vegetation 

discussion are displayed in volume 2, appendix B, table B-4. Compliance with management area 

standards is displayed in table B-5, and compliance with Forest Plan direction for regeneration harvest is 

displayed in table B-6. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

About 8,564 acres of treatment is proposed under this alternative. This is about 36 percent of the project 

area. The proposed treatments for each prescription group are shown in table 15 and figure 32. Total 

treatment acres for each prescription group are displayed in table 16. Treatment effects for each group are 

the same for alternatives 2 and 3 and are described in the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

section.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

133

Table 15. Alternative 2 proposed treatments by prescription group and unit

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

1 6 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 14

1 7 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 17

1 8 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 62

1 15 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 15

1 23 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 29

1 24 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 5

1 26 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 65

1 28 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 22

1 30 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 14

1 31 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 16

1 32 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 45

1 33 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn N/A 17

1 44 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 97

1 45 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 38

1 46 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn N/A 251

1 47 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn N/A 220

1 54 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn N/A 20

1 55 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 29

2 3 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 37

2 14 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 11

2 16 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 3

2 18 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 21

2 21 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 6

2 48 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 141

2 49 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 49

2 50 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 49

2 51 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 193

2 59 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 16

2 60 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 25
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

134

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

2 61 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 34

2 62 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 37

2 63 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 17

2 64 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 30

2 65 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 25

2 66 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 26

2 67 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 20

2 68 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 15

2 69 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 31

2 70 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 39

2 71 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 40

2 72 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 85

2 73 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 33

2 75 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 148

3 1 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP/WL 96

3 9 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles NRG DF/LP 18

3 11 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP/ES/AS, Plant PP 23

3 12 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP/ES/AS, Plant PP 80

3 13 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP/AS 41

3 20 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn To Be Determined* 32

3 22 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG DF/LP 30

3 25 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP/WL 29

3 29 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Slashing, Handpile/Burn NRG LP/DF 25

3 34 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant DF/WL 12

3 39 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP 42

3 40 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP 11

3 41 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP 12

3 42 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP 65

3 43 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP 104

3 53 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant DF/WL 17
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

135

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

3 57 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 93

3 58 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 15

4 10 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 18

4 17 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant PP 38

4 19 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Jackpot Burn To Be Determined* 15

4 27 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant DF/PP/WL 31

4 35 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 24

4 36 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF 20

4 37 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 8

4 38 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 7

4 52 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 22

4 56 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 17

4 74 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG, plant 23

5 4 Intermediate Harvest Sanitation, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 7

5 5 Intermediate Harvest Sanitation, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 18

6 2 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 Acres NRG PP/DF 146

6 76 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres NRG DF/LP/WB 123

6 78 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres NRG DF/LP/PP 38

6 85 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres Natural Recovery 143

7 80 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <20 acres Natural Recovery 326

7 86 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres Natural Recovery 47

7 87 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres NRG LP/DF/AS 36

8 77 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres NRG LP/DF 736

8 79 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres NRG LP/DF/PP/WB 337

8 81 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres Natural Recovery 629

8 82 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres Natural Recovery 776

8 83 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres Natural Recovery 457

8 84 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres Natural Recovery 831

8 88 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres Natural Recovery 892
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

136

Table 16. Alternative 2 total treatment acres by prescription group

GROUP ALTERNATIVE 2 ACRES

1 974

2 1,132

3 745

4 223

5 25

6 449

7 410

8 4,604

Totals 8,564
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

137

Figure 32. Alternative 2 (proposed action) harvest and fuels treatments
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

138

Design Features and Mitigation Measures 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project has been designed with features that are intended to minimize or avoid 

potential adverse effects while meeting project objectives. In addition to the proposed action treatments 

described above for the treatment groups, design features would be implemented where applicable. A 

description of the project design features relating to silviculture and other resources is displayed in table 

9, chapter 2. 

The design features in table 9 pertaining to silviculture are: SILV-1, SILV-2, SILV-3, and SILV-4. This 

analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Specific design features listed above that 

are applicable to vegetation include not only those designed specifically to protect vegetation, but also 

those designed to protect other resources such as water and soil. 

Biophysical Settings and Vegetation-fuel Classes

Proposed treatments would change vegetation-fuel classes in the project area as described above. Table 17

displays our projected vegetative-fuel class matrix for each BpS under Alternative 2 (A2), the Current 

vegetation-fuel class matrix (Cur), and the desired (Ref) vegetation-fuel class matrix for the project area 

as discussed above. Table cells that are colored red or orange BpS/vegetation-fuel class combinations that 

are under-represented on the landscape, those that are colored green and yellow are over-represented, and 

no color in close to that desired. All but the CLSO, BMSC, and DLSO vegetation-fuel class for the upper 

subalpine fir BpS, the BMSC and DLSO vegetation-fuel classes for the lower subalpine BpS, and the 

DLSO vegetation-fuel class for the moist Douglas-fir BpS would move toward the desired levels. Four of 

the vegetation-fuel class/BpS combinations are within 20 percent of the desired condition and we consider 

them “close” to the desired. Note that because (1) the current condition may not fully reflect changes in 

vegetation-fuel classes due to the recent mountain pine beetle activity, and (2) changes in vegetation-fuel 

classes due to proposed treatments are modeled estimates, one must not take the current and Alternative 2 

as precise values. The most important factors considered in this analysis are the direction and magnitude 

of vegetation-fuel class change due to the treatments and the relationship between the reference condition 

and the Alternative 2 direction and magnitude of change. 

Table 17. Alternative 2 post-treatment, current and desired vegetation-fuel classes by BpS

BpS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC

A2/

Cur/

Ref

A2/

Cur/

Ref

A2/

Cur/

Ref

A2/

Cur/

Ref

A2/

Cur/

Ref

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Dry)

7/

2/

15

21/

31/

25

12/

4/

20

19/

8/

25

41/

55/

15

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky Mountains (Moist)

6/

1/

15

22/

35/

25

14/ 

5/

20

18/

10/

25

39/

50/

15

Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir

14/

1/

15

16/

31/

10

11/

0/

25

24/

1/

40

35/

67/

10

Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest

5/

1/

20

15/

21/

40

12/

7/

10

32/

25/

5 

37/

46/

25

Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest

3/

0/

20

21/

22/

25

11/

11/

25

27/

22/

15

38/

46/

15

Yellow – High (Greater than desired but less than 180 percent of desired)
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

139

Orange – Low (Greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than desired)

No Color – Within 20% of desired

Green – Very High (Greater than or equal to 180 percent of desired) 

Red – Very Low (less than 20 percent of desired)

Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine

The effects of this alternative would be to increase the presence of ponderosa pine as a stand component 

in treated stands, with the degree of increase varying depending upon the type of treatment and the 

individual stand. Depending upon the treatment and unit, ponderosa pine would increase due to (1) 

retaining PP over less preferred species during thinning increasing PP as a portion of future stand stocking 

relative to less preferred species, (2) increased natural establishment of PP, and (3) planting PP. The 

degree of PP increase is displayed in table 18. Ponderosa pine would increase to some degree on about 23 

percent of the project area. 

Table 18. Alternative 2 effects of treatment groups on ponderosa pine

TREATMENT DEGREE OF PP INCREASE ACRES

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection to long-term small 

increase in number of trees due to increased 

establishment in more open stands

845

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species, 

no increase in number of trees. Note that in some units 

PP is not currently present.

651

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Substantial short and long-term increase due to 

planting and natural regeneration 633

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Substantial short and long-term increase due to 

planting and natural regeneration 102

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, small due to current 

“trace” presence

25

Group 6 – Low-intensity 

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas 

326

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas

374

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas

2,506

Quaking Aspen

The effects of this alternative would be to increase the presence of quaking aspen (AS) as a stand 

component where it is found in treated stands, with the degree of increase varying depending upon the 

type of treatment and the individual stand. Quaking aspen would increase due to (1) retaining aspen over 

less preferred species during thinning increasing its relative presence as a portion of future stand stocking, 

and (2) increased suckering of aspen due to increased growing space. Quaking aspen would increase to 

some degree on about 10 percent of the landscape.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

140

Table 19. Alternative 2 effects of treatment groups on quaking aspen

TREATMENT DEGREE OF AS INCREASE ACRES

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection and increase in 

suckering, may be some top-killing of aspen during 

burning

547

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection and increase in 

suckering

402

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Increase in suckering, may be some top-killing of 

aspen during burning 410

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Increase in suckering, may be some top-killing of 

aspen during burning 15

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, may be a small 

increase in suckering

25

Group 6 – Low-intensity 

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space 146

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space 410

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space 337

Western Larch

The effects of this alternative would be to increase the presence of western larch (WL) as a stand 

component with the degree of increase varying depending upon the type of treatment and the individual 

stand. Western larch would increase due to (1) retaining larch over less preferred species during thinning 

increasing its relative presence as a portion of future stand stocking, (2) planting larch in regeneration 

units, and (3) natural regeneration in regeneration units. Western larch would increase to some degree on 

about 3 percent of the project area.

Table 20. Alternative 2 effects of treatment groups on western larch

Treatment Degree of WL Increase Acres

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, mostly small due to 

trace current stocking of WL

5 

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, mostly small due to 

small current stocking of WL

303

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Substantial increase in numbers due to planting 184

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Substantial increase in numbers due to planting 146 

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 6 – Low-intensity No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

141

Treatment Degree of WL Increase Acres

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Whitebark Pine

The effects of this alternative would be to increase the presence of whitebark pine (WB) as a stand 

component where it is found in treated stands, with the degree of increase varying depending upon the 

type of treatment and the individual stand (table 21). Whitebark pine would increase due to (1) retaining 

WB over less preferred species during thinning increasing its relative presence as a portion of future stand 

stocking, (2) natural regeneration in burning units. Whitebark pine would increase to some degree on 

about 17 percent of the project area. 

Table 21. Alternative 2 effects of treatment groups on whitebark pine

TREATMENT DEGREE OF WB INCREASE ACRES

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 6 – Low-intensity

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

Increase in presence due to 

establishment in open areas 123

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence 0 

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence due to 

establishment in open areas 3,894

Insects and Diseases

Mountain Pine Beetle

Reducing tree stocking through thinning has been shown to reduce mountain pine beetle risk (appendix 

B). As discussed above, the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic has generally reduced the risk for a 

mountain pine beetle outbreak in most stands and over the landscape. The risk for a landscape-level MPB 

outbreak would be low into the long-term. There are, however stands containing live lodgepole, 

whitebark, or ponderosa pine trees in which stocking would be reduced under this project. In these 

treatment units (table 15), growth and vigor in the post-treatment pines would increase and MPB risk to 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

142

the individual trees or small groups of trees would be reduced into the long-term. The total proposed unit 

area in which any of these tree species can be found is 8,564 acres although it must be noted that they are 

a minor component in many units and have been reduced in presence by the recent outbreak. 

Douglas-fir Beetle

Douglas-fir beetle (DFB) activity is also positively related to tree stocking. Thinning and prescribed 

burning activities would reduce the risk of losing additional large Douglas-fir in treated stands into the 

long-term. The total proposed unit area in which Douglas-fir can be found is 7,172 acres although it must 

be noted that Douglas-fir is a minor component in some units. Outside of the treatment units DFB activity 

would continue as discussed above for untreated stands. 

Fires can increase the susceptibility of Douglas-fir to bark beetle attack by scorching tree crowns, basal 

cambium, and root systems, (appendix B). Wildfires, because of the conditions under which they burn and 

the damage to Douglas-fir they can cause, can substantially increase DFB mortality in the years following 

the fires. However, because prescribed burns are implemented under less severe fire weather and fuel

moisture conditions than wildfires usually burn, they damage residual Douglas-fir less and so result in 

lower potential for DFB to increase (appendix B). In this alternative, about 7,172 acres containing large 

Douglas-fir would be prescribe burned, resulting in a relatively small increase in Douglas-fir beetle risk to 

individual large Douglas-fir and a very small increase in risk to Douglas-fir over the landscape. The 

increase in risk would be short term. 

Western Spruce Budworm

As discussed above, western spruce budworm’s primary hosts are Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and 

true firs with multi-story, dense stands especially prone to developing high levels of WSB and susceptible 

to WSB damage. All treatments proposed in this alternative would reduce Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, 

and subalpine fir and so the predisposition of stands to be impacted by WSB on about 7,257 acres. These 

effects would continue into the long-term. On the remaining untreated area, WSB populations would 

continue as described above.

White Pine Blister Rust

The presence of white pine blister rust would not be reduced by the treatments because the treatments 

would attempt to minimize mortality to whitebark pine and would not attempt to directly reduce white 

pine blister rust infected trees. In a number of the prescribed burn units (chapter 2, table 9, Silv-2) small 

openings would be created to increase the regeneration of whitebark pine. Due to the past and current 

levels and impact of white pine blister rust on mature whitebark pine, cone-producing trees in the project 

area that would provide seed for whitebark pine regeneration may be relatively resistant to white pine 

blister rust (Hoff et al. 2001), therefore the treatments may be increasing the establishment of trees that 

are more resistant to the white pine blister rust than the past forest. However, the level of white pine 

blister rust resistance, or the type of resistance is not known for any of the potential whitebark pine seed 

trees in the project area. About 3,894 acres of unit area would be treated within which (1) whitebark pine 

would be thinned around which would increase tree vigor and the progression of the disease, and (2) the 

treatment would increase the establishment of whitebark pine in small openings. Thinning around the 

trees and creating small openings would comprise a small portion of the treated acreage, however. 

Dwarf Mistletoe

The presence of dwarf mistletoes would in general be reduced due to (1) preference in retaining other 

species over lodgepole pine, (2) preference in retaining less infected trees over more infected trees in 

mechanical treatment units, (3) tendency for infected trees to be damaged and die from prescribed burning 

(Harrington and Hawksworth 1990, Conkin 2000, Conklin and Armstrong 2002), and (4) tendency for 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

143

infected tree branches to be damaged and die from prescribed burning (Harrington and Hawksworth 1990, 

Conkin 2000, Conklin and Armstrong 2002). Although the presence and magnitude of dwarf mistletoe is 

not mapped and it is not present on all unit acres, this alternative could potentially reduce dwarf mistletoe 

over about 8,516 acres containing lodgepole pine. 

Armillaria

The presence of armillaria would not be directly reduced by the treatments, but treatments in stands 

would reduce both short-term and long-term impacts from the disease due to increases in more resistant 

tree species, promoting tree vigor, and reforesting to tree species suitable to the sites (Rippy et al. 2005).

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

More information about compliance with standards and direction from the Forest Plan is in appendix B. 

Compliance of alternative 2 with Forest Plan forestwide standards pertinent to this discussion are 

displayed in volume 2, appendix B, table B-7. Compliance with management area standards is displayed 

in table B-8, and compliance with Forest Plan direction for regeneration harvest is displayed in table B-9. 

Alternative 3

About 6,564 acres of treatment is proposed under this alternative. This is about 27 percent of the project 

area. The proposed treatments for each unit are displayed in table 22 and figure 33. Total acres for each 

prescription group are displayed in table 23. Treatment effects for groups 1 through 8 are the same as 

described for alternative 2 above. 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

144

Table 22. Alternative 3 proposed treatments by group and unit

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

1 15 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 15

1 23 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 29

1 24 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 5 

1 28 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 22

1 46b Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 27

1 47b Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 9 

1 47c Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 31

1 6 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 14

1 7 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 17

1 8 Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn N/A 62

2 14 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 11

2 16 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 3 

2 3 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 37

2 48 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Underburn N/A 141

2 50 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 49

2 51 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Underburn or Slash Treatment along PVT N/A 193

2 59 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 16

2 61a Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Handpile Underburn N/A 9 

2 62 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 37

2 63 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 17

2 66 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 26

2 67 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 20

2 68 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 15

2 69 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 31

2 70 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 39

2 71 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 40

2 72 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 85
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

145

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

2 73 Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin N/A 33

2 75b Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 20

3 1 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant 

PP/WL 96

3 11 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Underburn NRG DF/LP/ES/AS, 

Plant PP 23

3 12 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Underburn NRG DF/LP/ES/AS, 

Plant PP 80

3 13 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP/AS 41

3 22a Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG DF/LP 22

3 25 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant 

PP/WL 29

3 34 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant 

DF/WL 12

3 39 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP 26

3 40 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP 11

3 41 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP 12

3 42 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP 65

3 43 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP 104

3 53 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant 

DF/WL 17

3 57 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 93

3 58 Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 15

3 9 Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles NRG DF/LP 18

4 10 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Underburn NRG DF/LP, Plant PP 18

4 27 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG LP/DF, Plant 

DF/PP/WL 31

4 35 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 24
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

146

GROUP UNIT TREATMENT TYPE PRESCRIPTION REGENERATION ACRES

4 36 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF 20

4 37 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 8 

4 38 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 7 

4 52 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn NRG LP, Plant DF/WL 22

4 74 Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, Site Prep Burn NRG, plant 23

5 4 Intermediate Harvest Sanitation, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 7 

5 5 Intermediate Harvest Sanitation, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 18

6 2 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres NRG PP/DF 146

6 78 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres NRG DF/LP/PP 38

6 85 Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres Natural Recovery 143

7 87 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres NRG LP/DF/AS 36

8 79 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres NRG LP/DF/PP/WB 337

8 82 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres Natural Recovery 776

8 83 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres Natural Recovery 457

8 84 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres Natural Recovery 831

8 88 Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres Natural Recovery 865

9 17a Prescribed Fire Underburn NRG LP/DF, Plant PP 38

9 19a Prescribed Fire Underburn To Be Determined 15

9 20a Prescribed Fire Underburn To Be Determined 24

9 29a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 25

9 30a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 14

9 31a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 16

9 32a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 45

9 44a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 97

9 45a Prescribed Fire Underburn N/A 38

9 80a Prescribed Fire Jackpot Burn N/A 326

10 46a Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 223

10 47a Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles N/A 180
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

147

Table 23. Alternative 3 total treatment acres by prescription group

Group Alternative 3 Acres

1 232

2 822

3 664

4 152

5 25

6 326

7 36

8 3,265

9 637

10 403

Total 6,564

For alternative 3, the interdisciplinary team developed two additional prescription groups. 

Group 9: This group contains 10 units that are also described above and displayed in table 15 as being in 

groups 1, 3, and 4. These are a mixed group of units whose common characteristic is that the proposed 

treatment was changed to a low-intensity and low-severity underburn in Alternative 3. The units are 

mixed species and dominated (greater than one-half of the basal area) by either lodgepole pine (Units 17a, 

19a, 20a, and 29a) or Douglas-fir (Units 30a, 31a, 32a, and 44a) with ponderosa pine, western larch, 

Engelmann spruce or aspen components. The average age in the units ranges from 85 to 150 years, 

average overstory diameter ranges from 11 to 16 inches d.b.h. and stocking can be considered high, or at 

least could be before the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Mountain pine beetle mortality ranges from high 

in the Douglas-fir units to severe in those dominated by lodgepole pine. Units 30a, 31a, 32a, and 44a are 

generally single-story but do have patches of understory, which is mostly Douglas-fir. Units 17a, 19a, 20a, 

and 29a are generally two-story (or were before the mountain pine beetle epidemic) with sapling and pole 

understories of mostly Douglas-fir with minor lodgepole pine and subalpine fir components. 

Group 10: This group includes units 46a and 47a, which in Alternative 2 are proposed for treatment 

under Group 1. Treatments would be designed in a mosaic pattern to maintain cover and forage for 

wildlife while promoting ponderosa pine and aspen, and reducing ladder fuels. Portions of the stands 

would be thinned to (1) reduce understory competition from around large ponderosa pine trees, (2) thin 

heavily-stocked groups of trees on sites historically dominated by ponderosa pine, and (3) remove conifer 

competition from within and around quaking aspen. 

To reduce understory competition around large ponderosa pine, and move areas toward or maintain multistoried ponderosa pine structure, within 50 feet of ponderosa pine trees larger than 17 inches d.b.h. 

remove all but two trees. The retained trees should be of varied size and age classes.

In areas dominated by ponderosa pine, but lacking live trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., trees would be 

thinned to 48 to 109 trees per acre depending upon tree size. Ponderosa pine snags greater than 17 inches 

d.b.h. would be favored for retention to meet Forest Plan direction for snags. Conifers less than 17 inches 

d.b.h. would be removed up to 100 feet of existing aspen patches. Post-thinning, slash would be jackpot 

burned or hand-piled and burned to reduce fuels. Treatments would affect up to 50 percent of these units.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

148

Figure 33. Alternative 3 treatments
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

149

Direct and Indirect Effects

Prescription Groups

Group 9 effects would differ somewhat between those described above as dominated by lodgepole pine 

and those dominated by Douglas-fir. In Units 30a, 31a, 32a, and 44a, the low-intensity and low-severity 

underburns would result in sapling and pole tree mortality, with most of the mortality being in the 

saplings and few poles being killed. Due to the already single-story nature of the stands, the posttreatment diameter distributions would change little, and stand structures would not change. Figure 34

displays the projected post-underburn diameter distribution for Stand 41502043 (Unit 30a and part of Unit 

32a). The dead trees are not being shown. The modeling exercise shows the very small trees being killed, 

but almost no trees above the 8-inch d.b.h. class when compared with the current condition (figure 24). 

Figure 34. Stand 41502043 post underburn

In Units 17a, 19a, 20a, and 29a, which were two-story before the mountain pine beetle epidemic and are 

now more single-story, the underburn would also result in sapling and pole tree mortality with most of the 

mortality being to the saplings. Stand structures would not change, but the stand understories would be 

more open. Figure 35displays the projected post-underburn diameter distribution for Stand 41501056 

(Unit 17a). The dead trees are not being shown. The modeling exercise shows many, but not all, of the 

very small trees being killed, but almost no trees above the 8-inch d.b.h. class when compared with the 

current condition (figure 25).
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

150

Figure 35. Stand 41501056 post underburn

Group 10 treatments would reduce stand mid-stories and understories and the stands would be more open, 

but since only up to one-half of the stand areas are being treated they would become patchier. Stand 

structures would not change. 

Figure 36 and figure 37 display the projected post-underburn diameter distribution for Stand 42303130 

(Unit 46a). Figure 36 scale is the same as shown above for the current condition (figure 18), and figure 37

scale has been changed to better display the larger trees. The post-treatment stand would have 974 TPA, 

with about 13 TPA greater than 17 inches d.b.h. About 632 TPA less than 1 inch in d.b.h. are not being 

displayed. 

Figure 36. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46a) post-treatment in alternative 3
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

151

Figure 37. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46a) post-treatment in alternative 3

Biophysical Settings and Vegetation-fuel Classes

Proposed treatments would change vegetation-fuel classes in the project area as described above. Table 24

displays our projected vegetative fuel class matrix for each BpS under alternative 3 (A3), the current 

vegetation-fuel class matrix (Cur), and the desired (Ref) vegetation-fuel class matrix. Table cells that are 

colored red or orange BpS/vegetation-fuel class combinations are under-represented on the landscape, 

those that are colored green and yellow are over-represented, and no color is close to that desired. All but 

the CLSO, BMSC, and DLSO vegetation-fuel class for the upper subalpine fir BpS, the BMSC and 

DLSO vegetation-fuel classes for the lower subalpine BpS, and the DLSO vegetation-fuel class for the 

moist Douglas-fir BpS would move toward the desired levels. Four of the vegetation-fuel class/BpS 

combinations are within 20 percent of the desired condition and we consider them “close” to the desired. 

Table 24. Alternative 3 post-treatment, current and desired vegetation-fuel classes by BpS

BpS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC 

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky 

Mountains (Dry)

6/

2/ 

15

25/

31/ 

25

8/

4/ 

20

14/

8/ 

25

47/

55/ 

15

Douglas-fir Interior Northern and Central Rocky 

Mountains (Moist)

4/

1/ 

15

27/

35/ 

25

11/

5/ 

20

16/

10/ 

25

42/

50/ 

15

Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir

11/

1/ 

15

20/

31/ 

10

7/

0/ 

25

16/

1/ 

40

45/

67/ 

10

Interior West Lower Subalpine Forest

5/

1/ 

20

15/

21/ 

40

12/

7/ 

10

32/

25/ 

5

37/

46/ 

25
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

152

BpS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC 

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

A3/

Cur/

Ref

Interior West Upper Subalpine Forest

3/

0/ 

20

21/

22/ 

25

11/

11/ 

25

27/

22/ 

15

38/

46/ 

15

Yellow – High (Greater than desired but less than 180 percent of desired)

Orange – Low (Greater than or equal to 20 percent but less than desired)

No Color – Within 20% of desired

Green – Very High (Greater than or equal to 180 percent of desired) 

Red – Very Low (less than 20 percent of desired)

Species of Interest

Ponderosa Pine

This alternative would increase ponderosa pine presence in treated stands, with the degree of increase 

varying depending upon the type of treatment and the individual stand. Depending upon the treatment and 

unit, ponderosa pine would increase due to (1) retaining PP over less preferred species during thinning 

increasing PP as a portion of future stand stocking relative to less preferred species, (2) increased natural 

establishment of PP, and (3) planting PP. The degree of PP increase is displayed in table 25. Ponderosa 

pine would increase to some degree on about 13 percent of the project area. 

Table 25. Alternative 3 effects of treatment groups on ponderosa pine

Treatment Degree of PP Increase Acres

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection to long-term small 

increase in number of trees due to increased 

establishment in more open stands

181

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin Increase in presence relative to less preferred species, 

no increase in number of trees. Note that in some units 

PP is not currently present.

447

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Substantial short and long-term increase due to 

planting and natural regeneration 

547

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Substantial short and long-term increase due to 

planting and natural regeneration 

49 

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, small due to current 

“trace” presence

25

Group 6 – Low-intensity 

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas 

326

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas

0 

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence relative to other species due to 

higher ponderosa pine fire-tolerance and in tree 

numbers due to PP establishment in open areas

1168

Group 9 - Low-intensity and 

severity prescribed burning

Increase in presence relative to less fire-resistant 

species (Units 31a, 32a, 44a, 45a)

196

Group 10 – Mix of Intermediate Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 200
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

153

Treatment Degree of PP Increase Acres

Harvest and no treatment during thinning tree selection to long-term very small 

increase in number of trees due to increased 

establishment in more open stands

Quaking Aspen

Alternative 3 would also increase the presence of quaking aspen (AS) as a stand component where it is 

found in treated stands, with the degree of increase varying depending upon the type of treatment and the 

individual stand. The degree of AS increase is displayed in table 26. Quaking aspen would increase to 

some degree on about 6 percent of the project area.

Table 26. Alternative 3 effects of treatment groups on quaking aspen

Treatment Degree of AS Increase Acres

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection and increase in 

suckering, may be some top-killing of aspen during 

burning

83

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection and increase in 

suckering

326

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Increase in suckering, may be some top-killing of 

aspen during burning

396

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Increase in suckering, may be some top-killing of 

aspen during burning

0 

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, may be a small 

increase in suckering

25

Group 6 – Low-intensity 

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space

146

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space

36

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

May be some top-killing of existing stems, increased 

suckering due to increases in growing space

337

Group 9 - Low-intensity and 

severity prescribed burning

May be some increase as a response to MPB 

mortality and prescribed burning

39

Group 10 – Mix of Intermediate 

Harvest and no treatment

Increase in presence due to competing conifer 

removal

<20

Western Larch

Alternative 3 would also increase the presence of western larch (WL) as a stand component with the 

degree of increase varying depending upon the type of treatment and the individual stand. Western larch 

would increase due to (1) retaining larch over less preferred species during thinning increasing its relative 

presence as a portion of future stand stocking, (2) planting larch in regeneration units, and (3) natural 

regeneration in regeneration units. The degree of WL increase is displayed in table 27. Western larch 

would increase to some degree on about 2 percent of the project area.
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

154

Table 27. Alternative 3 effects of treatment groups on western larch

Treatment Degree of WL Increase Acres

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, mostly small due to 

trace current stocking of WL

5 

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin Increase in presence relative to less preferred species 

during thinning tree selection, mostly small due to 

small current stocking of WL

197

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

Substantial increase in numbers due to planting 176

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

Substantial increase in numbers due to planting 91

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 6 – Low-intensity 

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Group 9 - Low-intensity and 

severity prescribed burning

Increase in presence relative to less fire-resistant 

species

38

Group 10 – Mix of Intermediate 

Harvest and no treatment

No increase expected due to lack of presence 0 

Whitebark Pine

The effects of this alternative would be to increase the presence of whitebark pine (WB) as a stand 

component where it is found in treated stands, with the degree of increase varying depending upon the 

type of treatment and the individual stand (table 28). Whitebark pine would increase due to (1) retaining 

WB over less preferred species during thinning increasing its relative presence as a portion of future stand 

stocking, (2) natural regeneration in burning units. The degree of WB increase is displayed in table 28. 

Whitebark pine would increase to some degree on about 14 percent of the project area.

Table 28. Alternative 3 effects of treatment groups on whitebark pine

Treatment Degree of WB Increase Acres

Group 1 –Intermediate Harvest No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 2 –Pre-commercial thin No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 3 - Seedtree and 

shelterwood harvest/regeneration

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 4 – Clearcut 

harvest/regeneration

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 5 - Remove dead and 

dying trees, slash noncommercialsized trees

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 6 – Low-intensity Increase in presence due to 0 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

155

Treatment Degree of WB Increase Acres

prescribed burning with 5-10 acre 

mortality patches

establishment in open areas

Group 7 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 5, 10, 20 

acre mortality patches

No increase expected due to lack 

of presence

0 

Group 8 – Mixed-severity 

prescribed burning with 30-75 

acre mortality patches

Increase in presence due to 

establishment in open areas

3,265

Group 9 - Low-intensity and 

severity prescribed burning

No increase expected due to 

lack of presence

0 

Group 10 – Mix of Intermediate 

Harvest and no treatment

No increase expected due to 

lack of presence

0 

Insects and Diseases

Mountain Pine Beetle

Under Alternative 3, treatments would reduce stocking on about 6,564 acres containing lodgepole, 

whitebark, or ponderosa pine trees. These treatments would reduce stocking and so mountain pine beetle 

risk with the effects lasting into the long term. However, as noted above, the recent mountain pine beetle 

epidemic has already reduced stocking in many stands, effectively reducing risk.

Douglas-fir Beetle

Under alternative 3, thinning and prescribed burning activities would reduce the risk of losing large 

Douglas-fir in treated stands into the long-term on at least 5,203 acres. Outside of the treatment units DFB 

activity would continue as discussed above for untreated stands. 

Prescribed burning would result in a relatively small and short-term increase in Douglas-fir beetle risk to 

individual large Douglas-fir on about 3,031 acres. There would be a very small increase in risk to 

Douglas-fir over the landscape. 

Western Spruce Budworm

All treatments proposed in this alternative would reduce Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir 

and so the predisposition of stands to be impacted by WSB on about 5,288 acres. These effects would 

continue into the long term. On the remaining untreated area, WSB populations would continue as 

described above.

White Pine Blister Rust

As with alternative 2, the presence of white pine blister rust would not be reduced by the treatments, but 

small openings would be created to increase the regeneration of whitebark pine which may have some 

degree of resistance to the rust. About 2,265 acres of unit area would be treated within which the 

treatment would (1) thin around present whitebark pine, increasing vigor and the progression of the 

disease, and (2) increase the establishment of whitebark pine in small openings. The thinned areas and 

openings would comprise a small portion of the treated unit acreage.

Dwarf Mistletoe

As in alternative 2, the presence of dwarf mistletoes would in general be reduced due to (1) preference in 

retaining other species over lodgepole pine, (2) preference in retaining less infected trees over more 

infected trees in mechanical treatment units, (3) tendency for infected trees to be damaged and die from 

prescribed burning, and (4) tendency for infected tree branches to be damaged and die from prescribed 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

156

burning. Although the presence and magnitude of dwarf mistletoe is not mapped and is certainly not 

present on all unit acres, this alternative could potentially reduce dwarf mistletoe about 6,564 acres 

containing lodgepole pine. 

Armillaria

The presence of armillaria would not be directly reduced by the treatments, but treatments in stands 

would reduce both short-term and long-term impacts from the disease due to increases in more resistant 

tree species, promoting tree vigor, and reforesting to tree species suitable to the sites (Rippy et al. 2005).

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

More information about compliance with standards and direction from the Forest Plan is in appendix B. 

Compliance of alternative 3 with Forest Plan forestwide standards pertinent to this discussion are 

displayed in volume 2, appendix B, table B-10. Compliance with management area standards is displayed 

in table B-11, and compliance with Forest Plan direction for regeneration harvest is displayed in table B12. 

Alternative Comparison

Purpose and Need: Enhance and Restore Aspen, western larch, and ponderosa pine species and 

habitats

To compare the three alternatives success in restoring and enhancing aspen, western larch, and ponderosa 

pine, in this analysis we compare (1) how the alternatives would result in within-stand changes in tree 

species compositions as a result of proposed treatments and the (2) proportion of the analysis area on 

which quaking aspen, western larch, and ponderosa pine would increase in presence. Since whitebark 

pine has been declining in presence due to disease and bark beetle activity and is now considered a 

sensitive species in Region 1, we also included it in this discussion. As discussed above, whether a 

treatment would result in an increase in a particular tree species depends upon the type of treatment, the 

characteristics of the tree species, and the current presence of the tree species in the area receiving the 

treatment. Treatments vary widely in the opportunity they provide to manipulate the presence of a 

particular species. Intermediate treatments provide a great deal of control through tree selection 

preferences applied during thinning if the tree species is present and regeneration treatments provide a 

great deal of control through control of seed sources and planting of preferred species. Prescribe burns 

provide opportunities to increase fire-tolerant or shade-intolerant early seral species such as ponderosa 

pine, western larch, and quaking aspen through killing competing fire-intolerant species and through 

creating open areas for regeneration although the degree of control is not great simply due to the variable 

nature of prescribed burning. 

For alternative 2, tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 display the expected degree of increase for ponderosa pine, 

quaking aspen, western larch, and whitebark pine for each treatment group and acreage estimates over 

which those increases would occur. The same information for alternative 3 can be found in tables 16, 17, 

18 and 19. In table 29 that follows, we summarize the effects of the three alternatives upon within-stand 

tree species compositions by treatment group and as a proportion of the landscape. Alternative 1 would 

continue the current condition in which the four species have declined in presence within stands and upon 

the landscape due to succession and the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic. In the long-term, those 

four species would continue to decline as succession continues. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in an 

increase in the presence of all four species, with alternative 2 leading to the greatest increase due to the 

greater treatment area involved, and the greater area in regeneration and intermediate treatments which 

have the greatest potential for modifying species composition at the stand level. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

157

Table 29. Alternative comparison for ponderosa pine, western larch, whitebark pine, and aspen

Issue 

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Within stand 

changes in tree 

species 

compositions in 

proposed 

treatment units 

by prescription 

group

All groups: little 

short-term change 

from current 

condition, long-term 

widespread increase 

in Engelmann 

spruce (ES), 

subalpine fir (SAF), 

and Douglas-fir (DF) 

due to succession; 

long-term 

continuation of 

lodgepole in 

individual stands as 

it regenerates 

following the bark 

beetle epidemic and 

long-term 

landscape-level 

decline due to 

succession; longterm decrease in 

ponderosa pine, 

quaking aspen, 

western larch, and 

whitebark pine in 

individual stands 

and on the 

landscape

Group 1: reduce Engelmann 

spruce (ES), subalpine fir (SAF), 

lodgepole pine (LP), and 

Douglas-fir (DF) on 974 acres; 

increase in ponderosa pine (PP) 

on 845 acres, western larch 

(WL) on 5 acres, aspen (AS) on 

547 acres, whitebark pine (WB) 

on 0 acres

Group 2: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 1,132 acres; increase PP 

on 651 acres, WL on 303 acres, 

AS on 402 acres, WB on 0 acres

Group 3: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 745 acres; increase PP 

on 633 acres, WL on 184 acres, 

AS on 410 acres, WB on 0 acres

Group 4: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 223 acres; increase PP 

on 102 acres, WL on 146 acres, 

AS on 15 acres, WB on 0 acres

Group 5: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 25 acres; increase PP on 

25 acres, WL on 0 acres, AS on 

25 acres, WB on 0 acres

Group 6: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 449 acres; increase PP 

on 326 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

AS on 146 acres, WB on 123 

acres

Group 7: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 410 acres; increase PP 

on 374 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

and AS on 410 acres, WB on 0 

acres

Group 8: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 8,564 acres; increase PP 

on 2,506 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

and AS on 337 acres, WB on 

3,894 acres

Group 1: reduce Engelmann 

spruce (ES), subalpine fir 

(SAF), lodgepole pine (LP), 

and Douglas-fir (DF) on 232 

acres; increase in ponderosa 

pine (PP) on 181 acres, 

western larch (WL) on 5 acres, 

aspen (AS) on 83 acres, 

whitebark pine (WB) on 0 

acres

Group 2: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 822 acres; increase PP 

on 447 acres, WL on 197 

acres, AS on 326 acres, WB 

on 0 acres

Group 3: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 664 acres; increase PP 

on 547 acres, WL on 176 

acres, AS on 396 acres, WB 

on 0 acres

Group 4: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 152 acres; increase PP 

on 49 acres, WL on 91 acres, 

AS on 0 acres, WB on 0 acres

Group 5: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 25 acres; increase PP 

on 25 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

AS on 25 acres, WB on 0 

acres

Group 6: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 326 acres; increase PP 

on 326 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

AS on 146 acres, WB on 0 

acres

Group 7: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 36 acres; increase PP 

on 0 acres, WL on 0 acres, 

and AS on 36 acres, WB on 0 

acres

Group 8: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 3,265 acres; increase 

PP on 1,168 acres, WL on 0 

acres, and AS on 337 acres, 

WB on 3,894 acres

Group 9: reduce ES, SAF,LP, 

DF on 637 acres; increase PP 

on 196 acres, WL on 38 acres, 

and AS on 39 acres, WB on 0 

acres

Group 10: reduce ES, 

SAF,LP, DF on 403 acres; 

increase PP on 200 acres, WL 

on 0 acres, and AS on <20 

acres, WB on 0 acres

Landscapelevel changes Short-term would be 

no change in 

Ponderosa pine: increase to 

some degree on about 23 

Ponderosa pine: increase to 

some degree on about 13 
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

158

Issue 

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

in the presence 

of aspen, 

western larch, 

ponderosa 

pine, and 

whitebark pine

ponderosa pine, 

western larch, 

whitebark pine, 

slight increase in 

quaking aspen; 

long-term decline in 

all four species

percent of project area

Quaking aspen: increase to 

some degree on about 10 

percent of project area

Western larch: increase to 

some degree on about 3 percent 

of project area

Whitebark pine: increase to 

some degree on about 17 

percent of project area

percent of project area

Quaking aspen: increase to 

some degree on about 6 

percent of project area

Western larch: increase to 

some degree on about 2 

percent of project area

Whitebark pine: increase to 

some degree on about 14 

percent of project area

Purpose and Need: Improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape 

that is diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects

To compare how the three alternatives would improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure 

across the landscape, we compare (1) the expected within-stand changes in stand structures and species 

compositions in terms of tree diameter distributions for proposed treatment type groups, and (2) 

landscape-level changes in stand structures in terms of the proportion of change within BpS/vegetationfuel class combinations. 

In table 30 we display the expected effects of the three alternatives on within-stand species compositions. 

Under alternative 1, the current condition would persist, and the general track of tree species on the 

landscape would be toward increases in Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce and decreases 

in the early seral species—ponderosa pine, quaking aspen, western larch, whitebark pine, and lodgepole 

pine. Lodgepole pine would regenerate in many areas in which it was a major component before the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic, becoming a component in mixed-species stands with Douglas-fir, 

Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. Treatments in both alternatives 2 and 3 would modify the current 

condition and increase ponderosa pine, western larch, quaking aspen, and whitebark pine as discussed 

above. Both alternatives would improve the mix of tree species in treated areas, resulting in tree species 

mixtures that would be more diverse and resilient. Alternative 2 would result in greater effects than 

Alternative 3 due to the greater acreage treated, and the greater acreage treated with intermediate and 

regeneration treatments. 

In table 30 we compare the effects of the three alternatives on stand structures in terms of tree diameter 

distributions for proposed treatment type groups. Alternative 1 would continue the current condition in the 

short term and long term; stand understories would become denser and the stands more closed. Stand 

diameter distributions as displayed in figures 2 through 9 would remain the same in the short term and in 

the long term would tend to become more steeply weighted toward smaller diameters due to ingrowth and 

natural mortality of the larger diameter classes. Treatments in both alternatives 2 and 3 would modify the 

track that the stands are on with the degree and nature of the effects depending upon the type of treatment. 

Intermediate harvests (Groups 1 and 10) would “flatten” the diameter distributions by thinning small and 

mid-sized trees while retaining the largest trees—creating open multi-story structures. Precommercial 

thinning (Group 2) would create open, single-story stands by pre-commercially thinning even-aged, 

closed, single-story plantations. Regeneration treatments (Groups 3 and 4) would create even-aged stands 

with a small number of older and larger trees present as seed sources, shelter, or retention trees. Removing 

dead and dying trees and slashing undesirable understory trees (Group 5) would create stands that are 

open and almost single-story. Low-intensity prescribed burns (Groups 6 and 9) would flatten the diameter 

distributions due to killing many of the smaller diameter trees and would create stands that are more open 

and still multi-story. Mixed-severity prescribed burns (Groups 7 and 8) would create areas that are 

mosaics of structures including open and closed single-story, open and closed multi-story, and early-seral 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

159

grass/forb/shrub openings. The effects of all treatments would last into the long-term but eventually the 

stands would become more closed and multi-story as trees grow and as the stand understories fill in.

Table 30. Alternative comparison for stand structures 

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

All groups: little 

short-term 

change from 

current condition; 

long-term 

increase in stand 

understories as 

stands impacted 

by mountain pine 

beetle regenerate 

and as shadetolerant trees 

continue to 

become 

established; 

single-story 

stands would 

become multistory 

Group 1 (974 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become almost flat 

(figure 10) compared to the current 

condition (figure 2); stands would be open 

multi-story structure in the short term but 

would become more closed multi-story in 

the long term as understories become 

denser

Group 2 (1,132 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become more singlestory (figure 11) compared to current 

condition (figure 2) due to thinning of 

small suppressed trees; stands would be 

open single story in the short term, 

becoming closed single-story in the long 

term 

Group 3 (745 acres): Stands would have 

larger green trees remaining (figure 11); 

they would be single-story and very open 

in the short-term and would become twostory and less open in the long term as 

they regenerate

Group 4 (223 acres): Stands have only 

small groups and individual reserve trees 

remaining; they would be very open in the 

short term and would become single-story 

and less open in the long term as they 

regenerate

Group 5 (25 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become more singlestory (figure 12) compared to the current 

condition (figure 2) due to thinning the 

understory; they would be open and 

almost single-story in the short-term and 

would become closed and two-story in the 

long term as understories redevelop 

Group 6 (449 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become a little flatter 

(figure 13) than the current condition 

(figure 4) due to prescribed burn mortality 

in small trees; they would be open multistory in the short term and would become 

closed multi-story in the long term as 

understories redevelop

Group 7 (410 acres): Stand structures 

would be very complex with tree 

distributions reflected in figures 

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11, and 12 being found 

within the burn units due to the highly 

variable nature of the treatment

Group 8 (4,604): Same as for group 7

Group 1 (232 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 2 (822 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 3 (664 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 4 (152 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 5 (25 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 6 (326 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 7 (36 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 8 (3,265 acres): Same as for 

Alternative 2

Group 9 (637 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become flatter (figures 

18 and 19) than the current conditions 

(figures 8 and 9) due to the smallest 

diameter trees being mostly killed by the 

treatments; they would become more 

open in the short-term but structures 

would not change from their current 

single-story and 2-stories. In the long term 

the single-story stands would become 

more 2-story.

Group 10 (403 acres): Stand diameter 

distributions would become flatter (figure 

20) compared to the current condition 

(figure 2); because only up to one-half of 

the stands would be treated, they would 

be a combination of open multi-story 

structure and closed structure in the shortterm but would become closed multi-story 

in the long term as understories become 

denser in the treated areas
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

160

In table 31 we compare the effects of the three alternatives on stand structures at the landscape level by 

comparing the proportion of change within Biophysical Setting/vegetation fuel class combinations. The 

table displays the percent of BpS area in each vegetation/fuel class for the current condition (Cur) 

discussed in the Stone Dry Vegetation Report (Milburn et al. 2009), the reference condition (Ref) 

discussed in the Stone Dry Vegetation Report, that estimated to occur under alternative 2 (A2), and that 

estimated to occur under Alternative 3 (A3). Note that as discussed above, the current condition is from 

the Stone Dry Vegetation Report (Milburn et al. 2009) which does not include an in-depth analysis of 

vegetation-fuel class changes due to the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic. As discussed above: (1) 

the current condition may not fully reflect changes in vegetation-fuel classes due to the recent mountain 

pine beetle activity, and (2) changes in vegetation-fuel classes due to proposed treatments are modeled 

estimates, therefore one must not take the current and alternative estimates as precise values. In this 

analysis, we use table 31 to discuss and compare the direction and magnitude of vegetation-fuel class 

change. 

As discussed and displayed above, under alternative 1 in the short-term the current condition would 

persist, which in general is below desired in (1) early seral and mid-seral open for all Biophysical 

Settings, (2) mid-seral closed in the two subalpine fir Biophysical Settings, and (3) in late-seral open for 

the two Douglas-fir and the ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir Biophysical Settings (table 14). Vegetation-fuel 

classes are above desired in all other combinations. Long-term trends under alternative 1 would be: 

decreasing early seral, mid-seral closed, mid-seral open, and late-seral open in almost all Biophysical 

Settings due to tree growth and filling in of stand understories (table 14). Both alternative 2 and 

alternative 3 would: (1) increase area in early-seral for all BpS, (2) decrease area in mid-seral closed for 

all BpS, (3) increase area in mid-seral open for all but upper subalpine BpS, (4) increase area in late-seral 

open for all BpS, and (5) decrease area in late-seral closed in all Bps. Alternative 2 would bring about 

greater change than alternative 3 due largely to the greater acreage treated. Both alternatives 2 and 3

would move the vegetation-fuel classes toward the reference condition, but largely due to the small 

portion of the analysis area proposed for treatment there would still be relatively great differences 

between present and reference condition for many BpS/vegetation-fuel class combinations. 

Table 31. Alternative comparison for landscape-level stand structures

BPS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

Douglas-fir Interior 

Northern and Central 

Rocky Mountains-Dry 

(23 percent of analysis

area)

2/7/6/15 31/21/25/25 4/12/8/20 8/19/14/25 55/41/47/15 

Douglas-fir Interior 

Northern and Central 

Rocky Mountains-Moist 

(24 percent of analysis 

area)

1/6/4/15 35/22/27/25 5/14/11/20 10/18/16/25 50/39/42/15 

Ponderosa PineDouglas-fir (32 percent 

of analysis area)

1/14/11/15 31/16/20/10 0/11/7/25 1/24/16/40 67/35/45/10 

Interior West Lower 

Subalpine Forest (14 

percent of analysis 

area)

1/5/5/20 21/15/15/40 7/12/12/10 25/32/32/5 46/37/37/25 

Interior West Upper 0/3/3/20 22/21/21/25 11/11/11/25 22/27/27/15 46/38/38/15 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Vegetation

161

BPS

AESP BMSC CMSO DLSO ELSC 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

CUR/A2/A3/R

EF 

Subalpine Forest (2 

percent of analysis 

area)

Purpose and Need: Forest health in terms of reduced susceptibility (increased resistance) of 

individual stands and the landscape to diseases and insects found within the project area of concern 

In table 32we compare the three alternatives in terms of susceptibility to several insects and diseases that 

are impacting stands in the project area. Under alternative 1, in the short term there would be little change 

from the current condition, which in general is (1) low and long term decreasing risk for those insects and 

diseases dependent upon early seral trees such as the pines (e.g. mountain pine beetle), (2) higher and 

long-term increasing risk and impacts from those dependent upon Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and 

Engelmann spruce, and (3) relatively low but long-term increase in susceptibility to armillaria which 

affects all conifers but for which pines and western larch are more resistant than the other conifers. Both 

alternatives 2 and 3 would generally reduce susceptibility to insects and diseases in treated stands and on 

the landscape. Exceptions to this would be white pine blister rust, for which we cannot say that the 

treatments would directly reduce the disease and Douglas-fir beetle for which the prescribed burning may 

increase risk in the treated areas to a small degree and short period of time. Over the landscape, both 

alternatives would increase resistance to insects and diseases by increasing tree species diversity and age 

class diversity, reducing stocking and so increasing individual tree resistance, and modifying structures. 

Alternative 2 would reduce susceptibility to a greater degree than alternative 3, largely because a greater 

area is being treated.

Table 32. Alternative comparison for insects and diseases

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Mountain pine beetle: 

risk would be low in 

most stands and at a 

landscape level due to 

the recent epidemic; 

increasing stocking 

would result in 

increased risk to 

remaining large 

ponderosa pine

Douglas-fir beetle:

little change in the 

short term; increasing 

risk in the long term 

due to increasing 

stocking and increases 

in presence of larger 

Douglas-fir

Western spruce 

budworm: little 

change in the short 

term; long-term 

increase due to 

increases in host 

species and multi-story 

stands 

Mountain pine beetle: 8,506 acres of 

treatment would reduce risk to remaining 

pine trees into the long term

Douglas-fir beetle: 7,172 acres of 

treatment would reduce risk to Douglasfir into the long term with a possible small 

short-term increase in activity due to 

prescribed burning

Western spruce budworm: Host 

species (Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, 

subalpine fir) would be reduced on about 

7,172 acres with a shift toward non-host 

species

White pine blister rust: rust would not 

be reduced directly by the treatments, 

treatments would promote natural 

regeneration from remaining whitebark 

pine which may be resistant to the rust 

and would increase vigor of white pine 

which have been thinned around 

reducing the progression of the disease

Dwarf mistletoe: lodgepole pine dwarf 

mistletoe would potentially be reduced on 

about 8,516 acres containing lodgepole 

with a long-term decrease due to 

increases in non-host species

Mountain pine beetle: 6,564 

acres of treatment would reduce 

risk to remaining pine trees into 

the long-term

Douglas-fir beetle: 5,203 acres 

of treatment would reduce risk to 

Douglas-fir into the long term 

with a possible small short-term 

increase due to prescribed 

burning

Western spruce budworm:

Host species (Engelmann 

spruce, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir) 

would be reduced on about 

5,288 acres with a shift toward 

non-host species

White pine blister rust: rust 

would not be reduced directly by 

the treatments, treatments would 

promote natural regeneration 

from remaining whitebark pine 

which may be resistant to the 

rust and increase vigor of white 

pine which have been thinned 

around reducing the progression 

of the disease
Vegetation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

162

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

White pine blister 

rust: no change in 

levels from current 

condition

Dwarf mistletoe: short 

term no increase from 

current levels; longterm impacts from 

lodgepole pine dwarf 

mistletoe in current 

infected understory 

trees 

Armillaria root rot: 

short-term little change 

from current condition; 

long-term increase due 

to increase in less 

susceptible species 

and stocking

Armillaria root rot: increase in shortterm and long-term resistance to the 

disease where found over 8,564 

treatment acres

Dwarf mistletoe: lodgepole pine 

dwarf mistletoe would potentially 

be reduced on about 6,564 acres 

containing lodgepole with a longterm decrease due to increases 

in non-host species

Armillaria root rot: increase in 

short-term and long-term 

resistance to the disease where 

found over 6,564 treatment acres

Transportation 

Introduction 

Vegetation management treatments proposed in the Stonewall project include precommercial thinning, 

commercial thinning, and regeneration harvest and prescribed burning. The objective is to restore the 

ecosystem to a historic or natural state or trajectory.

Proposed thinning and regeneration harvest treatments would include removal of material, and would 

therefore require haul route access. Haul route improvements are the primary topic addressed by this 

section.

Methodology

Region 1 Timber Strike Team engineers visited the project area and surveyed approximately 75 percent of 

the project haul routes, documenting improvement needs for haul vehicles and water quality 

improvements in line with Montana Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Logan 2001). The 

transportation planner then visited a sample of project roads in September 2010. 

Geographic information systems (GIS) tools were used to track and analyze road location, mileage and 

density within the project area. The HNF Transportation Atlas (Helena National Forest 2011) was used for 

the analysis, which includes the inventory of routes. On-the-ground reconnaissance was completed on 

most project routes to observe current conditions and determine needs for short- and long-term 

treatments.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Engineering road surveys and accompanying road logs were completed for approximately 75 percent of 

the project haul routes. This information and the associated cost estimates were then extrapolated and 

applied to the remaining 25 percent of unsurveyed roads.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Transportation

163

Overview of Issues 

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on plants were identified from public 

scoping as nonsignificant (40 CFR 1501.7), and are addressed by the analyses in this section. Please refer 

to volume 2, appendix A of this document for a complete listing of the issues and an explanation of how 

the agency determined their disposition. 

Indicators

Indicators used in this analysis to discuss how the alternatives would address the purpose and need for the 

project are: 

Existing road mileage and road density within the project area

Proposed activities involving the existing transportation network for project implementation 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

An extensive road network exists within the project area to support community access and management 

activities of National Forest System (NFS) lands, including mining, grazing, and timber management. The 

76.4 miles of existing roads located within the boundary of the Stonewall Project area equates to a road 

density of approximately 2.04 miles per square mile. The additional 11.3 miles of roads outside the 

project area are included in the transportation analysis because they connect to and provide access to the 

project area. 

Primary project access routes from Montana State Highway 200 include Forest Roads 626, 1800, 1824 

and 4106. Sections of these routes are under Lewis and Clark County jurisdiction and access NFS roads 

within the project area.

Table 33. Stonewall project area roads summary by jurisdiction

ROAD MILEAGE JURISDICTION

3.3 miles Private 

1.5 miles State of Montana

4.7 miles Lewis & Clark County

78.2 miles Forest Service

Environmental Consequences

The Responsible Official directed the interdisciplinary team that the Stonewall Project minimize changes 

to the Forest transportation system because the subsequent Route and Area Designation Process will be 

addressing travel management changes related to motor vehicle use. Therefore, the Stonewall Project 

transportation activities only accommodate the associated vegetation treatments.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Spatial analysis boundaries for transportation systems are limited to 75.6 miles of existing roads within 

the project area boundary and approximately 11.3 miles of roads outside, but adjacent to and accessing, 

the project area. A total of 86.9 miles of existing roads would be included in analysis for the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project.
Transportation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

164

Analysis timeframes for this project cover the schedule for implementation of the prescribed vegetation 

and fuels treatment, which is estimated to take up to 10 years from decision date. The proposed 

transportation system changes for this project are included. 

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

The Forest Service would continue to apply recurrent road maintenance for National Forest System roads 

within the analysis area. Other routes in the analysis area and not on the Forest Transportation System 

would be maintained by the applicable owner and users. Road surface blading and culvert cleaning are 

typical annual maintenance tasks.

Under the Forestwide Hazardous Tree Removal and Fuels Reduction — Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

Project (Helena National Forest 2010), danger trees located within approximately 125 feet of open roads 

would be felled and removed to improve the safety of road users. Associated roads in the Stonewall 

Project area include National Forest System roads 1800, 1824, 4106, 607, 607-D1, 607-H1 and 626. In 

addition, treatments would occur to fell and remove danger trees in and adjacent to Pine Grove 

Campground and the Lincoln Cemetery, and Old Lincoln Townsite Administrative Sites. Haul roads 

associated with danger tree removal would include varying amounts of maintenance depending on 

condition of the road and magnitude of project use proposed on the road. 

Two existing 48-inch diameter culverts in the project area are scheduled to be replaced under a separate 

Southwest Crown Collaborative Forest Restoration project effort. These are located on National Forest 

System Road 4106 at the crossings with Klondike and Theodore Creeks. 

Finally, the Pine Grove Campground would continue to receive use and traffic during the open season 

from May 15 to November 15 each year. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no changes would be made to the existing transportation network on and 

adjacent to the project area. Roads would continue to receive use for utilization and administration of 

NFS lands and access to locations such as Lincoln Gulch, Pine Grove Campground, private mining 

claims, and southern Scapegoat Wilderness. Roads would be maintained periodically to comply with 

BMPs. However, roads would not be improved to accommodate safe use of haul vehicles at this time.

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, there would be no cumulative effects or impacts on the project 

transportation network. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The no action alternative complies with the HNF Forest Plan and State and Federal law.

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no other disclosures for the Stonewall Vegetation Project. 

Summary of Effects 

No changes would be made to the existing transportation network on and adjacent to the project area. 

There would be no cumulative effects or impacts on the project transportation network. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Transportation

165

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Figure 38 that follows displays the transportation system for the Stonewall Vegetation Project, alternative 

2, by jurisdiction. 
Transportation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

166

Figure 38. Transportation system for alternative 2-proposed action
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Transportation

167

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

The Stonewall Vegetation Project has been designed with features that are intended to minimize or avoid 

potential adverse effects while meeting project objectives. In addition to the proposed action treatments 

described in this section, design features would be implemented where applicable. A description of the 

project design features relating to transportation and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The design features in table 9 pertaining to transportation are RDS-1, through RDS-10. This analysis is 

based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both action 

alternatives. Specific design features listed above applicable to transportation are designed to protect other 

resources such as water and soil. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the proposed action, approximately 48.2 miles of roads would access vegetation treatment units 

and connect with Montana State Highway 200. Nearly 45.6 miles of existing roads would serve as project 

access and haul routes. Another 2.6 miles of new roads would be constructed to access treatment units. 

These roads would be closed, obliterated and rehabilitated immediately following vegetation treatments. 

Existing road maintenance (45.6 miles) would involve improvement activities in accordance with BMPs, 

as well as work necessary to accommodate haul vehicles. This work includes the following activities: 

roadside brushing; surface blading and reconditioning; cleaning, repair, and new installation of drainage 

structures, including culverts, water bars, and rolling dips; aggregate surfacing; cattle guard cleaning and 

repair; minor realignment and curve widening to accommodate haul vehicles and trailers; and 

silt/sediment trap installation.

There are a few roads and road segments (including Forest Roads 626, 1800, 1824, and 4106) not under 

Forest Service jurisdiction and planned for use as timber haul routes. Before implementation, Forest 

Service coordination with the appropriate agency or landowner would be necessary in order to acquire the 

appropriate access and use agreement.

Approximately 2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, 

and would involve the minimal construction standard needed to provide short-term haul vehicle and 

equipment access to treatment units. This road work involves clearing vegetation, grubbing roots and 

stumps, excavating and shaping a travelled way, and installing drainage structures as necessary to ensure 

the road properly drains. These roads would be built to the minimum density, cost, and standard necessary 

for the intended need, user safety, and resource protection. These roads would be closed (e.g., gates, 

barricades) during operations to limit use to operators only. Intersections with roads would be blocked by 

rocks, wood or earthen berms, and would be slashed in and/or ripped and covered with slash or seeded 

within site distance of existing open roads to reduce potential for use after the project activities are 

completed. There would be no long-term changes to the amount of miles in the permanent road system or 

open road density in the project area under alternative 2. 

Danger trees would be removed on all project roads, approximately 11⁄2 tree lengths (e.g., 125 feet) from 

the roadway, as needed for safe hauling and project implementation. To provide for public safety, 

temporary warning and other signing in accordance with Forest Service signing standards would be used 

during project implementation. Haul routes would also be restricted or temporarily closed to provide for 

public safety. Existing open routes would be left in a similar condition and drainage structures shall be left 

in functional condition. Table 34 contains a breakdown of project roads by Helena National Forest LRMP 

Management Area. 
Transportation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

168

Table 34. Summary of proposed action haul route miles by Forest Plan Management Area

Management Area Project Haul Route 

Total Mileage

Roads Built then 

Obliterated Mileage

M1 2.18 - 

T1 7.44 0.89

T2 8.04 - 

T3 11.97 0.80

T4 7.24 0.92

Other Lands 11.32 - 

See figure 38 for spatial information on the proposed action haul routes

In addition to haul-related work in accordance with BMPs, other additional restoration treatments would 

occur on project roads. 

A new culvert would be installed where National Forest System Road 626-B1 crosses the tributary to 

Lincoln Gulch, and a sediment filtering device (i.e., riprap, weed-free straw bales, filter fence, and/or 

slash filter windrows) would also be included at the crossing outlet. 

A sediment filtering device (i.e., weed-free straw bales, filter fence, bio-logs/waddles, and/or slash 

filter windrows) would be installed where National Forest System Road 607-E1 parallels Stonewall 

Creek.

See the separate Transportation Road Work and Costs spreadsheet available in the project record. Also see 

the Economic Resource Report for more information on project costs. 

Cumulative Effects

Under the proposed action alternative, cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable actions are 

expected to have minor impacts on the project transportation network. Project haul routes would be 

maintained and improved in accordance with BMPs to accommodate haul vehicles. Sediment sites would 

be mitigated to reduce long-term sediment delivery. Annual road maintenance activities would also occur 

on National Forest System roads. It is expected that adjacent State and private roads would continue to 

receive annual maintenance also. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The proposed action complies with the Forest Plan for the Helena National Forest, Forest Service policy, 

and State and Federal law. 

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no other disclosures. 

Summary of Effects 

See figure 38 for more specific information regarding each road proposed for use during the project. See 

the separate Transportation Road Work and Costs spreadsheet available in the project record for more 

specific information about the proposed treatments. 

Alternative 3

Figure 39 that follows displays the transportation system for the Stonewall Vegetation Management 

Project, alternative 3, by jurisdiction.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Transportation

169

Figure 39. Transportation system for alternative 3
Transportation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

170

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of alternative 3 would be similar to alternative 2, however with slightly fewer miles of road use. 

Under alternative 3, nearly 44.3 miles of haul routes would be used to access vegetation treatment units 

and remove material in haul vehicles. Approximately 43.8 miles of existing roads would serve as project 

access and haul routes. Approximately 0.4 mile of road would be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal; these roads would be closed (e.g., gates, barricades) during operations to limit 

use to operators only. 

Existing road maintenance (43.8 miles) would involve improvement activities in accordance with BMPs 

necessary to accommodate haul vehicles. This work includes the following activities: roadside brushing; 

surface blading and reconditioning; cleaning, repair, and new installation of drainage structures including 

culverts, water bars, and rolling dips; aggregate surfacing; cattleguard cleaning and repair; minor 

realignment and curve widening to accommodate haul vehicles and trailers; and silt/sediment trap 

installation.

There are a few roads and road segments (including Forest Roads 626, 1800, 1824, and 4106) not under 

Forest Service jurisdiction and planned for use as timber haul routes. Before implementation, Forest 

Service coordination with the appropriate agency or landowner would be necessary in order to acquire the 

appropriate access and use agreement.

Approximately 0.4 mile of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, 

and would involve the minimal construction standard needed to provide short-term haul vehicle and 

equipment access to treatment units. The construction work involves clearing vegetation, grubbing roots 

and stumps, excavating and shaping a travelled way, and installing drainage structures as necessary to 

ensure the road properly drains. These roads would be built to the minimum density, cost, and standard 

necessary for the intended need, user safety, and resource protection. These roads would be closed (e.g., 

gates, barricades) during operations to limit use to operators only. Intersections with roads would be 

blocked by rocks, wood or berms and would be slashed in and/or ripped and covered with slash or seeded 

within site distance of open roads to reduce potential for use after the project proposed harvest activities 

are completed. There would be no long-term changes to the amount of miles of permanent road system or 

open road density in the project area under alternative 3.

Danger trees would be removed on all project roads, approximately 11⁄2 tree lengths from the roadway 

(e.g. 125 feet), as needed for safe hauling and project implementation. To provide for public safety, 

temporary warning and other signing in accordance with Forest Service signing standards would be used 

during project implementation. Haul routes would also be restricted or temporarily closed roads in active 

project areas to provide for public safety.

Existing open routes would be left in similar condition and drainage structures shall be left in functional 

condition. Table 35 that follows contains a breakdown of project roads by Helena National Forest LRMP 

Management Area. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 - Transportation

171

Table 35. Summary of Alternative 3 haul route miles by Forest Plan Management Area

Management Area

Project Haul Route 

Total Mileage

Roads Built then Obliterated 

Mileage

M1 2.18 - 

T1 6.03 0.13

T2 8.04 - 

T3 10.19 0.10

T4 6.49 0.18

Other Lands 11.32 - 

See figure 39 for spatial information on the alternative 3 haul routes.

In addition to haul-related work in accordance with BMPs, other additional restoration treatments would 

occur on project roads. 

A new culvert would be installed where National Forest System Road 626-B1 crosses the tributary to 

Lincoln Gulch, and a sediment-filtering device (i.e., riprap, weed-free straw bales, filter fence, and/or 

slash filter windrows) would also be included at the crossing outlet. 

A sediment-filtering device (i.e., weed-free straw bales, filter fence, bio-logs/waddles, and/or slash 

filter windrows) would be installed where National Forest System Road 607-E1 parallels Stonewall 

Creek.

See the Transportation Report (Bielecki 2012) for estimated roadwork items and associated cost 

estimates. Also see the Economic Resource Report (Lahey 2012) for more information on project costs.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 3, cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable actions are expected to have 

minor impacts on the project transportation network. Project haul routes would be maintained and 

improved in accordance with BMPs to accommodate haul vehicles. Sediment sites would be mitigated to 

reduce long-term sediment delivery. And annual road maintenance activities would also occur on NFS 

roads and also on adjacent State and private roads. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans 

Alternative 3 complies with the Forest Plan for the Helena National Forest, Forest Service policy, and 

State and Federal law. 

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no other disclosures for the Stonewall Vegetation Project. 

Summary of Effects 

Figure 39 displays specific location and information regarding each road proposed for use during the 

project. See the separate Transportation Road Work and Costs spreadsheet available in the project record

for more specific information regarding road treatments and costs regarding the roads proposed for the 

project.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

172

Fire and Fuels 

Introduction

Portions of the Stonewall Vegetation Project area identified in the Tri-County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (2005) and are in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) (figure 44). The project proposes 

various prescribed burning treatments on approximately 8,560 acres.

In this section, we discuss the existing condition and provide an overview of the fuels treatments and 

effects of those treatments by alternative.

Methodology and Limitations

The fuels specialist made a field visit to the project area in 2010 to observe fuel conditions where 

treatments are being proposed. Fuels data was obtained from unit diagnoses, photos and the 2009 Helena 

National Forest Eastside Existing Vegetative Map (VMAP). The VMAP data was adjusted by forest 

personnel in an attempt to show the mountain pine beetle mortality in the project area. The data represents 

“post kill” data and is assumed to be a time period in the future once the red needles have fallen off the 

trees. Because of this adjustment, fire modeling of the existing crown fire potential is likely 

underestimated. Fire behavior fuel models used were derived from Scott and Burgan (2005) as a measure 

to display general changes in fuel profiles by vegetative cover type. All data was processed through the 

FlamMap fire behavior model (Finney 2006) to assess the distribution of fire behavior potential in the 

project area.

Post treatment modeling was also completed for the action alternatives to simulate the effects of the 

proposed treatments on fuel model and forest canopy characteristics including canopy cover, canopy bulk 

density, canopy base height, and canopy. The effectiveness of proposed treatments may not be accurately 

displayed in the modeling because the existing condition data also provided a foundation for modeling the 

alternatives. Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the results are best used to compare the 

relative effects of the alternatives, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects (Graham et al. 2004). 

Sources of Information

Information sources used for this analysis are listed below and represent some of the best available 

science obtainable at the time of report completion. There is a large body of literature that makes the case 

for treating fuels. There is even some controversy about the effectiveness of treatments of forest 

landscapes to reduce fire hazard. Please see Appendix 6 - Fuel Reduction Science–Selected Discussions 

from Literature, in the Fire/Fuels Report (Buhl 2012) in the project record for more information regarding 

treating fuels and ecological restoration science.

Individual treatment unit diagnosis completed by Helena National Forest personnel and updated in the 

fall of 2009. These can be found in the project record.

30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) raster layers from 

which we attained elevation, percent slope and aspect

National Agricultural Imagery Program (USDA Farm Service Agency 2011) aerial photo digital 

imagery.

Site visits during the summer of 2010 

GIS spatial data acquired from the Helena National Forest and other sources where noted: 

VMAP spatial data including classification for tree dominance type, tree canopy cover class, and 

tree diameter. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

173

Helena National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) management area boundaries

Property ownership boundaries 

Project area boundary

Historic wildfires

Past management activities

Wildland urban interface classification and boundaries 

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) data

Scientific literature 

Other unpublished documents

Assumptions

A number of assumptions are made in this analysis and are listed below:

Current Forest Plan and other pertinent management direction would continue indefinitely into 

the future

No major disturbance, such as wildfire, blow down or insect epidemics would occur from the 

baseline year of 2010 until implementation is completed. This analysis discusses future risk and 

probable effects if a disturbance occurs. It is not a future projection of the occurrence.

Regional Existing Vegetation Mapping Program (VMAP). 

Helena National Forest VMAP (post kill) PK and Stonewall_g data. 

The accomplishment year for analysis purposes is 2012

FlamMap modeling can provide an estimate of the potential fire behavior before and after 

treatment. 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project area is sufficient to analyze and discuss effects to the fire and 

fuels resource.

Information contained in the Stone Dry Fuels Report (Kurtz 2009) and the Stone Dry Vegetation 

Report (Milburn et al. 2006) and can also be applied to the Stonewall Vegetation Project area.

Overview of Issues

The purpose of this project as it relates to the fire and fuels resource includes the following needs: 

Develop a mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape that is diverse, resilient, 

and sustainable to wildfire and insects.

Modify fire behavior to enhance community protection opportunities while creating conditions that 

allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape.

The issues summarized below were identified from internal and external scoping of the project, and are 

related to the fire and fuels resource.

Wildland Fire and Homes: Proposed treatments may be inefficient and ineffective in reducing home 

losses due to fire.

Fire Behavior: Proposed fuels reduction work would not reduce fire behavior. 

Prescribed Burning: Concerns over risk of fire escaping burn boundaries during prescribed burning 

operations. 
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

174

Measurement Indicators

The measures to assess how well each alternative meets the purpose and need are as follows: 

Change in potential flame length within the project area - The Stonewall Vegetation Project 

includes National Forest System lands adjacent to homes and private property. Desired flame lengths 

are generally less than 4 feet allowing for safe direct attack by fire crews. Flame lengths greater than 

4 feet require deployment of additional resources such as dozers and aircraft. Deploying additional 

resources increases the time needed to apply successful fire suppression activities. Flame lengths 

beyond 8 feet increase the likelihood of torching, crowning and spotting. 3

 

Change in the potential fire type - Measured as acres of surface fire versus passive crown fire or 

active crown fire4

, low-severity surface fire allows for safe fire suppression activities as discussed 

above. 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The existing condition of the project area has been shaped by decades of wildfire activity (figure 40) and 

suppression, past silvicultural treatments, fuels reduction and prescribed burning treatments, livestock 

grazing, noxious weeds, fire wood cutting and recreational activities (appendix C). Barrett et al. (1982) 

stated that after more than 80 years without fire, dense pole sized under stories of conifers (much of it 

relatively shade-tolerant Douglas-fir) have developed beneath the partially cut old-growth pine. In many 

stands in the Douglas-fir and grand fir series in western Montana, long-term fire exclusion, with or 

without partial cutting has now brought about dense overstocking and large, continuous buildups of fuels, 

particularly live, ladder fuels that could allow fires to crown and destroy the stand. Fellin (1979) noted the 

overstocking and shift in composition to more shade-tolerant species might also increase susceptibility to 

insects and diseases.

Fire Regimes

The natural or historic fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across the 

landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of burning by 

indigenous people. The natural or historical fire regimes are classified by numbers of years between fires 

(frequency) and fire severity, which reflects percent replacement on the dominant overstory vegetation. 

The native fire regime is perhaps the most important ecosystem process altered by fire exclusion (Arno 

and Brown 1991). The historical fire regimes created shifting mosaics of patches, processes and habitats 

on the Rocky Mountain landscapes (Agee 1993). Keane et al. (1996) noted that these landscapes tend to 

become more homogeneous as fire is removed, because succession would eventually advance all stands to 

similar communities dominated by shade tolerant species. Fires generally become less frequent and more 

severe with active suppression. Modern wildfires on late-seral landscapes tend to be larger, more intense 

and more severe because of high biomass loading and multi-layer stand structure. Fires on fire-altered 

landscapes may burn more area in fewer years, meaning that rare fire years, like 1910, may be especially 

high in fire activity (Bessie et al. 1995). The increasing numbers of large, severe fires in 1fire-year would 

make suppression and control increasingly difficult further risking human life and property (Keane 2002). 

 

3 Rothermel, Richard C. 1983 59

4 Surface Fire: Fire that burns loose debris on the surface, which include dead branches, leaves, and low vegetation.

Surface fire burns only in the surface fuelbed. Passive Crown Fire: consuming single or small groups of trees or 

bushes. Active Crown Fire: The surface fire ignites crowns and the fire spread is able to propagate through the tree 

canopy.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

175

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of 

departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels and disturbance regimes (FRCC 2011). FRCC uses 

various parts of a biophysical setting (BPS)5

 by comparing the current conditions to documented 

reference conditions; then gives a rating for each BPS based on various factors including succession 

conditions, fire frequency6 and fire severity7

. The three condition classes FRCC uses to describe a BPS 

departure from reference condition are defined in the following table. 

Table 36. The three condition classes as described in FRCC

CONDITION CLASS DESCRIPTION 

Low departure (<33%) from 

reference condition is defined as

Condition Class 1

Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels are similar to those of the natural 

regime and do not predispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem 

components. Wildland fires are characteristic of the natural fire regime 

behavior, severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, native species habitats, 

and hydrologic functions are within the natural range of variability.

Moderate departure (33-66%) from 

reference condition is defined as 

Condition Class 2

Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels are different from those of the 

natural regime and predispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem 

components. Wildland fires are moderately uncharacteristic compared to the 

natural fire regime behaviors, severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, 

native species habitats, and hydrologic functions are outside the natural range 

of variability.

High departure (>66%) from 

reference condition is defined as

Condition Class 3

Vegetation composition, structure, and fuels are very different from the natural 

regime and predispose the system to high risk of loss of key ecosystem 

components. Wildland fires are highly uncharacteristic compared to the 

natural fire regime behaviors, severity, and patterns. Disturbance agents, 

native species habitats, and hydrologic functions are substantially outside the 

natural range of variability.

(Hann and Bunnell, 2001; Hann and Strohm, 2003)

Biophysical Settings

Biophysical Settings (BpS) are land delineations based on the physical setting, (e.g. elevation and aspect) 

and the potential vegetation community that can occupy the setting. A national team has established in the 

FRCC system a set of descriptions for BpS found within regions of the United States (FRCC 2005). 

Helena National Forest ecologists, fuel specialists, and silviculturists reviewed the BpS descriptions 

applicable to the project area and determined that the descriptions could be used without modification 

(Milburn et al. 2009). For this analysis area, Helena National Forest personnel spatially assigned BpS 

based upon habitat type (Milburn et al. 2009). Detailed descriptions for each BpS can be found in project 

records and a more detailed discussion of each BpS can be found in Milburn et al. (2009). 

The FRCC analysis was completed for the project area (Olsen 2010) including updates to the BpS 

classification. Data from that analysis was used for the Stonewall project and is summarized in the 

following sections. 

Table 37 that follows, shows the current departure from reference condition for each biophysical setting

located in the Stonewall Project area. The analysis shows fire frequency and fire severity are outside of 

 

5 Biophysical settings (Bps) are the primary environmental settings used to determine a landscape’s natural fire 

regime and fire regime condition class (Hann and Bunnell, 2001; Hann and Strohm, 2003

6 Fire frequency is defined as the average number of years between fires or the mean fire interval (Baker and Ehle, 

2001; Hann and Bunnell, 2001)

7 Fire severity is defined as the effects of a fire on the vegetation and forest floor, and is measured in terms of 

surface and overstory fuel consumption and heat transference to the organic and mineral soil (DeBano et al. 1998).
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

176

the reference condition for the majority of the biophysical settings. The moderate and high departure 

ratings are of most concern and it is probable these areas would continue to move further from reference 

condition without management or fire disturbance. Refer to the FRCC NFMA Analysis (Olsen 2010) or 

the Silviculture Report (Amell 2012) for more information on biophysical settings. 

Table 37. Current FRCC Rating for Biophysical Settings in Stonewall Project Area

BIOPHYSICAL SETTING

PERCENT OF AREA

FIRE REGIME 

CONDITION CLASS 

RATING

FIRE FREQUENCY 

SEVERITY RATING

STONEWALL 

PROJECT AREA CURRENT CONDITION CURRENT CONDITION

Ponderosa Pine Douglas-Fir 

(PPDF1) 32% High (99%) High (71%)

Douglas-Fir Warm (DFIR2-D) 23% High (84%) Mod (60%)

Douglas-Fir Cool (DFIR2-M) 24% Mod (47%) Mod (47%)

Lower Subalpine Fir (SPFI1) 13% Mod (52%) Low (12%)

Upper Subalpine Fir (SPFI2) 2% Low (33%) Low (24%)

Mountain Grasslands (MGRA3) 6% Low (25%) Low (25%)

Carbon Storage

The entire Atmospheric Carbon Report may be found in the project file (Amell and Klug 2013). Changes 

to atmospheric carbon release or storage resulting from the proposed activities for the action alternatives 

correspond to changes in forest vegetation cover and condition. The predicted effects of the proposed 

alternatives are described in qualitative and relative terms, as opposed to a quantitative analysis. The scale 

of carbon storage or release from the Stonewall Project is so minor relative to the scale of global or U.S. 

carbon storage and greenhouse gases (GHG) release that discussing the effects in detail would be 

meaningless.

Milburn et al. (2006) and the Stonewall Silviculture Report (Amell 2012) note forests in the Stonewall 

area have become denser, and late-seral fire-intolerant tree species have increased as a result of fire 

exclusion. Along with these changes there may have been an increase in stored carbon, however without a 

detailed and quantified analysis we are speculating. Fellows and Goulden (2008) found that carbon 

storage decreased with forest thickening due to increased mortality of large trees. Also, a substantial 

portion of the overstory and mid-story pine trees have recently been killed by mountain pine beetles and 

are no longer storing carbon, but have become sources for GHG. As the trees decay, GHG release would 

be relatively slow, but if and when wildfires burn in these stands a large portion of the decaying wood 

would be consumed (Skinner 2002, Knapp et al. 2005) and the carbon abruptly released. The recent 

mortality has most likely resulted in many stands now being sources of GHG rather than sinks. In the long 

term, as stands fill in and trees grow larger, the rate at which carbon is being stored would increase and 

the stands would eventually again become sinks rather than sources. 

Due to increases in fire-intolerant trees and stand densities, future fires are anticipated to cause a great 

deal of mortality. This means the currently stored carbon would become relatively unstable with a high 

likelihood of such stands converting carbon sinks to sources for GHG emissions. 

The general effects of activities proposed for the action alternatives would be similar and so we discuss 

them together; the major difference between the two alternatives being acres of area treated. About 8,564 

acres would be treated under alternative 2 and 6,564 acres would be treated under alternative 3 within the 

24,000-acre project area. Both alternatives comprise a variety of treatments including prescribed burning, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

177

live tree thinning with removal and fuels treatments, and dead tree cutting with removal and fuels 

treatments.

The immediate direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives to atmospheric carbon would be a 

combination of results involving storage on-site, storage off-site, and release to the atmosphere. The net 

result would be less carbon stored within the forest. Carbon in treated units would be: 

Retained on site as live trees

Retained on site as dead standing trees (snags) or coarse woody debris to be relatively slowly 

released to the atmosphere

Removed from the forest for use in harvested wood products—which would be considered offsite storage

Removed from the forest for burning as residential or industrial heat, or to produce electricity, 

which could be considered to be replacing the GHG emissions from fossil fuels 

Released to the atmosphere through prescribed burning, either directly through consumption or 

through killing small trees and making them sources rather than sinks 

Activities proposed for the action alternatives would increase the stability of stored carbon in treated 

stands and on the landscape by pushing the stands toward dominance by early seral and fire-tolerant tree 

species. Activities are designed to create more of a mosaic of stand ages and structures on the landscape, 

which would decrease stand-level and landscape-level fire intensity and severity (Buhl 2012). 

Carbon storage decreased in the project area due to the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic. Succession 

has resulted in denser stands of smaller average diameters, and a greater proportion of fire-intolerant 

trees. Although a high level of carbon is stored in the forests relative to what the site and forest types are 

capable of, the carbon is unstable due to susceptibility of stands and the landscape to severe wildfires. 

Alternative 1 would not change the condition. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in some carbon being 

removed from the forest for storage elsewhere and some carbon being released. Due to the nature of the 

treatments and the small area treated, most of the carbon contained in live trees in the project area would 

remain on site. The affected forest lands in this proposal would remain forests, not converted to other land 

uses, and long-term forest services and benefits would be maintained. Stored carbon in treated stands and 

over the landscape would be more resistant to wildfires and so more stable in the long term.

Fire Frequency and Severity

A brief description of the reference fire frequency and fire severity for each biophysical setting in the 

Stonewall Project area as rated by FRCC is discussed below (Milburn et al. 2006) and displayed in table 

38. 

Ponderosa Pine Douglas-Fir (PPDF1)

The reference fire frequency for this setting was a 22-year mean fire interval; the current frequency is 70 

years. The reference severity, which represents the amount of over story mortality that would occur in a 

wildfire, was 24 percent while the current severity is 70 percent. Fire return interval and severity are very 

different from reference conditions. The amount of tree mortality from a wildfire would be substantially 

greater than what would be expected under reference conditions. 

Douglas-Fir Warm (DFIR2-D)

The reference fire frequency for this setting was a 30-year mean fire interval; the current frequency is 70 

years. The reference severity, which represents the amount of over story mortality that would occur in a 

wildfire, was 10 percent while the current severity is 70 percent. Fire return interval and severity are very 
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

178

different from reference conditions. The amount of tree mortality from a wildfire would be substantially 

greater than what would be expected under reference conditions. 

Douglas-Fir Cool (DFIR2-M)

The reference fire frequency for this setting was a 30-year mean fire interval; the current frequency is 70 

years. The reference severity, which represents the amount of overstory mortality that would occur in a 

wildfire, was 10 percent while the current severity is 70 percent. Fire return interval and severity are very 

different from reference conditions. The amount of tree mortality from a wildfire would be substantially 

greater than what would be expected under reference conditions. 

Lower Subalpine Fir (SPFI1)

The reference fire frequency for this setting was a 111-year mean fire interval; the current frequency is 

140 years. The reference severity, which represents the amount of over story mortality that would occur in 

a wildfire, was 67 percent while the current severity is 75 percent. Frequency and severity are not 

substantially different from reference conditions. A wildfire would not behave uncharacteristically due to 

those factors. The disparity of the vegetation fuel classes to the reference composition would likely cause 

greater over story mortality than under reference composition. 

Upper Subalpine Fir (SPFI2) 

The reference fire frequency for this setting was a 143-year mean fire interval; the current frequency is 

140 years. The reference severity, which represents the amount of overstory mortality that would occur in 

a wildfire, is 57 percent while the current severity is 70 percent. The fire return interval is not different 

from the reference but the amount of tree mortality from a wildfire would be greater than what would be 

expected under reference conditions. 

Mountain Grassland with Shrubs (MGRA3) 

Wildland fires are characteristic of the natural fire regime behavior, severity, and patterns. While this 

setting would likely benefit from fire, it is characteristic of reference conditions. 

Table 38. Fire frequency and severity by biophysical settings in the Stonewall Project area

Biophysical Setting Reference Fire 

Frequency (MFI)*

Current Fire 

Frequency 

Reference Fire 

Severity (%)

Current Fire 

Severity (%)

Ponderosa Pine 

Douglas-Fir (PPDF1) 22 MFI 70 years 24% 70%

Douglas-Fir Warm 

(DFIR2-D) 30 MFI 70 years 10% 70%

Douglas-Fir Cool 

(DFIR2-M) 30 MFI 70 years 10% 70%

Lower Subalpine Fir 

(SPFI1) 111 140 years 67% 75%

Upper Subalpine Fir 

(SPFI2) 143 MFI 140 years 57% 70%

Mountain Grassland 

with Shrubs (MGRA3)

Characteristic of 

reference 

condition

Characteristic of 

reference condition

Characteristic of 

reference condition

Characteristic of 

reference condition
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

179

*Mean Fire Interval (MFI)-An arithmetical index of fire frequency, expressed as the average number of fire intervals within a given 

time period (Firewords.net)

Fire History and Occurrence

Fire has been the major influence on vegetation patterns, composition, structure, function, age and 

development of both individual stands and the larger landscape (Arno 2000). Fire history data from the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project region (ICBEMP), which includes the Stonewall 

Project area, suggest that extensive fire activity occurred at least every ten to twenty years between the 

mid-1500s and the early 1900s (Barrett et al. 1997). Agee (1993) added that changing land use patterns 

and attempts to exclude fire have succeeded in greatly reducing the scope of fire on the landscape. 

In the Stonewall area, 66 fires were reported from 1920 until 2011. Although many fires had no 

accompanying written information and therefore were not included in fire occurrence maps, this data does 

give a glimpse of the fire suppression history in the Stonewall area. Fires that escaped detection would not 

be included. The fire occurrence data was digitized as point source data from historical maps that 

portrayed fires by year, size class, and cause for 1920 to 1969. For the period from 1970 to 2009, fire 

occurrence information was developed from Kansas City fire database (KCFast). The records from this 

period have detailed information including acreage, cost, and physical location. The Snow/Talon fire 

burned 36,012 acres adjacent to the project area in 2003. The Keep Cool Fire burned 302 acres at the edge 

of the project area in 2006 and cost approximately one million dollars to suppress. In 2007, the Bull 

Mountain Fire burned 30 acres. In 2011, the Lone Point fire burned 3 acres within the Stonewall project 

area. In addition, the Porcupine fire burned 133 acres and the Arrastra Fire burned 472 acres, both within 

1.5 miles of the project area. 

The NFMA report (Kurtz 2009) includes the fire history within all ownerships in the Stone Dry watershed 

area, which includes the Stonewall project area. This report noted 188 fires were reported from 1920 

through 2009. For 1920 to 1969, approximately 1,243 acres on all ownerships burned and during the 

period from 1970 to 2009, 125 fires burned approximately 531 acres within the watershed area. 

Therefore, no more than 1,774 acres or less than 4 percent of the project area has burned across all 

ownerships since 1920. Acreage for fire size classes are as follows: (A) less than 0.25 acres, (B) 0.26-9.9 

acres, (C) 10-99 acres, (D) 100 – 299 acres, (E) 300-999, (F) greater than 1,000 acres. Figure 40 spatially 

displays the fire history of the project area.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

180

Table 39 shows the fires per decade by size class within the Stonewall Project area. Acreage for fire size 

classes are as follows: (A) less than 0.25 acres, (B) 0.26-9.9 acres, (C) 10-99 acres, (D) 100 – 299 acres, 

(E) 300-999, (F) greater than 1,000 acres. Figure 40 spatially displays the fire history of the project area.

Table 39. Number of fires in the Stonewall Project area per decade by size class

DECADE A B C D E TOTAL

1920-1929 1 1

1930-1939 6 1 7

1940-1949 5 5

1950-1959 4 1 1 6

1960-1969 6 1 7

1970-1979 6 3 1 10

1980-1989 5 3 1 9

1990-1999 7 3 1 11

2000-2009 5 3 1 9

2010-Current 1 1

Total 45 15 4 1 1 66

Source: Stonewall_PrjBdyFirepts_092111.xlsx
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

181

Figure 40. Fire History Map of the Stonewall Project Area
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

182

Fire Behavior and Fuel Condition

Fire behavior is driven by the combination of fuels, topography, and weather across the landscape. 

Surface fires spread according to the direction and speed of wind and the steepness of a slope. Passive 

crown fire encompasses a wide range of fire behavior from individual trees torching to nearly active 

crown fire. Active crown fire spreads rapidly and involves surface and canopy fuels and spreads from tree 

to tree through the canopy. Crown fires are more difficult to control and have more severe effects 

compared to a surface fire due to higher rates of spread, increased fire intensity, and increased probability 

of spot fires igniting ahead of the fire front. Fuel conditions exist in the project area that could contribute 

to high-intensity fire adjacent to private land. 

Treatments that decrease surface, ladder and canopy fuels8 generally make the area more resistant to 

stand-replacing wildfires. Keane and others (2002) state that since the early 1930s, fire suppression 

programs in the United States and Canada successfully reduced the amount of wildland fires in many 

Rocky Mountain ecosystems. This lack of fires within many forest and range landscapes has resulted in 

atypical accumulations of fuels that pose a hazard to many ecosystem characteristics. 

A fire behavior fuel model represents the fuelbed characteristics necessary to predict surface fire behavior 

in fire behavior modeling systems. In 2005, Scott and Burgan presented a new set of fire behavior fuel 

models that expanded on the original 13 created by Anderson in 1982. Advantages of this new set include: 

increased precision in surface fire intensity prediction and subsequent crown fire behavior prediction, 

increased ability to simulate changes in fire behavior as a result of fuel treatments, and improved accuracy 

of fire behavior predictions outside of the severe period of the fire season (Scott and Burgan 2005). For 

these reasons the Scott and Burgan models are used in the fire behavior modeling systems used in this 

analysis. The distribution of fuel models mapped in the Stonewall project area is shown in table 40. 

Thirty-two percent of the project area is mapped as fuel model TU1 which depicts a combination of forest 

litter9

 and a low load of grass and shrub fuel as the primary carrier of fire. Fuel model TU5 comprises 24 

percent of the area. The primary carrier of fire in fuel model TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or 

small tree understory which can likely lead to crown fire due to the abundance of ladder fuels (figure 41). 

Fuel model TL5 comprises twenty seven percent of the project area. The primary carrier of fire in TL5 is 

a high load of conifer litter, slash and mortality fuel. Although fire behavior is relatively low in TL5 this 

fuel model also includes downed logs which can increase resistance to control by firefighters. With 

concentrations of dead fuels, individual trees or groups of trees may torch, and fire may continue through 

the crowns aided by high winds. The majority of the non-forested fuel models within the project area are 

mapped as GR1. The flame length and rate of spread in GR1 is low compared to other grass fuel models 

and is primarily used to represent the grassland areas.

 

8 Surface fuel is defined as fuel lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead 

branch material downed logs, bark, tree cones, and living plants of low stature. Ladder fuels are defined as fuel that 

provides vertical continuity between surface fuel and canopy fuel strata, increasing the likelihood that fire will carry 

from surface fuel into the crowns of shrubs and trees. Canopy fuels are the foliage and fine branchwood of trees. 

(Scott 2008)

9 Litter is defined as leaves, needles, fine twigs, and other organic material on the forest or grassland floor that have 

undergone little or no decomposition.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

183

Figure 41. Photo showing understory ladder fuel component combined with overstory conifers

Table 40 Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the project area. 

Fuel Model 

Code Description Acres % Of Total

GR1 (101) Short, sparse dry climate grass 1,243 5 

GR2(102) Low load, dry climate grass 295 1 

GS2 (122) Moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub 83 <1

TU1(161) Low load, dry climate timber-grass-shrub 7,734 32

TU5(165) Very high load, dry climate timber-shrub 5,669 24

TL3 (183) Moderate load conifer litter 2,215 9 

TL4(184) Small downed logs 11 <1

TL5 (185) High load conifer litter 6,568 27

TL7(187) Large downed logs 31 <1

TL8 (188) Long needle litter 147 <1

A current risk to a significant portion of the landscape in the project area is a stand-replacing fire event 

such as the one that occurred in 1988 during the Canyon Creek Fire10 in the Scapegoat Wilderness, and in 

2003 during the Snow-Talon Fire in the Copper Creek drainage northeast of Lincoln. The project area has 

similar fuel types and weather patterns (table 42) that support the risk of stand-replacing fire. Other 

reasons include, (1) fire suppression within the Stone Dry area has been quite effective since records were 

 

10 The Canyon Creek Fire burned 247,000 acres of which approximately 160,000 acres burned in a single burning 

period, the largest ever recorded.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

184

kept in 1920, (2) the removal of fire as an important process has affected the current fire regime, (fire 

interval and fire severity), and (3) a substantial number of stands have been classified as mid- and lateseral closed canopy. The location of the town of Lincoln and the surrounding community is a concern for

large wildfire in the project area, as north/northwest winds are common with cold fronts that would push a 

fire towards the community (Kurtz 2009). 

A visual indicator of fireline intensity is flame length (Rothermel 1983). Flame length is widely used as a 

means to relate visible fire characteristics and interpret general suppression strategies. These flame-length 

classes and interpretations are familiar to fire managers and are widely accepted as an intuitive

communications tool. Table 41 compares fireline intensity, flame length, and fire suppression difficulty 

interpretations.

Table 41. Fireline intensity interpretations

Fireline 

Intensity

Flame 

Length Interpretations 

Low Less than

4 feet

Direct attack at the head and flanks with hand crews; hand lines should stop spread of 

fire 

Moderate 4-8 feet

Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using hand tools. Hand 

line cannot be relied on to stop fire spread. Equipment such as dozers, engines, and 

retardant aircraft can be effective.

High 8-11 feet

Fires may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and spotting. 

Control efforts at the fire head are likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect 

attack methods

Very High > 11 feet Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable; control efforts at the head are 

likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect attack methods

Table based on Rothermel (1983) 

Geospatial fire modeling was used to evaluate the flame length and crown fire potential within the project 

area under a weather scenario conducive to high fire behavior on the Helena NF. Weather conditions that 

occurred during the Snow Talon Fire in 2003 were used for this scenario. The modeling was conducted 

for current and future scenarios under the proposed alternatives. The current condition results are 

summarized for the project in table 42 and visually displayed in figure 42. 

Table 42. Potential fire behavior characteristics modeled with 25 mph upslope 20-foot winds.

Potential Fire Behavior

Characteristic Percent A

 

Flame Length

Less than 4 feet 32

Greater than 4 feet 68

Fire Type

Surface Fire 65

Crown Fire 35

a -Percent of burnable acres- Non-burnable acres are not shown in table
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

185

Figure 42. Existing condition fire behavior potential displayed as flame length

As shown in table 42, modeling suggests that 68 percent of the project area has potential fire behavior 

characteristics that would make direct suppression strategies ineffective or unsafe for firefighters. 

Portions of the project area exhibiting these conditions are of concern due to the proximity of private land. 

Conditions like these can lead to high acreage burned and significant adverse effects on resources. 

Local fire managers state that significant fire spread on the HNF is generally due to spotting and winddriven crown fires. The Snow Talon Fire in 2003 was an example of this type of fire behavior. In one 

afternoon the fire grew 20,000 acres due to heated fuels and the alignment of westerly winds as noted by 

Studebaker’s Incident Management Team in the Lincoln Complex Operations Narrative (USDA 2003). 

Areas expected to experience crown fire have the potential for spotting. Figure 43 shows the areas that 

have the highest potential for crown fire in the project area. Fires initiating within these areas have the 

potential to spread through spotting and threaten private land adjacent to the project area.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

186

Figure 43. Existing condition fire behavior potential displayed by fire type

Wildland Urban Interface

The Tri-County Fire Working Group, which is composed of representatives from Broadwater, Jefferson 

and Lewis and Clark counties, developed the Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP 

2010). Membership of the group includes individual citizens, local government, state and federal 

agencies, interested contractors and fire suppression departments. The CWPP identifies goals and 

objectives for mitigating wildland fire hazard. Some of the objectives are:

Propose and implement projects to protect communities at risk from wildfire. 

Focus first on the wildland urban interface communities at risk. 

Encourage the Federal and State agencies to continue creating fire defensible space around homes 

that border agency land. 

The CWPP defined the wildland-urban interface (WUI) as, “... the area within 4 miles from interface 

communities that possess a population density exceeding 250 people per square mile” (CWPP 2005). 

WUI boundaries were defined utilizing input from local residents, available GIS technology, known fuel 

hazards and fire history of the area, local topographic features, weather patterns and understanding the 

fire response and suppression capabilities in the area. Proposed projects in the WUI would become a 

priority for accomplishment and would be assigned a numerical value of risk based on the existing fuel 

hazard, number of people in the immediate area and past history of wildland fires starting in the 

immediate area. Lincoln, Montana is identified as a “Community-at-Risk” in the Federal Register (CWPP 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

187

2005). The Fire Ignition Probability map showed the area surrounding Lincoln, including the Stonewall 

project area, as a moderate to high occurrence of fire starts based on the data years of 1990-2000. Portions 

of the Stonewall Project area are ranked as high to very high with regard to fuel hazard rating. These areas 

represent the potential for high intensity crown fires with extreme rates of spread. 

Thirty-nine percent of the Stonewall project area is classified as wildland-urban interface. The CWPP 

further identifies the Stonewall project as a priority fuel hazard reduction project. The decision maker 

considered treatments recommended by the Lincoln Restoration Committee, along with treatments 

identified by forest specialists that would move towards Forest Plan goals for fuel reduction and increase 

habitat diversity for associated wildlife species.

Table 43 that follows displays the wildland-urban interface classifications within the Stonewall Vegetation 

Project area, approximate acres that lie within each classification and the proportion of the project area 

represented by each classification. Figure 44 shows spatially the WUI classifications within the project 

area. 

Table 43. Wildland Urban Interface classifications within Stonewall Project area

Wui Classification Acres Proportion Of Project Area (%)

Outside WUI Zone 11,452 48

Low Risk 7,785 32

Moderate Risk 2,087 9 

High Risk 1,502 6 

Very High Risk 1,180 5 

Total 24,006 100
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

188

Figure 44. Fire risk ratings for Wildland Urban Interface within the Stonewall Project boundary

Environmental Consequences

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Spatial Bounds: The spatial scale for effects analysis is dependent upon the measurement indicator and 

focused within the Stonewall project area boundary to assess treatment effectiveness in reducing fire 

behavior. 

Temporal Bounds: The year 2010 is the baseline used for the existing condition and this analysis. It is 

estimated proposed treatments would be completed in approximately 10 years. Re-entry into the units for 

maintenance prescribed burning is desired to maintain treatment effectiveness and to continue restoration 

efforts.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities and Connected Actions Relevant to 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the fire and fuels resource consider the impacts of the 

alternatives when combined with fuel profile changes resulting from other activities including 

silvicultural treatments, wildfires and fuels reduction activities. These actions contributing to cumulative 

effects were selected because they have caused or have the potential to cause changes in fire behavior. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

189

Past Activities

Past activities that have shaped the existing condition of the project area include wildfire, fire 

suppression, prescribed burning and other fuels reduction activities, silvicultural treatments and insect and 

disease activity. Previous fire (table 39) and fuels reduction or prescribed burning activities have 

influenced the project area. From 1950-present there has been approximately 7,922 acres11 treated within 

the Stonewall project area. There have also been approximately 5,067 12acres of silvicultural treatments 

from 1950 to the present (Amell 2012b). Other past actions including livestock grazing, fire wood cutting, 

noxious weed treatment and recreational activities generally had a small or localized effect on fuels in the 

project area and have been considered in describing the current condition.

Current and Future Activities

Current and future activities predicted to influence the fire and fuels resource include a Forestwide hazard 

tree removal and fuels reduction project. This project involves removing hazardous trees up to 175 feet 

from the edge of road right-of-ways. This treatment would overlap portions of treatment units under the 

proposed action. 

Connected Actions

Connected actions are considered necessary in order to implement proposed treatments. Fire control lines 

are a connected action to the fuels resource and are proposed with this project. 

Prior to prescribed burning it may be determined control lines are needed to assure prescribed fire remains 

within designated unit boundaries. Control lines are defined as, “all constructed or natural fire barriers 

and treated fire edges used to control a fire” (NWCG 1994). This includes but is not limited to the 

following: black line, hand line, pruning, mowing, saw line and hose-lays. Control lines would occur 

along existing trails and ridgelines or in areas of thinner vegetation when feasible. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects

There would be no direct effect to fuels under this alternative. The no-action alternative would not alter 

the fuel profile to reduce fire behavior and would not meet the purpose and need of this project. Potential 

fire behavior characteristics would be similar to those described under the existing condition and 

summarized in table 42. In the absence of human-caused or natural disturbance such as vegetation 

treatment activities and wildfire, there may be an increased accumulation of surface and ladder fuels due 

to insect and disease activity, blow down and the progression of forest succession. 

Indirect Effects

Over time, the no-action alternative would indirectly lead to increased surface, ladder and crown fuels 

that affect flame length, contribute to the torching of trees, and make crown fire more likely (Peterson et 

al. 2005, Graham 2004). Increases in fuel loading would make overstory trees more susceptible to damage 

from wildfire. It is probable the fire-tolerant trees would continue to be replaced by trees that are less fire 

tolerant and therefore less resistant to stand-replacing fires. Wildfires that escape initial attack may impact 

adjacent private lands and other resource values. It is probable that another large wildfire, like the Snow 

Talon fire, may threaten adjacent private lands. Direct suppression tactics by firefighting forces would not 

be as effective in the project area under the no-action alternative as compared with the results of the 

 

11 The number of acres treated may also include overlap from areas that have been re-treated over the decades. 12 The number of acres treated may also include overlap from areas that have been re-treated over the decades.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

190

treatments proposed for the action alternatives. The no action alternative would restrict local fire 

managers from utilizing fire for meeting various land management objectives. Fire suppression activities 

would continue in the project area. Case studies of watersheds in two national parks in California found 

the impacts of suppression on fire return interval departure (FRID) were substantial. The results showed if 

all ignitions were allowed to burn, the fire return interval would have improved from a high departure 

rating to a low departure rating in one of the study areas. The author noted the consequences of 

suppressing fires included substantial impacts to the fire return interval which may have a substantial 

impact on an entire ecosystem (Miller 2012). 

Average snag numbers were shown to exceed Forest Plan standards in all tree size classes without taking 

into account mortality in the years 2009 and 2010 (Amell 2012). It was estimated snags greater than or 

equal to 7 inches d.b.h. ranged from 47-49 tons per acre, which is approximately 25 times the Forest Plan 

required level. Tree mortality, as a result of insect and disease activity and natural forest succession, 

would continue into the future and would exacerbate the amount of standing and downed fuels in the 

project area and adjacent to private land. These unprecedented fuel levels have the potential to 

significantly affect fire behavior should another wildland fire occur within or adjacent to the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

Present or reasonably foreseeable future fuels reduction and vegetation management projects in the areas 

would complement other federal and private fuel reduction treatments that have occurred or are occurring 

by collectively reducing fire behavior (flame length and crown fire potential) within the areas they are 

applied by removing surface, ladder and crown fuels. Public firewood cutting has occurred in the project 

area and would continue into the future having a localized effect on fuels. 

The Helena National Forest’s has begun implementing the “Forest-Wide Hazardous Tree Removal & 

Fuels Reduction Project” (USDA Forest Service 2010). This project would remove hazardous trees within 

National Forest System roads rights-of-way and around administrative sites. The Stonewall Project area 

would benefit from this project due to a reduction in fuel loading once the activity fuel loading levels are 

reduced. Removing standing dead and down fuels in road rights-of-ways would provide safe areas for 

firefighters to initiate fire suppression activities. It is also expected that these areas would improve fire 

line construction efficiency.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The no-action alternative would fail to achieve goals set forth in the National Fire Plan and would not 

comply with the Helena National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan direction. In addition, the 

no-action alternative would be unresponsive to the Tri-County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(2010), as well as the Lincoln Restoration Committee and Montana Forest Restoration Committee’s 

recommendations. 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 

Project Design Features

The Stonewall Vegetation Project has been designed with features that are intended to minimize or avoid 

potential adverse effects while meeting project objectives. In addition to the treatments proposed for the 

action alternatives described in this section, design features would be implemented where applicable. A 

description of the project design features relating to fire and fuels and other resources is displayed in table 

9, chapter 2. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

191

The design features in table 9 pertaining to fire and fuels are FUEL-1 through FUEL-8. This analysis is 

based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both action 

alternatives. Specific design features listed above that are applicable to fire and fuels are designed to 

protect other resources such as water and soil.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Treatment Descriptions

Group 1: This group includes 18 treatment units comprising about 974 acres. Treatment objectives for 

this group are to develop mature, open forests comprised mostly of fire-resistant species. The proposed 

treatments would thin live trees, remove dead trees, and prescribe burn surface fuels. All tree thinning 

would be "from below" to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees except that thinning regimes 

would favor retaining smaller trees of a more desirable species over larger trees of a less desirable 

species, and would favor keeping smaller, healthier and disease-free trees over larger, diseased trees. In 

general, the species preference for retention would be aspen, western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir in descending order. This general order of preference 

may be modified for individual stands to address management objectives such as retaining species 

diversity, site factors, and other stand-specific factors such as relative species presence as noted in 

individual stand/unit prescriptions. 

Trees would be thinned to an average spacing of 20 to 40 feet (109 to 27 TPA), but spacing could vary 

widely. Thinning would be by hand or machine. 

All cut, live trees of a merchantable size would be removed for utilization. All merchantable dead trees 

would be removed, except those needed to meet other resource concerns (e.g., snag and downed large 

woody debris requirements). 

The thinning and removal units that follow would be underburned or jackpot burned to reduce fuels.

Group 2: This group includes 25 treatment units comprising about 1,132 acres. Treatments would thin 

small-diameter trees of little to no merchantable value. The thinning regime would generally be as 

described above for Group 1, except that post-thinning average tree spacing would range from 12 to 20 

feet (109 to 303 TPA). Thinning would be by hand and/or machine, depending upon tree size. In several 

units, thinning slash would be piled by hand and burned. 

Group 3: This group includes 19 treatment units comprising about 745 acres. Treatments proposed are 

seedtree and shelterwood harvest/regeneration systems (appendix B). Most trees, except as needed for 

shelter and seed production would be removed. In some of the shelterwood treatments, trees would be 

retained in groups; in others the remaining trees would be relatively evenly distributed. All cut, live trees 

of a merchantable size would be removed for utilization. All merchantable dead trees would be removed, 

except those needed to meet other resource concerns (e.g., snag and downed large woody debris 

requirements). Many of the units would be burned to reduce fuel loads and prepare sites for natural 

regeneration or planting. Many of the units may be planted with some combination of ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, and western larch where needed to regenerate the stands to the desired seral and fire-resistant 

species.

Group 4: This group includes 11 treatment units comprising about 223 acres. Treatments proposed are 

clearcut harvest/regeneration systems in which all trees would be removed except for scattered clumps or 

individuals. Retained trees would mostly be Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or western larch. All live and 

dead merchantable trees would be removed for utilization. Following cutting and removal, units would be 

prescribe burned, the type of burn varying by individual unit fuels reduction and site preparation 

treatment need. Natural regeneration by Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine is expected to occur to some 
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

192

degree and Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch may be planted, the mixture differing by 

individual unit. 

Group 5: This group includes two treatment units comprising about 25 acres. The treatments would 

remove dead and dying trees, slash non-commercial-sized trees, and reduce fuels by handpiling and 

burning. All cut merchantable trees would be removed for utilization using ground-based equipment 

except as needed to meet other resource concerns.

Group 6: This group includes three treatment units comprising about 449 acres. The treatments would cut 

small trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed 

burning. The prescribed burning would create openings less than 5 or 10 acres, the opening size 

depending upon the unit. Units would be prescribed burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of 

undesirable trees, and preparing sites for natural regeneration.

Group 7: This group includes three treatment units comprising about 410 acres. The treatments would cut 

small trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed 

burning. Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut to create small openings around available 

whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir trees to enhance the regeneration of those 

species. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, 

and prepare sites for natural regeneration. The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 5, 10, or 

20 acres depending upon the treatment unit. 

Group 8: This group includes seven treatment units comprising about 4,604 acres. The treatments would 

cut small trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to low-intensity prescribed 

burning. Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut to create small openings around available 

whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir trees to enhance the regeneration of those 

species. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, 

and prepare sites for natural regeneration. The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 30 or 75 

acres depending upon the treatment unit. 

Aspen is in a number of units proposed for treatment. The aspen can be considered seral to either 

subalpine fir or Douglas-fir, depending upon the unit and site. In many unit exams, the aspen is simply 

recorded as being present, as rare, or as a trace; while in several other units it comprises a substantial, 

although still minor, portion of the stocking, for example Unit 3. Comments concerning the aspen in unit 

exams range from “suppressed in the understory” to “vigorous in the overstory, but proportionally not 

much suckering.” In general, we can characterize aspen in proposed units and the project area as (1) small 

clones, (2) heavily competing with—to suppressed by— conifers, and (3) a minor stand component (with 

a few exceptions).

Whitebark pine can be found in several units from groups 6, 7, and 8. In general, the whitebark pine in the 

project area is considered highly infected by white pine blister rust, and can be considered seral to 

subalpine fir. On sites where it is a seral species in the Northern Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine 

depends upon fire to maintain its dominance or presence (Arno 2001, Keane 2001, Kendall and Keane 

2001, Morgan and Murray 2001). In the absence of fire, subalpine fir has increased in presence, and the 

combination of increased subalpine fir and whitebark pine mortality, and lack of regeneration due to white 

pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle have resulted in a decline in whitebark pine.

Alternative 3 Treatment Descriptions

Groups 1-8: Under alternative 3, treatments for units in groups 1-8 would be the same as discussed 

previously under alternative 2. The treated areas would change from that discussed in alternative 2 

because under alternative 3 several units are not proposed for treatment and 12 units are proposed for 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

193

treatment under new groups 9 and 10. Treatment acreages for alternatives 2 and 3 are displayed in table

45. 

Group 9: Under alternative 3, about 1,040 acres would be treated with a low-intensity and low-severity 

prescribed burn (underburn). The purposes of the underburn would be to reduce surface and ladder fuels 

(small trees) and so modify future fire behavior while minimizing impacts to stand overstory and 

midstory stocking from the prescribed burn. 

Group 10: This group includes units 46a and 47a. Treatments would be designed in a mosaic pattern to 

maintain cover and forage for wildlife while promoting ponderosa pine and aspen, and reducing ladder 

fuels. Portions of the stands would be thinned to (1) reduce understory competition from around large 

ponderosa pine trees, (2) thin heavily-stocked groups of trees on sites historically dominated by 

ponderosa pine, and (3) remove conifer competition from within and around quaking aspen. Treatment 

guidelines are as follows:

To reduce understory competition around large ponderosa pine, and move areas toward or maintain 

multi-storied ponderosa pine structure, within 50 feet of ponderosa pine trees larger than 17 inches 

d.b.h. remove all but two trees. The retained trees should be of varied size and age classes.

In areas dominated by ponderosa pine, but lacking live trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., trees would 

be thinned to 48 to 109 trees per acre depending upon tree size. 

Ponderosa pine snags greater than 17 inches d.b.h. would be favored for retention to meet Forest Plan 

direction for snags. 

Conifers less than 17 inches d.b.h. would be removed up to 100 feet of existing aspen patches. 

Post-thinning, slash would be jackpot burned or hand-piled and burned to reduce fuels. 

Treatments would affect up to 50 percent of these units. 

Table 44 displays the proposed treatment acreages for the action alternatives by prescription group.

Table 44. Prescription group acres by alternative

Prescription Group Alternative 2 

Acres

Alternative 3 

Acres

1 974 232

2 1,132 822

3 892 664

4 223 152

5 25 25

6 303 326

7 410 36

8 4,604 3,265

9 0 1,040

Total 8,564 6,564

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Proposed treatments would reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels and change the fuel model profile, 

thereby decreasing the area with potential for flame lengths greater than four feet and reducing potential 
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

194

crown fire risk. In addition, alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the risk of wildfire impacts to adjacent private 

lands and other resource values. Collins (2010) stated larger individual treatments have a greater potential 

to reduce fire behavior and slow fire spread, which ultimately impacts adjacent untreated stands and 

should enhance suppression opportunities and increase firefighter safety. By treating these areas, they 

become more resilient to stand-replacing wildfire and allow greater protection within the WUI zone. 

Minore (1979) noted that mixed-severity fires kill a large proportion of the most fire-susceptible tree 

species, such as subalpine fir, which tend also to be the shade-tolerant species favored by fire exclusion.

Barrett (et al 1982) concluded implications for management of wilderness and other natural areas (such as 

roadless areas) are that lightning fires may not be frequent enough to re-create pre-settlement conditions. 

It may be necessary to set prescribed fires to achieve initial fuel reduction for returning some ecosystems 

to pre-settlement conditions. Such human-ignited prescribed fires in wilderness natural areas may also be 

justifiable in terms of resuming an ancient approach of using fire to accomplish multiple objectives.

Treatments would also help fire managers introduce more low-intensity prescribed fire in the future. 

National Forest System lands and adjacent private lands would be positively affected from the reduction 

of hazardous fuels and subsequent modification of potential fire behavior. In addition breaking up the 

continuous horizontal and vertical fuels could warrant changing portions of the Stonewall project area 

from a Fire Management Unit13 1 (FMU) “full suppression” to FMU-2 “modified suppression” and allow 

fires to be managed for resource benefit. (Kurtz 2009) 

Scientific findings indicates the most appropriate fuel treatment strategy is often thinning (removing 

ladder fuels and decreasing crown density) followed by prescribed fire, piling and burning fuels, and 

mechanical treatments. These treatments would provide maximum protection from severe fires in the 

future (Peterson 2005). Other research shows that areas treated before a fire begins can decrease severity 

(Strom and Fulé 2007, Peterson et al. 2005, Omi and Martinson 2004, Agee and Skinner 2005, Graham 

2004, Pollet and Omi 2002, Fulé et al. 2001). 

Reinhardt et al. (2010) noted post-harvest slash treatment (mastication, whole tree yarding or no 

treatment) were not as important as harvest and prescribed fire treatments over time. “This may be 

because the slash treatments affected the surface fuels only and not the subsequent development of the 

stand. Thinning and prescribed fire, which change stand structure and composition, have much more 

lasting effects on fuels and fire potential.” However, in extreme weather conditions, such as drought and 

high winds, fuel treatments may have little effect on fire spread or severity (Pollet and Omi 2002). 

Treatments on National Forest System land would reduce fire intensity and crown fire potential but may 

not directly protect all homes. Studies indicate that wildfire mitigation focused on structures and their 

immediate surroundings is the most effective way to reduce structure ignitions (Cohen 1999, 2000, 2003; 

Scott 2003). While individual home-by-home treatments can also help reduce the risk of loss to individual 

homes, relying solely on such treatments would forego strategic opportunities for controlling fires within 

this wildland urban interface area. Although homes in the path of a wildfire are perhaps the most 

immediately recognized value at risk, research shows that treatments need to go beyond the home ignition 

zone for other resource values (Graham 2004). 

A study conducted by Graham and others (2009) of wildfires during the summer of 2007 that burned over 

500,000 acres within central Idaho found that the limited loss of structures and resource damage was 

largely due to the existence of the fuel treatments and how they interacted with suppression activities. In 

 

13 Fire Management Unit is a unique land management area defined by land objectives, topographic features, values 

to be protected, political boundaries, fuel types, or major fire regimes. (2011 Helena FMP) 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

195

addition to modifying wildfire intensity14, the burn severity15 to vegetation and soils within the areas 

where the fuels were treated was generally less compared to neighboring areas where the fuels were not 

treated. They noted that by modifying the fire behavior, the fuel treatments presented suppression 

opportunities that otherwise may not have been available. These opportunities ranged from providing 

locales to conduct burnouts16, to the location of both hand and machine constructed fire lines. In 

particular, the mechanical fuel treatments were very effective in creating conditions where surface fires 

dominated. Because of the lower intensity of the surface fire in these areas, there were safe zones for 

firefighters and crews who could then readily suppress the numerous spot fires that often occurred. Their 

observations suggest fuel treatments that create irregular forest structures and compositions, both within 

and among stands, tend to produce wildfire resilient forests. Miller (2012) found that fires allowed to play 

their natural role created additional fuel breaks and reduced fuel loading. 

Fire modeling suggests the proposed treatments would effectively reduce fire behavior. Following 

implementation of a chosen alternative, the treated areas should exhibit surface fire under the modeled 

conditions, making fire suppression efforts safer and more effective. With these alternatives, desired fuel 

loadings and fire behavior characteristics would be achieved and natural or prescribed fire could occur 

with less risk. 

Little is known about treatment longevity but a few studies suggest that benefits to fire effects are limited 

to about 10-15 years (Finney et al. 2005). Collins et al. (2010) noted that in dense fire-excluded stands, 

multiple burns would be needed to achieve more long-lived effects.

Baker (2009) noted the need for land managers to reduce vulnerable fuels near housing, infrastructure, 

roads and other locations where human-set fires could spread into restoration areas. Implementing the 

alternatives would meet the collaborative restoration vision for the Southwestern Crown of the Continent, 

which includes prescribed fire and natural ignitions as tools to restore species composition and structure 

in a predictable and beneficial manner. As climate change modifies forest ecology, fire management is 

appropriately adjusted. Forest restoration and fuel management activities facilitate the reduction of 

wildfire management costs while re-establishing natural fire regimes (Southwestern Crown Collaborative 

2010). 

Impacts of the treatments on standing dead trees would differ according to the various treatments.

Regeneration harvest and intermediate harvest treatments are expected to reduce snag numbers, thereby 

reducing fuel-loading levels. Many of these treatments are located adjacent to private land, and it is 

expected treatments would reduce fuel loading to acceptable levels meeting fire and fuels management 

objectives. Post mechanical treatment burning may generate a small degree of mortality; however, it is not 

expected to negatively affect the fire and fuels resource. In units proposed for mixed-severity prescribed 

burning only, there would be substantial mortality in the neighborhood of 60 TPA, however it must be 

noted that almost 80 percent of the dead trees would be between 7 and 12 inches d.b.h. (Amell 2012). 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Past wildland fire events have had an effect on the landscape and would continue in the future. Decades 

of fire suppression in many western forests have resulted in high tree densities from infilling with shadetolerant, fire-sensitive tree species. Cumulative effects from wildfires and past management activities are 

discussed in the existing condition section. The existing condition has been influenced by fire exclusion 

 

14 Fire intensity is defined as the amount of energy of heat release per unit time.

15 Fire severity is defined as the effect of a fire on ecosystem properties, usually defined by the degree of soil heating 

or mortality of vegetation.

16 Burnout is defined as the act of setting fire inside a control line to consume fuel between the edge of the fire and 

the control line.
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

196

and large fires, as well as natural and artificial activities including insects and disease and past timber 

harvest. It is impossible to predict when wildfire may occur in the future, or the subsequent effects of that 

fire.

Alternative 2 or 3 combined with other fuels reduction activities previously discussed under the no action 

alternative, would modify fire behavior by contributing to the overall reduction of surface, ladder, and 

crown fuels, thereby reducing fire intensity and crown fire potential within and adjacent to the project 

area. There is an indeterminate amount of fuels reduction activities (Fire Wise) work occurring on private 

lands adjacent to the project area. These combined treatments would complement the purpose and need 

goals for fire and fuels management by modifying fire behavior to enhance community protection 

opportunities, while creating conditions that allow for the re-establishment of fire as a natural process on 

the landscape.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Alternative 2 and 3 comply with Helena National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan goals, 

standards, and guides and National Fire Plan goals. The alternatives are responsive to the Tri-County 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and the Lincoln Restoration Committee and Montana Forest 

Restoration Committee’s recommendations and objectives, and are in-line with the collaborative group’s 

13-Guiding Principles. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

With alternative 2, we are proposing to treat approximately 8,564 acres, which is equivalent to about 36 

percent of the project area. The proposed treatments include under burning, jackpot and broadcast 

burning17. Site preparation burning is proposed, and would take place after harvesting is completed to 

prepare areas for tree planting. Prescribed burning is proposed as a stand-alone treatment in 15 units. 

Most of the prescribed burn only units are located in inventoried roadless areas. Where there is sparse 

vegetation in these units, small-diameter trees (less than 6 inches d.b.h.) would be cut and scattered. 

Cutting small trees ensures there are adequate surface fuels to carry the fire. 

Helena National Forest personnel developed eight prescription groups to describe thinning and prescribed 

burning treatments for the proposed action. Prescription groups 1-5 would receive a silvicultural treatment 

prior to a prescribed burning treatment. Silvicultural treatments are discussed in detail in the DEIS (Amell 

2012) and include precommercial thinning, intermediate harvest and regeneration harvest. Prescribed 

burning involves controlled application of fire to natural or activity created fuels. Natural accumulated 

fuels and activity fuels generated as a result of harvest would be offered as fire wood to the public in areas 

where there is a large amount. In other areas, fuels would be piled and burned or underburned to reduce 

fuel loading levels.

In prescription groups 6-8, prescribed burning is proposed as a stand-alone treatment on 5,463 acres. The 

objective is to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels and break up contiguous vegetation. These 

treatments would reduce potential fire behavior and provide fire managers the opportunity to reintroduce 

fire to the landscape. Prescribed burning would be conducted using ground or aerial firing methods. 

 

17 Under burn is defined as a fire that is constrained to surface fuel and therefore has a low to moderate fireline 

intensity (less than 300 kW/M) (2008 Firewords v1.0.2). 

Jackpot burning is prescribed burning of concentrations of woody fuels.

Broadcast burning is a prescribed burning activity where fire is applied generally to most or all of an area within 

well-defined boundaries for reduction of fuel hazard, as a resource management treatment, or both (NWCG 2011).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

197

Approximately 5,014 acres would be burned with varying fire intensities resulting in mixed-severity fire18

effects. The majority of these units are typically high-elevation lodgepole pine stands with concentrations 

of subalpine fir and whitebark pine intermixed. The mixed-severity units are strategically placed to break 

up the continuous vegetation within the higher elevations, promote age class diversity, aspen regeneration 

and enhance whitebark pine habitat by creating openings suitable for regeneration (Kurtz 2009). 

Individual mixed-severity fires typically leave a patchy, erratic pattern of mortality on the landscape that 

fosters development of highly diverse communities (Arno et al. 2000). Overall, these fires kill a large 

proportion of the most fire-susceptible tree species, such as subalpine fir, and a smaller proportion of fireresistant species including ponderosa pine, western white pine and whitebark pine, which are replaced 

successionally by shade tolerant species with fire exclusion (Arno et al. 1997). To meet objectives, 

approximately 20-60 percent of prescribed fire units would be blackened, creating a mosaic19 of burned 

and unburned patches. Areas of prescribed burn units would result in mixed-severity fire effects with 

portions of the overstory canopy being blackened. Overstory canopy openings from approximately 5 acres 

to less than 75 acres are desired. The range of openings varies depending on the prescription group. 

Of the 5,463 acres proposed for prescribed burning (without harvest), the remaining 449 acres would have 

low-intensity fire applied and are expected to result in low-severity fire effects. These units are primarily 

low-elevation, open Douglas-fir or mixed Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands with intermittent lodgepole 

pine. Low-intensity and prescribed fire would retain or promote open stands, reduce encroachment , retain 

large-diameter Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, reduce the risk of crown fire, and reintroduce fire into a 

fire-adapted ecosystem. To meet objectives, estimated overstory canopy openings would equate to less 

than 20 percent in these units. These openings would range from 5 acres to approximately 10 acres. 

Slashing20 treatments using chainsaws are proposed in prescription groups 6-8 (prescribed-burning units) 

prior to burning. Slashing small trees increases surface fuel loading to ensure there is sufficient fuel to 

carry the fire. This enables fire managers more flexibility in accomplishing prescribed fire objectives at 

lower temperatures, higher relative humidity and creates varying fire intensity levels. Fire intensity 

variations would create a mosaic burn more representative of a natural fire (see appendix B, table B-1 for 

treatment descriptions by unit). 

All prescribed burning would occur when weather and fuel conditions are favorable. All burning would 

take place under the guidelines in the prescribed fire burn plan developed specifically for project-related 

burning activities. Prescribed burn plans address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency 

resources and potential escapes. Table 45 displays the prescription groups and the approximate number of 

acres that would receive prescribed burning treatments. 

 

18 Mixed Severity Fire is a broad fire severity classification that refers to fire effects intermediate between the low 

severity and replacement severity (FRCC Guidebook 2010).

19 Mosaic Fire is any landscape-scale mixed fire that has scattered patches across the fire perimeter, resulting in a 

mosaic of burned and unburned patches (Hann 2004).

20 Slashing involves cutting small-diameter trees less than 6 inches diameter breast height (d.b.h.).
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

198

Table 45 Proposed burning treatments and approximate acres of prescription group for alternative 2

GROUP GROUP TREATMENT TITLE ACRES* 

1 Prescribed under burning and jackpot burning 

following harvest 974

2 

Pile burning following harvest

1,132 Under burning or slash treatment adjacent to 

private

Under burning following harvest

3 

Prescribe under burning, jackpot and broadcast 

burning following harvest

745 Site prep burning following harvest

Pile burning following harvest

4 

Prescribe under burning, jackpot and broadcast 

burning following harvest 223

Site prep burning following harvest

5 Piling and burning of excess fuels following 

harvest 25

6 Low Severity Prescribed Fire, canopy openings of 

approximately 5 to 10 acres 449

7 Mixed Severity Fire, canopy openings of 

approximately 5 to 20 acres 410

8 Mixed severity fire, canopy openings of 

approximately 30 – 75 acres 4,604

Total 8,564*

*The total represents the total acres of prescription groups, not all acres would be treated.

Fire modeling was used to evaluate the potential flame length associated with fireline intensity and crown 

fire under alternative 2. The results for potential flame length for alternative 2 are shown in table 46 and 

visually displayed in figure 45. Fire type potential is also summarized in table 46 and displayed in figure 

46. 

Table 46 Fire behavior potential under alternative 2

POTENTIAL FIRE BEHAVIOR

CHARACTERISTIC PERCENT A

Flame Length

<= 4 feet 89

> 4 feet 11

Fire Type

Surface 87

Crown 13

a -Percent of burnable acres- Non-burnable acres are not shown in table 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

199

Figure 45. Alternative 2 – proposed action fire behavior potential displayed as flame length

Figure 46. Alternative 2 – proposed action fire behavior potential displayed by fire type 
Fire and Fuels – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

200

Maximum Management Area (MMA) 

Maximum Management Areas (MMAs) have been identified for the Stonewall Project area. A maximum 

management area is a pre-identified boundary that allows a prescribed fire to exceed the unit boundary. 

An MMA generally follows natural barriers, old fire scars and access points. MMA treatment areas would 

enable fire managers more flexibility in implementing prescribed burning operations. Establishing MMAs 

was determined to be an important component of implementing this project because there are contiguous 

fuels with few natural barriers, limited access into remote units, more complexity in prescribed fire 

prescriptions due to location of burn units and the existing and projected condition of vegetation and 

fuels. As long as the prescribed fire stays within the MMA boundary, it does not have to be declared a 

wildfire and can be managed as a prescribed fire as long as the following conditions are met. The 

anticipated effects of a prescribed fire that leaves unit boundaries and encroaches into the pre-defined 

MMA area would be similar to the effects expected within prescribed burn units. Vegetation in MMA 

areas would exhibit similar post-burn conditions as prescribed burn units, and it is estimated no more than 

50 percent of each MMA would be burned. Project Design Features (PDFs) are established to minimize 

impacts to resources throughout the project area, and would also apply to MMA areas. All burning in 

MMA areas would take place under guidelines set forth in a prescribed fire burn plan developed 

specifically for this project area. Prescribed burn plans address parameters for weather, air quality, and 

contingency resources.

Any fire that moves outside the prescribed burn unit boundary has to meet burn plan prescriptions 

and objectives for resource benefit.

Total burned area within the MMA would not exceed 50 percent

If the 50 percent margin is reached, acres from the units not yet burned would be dropped to not 

exceed 50 percent

A prescribed fire that exceeds the MMA would be declared a wildfire. 

Ignition operations would not occur outside prescribed unit boundaries. 

Alternative 3

Some units in alternative 3 were dropped from treatment, unit boundaries were modified and treatment 

methods changed as compared to alternative 2. Under alternative 3 we are proposing to treat 6,564 acres, 

approximately 27 percent of the project area (table 47). Prescription groups 9 and 10 were developed for 

this alternative, and include low-intensity under burning. Group 9 includes approximately 1,040 acres in 

10 units. Treatment units or portions of units were removed from prescription groups 1, 3 and 4 and added 

to group 9. Low-severity under burning in these units would reduce surface and ladder fuels while 

minimizing impacts to overstory residual trees. Prescription group 10 includes units 46a and 47a, which 

were originally included in Group 1 under alternative 2. Treatments in group 10 would be designed to 

maintain cover and forage for wildlife while still meeting fuels management objectives by reducing fuels.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

201

Table 47. Proposed burning treatment and total acres of prescription groups under alternative 3 

GROUP GROUP TREATMENT TITLE ACRES

1 Prescribed under burning following harvest 232

2 

Pile burning following harvest

822 Under burning or slash treatment adjacent to private

Under burning following harvest

Pile burning and under burning

3 

Prescribe under burning, jackpot and broadcast burning following harvest

Site prep burning following harvest 664

Pile burning following harvest

4 Prescribe under burning and broadcast burning following harvest 152

Site prep burning following harvest

5 Piling and burning of fuels following harvest 25

6 Low intensity and low severity Prescribed Fire, with canopy openings of less 

than 5 acres

326

7 Mixed severity fire, with canopy openings of 5-20 acres 36

8 Mixed severity fire, with canopy openings of 30-75 acres3,265 Mixed severity fire, openings <75 acres

9 Low intensity, Low severity Jackpot and under burning 637

10 Jackpot and/or hand pile burning activity fuels as needed 403

Total 6,564*

*The total represents the total acres of prescription groups, not all acres would be treated.

Fire modeling was used to evaluate the potential flame length associated with fireline intensity and crown 

fire under alternative 3. The modeled outcomes are summarized in table 48 and visually displayed in 

figure 47. Fire type is also summarized in table 48 and displayed in figure 48. Under alternative 3, the fuel 

profile is modified over less area than under alternative 2, resulting in less overall change in fire behavior. 

Table 48. Fire behavior potential under alternative 3

Potential Fire Behavior

Characteristic Percent

Flame Length <= 4 feet 76

> 4 feet 24

Fire Type Surface 85

Crown 15
Fire and Fuels– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

202

Figure 47. Alternative 3 fire behavior potential displayed as flame length

Figure 48. Alternative 3 fire behavior potential displayed by fire type
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

203

How the Alternatives Meet the Identified Issues

The following issues or concerns were identified for this project during the scoping period. The 

alternatives would address the issues as follows.

1. Identified Issue/Concern: Wildland Fire and Homes: Proposed treatments may be inefficient 

and ineffective in reducing home losses due to fire.

Proposed treatments would reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels and change the fuel model profile, 

thereby decreasing the area with potential for flame lengths greater than four feet and reducing potential 

crown fire risk. In addition, alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the risk of wildfire impacts to adjacent private 

lands and other resource values. By treating these areas, they become more resilient to stand-replacing 

wildfire and allow greater protection within the WUI zone. 

2. Identified Issue/Concern: Fire Behavior: Proposed fuels reduction work will not reduce fire 

behavior. 

Fire modeling suggests the proposed treatments would effectively reduce fire behavior. Following 

implementation of a chosen alternative, the treated areas should exhibit surface fire under the modeled 

conditions, making fire suppression efforts safer and more effective. With these alternatives, desired fuel 

loadings and fire behavior characteristics would be achieved and natural or prescribed fire could occur 

with less risk.

3. Identified Issue/Conern: Prescribed Burning: Concerns over risk of fire escaping burn 

boundaries during prescribed burning operations. 

All prescribed burning would occur when weather and fuel conditions are favorable. All burning would 

take place under the guidelines in the prescribed fire burn plan developed specifically for project-related 

burning activities. Prescribed burn plans address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency 

resources and potential escapes.

Summary 

The mechanical treatments proposed would reduce surface fuels, raise canopy base heights by reducing 

ladder fuels and stand density, resulting in modified fire behavior potential. The result would be safer, 

more efficient and direct initial attack of unwanted fires by fire suppression forces. 

The prescribed burn treatments would reduce fuels and break up contiguous vegetation to create a 

heterogeneous fuelscape so that areas with high fire behavior potential are interspersed with areas of 

mixed and low fire behavior potential, thereby limiting the potential for high-intensity crown fire to 

spread towards the WUI. Fire management has evolved over time and fire managers look for 

opportunities to manage fire for multiple objectives. Reintroducing fire to the landscape and allowing it to

occur as a natural process is desired in order to move the landscape toward the desired condition as 

outlined in the LRMP. 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project would be important to the success of future fire suppression efforts and 

complements past treatments and those currently occurring or being proposed on adjacent federal, state 

and private lands.
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

204

Air Quality

Introduction

The smoke from combustion contains a number of pollutants, including microscopic particles referred to 

as “particulate matter” (PM). Exposure to PM can cause significant health problems, especially for people 

suffering from respiratory illnesses. Smoke also adversely affects the clarity of the air, or visibility. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised the air quality standards to provide improved health 

and visibility protection. With these standards in place land managers must consider using techniques that 

minimize prescribed fire emissions and the adverse impacts of smoke on public health and the 

environment. Careful planning and cooperation among land managers, air quality regulators, and local 

communities ensures that prescribed fire, clean air and public health goals can be met.

This analysis describes the existing condition of the air quality resource within the project area and 

evaluates the potential effects of the proposed action and the no-action alternative. We used the best 

available science in this analysis; however, we understand that opposing science exists. A literature 

review listing the opposing science sent to the project in public comment scoping responses, and the 

accompanying Forest Service response, is in the project record at the Lincoln Ranger District.

Methodology 

Analysis of smoke production used current versions of FOFEM 5 (First Order Fire Effects Model), 

CONSUME 2.1, and SIS (Smoke Impact Spreadsheet) smoke production models (Schaaf and Norville 

2002). Embedded in SIS is a module that calculates emissions using FOFEM 5 and the CONSUME 2.1 

Pile Wizard. A dispersion module is also incorporated into the spreadsheet that calculates down-wind 

concentrations using the CALPUFF dispersion model. The use of each model is recommended through 

guidance specific to USDA Forest Service Region 1 Forests, and encouraged by State open burning 

regulations defining Best Available Control Techniques for prescribed wildland open burning in ARM 

17.8.601(1)(a)(iii). 

Threshold for Significance

The threshold for significance is the Federal and State regulatory standard of 35 μg/m3 for PM2.5 and 

how the modeled PM2.5 emissions compare with the regulatory standard.

Assumptions and Variables Used In the Models:

All model runs were conducted using the following vegetation types: SAF 210 Interior Douglas-fir and 

SAF 218 Lodgepole Pine. For alternative 1 analysis, it was assumed a natural wildfire burning during the 

summer would burn 230 acres per day, the wildfire was burning through fuel model G with a natural fuel 

load, and the meteorological values and mixing heights used resulted in an excellent ventilation index. An 

additional model run for alternatives 2 and 3 was conducted using slash fuel loading conditions for a 

prescribed burn in the fall. It was assumed the entire burn unit selected for modeling would be ignited all 

at once to show the maximum result of emissions that could be produced under the circumstances. 

For alternatives 2 and 3 pile burning, it was estimated there would be 15 piles burned per day with fortyminute ignition intervals. The piles were modeled as 25 feet wide by 10 feet high with a 10 percent 

packing ratio. 

Limitations

Because model inputs are constant and there is no avenue to incorporate variability due to landscape, 

weather changes or human factors, the models do not precisely determine the exact amount of smoke or 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

205

pollutant released. The possibility of increased smoke production and duration of smoke release exists 

due to the potential for multiple day burn windows, unpredicted stable air masses settling over the burn 

area and unexpected changes in weather conditions. Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the 

results are best used to compare the relative effects, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects 

(Graham et al. 2004). 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Spatial Bounds 

A maximum perimeter distance of 50 miles was considered for effects. This allows for consideration of 

the effects to Class 1 areas.

Temporal Bounds 

The time span of 1-5 days was chosen because smoke from prescribed burning is usually transitory in 

nature and impacts to air quality are expected to be relatively short lived, lasting 1-5 days after ignition is 

completed. 

Measurement Indicators 

The measurement indicator is the predicted smoke emissions (PM2.5) on sensitive receptors up to 50 miles 

downwind of the project area. 

Overview of Issues 

There is a concern about the possible effects on human health from smoke as a result of prescribed 

burning operations. There is also concern the proposed project would negatively affect air quality and 

visibility in the surrounding communities and nearby wilderness areas. 

Indicators 

The measurement indicator is the predicted smoke emissions (PM2.5) on sensitive receptors up to 50 miles 

downwind of the project area and how that compares with appropriate Federal and State regulatory 

standards and requirements. 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition 

Analysis Area

The project area lies within Montana/Idaho Airsheds 3B and 6. A portion of the project area lies in Powell 

County with the remainder in Lewis and Clark County. Airsheds are defined and managed by Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 

Air Quality

Air quality within the project area is generally good. Limited local emission sources exist including 

residential wood burning, debris burning, road dust, light industry, vehicles, construction equipment and 

wildland fire. The greatest emissions occur during the winter from residential wood burning stoves used

for indoor heat. Wildland fires can produce substantial emissions in the summer and fall for short to 

moderate durations. 
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

206

Generally, dispersion of emissions within the project area is good due to the terrain and wind activity. 

There is consistent wind dispersion during much of the year. Up valley winds during the day and down 

valley winds (cold air drainage) at night can dominate more than overall prevailing wind direction on 

ridge tops. Inversions sometimes develop in the valley during winter burning periods with stable 

atmospheres.

Visibility at Class 1 Areas

The Clean Air Act (1963) establishes as a national goal “the prevention of any future, and the remedying 

of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory class 1 Federal areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution” (42 U.S.C. §7491 et seq.). 

The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 designated wilderness areas existing at that time to be class 1 

areas. Areas designated Wilderness after 1977 are classified as class 2, unless they are additions to 

existing class 1 areas. 

The class 1 areas nearest to the Stonewall Vegetation Project area are the Scapegoat Wilderness, 1 air mile 

north, the Bob Marshall Wilderness approximately 18 air miles northwest, Mission Mountain Wilderness 

48 air miles northwest, Gates of the Mountains 36 air miles southeast and the Flathead Reservation 40 air 

miles west. These areas could be affected by the proposed project during periods of atmospheric stability. 

The Clean Air Act also allows the states to designate future wilderness areas as class 1 using normal state 

processes. These national park and wilderness areas are afforded visibility protection from anthropogenic 

sources of air pollution, including emissions from prescribed burning. Montana has twelve mandatory 

class 1 federal areas as outlined in 40 CFR 81.417. Figure 49 displays the geographic locations of 

Montana’s mandatory class I federal areas:

Visibility impairment is a basic indicator of air pollution. The EPA has determined that regional variation 

in visibility needs to be addressed. The Regional Haze Regulations for Protection of Visibility in National 

Parks and Wilderness Areas (1997) are intended to improve visibility or visual air quality in 156 national 

parks and wilderness areas across the country. These regulations apply to all states, including those that 

do not have class 1 areas, because pollution that occurs in those states may contribute to impairment in 

other states or class 1 areas and must be accountable. The regional haze regulations propose “presumptive 

reasonable progress targets” for improving visibility in each class 1 area. The progress targets are 

described in terms of deciviews, a measure for describing perceived changes in visibility. For example, a 

deciview of zero represents pristine conditions. 

A requirement of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) in class 1 areas is that new stationary 

sources must have a PSD permit. A stationary source is a source of pollution well defined, such as a 

smokestack. The Stonewall Vegetation Project is not considered a major stationary source and is not 

subject to the PSD permitting requirement. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

207

Figure 49. Montana Class 1 Area Map

Pollutants

Airsheds can include both attainment and nonattainment areas; designations EPA uses to describe the air 

quality in a given area for any of six common pollutants referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The pollutants 

are: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

particulate matter (PM). Carbon monoxide in high concentrations can be extremely hazardous to humans 

and animals, but its health impacts are usually only significant for personnel directly exposed to smoke 

(e.g. firefighters) (Hardy et al. 2001). 

In addition to effects on health, some pollutants may also contribute to the formation of ozone in the 

atmosphere (Malm 1999). Lead at low levels can cause health problems either by inhalation or ingestion. 

Nitrogen dioxide may cause increased respiratory illnesses and harm lung function in people with existing 

respiratory illnesses. Breathing ozone can also trigger health problems and worsen bronchitis and asthma. 

Sulfur dioxide may also have adverse respiratory effects on humans with existing respiratory illnesses. 

The main pollutants monitored for prescribed fire emissions are particulate matter. Particulate matter is 

fine material, of any substance, in sizes small enough to remain suspended in air for long periods. 

Two standards apply to particulate matter and they are distinguished by the size of particulate matter 

described. PM10 describes all fine particles no larger than 10 microns in size. These particles can be 

harmful to human health because their small size allows them to bypass the filtration of the upper 

respiratory system and become lodged deep within the lungs. Particles with diameters between 2.5 and 10 
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

208

micrometers are referred to as "coarse." Sources of coarse particles include crushing or grinding 

operations and dust from paved or unpaved roads. Other particles may be formed in the air from the 

chemical change of gasses; they are indirectly formed when gases from burning fuels react with sunlight 

and water vapor. These can result from fuel combustion in motor vehicles, at power plants and in other 

industrial processes. PM10 has been the pollutant particulate level standard against which EPA has been 

measuring Clean Air Act compliance. Based on newer scientific findings, the Agency is considering 

regulations that would make PM2.5 the new standard (EPA 2011a). 

The description PM2.5 refers to particles that are no larger than 2.5 microns (approximately 1/30th the 

average width of a human hair). These are harmful in the same way as larger PM10 particles, but can lodge 

even deeper in the lungs due to their smaller size, and are associated with serious health problems and 

premature mortality. Particulate matter also has an adverse effect on maximum sight distance and scenic 

visibility. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion activities (motor vehicles, power 

plants, wood burning) and certain industrial processes. The particulate level PM2.5 would have the most 

significant impact in the project area as well as the area and people surrounding the project area, and is 

the focus of this analysis.

Nonattainment Areas

If a community does not attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for one or more 

pollutants, the EPA would designate it a nonattainment area. States must demonstrate to the public and the 

EPA how a nonattainment area would meet the NAAQS, based upon the control of emission sources. 

Such demonstrations employ control plans that are part of each State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

including emissions from prescribed fire. 

Lewis and Clark County is in nonattainment for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Lead (Pb) as determined by 

the EPA: Criteria Pollutant Area Summary Report (Green Book) (EPA 2011b). 

Smoke-sensitive Areas

Smoke-sensitive areas are defined as:

“The distance and direction of sensitive areas should be disclosed. These are areas that could be 

impacted by the proposed burning activity and are considered sensitive due to legislation, air 

quality concerns, or public concerns. Examples of sensitive areas are Class I areas, non-attainment

areas, impact zones identified by the Montana / Idaho State Airshed Group, or major

transportation corridors near or downwind from the proposed burning activity and population 

centers. To be consistent with other air quality permitting, it is suggested that areas within a 100 

km radius, especially those areas downwind, should be identified” (Acheson et al. 2005).

Table 49 displays a list of some of the sensitive receptors that could be impacted by smoke out to 50 miles 

from the project area (list is not all-inclusive). A mapped overview of the potential smoke impact area is 

in figure 2 in appendix A of this document. 

Fugitive Dust from Vehicle Traffic on Unpaved Roads

Fugitive road dust is a result of motorized vehicle use on dry unpaved roads and is caused by the force of 

the wheels moving across the road surface causing pulverization of surface material. Dust is then lofted 

by the rolling wheels and the turbulence caused by the vehicle itself. This air turbulence can persist for a 

period of time after the vehicle passes. The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of unpaved 

road varies linearly with the volume of traffic. Variables that influence the amount of dust produced 

include the average vehicle speed, vehicle weight, number of wheels per vehicle, the road surface texture, 

and the fraction of road surface material classified as silt as well as the moisture content of the road 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

209

surface. The moisture content of the road surface has the greatest influence on the amount of fugitive dust 

produced. 

Several activities may contribute to fugitive dust effects within the project area including equipment and 

vehicle travel on forest roads during mechanical and prescribed burning operations, as well as felling, 

skidding and piling of material at landing sites. These activities are not anticipated to result in significant 

impacts to regional air quality because of the transitory nature of fugitive dust, and therefore were not 

modeled for this analysis. 

Table 49. Summary of sensitive receptors adjacent to or near the project area

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS DIRECTION TO LOCATION 

OF POTENTIAL RECEPTOR

APPROXIMATE DISTANCE

(MILES) FROM PROJECT AREA 

TO POTENTIAL RECEPTOR 

Seeley Lake Community NW 38

Ovando W 15

Helmville SW 12

Deerlodge S 42

Helena SE 37

Wolf Creek SE 25

Augusta N 37

Drummond SW 26

Phillipsburg SW 49

Lincoln Community SE 4 

Missoula Impact Zone W 44

Flathead Reservation (class-1) W 44

Bob Marshall Wilderness (class 1) N 20

Scapegoat Wilderness (class 1) N 1 

Gates of the Mountains (class 1) E 40

State Highway 279 E 10

State Highway 200 S adjacent

US Highway 287 E 24

Interstate Highway 90 S 25 

State Highway 83 W 27

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

There is a concern about the possible effects on human health caused by smoke generated from prescribed 

burning operations under the action alternatives. There is also concern the proposed project would 

negatively affect air quality and visibility in the surrounding communities and nearby wilderness areas. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects

This alternative has no direct effect on air quality because no treatment activities are proposed.
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

210

Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, no treatments would occur and there would be no anthropogenic emission 

contribution to degrade air quality. However, this alternative could lead to increased accumulation of 

ground fuel due to insect and disease activity and continuous natural forest succession. This accumulation 

of ladder and ground fuels may lead to an increased probability of high intensity wildfire in the future 

which could result in air quality degradation. Air quality can be degraded by smoke from wildfires to the 

point of human illness in some instances. Hardy (2001) noted emissions from wildfire are typically 

greater than emissions from a prescribed fire on the same acreage due to greater emission factor, fuel 

consumption, and fire intensity. Wildfires are also known to result in high levels of emissions, and 

associated NAAQS violations. Smoke from wildfire can cause visual impacts to the surrounding area and 

create hazardous driving conditions on adjacent state, county, and Forest Service roads for extended 

periods of time. Should a wildfire occur, dust emissions from fire suppression equipment could also show 

a marked increase. In the short-term air quality impacts from alternative 1 would be less because 

prescribed burning and pile burning would not occur. In the long term, the no-action alternative would not 

meet the purpose and need of this project, which includes modifying fire behavior to enhance community 

protection. For example, under the no action alternative the emissions from a hypothetical wildfire was 

modeled and the results are displayed in table 3 that follows. 

The modeling results include projected emissions from a 230-acre wildfire scenario burning during the 

summer. The estimated PM2.5 concentration is 153.47 μg/m3 0.1 mile downwind of the hypothetical 

wildland fire exceeding the PM2.5 threshold of 35μg/m3. 

Table 50. PM2.5 concentrations from wildfire burning under no action alternative 

Downwind Distance from Wildland 

Fire Scenario (miles)

24-Hour Average PM2.5

Concentrations (μg/m3)

.1 153.47

1.0 17.61

5.0 6.01

10.0 4.11

20.0 2.51

30.0 1.80

40.0 1.40

50.0 1.14

Cumulative Effects 

There are no activities proposed for the no-action alternative, therefore it does not have a direct effect on 

air quality. This alternative does have the potential for a major indirect effect if a wildfire were to occur in 

the untreated project area. 

Previous wildfire activity and increasing conifer mortality due to insect and disease can influence the 

amount of material available for consumption in the event of a future wildfire. 

Emissions sources contributing to particulate matter and other pollutants would continue to be present. 

These sources include wood burning stoves, vehicle exhaust, emissions from recreational campfires, 

emissions associated with prescribed fire, fugitive dust and wildfires within or near the project area. 

Wildfire frequency is expected to continue as it has been observed in the past. An unwanted wildfire 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

211

could lead to negative cumulative effects and would be dependent upon the size and intensity of the 

wildfire. Visibility impairment and human health impacts due to sudden and dramatic pollutant release are 

likely with a large wildfire event. Cumulative effects of smoke are unknown because the intensity and 

size of a wildfire is unknown. Research indicates wildfires can produce nearly twice the amount of smoke 

as prescribed fire (Huff et al. 1995). 

Alternative 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the same type of fuel treatments including; jackpot burning, pile burning, 

underburning, site preparation burning and mixed- and low- severity prescribed fire. Air quality modeling 

focused on prescribed fire and landing pile burning. Although alternative 2 would include more acres of 

all prescribed burning, only a certain number of acres could be burned per day under either alternative. 

Therefore, the daily effects of both alternatives are described here together. Table 51 shows the total acres 

for each alternative.

Table 51. Acre comparison by treatment for each alternative 

Treatment Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Under burning 1,824 1,648 

All other burning including Jackpot, Site Prep 752 878 

Prescribed Fire 5,463 3,627 

Total 8,039 6,053 

Table 52 and table 53 show the modeling results for a prescribed burn scenario conducted in the fall and 

for a pile-burning scenario conducted in the winter. 

The projected PM2.5concentration at .01 mile downwind is well below the Federal NAAQS and State 

MAAQS 24-hour average concentration threshold of 35μg/m3 for both scenarios. Since the nearest class 1 

area is approximately 1 mile away, the results further show there would be no significant impacts to any 

class 1 area (figure 50). The smoke concentrations from prescribed burning operations under these 

alternatives are expected to be within NAAQS and state of Montana air quality standards. Montana’s 

smoke management program is EPA-certified, and the prescribed fire activities associated with the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project would meet Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule requirements.

Table 52. Alternatives 2 and 3 prescribed burning concentrations 

RESULTS FOR A FALL PRESCRIBED BURN SCENARIO

Downwind Distance from Burn 

Unit (miles)

24-hour Average PM2.5

Concentrations (μg/m3) 

0.1 26.15

1.0 8.71

5.0 3.79

10.0 2.38

20.0 1.34

30.0 .92

40.0 .72

50.0 .62
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

212

Table 53. Alternative 2 and 3 pile burn concentrations

RESULTS FOR A LANDING PILE BURN SCENARIO

DOWNWIND DISTANCE FROM 

PILE (MILES)

24-HOUR AVERAGE PM2.5

CONCENTRATIONS (μG/M3) 

0.1 31.27

1.0 13.25

5.0 4.28

10.0 .96

20.0 .30

30.0 .13

40.0 .11

50.0 .094
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

213

Figure 50. Stonewall Project potential smoke impact map
Air Quality– Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

214

Project Design Features

All prescribed burning would be implemented in full compliance with the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) air program with coordination through the Montana/Idaho Airshed 

Group and reported to the Airshed Coordinator on a daily basis. 

Burning would be dependent upon site conditions and weather conditions. Notice of the pile and 

prescribed burning timeframes, or burn windows, would be shared with the public through paper notices 

and announcements on the Forest website.

Direct Effects 

Prescribed burning treatments would have direct, short-term impacts on air quality in the project area and 

possibly to regional air quality. 

Prescribed fire treatments for this project would occur during the spring and/or fall seasons and when 

weather conditions and dispersion forecasts are favorable. Burning of landing piles and hand piles 

generally occur during late fall, early winter or spring, and typically after an area has received significant 

rain or snow to prevent the pile from spreading and reduce the risk of escape. All burning operations are 

conducted under the guidelines set forth in a prescribed fire burn plan developed by fire managers 

specifically for the project area. Prescribed burn plans address parameters for weather, air quality and 

contingency resources. All burning would occur over the life cycle of the project estimated at 5 to 10 

years. Transitory smoke as a result of implementation of alternative 2 or 3 could produce some smoky 

days in the local area, and may also result in the form of nuisance smoke, smell, or haze. Smoke would 

also be expected to settle into the lower draws and drainages during the evening hours following ignition. 

This would most likely occur during the burn smoldering phase.

Indirect Effects 

One objective of the project is to modify fire behavior to enhance community protection in the event of a 

future wildfire. Wildfires present a risk to public health and result in damage to both the environment and 

property. Wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions and associated NAAQS violation and 

worst visibility. Vegetation management treatments provide the opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce 

the magnitude of wildfire air quality problems. According to (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010) wide-scale 

prescribed fire application can reduce CO2 fire emissions for the western US by 18 to 25 percent. The 

total amount of pollutants released by prescribed burning under alternative 2 and 3 would be spread out 

over several years and would occur when emissions would be unlikely to have significant adverse effects 

on human health and visibility. After implementation, it is estimated that subsequent wildfires in the 

project area could produce less pollutants due to less fuel available to burn. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on air quality as a result of the implementation of alternative 2 or 3 would result in an 

incremental decrease in air quality as pollutants from this project combine with other particles produced 

by the implementation of other aspects of this project, specifically fugitive road dust. Emitted pollutants 

from fire do have an effect on an area, which depends on atmospheric conditions at the time of the fire. 

Pollutants from fires can be cumulative with emissions from many local and regional sources, including 

other fires, vehicles, industrial sources, buildings and agriculture. Because of the widespread and shortlived impacts of emissions from fire, no other projects were explicitly considered for cumulative impact 

analysis. It is impossible to predict what pollution sources may be present at the time of a fire occurring at 

an unspecified date in the future. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Air Quality

215

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

All prescribed burning would be implemented in full compliance with MDEQ air program with 

coordination through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. All action alternatives would meet Forest Plan 

Standards for air quality by following coordination requirements. The project complies with the Federal 

Clean Air Act.

Habitats of Special Concern 

Introduction 

This section discusses snag and old growth availability as well as proposed treatment effects in the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project analysis area.

Methodology

The discussion below identifies information sources, analysis assumptions and analysis methods used. 

Information sources are not described in detail. For details concerning individual information sources see 

the Vegetation Section and the Stonewall Silviculture Report (Amell 2012). All information for this 

section was provided by the Helena National Forest or was acquired from the Region 1 and 4 Forest 

Health Protection Program. 

Information Used

Information used in this analysis includes:

Individual treatment unit diagnosis completed by Helena National Forest personnel and last updated 

in fall 2009 

Formal stand exam data collected for selected stands by Helena National Forest personnel

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) “grid intensification” sample plot data collected by the HNF 

contained in the Field Sampled Vegetation database (FSVeg)

Informal exam data collected, and stand diagnosis data collected and produced during the fall of 2009 

and 2010 by HNF personnel 

Site visits during the summer of 2010 

Past management activity data located in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) 

database

GIS spatial data acquired from the Helena National Forest including:

VMAP spatial data including classification for tree dominance type, tree canopy cover class, and 

tree diameter

Helena National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) Management Area boundaries 

2001-2010 aerial insect and disease detection (ADS) survey data 

Project area boundary 

Historic fire activities

Past management activities

Old-growth

Other documents as referenced in the Stonewall Vegetation Project Old Growth and Snag report 

(Amell 2012b). 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

216

Assumptions

Ecosystems are dynamic, American public desires and expectations change, and climatic conditions 

change. These factors require that a number of assumptions, from great to small, be made in any analysis. 

In this analysis we do not include as assumptions that natural processes which are certain to happen 

would continue to happen. For example, succession is a natural process constantly occurring due to 

differences in plants abilities to colonize, survive, grow, and propagate as conditions change. The process 

of succession would always happen and we do not consider it an assumption that it would do so. We do 

include as assumptions factors such as climate change-the direction, magnitude, and effects of which 

cannot yet be considered as “known”-and the occurrence or non-occurrence of disturbances such as 

wildfires which can modify the direction of succession. 

Assumptions we make in this analysis applying to both old growth and snags include:

Management direction displayed above would continue indefinitely into the future 

In the long-term time frame of the analysis, no additional major disturbances, such as wildfire or bark 

beetle epidemics would occur: the analysis concerns future risk and probable effects if the disturbance 

occurs and is not a future projection of the occurrence of any disturbance 

Climate change has occurred to some degree and will continue to occur in the future. Ramifications of 

a changing climate for the project area are likely to be (Amell 2012b, Karl et al. 2009): 

More of the winter precipitation will fall as rain

Snow levels will raise in elevation

Snow melt will occur earlier in the spring 

The late-spring to summer dry season (fire season) will increase in length

Summer dry seasons will be drier and warmer

Prolonged drought periods will increase, but their occurrence will probably be variable 

Storms will become more intense with a larger portion of annual precipitation falling in the 

heaviest storms

Night-time minimum temperatures will increase

Growing season and number of frost-free days will increase

Wildfires are likely to become more frequent and the area burned averaged annually likely greater

Weather conditions conducive to bark beetle mortality are likely to become more frequent 

The accomplishment year for analysis purposes is 2012 

No unforeseen occurrences such as fire, blowdown, or insect mortality would occur from 2010 until 

the time of implementation

Additional assumptions used for the old growth analysis include: 

Climate changes will most likely bring about some change in site characteristics leading to climax 

plant community changes, but the direction and magnitude of the changes are unknown and would be 

very small within the time frame of this analysis

Minimum stand characteristics found in Green et al. (1992, errata corrected 2005) are appropriate to 

define old growth in the project area 

Designated old growth does not have to meet minimum tree characteristics described in Green et al. 

(1992, errata corrected 2005) to be managed as old growth to meet the Forest Plan standard

Intensive stand examinations provide the best data available for quantifying stand characteristics
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

217

The algorithm (R1 Old Growth Utility, FSVeg) is the best tool available to identify stands that have 

old growth characteristics 

Since 10 acres is the minimum old growth stand size in Forest Plan old growth management 

direction, stands, or combinations of stands, of less than 10 contiguous acres are not designated as old 

growth for determining Forest Plan compliance, but are included in an assessment of “potential” old 

growth outside of 3rd-order drainages

FVS modeling can provide a reasonable estimate of the magnitude and direction of proposed 

treatment effects on stand species compositions, tree diameter distributions and tree establishment

Stands with old growth characteristics exist outside of 3rd-order drainages. The Forest Plan Desired 

Future Condition of the Forest (USDA 1986) states that old growth in the first decade “will be well 

distributed over the forest” and that in the fifth decade that “a good balance will be scattered 

throughout the Forest.” To maintain old growth benefits within the project area outside of the 3rdorder drainages, we are assuming that there is a desire to manage some of the stands within the 

project area outside of the 3rd-order drainages as old growth 

Additional assumptions used for the snag analysis include: 

FIA grid intensification plot data can provide an average of snag numbers at the landscape level in the 

year the plot data was collected

Past harvest/regeneration activities would contain no snags

ADS data provide a reasonable estimate of trees killed by bark beetles at the landscape level

ADS mortality estimates need to be adjusted remove trees greater than seven inches d.b.h.

FVS modeling of proposed prescribed burning can provide mortality estimates that can be used to 

estimate snag additions to landscape-level snag levels

Adequate snags would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards through implementation of 

Stonewall Vegetation Project Design Features. In particular, “WL-6” would be applied to intermediate 

and regeneration units to retain snags in all cutting units to ensure snags are well distributed 

throughout the project area 

No snags would be created or removed in pre-commercial thin units

In treatment units where tree removal is followed by prescribed burning a very small degree of 

mortality from the prescribed burning can be expected to occur, but for simplicity sake in this 

analysis, we are assuming no mortality in these units of trees greater than seven inches d.b.h. 

In units being prescribed burned, we are assuming no loss due to burning of snags 

Helena National Forest Old Growth Identification and Analysis Process

Other information sources use the term “watershed” to denote the area drained by a stream. In this 

analysis we use the term “drainage” to be consistent with Forest Plan direction. As mentioned above the 

HNF identifies old growth when drainages are proposed for a management entry that could affect the old 

growth. The HNF designates old growth primarily where there is stand-level inventory data (stand exam) 

available to confirm characteristics. Since stand exams are typically completed when vegetation projects 

are proposed, the majority of these inventories have been focused in timber management emphasis areas 

with wilderness areas as well as many roadless areas and non-timber management areas receiving few 

exams. Stand-level inventories have also typically targeted the most productive stands with a high 

probability of containing commercial timber for sampling which provides an incomplete sample of stands 

within each third-order drainage analyzed. Due to incomplete sampling, the inventories reflect a 

minimum amount of potential old growth. 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

218

Following Forest Plan direction, old growth is identified in this process to represent five percent of each 

3rd-order drainage. The stream order is a method of numbering streams as part of a drainage basin 

network where the smallest un-branched mapped tributary is called “first order” and the stream receiving 

the tributary is called “second order”, and so on (USDA Forest Service 1986). In HNF spatial data, there 

are two 3rd-order drainages within the project area, “0203” which encompasses about 4,849 acres and 

“0204A” which encompasses about 6,834 acres. The rest of the project area (11,198 acres) is not within a 

3rd-order drainage. The two 3rd-order drainages comprise about 49 percent of the project area, with 51 

percent of the project area not within a 3rd-order drainage. In this analysis we analyze old growth for each 

3rd-order drainage to show consistency with the Forest Plan and we analyze old growth for the entire 

project area to show that old growth is being retained at a landscape-level.

Based upon available data, stands at least 10 acres in size (or smaller in adjacent groups) are designated 

first. If these areas do not constitute five percent, additional areas are designated which may not meet old 

growth definitions yet, but are the “next best thing” to be managed to meet them in the future. Old growth 

is not a static condition and can be affected by insect and disease activity, wildfires, and forest 

management. When stand characteristics change substantially, the stand is no longer considered old 

growth. Stands designated as old growth are reviewed at the project scale when treatments are proposed 

including a review of proposed treatment units for old growth characteristics. For further details of the 

HNF old growth analysis see Milburn (2009). 

Identifying and designating old growth on the HNF progressed through several steps: 

4. Stand exams were used to identify stands with old growth characteristics. The R1 Inventory Analysis 

Team ran a FSVeg utility that compared exam data with activity data in FACTS to determine if exams 

were still representative, that is they did not have an activity was more recent than the exam. Those 

exams without more recent overlapping activities were considered “clean.” The “clean” exams list 

was most recently updated against FACTS in 2007. Clean stands for the HNF were then run through 

the R1 Old Growth Utility in FSVeg to identify old growth. This report identified stands that meet 

minimum criteria (Green et al.1992, errata corrected 2005). The data report included an estimate of 

years until stands could become old growth. This utility can also be used to analyze FIA data to 

determine old growth quantity at broad scales. 

5. The results of the previous process were combined with other GIS layers such as 3rd-order drainage 

boundaries, past activities, insect aerial detection surveys (ADS), and the project area boundary. 

Stands that the previous process indicated met minimum old growth characteristics were checked to 

determine if any changes have occurred since the exam. A combination of photo interpretation and 

walkthrough exams was used to validate the results in the third-order drainage. Stands outside of the 

3rd-order drainage did not receive this validation step. Stands that had changes to minimum 

characteristics were not counted as old growth. Non-adjacent stands smaller than 10 acres were 

eliminated from the 3rd-order drainage at this time from consideration for meeting Forest Plan 

Standards, however these small areas were checked against proposed treatments to determine if any 

old growth would be affected by the proposal. No such overlaps occurred in the 3rd-order drainage. 

Small stands outside of the 3rd-order drainage were not eliminated from the data nor were they 

removed from potential treatment units. 

6. Each 3rd-order drainage affected by the proposal was assessed. If the drainage had at least five percent 

of stands meeting minimum old growth characteristics, these stands were used to select 

approximately five percent to designate for old growth management under the Forest Plan. Old 

growth in excess of five percent was not designated to manage for old growth, but remained identified 

for purposes of habitat analysis and assessing if treatments overlapped with existing old growth. 

Stands were selected for old growth management favoring: (1) the oldest, (2) largest stands or greatest 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

219

contiguous area, (3) elevation below 6000 feet, (4) riparian areas, (5) management areas other than T1 through T-5, and (6) non-pine forest types in areas heavily infested with mountain pine beetle. In 

this process, old growth characteristics discussed by Green et al. (1992, errata corrected 2005) were 

the primary designation criteria with the other Forest Plan prioritization criteria used as a guide when 

possible. 

7. In drainages with less than 5 percent old growth identified in the previous step, additional areas to 

manage as old growth were selected as the “next best thing”, using the same criteria (oldest, largest, 

below 6000 feet elevation, riparian, non-timber emphasis). Other factors such as wildlife habitat 

needs were considered. The inventoried stands that best meet the most considerations were selected to 

designate for old growth management. 

8. Proposed treatment units were evaluated to assess whether they could be old growth, particularly 

where there is no stand exam available for the assessment described above in the first step. Specialists 

used photo interpretation to identify potential old growth, followed by a sample of walkthrough 

exams. Additionally, HNF personnel conducted diagnoses and informal plots in all units to identify 

where more intensive exams were needed to determine if the stand was old growth. Diagnosis plots 

were informal in number and placement, but measured minimum old growth criteria. Areas that had at 

least one of the old growth minimum criteria, were at least 10 acres, and had no past exam were 

scheduled for an intensive exam. Based upon the intensive exams, two proposed treatment units (2 

and 46) were considered to be partially composed of stands (41502089 and 42303130 respectively) 

that qualified as old growth. 

Based on the findings of all the above information, all areas of old growth identified from steps 1-4 were 

removed from proposed treatment units within the 3rd-order drainage. However, outside of the 3rd-order 

drainage there are stands within proposed treatment units in one or both of the action alternatives and one 

stand is partially within the 3rd-order drainage. These stands are discussed individually below.

In the above process, old growth is identified and designated at the stand level and analyzed at the 3rdorder drainage level. It can also be informative to estimate the amount of old growth on a broad landscape 

scale. Utilizing FIA grid intensification plots, the HNF Summary Database can be used to make 

statistically viable estimates of old growth presence on the HNF, but from the FIA plots along, the old 

growth cannot be spatially located. The HNF summary database was also used to depict the abundance of 

old growth habitat type groups. 

As mentioned above, about 51 percent of the analysis area is outside of mapped 3rd-order drainages. In 

this area, we assessed stands identified above in Step 1 using available NAIP imagery, ADS survey data, 

and available stand exam data to determine if the stands had been impacted by the recent mountain pine 

beetle outbreak and so would no longer qualify as old growth. Those stands that we considered not 

impacted by the outbreak to a level to which they would not be considered old growth, we retained and 

discuss and display in this analysis as “potential” old growth. 

Snag Analysis Process

As stated above, the Helena Forest Plan provides for snags to be “managed at 70 percent of optimum 

(average 2 snags per acre) within each 3rd-order drainage” (emphasis added). In this analysis, we discuss 

snags within each of the two third-order drainages and for the entire project area. As mentioned above, the 

two 3rd-order drainages together comprise about 49 percent of the project area. 

The snag analysis process involves three steps: 

Average snags per acre present in 2008 by d.b.h. class were computed from FIA grid intensification plot 

data and a “base level” of snags computed for each third-order drainage and the project area
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

220

Average total snags created by insect activity from 2008 to 2010 for each third-order drainage and for the 

whole project area were computed from ADS spatial and tabular data and adjusted using FIA grid 

intensification plot data to represent only snags 7 inches or larger. The adjusted snag numbers were then 

added to the base level.

FVS was used to model mortality for prescribed-burn only treatments which was then applied to 

treatment areas to compute snag additions due to the burns. 

Following the assumption that snags would be reduced to 2 snags per acre to meet Forest Plan standards 

(Stonewall Vegetation Project Design Criteria WL-6) in mechanical treatments, excepting pre-commercial 

thinning, we computed the average snag reduction due to the treatments and applied that to the third-order 

drainage and project area estimates. 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Snags 

In 2007 and 2008, the Helena National Forest measured “FIA grid intensification” plots within the 

Stonewall project area. These plots include all tree mortality through 2008. Within all plots in the project 

area, there was an average of about 40 snags per acre greater than or equal to 7 inches d.b.h. (table 54) in 

2008. For this analysis, we used this average as a uniform 2008 “base level” of snags per acre greater than 

7 inches d.b.h. for the 3rd-order drainages and for the project area. 

Table 54. Snags per acre by d.b.h. class from 2008 FIA intensification plot data

d.b.h. Class Average Number of Snags per 

Acre

≥ 7” and < 12” 26

≥ 12” and < 20” 13

≥ 20” 1 

Total 40

The base level average cannot be directly applied to the entire 3rd-order drainage areas or project area 

forested land because past harvest/regeneration activities cannot be expected to have many, if any, snags 

and no FIA grid intensification plots were located within past harvest/regeneration activities. Since past 

harvest/regeneration activities are not represented in the FIA grid intensification plots, the base level snag 

estimates would overestimate snag numbers. For this exercise, we assumed that past harvest/regeneration 

activities would have no snags and adjusted FIA grid intensification plot snag estimates down based upon 

the proportion of the area in 3rd-order drainage and the project area that was treated by past 

harvest/regeneration activities. Our adjusted average 2008 snags per acre (SNA) greater than 7 inches 

was: 36 SNA for drainage 0203, 35 SNA for drainage 0204A, and 35 SNA for the entire project area. 

Since the adjusted FIA grid intensification plot snag estimates from the previous step did not take into 

account mortality from 2008 to 2010, we then adjusted the 2008 average SNA for each 3rd-order 

drainage, and for the project area, to take into account mortality in the years 2009 and 2010 using Aerial 

Damage Survey (ADS) data. To show the magnitude of the mortality, figure 51 displays accumulative 

mortality from ADS spatial data for the years 2009 and 2010 by estimated dead trees per acre (TPA) class. 

ADS mortality estimates, however are ocular estimates of dead tree numbers of all sizes, although it is 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

221

reasonable to conclude that the estimates are largely of overstory trees because of the difficulty of seeing 

and estimating dead tree numbers in stand mid-stories and understories from the air. 

For this analysis, we computed a weighted average ADS SNA for each 3rd-order drainage and for the 

project area. Weighted average tree mortality for the years 2009 and 2010 are: 9 trees per acre (TPA) for 

drainage 0203, 7 TPA for drainage 0204A, and 8 TPA for the entire project area. We then adjusted the 

ADS weighted averages using FIA grid intensification plot data. In the FIA grid intensification plots, 68 

percent of the dead pine trees were 7 inches or larger in d.b.h. Out-adjusted weighted average tree 

mortality for the years 2009 and 2010 are: 6 trees per acre (TPA) for drainage 0203, 5 TPA for drainage 

0204A, and 5 TPA for the entire project area. Adding the ADS estimated mortality to that estimated from 

FIA Intensification plots indicates that snag numbers greater than or equal to 7 inches in 2011 to be: 42 

SNA for drainage 0203, 41 SNA for drainage 0204A, and 40 SNA for the entire project area. 

The estimates given above are most likely underestimated. At the time of this analysis, 2011 ADS data 

was not available which would increase average snag levels. The ADS estimates may also have 

underestimated snag numbers in individual stands. Stonewall project proposed treatment units were 

visited during 2008 and revisited in 2009. Assessments of stand conditions including snag estimates for 

individual units can be found in project records and are summarized here. Snag estimates for trees greater 

than 6 or 7 inches d.b.h. range from zero to “lots.” Of the units where snag numbers were estimated, snags 

range from 0 to 400 with an average of about 160 snags per acre. Note that the individual stand estimates 

from site visits are included here only to establish the context that the snag numbers discussed in this 

analysis are most likely underestimated and are not included in the estimates discussed.

Figure 51. Aerial damage survey estimated mortality for 2009 and 2010
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

222

The best currently available information, indicates that at least partially due to recent bark beetle activity, 

snag levels average over twenty times the minimum levels required by the Forest Plan in the two 3rdorder drainages analyzed and over the Stonewall Vegetation Project area. Due to the recent bark beetle 

mortality, snags are very abundant in the Stonewall Vegetation Project area.

Old Growth

Old Growth within 3rd-order Drainages

Following the process described above, five percent of the 0203 and 0204A 3rd-order drainages were 

designated to be managed as old growth. Five stands in 0203 (247 acres) were designated and 15 in 

0204A (345 acres, table 55 and table 56). Note that in table 55, one stand less than 10 acres in size was

designated as old growth management because it is adjacent to another designated old-growth stand. 

Table 55. 3rd-order drainage designated old growth data

Drainage

ID Stand ID

Old 

Growth 

Type

Habitat 

Type 

Group

Elevation Habitat Type Vertical 

Structure 

Currently 

OG Acres

0203 41403075 DF

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

6131 SAF/menziesia C Yes 42

0203 41403071 DF

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

5475 SAF/menziesia 1 Yes 31 

0203 41403093 DF Cool and 

Wet 5541 SAF/queencup 

beadlily C Yes 38

0203 41403058 DF Cool and 

Wet 5322 SAF/queencup 

beadlily C Yes 23

0203 41403048 ES-SAF 

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

6147 SAF/menziesia C Yes 113

0204A 42301052 DF Cool and 

Moist 5192 SAF/twinflower C Yes 36

0204A 42301033 ES-SAF 

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

5751 SAF/menziesia 1 No 18

0204A 41401087 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 5730 SAF/queencup beadlily 1 No 14

0204A 41401084 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 6192 SAF/queencup 

beadlily 2 No 18

0204A 41401083 ES-SAF 

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

6099 SAF/menziesia C Yes 20

0204A 41401099 ES-SAF 

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

6464 SAF/menziesia C Yes 37

0204A 41401054 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 5638 SAF/queencup 

beadlily C Yes 19

0204A 42301002 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 5735 SAF/queencup 

beadlily 2 Yes 4 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

223

Drainage

ID Stand ID

Old 

Growth 

Type

Habitat 

Type 

Group

Elevation Habitat Type Vertical 

Structure 

Currently 

OG Acres

0204A 41401051 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 5855 SAF/queencup 

beadlily 3 No 19

0204A 42303048 DF

Cool and 

Dry to 

Moist

6226 SAF/beargrass 2 Yes 18

0204A 42302109 DF

Cool and 

Dry to 

Moist

5746 SAF/beargrass C Yes 24

0204A 42303035 DF

Cool and 

Dry to 

Moist

6172 SAF/beargrass 2 No 13

0204A 42302096 DF

Cool and 

Moist to 

Wet

5793 SAF/menziesia C No 33

0204A 42302091 ES-SAF Cool and 

Wet 5895 SAF/queencup 

beadlily C No 23

0204A 42302095 DF

Cool and 

Dry to 

Moist

5902 SAF/beargrass C No 49

1 – Single-story

2 – Two-story

C – Multiple-story

DF – Douglas-fir

ES-SAF – Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 

SAF/queencup beadlily – subalpine fir-twincup beadlily

SAF/beargrass – subalpine fir-beargrass

SAF/menziesia – subalpine firSAF/twinflower – subalpine fir-twinflower

Designated old growth is Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir (table 56). All of the designated 

old growth is in subalpine fir habitat types. On these habitat types the Douglas-fir can be considered seral 

and the Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir old growth can be considered late-seral to climax. About 63 

percent of the old growth designated is Douglas-fir and 38 percent is Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir. 

Table 56. Third-order drainage designated old growth type and acres

Third-Order Drainage Old Growth Type Acres

0203 DF 134

ES-SAF 113

Total 247

0204A DF 173

ES-SAF 172

Total 345

Due to the evaluation of Stonewall Vegetation Project proposed treatment units, two stands were 

identified that meet old growth characteristics. These two stands are within Stonewall Vegetation Project 

Units 2 and 46.
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

224

Table 57. Outside 3rd-order drainage verified old growth data

Stand ID Unit

Old 

Growth 

Type

Habitat 

Type 

Group

Habitat Type Vertical Structure Acres*

41502089 2 DF

Warm 

and 

Very 

Dry

DF/snowberrybluebunch 

wheatgrass

C 55

42303130 46 DF

Cool 

and 

Moist

SAF/twinflowertwinflower C 163

* Acres cited here are delineated stand acreages and not proposed unit acreages, the unit areas include more than one stand.

Only a portion (43 acres) of stand 41502046 is within the 3rd-order drainage. This acreage is shown in 

Figure 57 as “Old Growth verified 2010 exam” and is included in the effects analysis, but is not included 

in the discussion above for designated old growth. The 120 acres in this stand outside of the 3rd-order 

drainage are included in the discussion below. 

Old Growth Not within 3rd-order Drainages

As discussed above, about 51 percent of the Stonewall project area is not within a 3rd-order drainage.

There are about 436 acres of potential old growth and 175 acres of old growth verified by 2010 stand 

exam data in the Stonewall project area not within the 3rd-order drainages. This area is not covered 

explicitly by Forest Plan direction, but we recognize that old growth is a landscape feature and in this 

analysis are identifying and assessing the availability of old growth stands. 

Together, the potential old growth and 2010 verified old growth comprise about 611 acres which is about 

five percent of the project area not within the 3rd-order drainages. In this analysis, we are analyzing 

effects as if these stands were to be managed for old growth. In table 58 we display the old growth stands 

in the project area not within the 3rd-order drainages. Included in the table are the potential old growth 

stands and the two 2010 verified old growth stands. 

Stand 41502089 partially forms Unit 2 and is in the warm-and-very-dry habitat group for which the 

minimum number of trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h. required to be classified as old growth is four. 

Stand 41501130 partially forms Unit 46 and is in the cool-and-moist habitat group for which the 

minimum number of trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h. required to be classified as old growth is seven. 

The lower portion of proposed prescribe burn Unit 81 contains three stands that, from available stand 

exam data, could potentially qualify as old growth (table 58). These three stands are within the warm-andmoist habitat type group in which the minimum number of trees greater than 19 inches d.b.h. required to 

qualify for old growth is five.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

225

Table 58. Verified and potential old growth not within the 3rd-order drainages

Unit ID Stand ID Old Growth Type Habitat Type Group Habitat Type Vertical 

Structure Acres

41502023 DF Cool and Dry to 

Moist SAF/beargrass C 10

81 42201139 DF Warm and Moist DF/snowberrypinegrass C 37

81 42201147 DF Warm and Moist DF/snowberrypinegrass 2 53

81 42201152 DF Warm and Moist DF/snowberrypinegrass 2 22

42202023 ES-SAF Cool and Dry to 

Moist

SAF/beargrasshuckleberry C 29

42202038 DF Cool and Dry to 

Moist

SAF/beargrasshuckleberry 1 86

42202054 ES-SAF Cool and Moist to 

Wet SAF/menziesia C 76

42202067 DF Cool and Moist to 

Wet SAF/menziesia C 100

42301068 DF Cool and Moist SAF/twinflower 1 8 

42301087 DF Cool and Moist DF/huckleberry C 15

2 41502089 DF Warm and Very Dry

DF/snowberrybluebunch 

wheatgrass

C 55

46 42303130 DF Cool and Moist SAF/twinflowertwinflower C 120

1 – Single-story

2 – Two-story

C – Multiple-story

DF – Douglas-fir

ES-SAF – Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 

SAF/queencup beadlily – subalpine fir-twincup beadlily

SAF/beargrass – subalpine fir-beargrass

SAF/menziesia – subalpine firSAF/twinflower – subalpine fir-twinflower

Figure 52 displays the current diameter distribution for Stand 42201139, which forms part of Unit 81. The 

stand currently has about 118 trees per acre (TPA) of which 31 are greater than 19 inches in diameter at 

breast height (d.b.h.).
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

226

Figure 52. Stand 42201139 (Unit 81) current condition

Figure 53 displays the current diameter distribution for Stand 42201147, which also forms part of Unit 81. 

The stand currently has about 498 trees per acre (TPA) of which 18 are greater than 19 inches in diameter 

at breast height.

Figure 53. Stand 42201147 (Unit 81) current condition

Figure 54 displays the current diameter distribution for Stand 42201152, which also forms part of Unit 81. 

The stand currently has about 62 trees per acre (TPA) of which 29 are greater than 19 inches in diameter 

at breast height.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

227

Figure 54. Stand 42201152 (Unit 81) current condition

Figure 55 displays the current diameter distribution for Stand 41502089, which forms part of Unit 2. The 

stand currently has about 317 TPA of which about 20 are greater than 17 inches d.b.h. Note that the 

relatively large number of trees in the 1-inch d.b.h. class is not being displayed to better display the 

distribution in larger trees.

Figure 55. Stand 42201089 (Unit 2) current condition

Figure 56 displays the current diameter distribution for Stand 42303130, which forms part of Unit 46. The 

stand currently has about 1,442 TPA of which about 13 are greater than 17 inches d.b.h. Note that the 

trees in the smallest diameter class are not being shown so that larger trees can be better displayed.
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

228

Figure 56. Stand 423031130 (Unit 46) current condition

Environmental Consequences

Spatial Context for Effects Analysis 

The spatial scales used in this analysis are the two 3rd-order drainages within the project area, the project 

area, and for selected individual proposed treatment areas, the individual stand. We chose the project area 

as the largest spatial scale for this analysis because it includes all Forest System land that: (1) includes the 

proposed treatment areas, (2) is bounded on the north, northwest, and west sides by drainage divides, and 

(3) at about 24,000 acres, is sufficiently large to analyze and discuss effects to forest vegetation on a 

landscape-level without ‘diluting’ the magnitude of the effects with a large area.

Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The year 2010 is the existing condition baseline used for this analysis. Proposed mechanical treatment 

stands were last examined in fall 2009 and 2010, briefly visited in summer 2010, and the last ADS survey 

used in this analysis was done in 2010. Short-term effects refer to effects over the 10-year period from the 

time the activity would be accomplished which is 2012, and long-term effects refers to effects from 10 to 

50 years from the time the activity would be accomplished. All pertinent past activities and events are 

incorporated into the previous existing condition discussion. In the cumulative effects analysis that 

follows, cumulative effects are discussed as changes in the existing condition due to present and future 

activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. Connected Actions, Past, Present, and 

Foreseeable Activities

Past Activities

Past activities that have shaped the existing condition discussed and displayed in this document include: 

(1) 3,872 acres of harvest/regeneration treatments, (2) 373 acres of other harvests cutting, (3) 822 acres of 

pre-commercial thinning, and (4) 7,922 acres of fuels treatments from 1950 to present (Amell 2012), 

although some of these treatments were on the same area and so the acreages are not accumulative. In 

addition to the management actions, vegetation has been shaped by: (1) 87 acres in the Snow/Talon Fire 

(2003), (2) 261 acres in the Keep Cool Fire (2006), and (3) insect and disease activity as discussed 

previously and in the Stonewall Vegetation Project Silviculture Report (Amell 2012). Other past actions, 

such as livestock grazing and recreational activities have played a small role in shaping forest vegetation 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

229

in the project area, or played a localized role. As mentioned above, these activities have been considered 

in describing the current condition. 

Present and Foreseeable Activities

All past, ongoing and foreseeable projects identified by the HNF for possible consideration in this 

analysis are displayed in volume 2, appendix C. Many of the activities listed are not considered in this 

analysis because they are: (1) outside of the analysis area used in this analysis, or (2) have no effect on 

snags and old growth addressed in this analysis, or (3) have such a small effect on snags and old growth 

that they are inconsequential to the analysis.

Activities currently ongoing in the project area considered in this analysis are displayed in volume 2, 

appendix C. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Snags

The forested landscape will experience additional bark beetle mortality from the ongoing mountain pine 

beetle (MPB) epidemic. The levels of additional mortality are a matter of speculation, but available 

research indicates that mountain pine beetle epidemics continue until the available bark beetle habitat is 

sufficiently reduced that epidemic levels can no longer be sustained (Cole and Amman 1969, Cole and 

Amman 1980, Klein et al. 1978, Mitchell and Preisler 1991). Mountain pine beetles strongly favor 

infesting the trees of larger diameter each year and over the life of the infestation infesting smaller trees 

each year until the average host tree diameter declines to a point that the tree habitat cannot produce 

sufficient numbers of beetles to maintain the outbreak (Cole and Amman 1969, Cole and Amman 1980). 

The outbreaks are relatively short, lasting about 6 years (Cole and Amman 1969, Cole and Amman 1980). 

Given the magnitude of the mortality that has occurred in the project area as of this writing, we suspect 

that the epidemic is declining.

The lodgepole pine snags will start falling in 3 to 5 years after death (Bull 1983, Mitchell and Preisler 

1998). Snag fall rates depend on tree species, tree size, cause of death, and environmental conditions that 

could affect the speed of bole decay (Bull 1983, Mitchell and Preisler 1998). For lodgepole pine, Bull 

(1983) found that eight years after death about 75 percent of the snags less than 25 cm had fallen and 42 

percent of the snags greater than 25 cm had fallen. Mitchell and Preisler (1998) in their study of mountain 

pine beetle killed snags in Oregon found that tree size was not a factor in unthinned stands and that in 

unthinned stands, 50 percent were down in 9 years and 90 percent were down in 14 years. 

In the short- term, snag numbers would be very high, but in the long-term snag numbers would decline 

greatly as the lodgepole pine snags fall down. 

Old Growth

Effects to designated old growth in the two 3rd-order drainage are the same under all alternatives because 

no activities are proposed in designated old growth in these drainages. Following the process described 

above, about five percent of each 3rd-order drainage is designated to manage as old growth. All old growth 

would continue to develop successionally under all alternatives. Changes would be slight in the short 

term, but could be substantial in the long term. Single-story and two-story stands would become more 

multi-story. Closed canopies would remain closed, and open stands would become closed over time. 

Down woody fuels would continue to accumulate. 

About 68 percent of the designated old growth is Douglas-fir type. With continuing succession, more 

small trees would become established with the species composition trending toward subalpine fir (Fischer 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

230

and Clayton 1983). These stands are susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), western spruce budworm 

(WSB), and root disease. ADS data appears to indicate that DFB has consistently declined in recent years, 

while WSB infestation was extensive in 2009, substantially less was recorded in 2010 (Amell 2012). 

Douglas-fir beetle tends to infest large and old Douglas-fir and heavily stocked stands. Their impacts can 

also be affected by weather conditions, for example droughts that reduce host tree vigor. With increasing 

stocking, tree size and age over time, we can expect DFB to continue to impact the stands to some degree, 

increasing with the next droughty period. Since forests in the area, including the old growth stands, are 

progressing toward dominance by Douglas-fir and subalpine fir, we can expect the impacts of WSB to 

continue if not increase. Diseases would continue to impact stands at current levels.

In the long term, dense forest conditions with multiple-layer stands and increasing surface fuels would 

support increasingly intense fire behavior and severe fire effects (Buhl 2012). Stand replacement fire 

would become more likely on the landscape and old growth stands more susceptible to the impacts. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snags

Under this alternative there would be no direct effects to snag levels. The current conditions described 

above would not change. The indirect effects of no action would be as described above as effects common 

to all alternatives. 

Old Growth

Under this alternative there would be no direct effects to old growth. The current conditions described 

above would not change. The indirect effects of no action would be as described above as effects common 

to all alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Snags

In the Forestwide Hazard Tree Removal Project, the Forest would cut trees determined to be hazardous 

within 75 to 175 feet from the edge of the road. About 382 acres proposed for treatment under the Hazard 

Tree Removal Project within the Stonewall project area. Firewood cutting would also occur in close 

proximity to open roads and remove some of the available snags.

The hazard reduction treatments would remove snags from about 382 acres, which is two percent of the 

project area. About one percent of 3rd-order drainage 0203 and two percent of drainage 0204A would be 

affected. This would reduce the number of snags within the project area by about one snag per acre. The 

effects on each 3rd-order drainage would be of a similar magnitude. Given the large number of snags 

available—many times the Forest Plan requirements—the effect of the treatment would be slight. The 

long-term cumulative effects would be as described above for the indirect and direct effects.

Old Growth

The Forestwide Hazard Tree Removal Project would not impact old growth stands in the 3rd-order 

drainage. There is only one designated old growth stand within range allotments in the project area. 

Livestock grazing would have no impact of the old growth nature of the stand. There are no invasive 

plants locations within designated old growth, so there would be no effects from herbicide treatments. The 

cumulative effects of no action for old growth are as discussed above for direct and indirect effects.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

231

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Proposed Stonewall Project alternative 2 treatments would impact about 44 percent of drainage 0203, 19 

percent of drainage 0204A and 37 percent of the project area. For detailed information concerning the 

individual treatments see the Silviculture Report (Amell 2012) 

Snags

Impacts of the treatments on standing dead trees would differ, with intermediate and regeneration 

treatments reducing dead tree numbers and prescribed burns increasing dead tree numbers. In treatment 

units where tree removal is followed by prescribed burning, we can expect a relatively small degree of 

mortality from the prescribed burn, but for simplicity sake in this analysis, we are assuming no mortality 

in these units of trees greater than seven inches d.b.h. In units which are proposed for mixed-severity 

prescribed burning only, there would be substantial mortality but almost 80 percent of the dead trees 

would be between seven and 12 inches d.b.h. In prescription group nine which was developed for 

alternative 3, there would be substantial mortality in understory seedling and sapling trees, but we are 

assuming in this analysis that there is no mortality of larger trees. 

Prescribed fires can burn up snags also, but recently created snags that are in the low snag decay classes 

are not prone to burn. Horton and Mannan (1988) found in Arizona ponderosa pine forests that snags in 

decay class IV burned more frequently than lower decay classes, and Stephens and Maghaddas (2005) 

found that post-treatment density of snags greater than 15 cm d.b.h. in decay class one increased in fireonly and mechanical plus fire treatments but that there were no statistical difference between snag 

volumes or density in other size and decay classes. These studies indicate that snag losses due to burning 

would be low and in this analysis we are assuming no loss. 

Table 59 displays the number of treatment acres for alternative 2 and percent of area within each 3rd-order 

drainage and the project area. Snag numbers would be reduced to about two snags/acre in the intermediate 

and regeneration treatments, and as modeled, increase by about 74 to 76 snags/acre in the moderate 

severity burns (modeled burn mortality minus ADS mortality), and would not change in the rest of the 

project area. Post-treatment snag numbers would decrease to about 38 snags per acre in drainage 0203, 

increase to 47 snags per acre in drainage 0204A, and increase to 46 snags per acre in the project area, 

which are about 21 to 24 times the Forest Plan minimum requirements. 

Table 59. Acres and percent of area within 3rd-order drainage and project area by treatment classes 

Treatment Drainage/Project Area Acres Percent of Area

Intermediate and Regeneration 0203 1,210 25

0204A 218 3 

Project Area 3,100 37

Prescribed Burning 0203 859 18

0204A 1,050 15

Project Area 5,463 24

Old Growth

As mentioned previously, proposed Stonewall Project alternative 2 treatments would impact about 44 

percent of drainage 0203, 19 percent of drainage 0204A and 37 percent of the project area. 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

232

Figure 57. Alternative 2 (proposed action) Units and old growth stands

No designated old growth would be treated in the 3rd-order drainages. In the project area not within the 

3rd-order drainages, stand data collected in 2010 indicate that there are two stands having old-growth 

characteristics within proposed Stonewall Vegetation Project units (Stand 41502089 is within Unit 2, 

Stand 42303130 is within Unit 46). These two stands are displayed in figure 57 as “Old Growth verified 

2010 exam.” Less recent stand exam data indicates that there are three stands that may potentially qualify 

as old growth (Stands 42201139, 42201147, and 42201152) in prescribed burn Unit 81. These three stands 

are displayed in figure 57 as “Potential Old Growth.” 

A mixed-severity prescribed burn which would create openings less than 30 acres in size is proposed for 

Unit 81. The three potential old growth stands are in the lower portion of the unit and within those stands 

the prescribed burn would be conducted as an underburn to minimize mortality in the large trees-see 

design criteria in the Stonewall Silviculture Report (Amell 2012). 

Figure 58 displays the post-treatment diameter distribution for stand 42201139. Compared to the current 

condition (figure 52), the prescribed burn would reduce stocking up to the 16-inch d.b.h. class, above 

which the mortality would be slight. Post-treatment, the stand would still have about 96 TPA of which 

about 31 TPA would be greater than 19 inches d.b.h. and the stand would still be considered old growth 

(Green et al. 1992, errata corrected 2005). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

233

Figure 58. Stand 42201139 (Unit 81) post-underburn condition

Figure 59 displays the post-treatment diameter distribution for stand 42201147. Compared to the current 

condition (figure 53), the prescribed burn would reduce stocking up to the 22-inch d.b.h. class, above 

which the mortality would be slight. Post-treatment, the stand would still have about 250 TPA of which 

about 11 TPA would be greater than 19 inches d.b.h. and the stand would still be considered old growth 

(Green et al. 1992, errata corrected 2005). 

Figure 59. Stand 42201147 (Unit 81) post-underburn

Figure 60 displays the post-treatment diameter distribution for stand 42201152. Compared to the current 

condition (figure 54), the prescribed burn would reduce stocking up to the 18-inch d.b.h. class, above 

which the mortality would be slight. Post-treatment, the stand would still have about 53 TPA of which 

about 28 TPA would be greater than 19 inches d.b.h. and the stand would still be considered old growth 

(Green et al. 1992, errata corrected 2005). 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

234

Figure 60. Stand 42201152 (Unit 81) post-underburn

Unit 2 is proposed under both action alternatives for prescribed burning with a low-severity fire. The 

proposed treatment can be expected to kill many small trees but very few large ones. Figure 61 displays 

the FVS-modeled post-treatment species composition and diameter distribution for Stand 41502089. The 

post-treatment diameter distribution, when compared with the current condition in figure 55 indicates that 

most, but not all, of the very small trees would be killed by the underburning with decreasing numbers of 

trees killed with increasing d.b.h. Above the 18-inch d.b.h. class mortality would be slight. The stand 

would have about 17 TPA greater than 17 inches d.b.h. following treatment and would still be considered 

multiple-canopy old growth. 

Figure 61. Stand 41502089 (Unit 2) post-underburn

Unit 46 is proposed under this alternative for an intermediate harvest in which both commercial and precommercial trees would be thinned, followed by a prescribed underburn as a fuels treatment. The 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

235

proposed treatments can be expected to remove many small trees but very few large ones. Figure 62 and 

figure 63 display the FVS-modeled post-treatment species composition and diameter distribution for 

Stand 42303130. Note that the scale for figure 62 is the same as in the current condition (figure 56) and 

the scale for figure 63 has been changed to better display the larger trees.

Figure 62. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46) post-treatment

The proposed treatments would remove many, but not all, of the small trees and would create an open 

stand with a relatively flat diameter distribution. Above the 18-inch d.b.h. class no trees would be 

removed and mortality from the underburn would be slight. Post-treatment the stand would have about 

258 TPA with about 12 TPA greater than 17 inches d.b.h. (note: TPA less than 1 inch d.b.h. are not 

displayed). Following treatment it would still be considered multiple-canopy old growth.

Figure 63. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46) post-treatment
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

236

Cumulative Effects

Snags

As mentioned above, the hazard reduction treatment would remove snags from about one percent of 3rdorder drainage 0203, two percent of drainage 0204A, and two percent of the project area. About one snag 

per acre would be removed by the treatment. Considering the numbers of snags available in the project 

area as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, this is a very small number. As described above, 

under alternative 2, snag levels would still be available at 21 to 24 times the Forest Plan minimum 

requirements. Cumulative effects would still be that level.

Old Growth

As discussed above, activities other than the Stonewall Vegetation Project that are or may occur within 

the project area would have no impact on old growth forests. Cumulative effects of this alternative would 

be as described above for the direct and indirect impacts. 

Summary and Forest Plan Consistency 

Snags

As discussed and displayed above, given the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic, snags in the project 

area are abundant and far exceed forest plan requirements. Under alternative 2, the intermediate and 

regeneration treatments would reduce snag levels to the forest plan requirements within the treatment 

units and the mixed-severity prescribed burns would increase snag levels within the burn units. After the 

treatments are done, snag levels would slightly decrease in the 3rd-order drainage 0203, slightly increase 

in the 3rd-order drainage 0204A, and slightly increase in the project area. They would still exceed 19 times 

the forest plan requirements.

Old Growth

As discussed and displayed above, no designated old growth in 3rd-order drainages would be treated under 

this project. Forest Plan direction regarding old growth would be met. Outside of the 3rd-order drainages, 

three stands (42201139, 42201147, and 42201152) that may potentially be old growth would be 

prescribed burned; one stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (41502089) would be 

prescribed burned, and one stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (42303103) would be 

thinned and prescribed burned. 

All of the stands proposed for treatment would be changed by the treatments, with species compositions 

“pushed” toward dominance by seral fire-tolerant conifers, and stand structures “pushed” to or toward 

open, but still multi-story, structures with relatively flat diameter distributions. Treated potential and 

verified old growth stands would still qualify as old growth following the treatments. 

Alternative 3

Snags

Snag numbers for alternative 3 would differ slightly from alternative 2, but given the magnitude of the 

recent mortality and the large number of snags within the analysis area, the difference would be slight. 

Table 60 displays the number of treatment acres for alternative 3 and percent of area within each 3rd-order 

drainage and the project area. If snag numbers are reduced to two snags/acre in the intermediate and 

regeneration treatments, and as modeled, increase by about 74 to 76 snags/acre in the moderate severity 

burns (modeled burn mortality minus ADS mortality), and don’t change in the rest of the project area, the 

average snag numbers would decrease to 41 snags per acre in drainage 0203, increase to 47 snags per acre 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

237

in drainage 0204A, and increase to 48 snags per acre in the project area. Post-treatment snag numbers 

would still be about 21 to 24 times the Forest Plan minimum requirements. 

Table 60. Alternative 3, acres and percent of area within 3rd-order drainage and project area by treatment 

classes

Treatment Drainage/Project Area Acres Percent of Area

Intermediate and Regeneration 0203 716 15

0204A 218 3 

Project Area 2,118 9 

Prescribed Burning 0203 244 5 

0204A 1,046 15

Project Area 4,445 19

Old Growth

In this alternative, Unit 81 would not be treated. The condition for Stands 42201139, 42201147, and 

42201152 would remain as described above for the current condition and alternative 1. 

Unit 2 would be treated the same under alternative 3 as alternative 2 and the effects would be the same as 

described above.

The treatment area for Unit 46 would remain the same, but treatments for most of Unit 46 would change. 

Unit 46 in alternative 3 is split into Unit 46a and 46b. Unit 46b (27 Acres) would have the same treatment 

as described above for alternative 2 Unit 46 with the same treatment effects. In Unit 46a, which includes 

93 acres of Stand 42303130, the treatment would be modified and is referred to in the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project as “prescription Group 10.” 
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

238

Figure 64. Alternative 3 Units and old growth stands

Group 10. This group includes Units 46a and 47a. Treatments would be designed in a mosaic pattern to 

maintain cover and forage for wildlife while promoting ponderosa pine and aspen, and reducing ladder 

fuels. Portions of the stands would be thinned to: (1) reduce understory competition from around large 

ponderosa pine trees; (2) thin heavily-stocked groups of trees on sites historically dominated by 

ponderosa pine, and (3) remove conifer competition from within and around quaking aspen. 

To reduce understory competition around large ponderosa pine, and move areas toward or 

maintain multi-storied ponderosa pine structure, within 50 feet of ponderosa pine trees larger than 

17 inches d.b.h. remove all but two trees. The retained trees should be of varied size and age 

classes.

In areas dominated by ponderosa pine, but lacking live trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., trees 

would be thinned to 48 to 109 trees per acre depending upon tree size. 

Ponderosa pine snags greater than 17 inches d.b.h. would be favored for retention to meet Forest 

Plan direction for snags. 

Conifers less than 17 inches d.b.h. would be removed up to 100 feet of existing aspen patches. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Habitats of Special Concern

239

Post-thinning, slash would be jackpot burned or hand-piled and burned to reduce fuels. 

Treatments would affect up to 50 percent of these units. 

For Stand 42303130 in Unit 46a, up to one-half of the area (47 acres) would be thinned and the fuels 

reduced, the other one-half of the stand would not be treated. Note that this is the stand area not the unit 

area because the unit is composed of more than one stand. The post-treatment diameter distribution would 

be similar to that shown in figure 65 and figure 66. The scale for figure 65 is the same as shown above for 

the current condition (figure 56). 

Figure 65. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46) post-treatment in alternative 3

The scale for figure 66 has been changed to better display the larger trees. The post-treatment stand would 

have 974 TPA with about 13 TPA greater than 17 inches d.b.h. In figure 65 and figure 66, about 632 TPA 

less than one inch in d.b.h. are not displayed. Post-treatment, the stand would still qualify as old growth. 

Figure 66. Stand 42303130 (Unit 46) post-treatment in alternative 3
Habitats of Special Concern – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

240

Cumulative Effects

Snags

The hazard reduction treatment would remove snags from about one percent of 3rd-order drainage 0203, 

two percent of drainage 0204A, and two percent of the project area. About one snag per acre would be 

removed by the treatment. Considering the numbers of snags available in the project area as a result of the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic, this is a very small number. As described above, under alternative 3, snag 

levels would still be available at 21 to 24 times the Forest Plan minimum requirements. Cumulative 

effects would still be that level.

Old Growth

As discussed above, activities other than the Stonewall Vegetation Project that are or may occur within 

the project area would have no impact on old growth forests. Cumulative effects of this alternative would 

be as described above for the direct and indirect impacts.

Summary and Forest Plan Consistency

Snags

Under alternative 3, the intermediate and regeneration treatments would reduce snag levels to the forest 

plan requirements and the prescribed burns would increase snag levels. After the treatments are done, 

snag levels would slightly decrease in the 3rd-order drainage 0203, slightly increase in the 3rd-order 

drainage 0204A, and slightly increase in the project area. They would still exceed 20 times the forest plan 

requirements.

Old Growth

As discussed and displayed above, no designated old growth in 3rd-order drainages would be treated under 

this project. Forest Plan direction regarding old growth would be met. Outside of the 3rd-order drainages, 

one stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (41502089) would be prescribe burned, and one 

stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (42303103) would be partially thinned and the fuels 

burned. 

Both stands proposed for treatment would be changed by the treatments, with species compositions 

“pushed” toward dominance by seral fire-tolerant conifers, and stand structures “pushed” toward open, 

but still multi-story, structures with flatter than current diameter distributions. They would still qualify as 

old growth following the treatment. 

Wildlife 

Introduction

This section analyzes impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat from federal activities proposed in the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project area. It describes the current wildlife habitat conditions that exist within the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project area and evaluates effects to federally proposed, threatened and endangered 

and regionally sensitive (sensitive) species, Helena National Forest (HNF) management indicator species 

(MIS) and migratory birds. Because wildlife distribution and use is determined by both site-specific and 

landscape-level conditions, a multi-scale analysis is presented that looks at specific stands proposed for 

treatment (fine filter analysis), as well as landscape considerations (coarse filter analysis) such as the 

availability of habitat within and adjacent to the project area. More information on federally listed 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

241

threatened and endangered (TE) species can also be found in the Stonewall Vegetation Project Biological 

Assessment (BA )(Reitz 2013). 

Methodology

Analysis Process

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations (1976) require that habitat be managed to support 

viable populations of native and desired nonnative vertebrates within the planning area (36 CFR 219.19). 

USDA regulation 9500-004, adopted in 1983, reinforces the NFMA viability regulation by requiring that 

habitats on national forests be managed to support viable populations of native and desired nonnative 

plants, fish, and wildlife. The following five-step process used in this analysis assesses changes in wildlife 

habitat and determines possible effects to viability:

Step 1: Pre-field Assessment - Once the initial proposed action was developed, information was 

collected to identify the wildlife present condition or affected environment. This information included 

aerial photos, GIS data, past timber sale activity, existing wildlife surveys, Forest and District monitoring 

data, and vegetation data and information on insect and disease related mortality. 

Step 2: Field Assessment - Sites proposed for treatment were visited by a biologist(s). During this 

review, observations and incidental sign of wildlife were recorded, and habitat conditions identified in the 

pre-field assessment were validated.

Step 3: Wildlife Screening - Collectively information from the pre-field and field assessments were used 

to identify project design features (PDFs) or modifications to the proposed action that may be necessary 

to reduce or eliminate impacts to wildlife. This information was then used in combination with scientific 

literature, Forestwide and Regionwide assessments and monitoring and species conservation assessments 

to identify species and habitats most likely to be affected by the proposed activities, and identify the 

appropriate level of analysis necessary to determine effects to wildlife. Based on information provided in 

steps 1 and 2, a total of 10 threatened, endangered and sensitive species found on the HNF, 4 MIS species 

and 2 commonly hunted species were evaluated. Eight species either do not have suitable habitat within 

the project area, or the project area falls outside the current range. As a result, of the species considered, 

16 species are evaluated in detail in this analysis (table 64).

Step 4: Habitat & Species Assessment - The analysis of the wildlife resource was done using a multiscale assessment that includes a combination of three basic strategies. 

9. The first strategy is a coarse filter approach (described below), which is used to identify wildlife 

communities across the landscape. This approach assumes that if the species, genetics, functions and 

processes are protected at the community level, then the bulk of the biotic species, both known and 

unknown, would also be protected. 

10. The second strategy is the MIS approach (FSM 2620.1, 2621.4, 2620.3), which assesses effects to 

wildlife species associated with vegetation communities or key habitat components identified in the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) as management indicators. Potential effects of proposed 

actions are then evaluated by assessing habitat changes to the selected indicator species 

11. The third strategy is to assess habitat and effects to those species considered most at risk or those 

species with potential viability concerns. These include Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 

and Regionally Sensitive species (FSM 2670.32, 16 USC 1536). 

Using information from steps 1-3, anticipated changes in wildlife habitat and the associated communities 

are predicted under the alternatives considered and associated effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

242

evaluated. Information from steps 1 and 2 are also used to complete the course filter analysis, identify and 

evaluate spatial relationships between habitat(s), assess changes in landscape diversity and predict 

changes and effects to MIS species. Whereas site-specific data is used to assess stand-level changes in 

habitat and to ensure that unique vegetative and physical habitat conditions are maintained and/or 

protected. This information is also used to assess changes in population viability in step 5. 

Step 5: Population Viability Assessment and Determination - Using information from Steps 1-4, the 

population viability for all MIS and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species evaluated in 

detail is assessed under each of the alternatives. Region 1 (R1) uses a principle-based approach to 

population viability analysis (PVA), which follows Regional direction (USDA Forest Service 1999). This 

assessment is based on the best available forest and rangeland vegetation data, the most current scientific 

information related to species requirements and effects of proposed actions, and when available, 

Regionwide and Forestwide conservation assessments. Collectively this information is used to assess the 

availability of suitable habitat and ultimately assess short- and long-term viability to each species.

Collectively, the strategies and assessment described above are used to ensure that National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) requirements are met by ensuring that a diversity of plant and animal 

communities are maintained across the planning area (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B); also see 36 CFR 

219.10(b); and FSM 2670.12). The information identified in steps 1 through 4 in combination with 

applicable scientific information (referenced literature) and professional judgment are used to predict 

anticipated effects, as well as determine the scope of effects. 

For sensitive species, a determination is made as to whether or not the federal action would cause a trend 

toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Listing factors are based on 50 CFR 424.11 including; the 

present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range, 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, disease or predation, the 

adequacy of existing regulatory direction or other natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ 

survival. A loss of viability is determined though the regional process identified above and would occur if 

anticipated effects included changes in the number or distribution of reproductive individuals that would 

affect the continued existence of the species on the Forest (36 CFR 219.9). 

Methodologies used to assess individual species are summarized under the individual species sections. 

More detailed information related to the habitat relationship models used can be found in the project file. 

Scale of Analysis

The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to determine effects are influenced by a 

number of variables including the presence of species or habitat, the scope and nature of activities 

associated with the proposed action and alternatives and the potential risks that could ultimately result in 

adverse effects. Wildlife distribution and use of an area is largely determined by the availability of 

suitable habitat, and can be influenced by site-specific needs such as the vegetative structure or physical 

features on a site, as well as by landscape considerations such as the proximity to other habitat or the need 

for isolation or seclusion. As a result, a multi-scale analysis that looks at site-specific conditions in stands 

proposed for treatment (fine filter); as well as landscape considerations such as the proximity and 

availability to other habitat (coarse filter) are considered. The multi-scale of analyses used in this 

assessment includes the following:

Site Level Assessment – This level of assessment involves evaluation of individual stands or sites 

proposed for treatment. Wildlife use is often influenced by specific conditions only identified at the stand 

or site scale, and can vary from one to several hundred acres. This level of analysis identifies stand-level 

habitat conditions that influence wildlife use. It is also used to identify habitat features that may need 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

243

protection or enhancement, and effects based on localized stand structure. Finally, this level of assessment 

is used to identify site-specific mitigation measures or project design features (PDFs).

Project Area Assessment – Unless otherwise noted in the species specific section, direct and indirect 

effects to wildlife are assessed by evaluating effects and changes in habitat on NFS lands within the 

project area boundary. The Stonewall project area encompasses approximately 24,000 acres including 

23,668 acres of NFS land and 337 acres of private land. The project area boundary was selected for 

analysis of direct and indirect effects on wildlife because it includes all areas proposed for treatment and 

contains an adequate diversity of habitat conditions (vegetative and topographic) to assess wildlife 

distribution and use. 

Cumulative Effects Assessment – Cumulative effects (CE) related to wildlife are evaluated by looking at 

past, present and foreseeable future activities that could adversely affect wildlife when considered 

cumulatively over time. A complete list of activities considered in this analysis for cumulative effects can 

be found in volume 2, appendix C of this document. 

The cumulative effects boundary used in this analysis varies by species. For example, CEs for species 

with small home ranges would be analyzed across the project area. For species that have large home 

ranges and select habitat based partially on landscape conditions, the CE analysis area includes the project 

area combined with adjacent lands affected by mountain pine beetle (MPB) mortality and wildfire. This 

combined area totals approximately 101,977 acres, including 67,042 acres of NFS land, and 34,935 acres 

of private land. Rationale for selection of this area includes:

This area is large enough to assess the individual home range for all species analyzed, thereby 

framing the context and significance of potential impacts to each species.

The CE area includes more developed private lands adjacent to the project area, which contain 

habitat components or levels of disturbance that may influence wildlife use of NFS lands 

This area includes all of the two Elk Herd Units (EHU) and Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) affected.

This area is large enough to assess landscape-level considerations and connectivity, including 

potential impacts to affected Bear Management Units (BMUs), EHUs and LAUs. 

Including lands to the north and northwest would tend to dilute effects because of the large 

amounts of designated Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

The CE area includes over 20,000 acres that have been recently (since 2003) affected by wildfire, 

which influence landscape level use and effects. 

Wildlife habitat conditions and land uses within the area are representative of those found across 

the larger landscape or watershed(s). 

A determination of significance is made for each species/habitat evaluated. For the purpose of this 

analysis, significant cumulative effects are defined as effects that singly or incrementally could result in 

long-term impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat that could result in a loss or reduction in viability 

(defined above). Activities used to evaluate cumulative effects are displayed in volume 2, appendix C. 

Timeframes

Timeframes for direct and indirect effects include short-term effects, which generally go out ten years or 

until the proposed activities are completed, and long-term effects, which are greater than ten years and 

may go out several decades. Past activities are summarized in appendix C; ongoing and future activities 

go out to year 2022, which is when all of the proposed treatments are expected to be completed, and when 

future projects can be reasonably predicted.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

244

Assumptions

A number of factors have recently affected wildlife habitat in the project area, and are also likely to 

change habitat conditions in the future. Additionally, because many wildlife species utilize a wide range 

of habitat conditions, this analysis is based on representative habitats identified in available scientific 

literature. The following are some of the assumptions related to preferred habitat and factors that are 

expected to influence future habitat conditions. 

Habitat Relationships and Biophysical Settings

The analysis of habitats presented here emphasizes vegetation and structural conditions important to 

wildlife; additional information on biophysical settings evaluated can be found in the SVP Silviculture 

Specialist Report (USDA Forest Service 2012a), the SVP Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (USDA Forest 

Service 2012d) and the Montana Partner In Flight (PIF) physiographic plan (PIF 2000). 

Many species such as pileated woodpeckers, American marten, and northern goshawk, are strongly tied to 

individual vegetative types, size classes, stand structural characteristics, landscape-scale patterns or 

topographic features, or combinations of the above. For instance, pileated woodpeckers nest 

predominantly in large-diameter ponderosa pine or cottonwood snags (McClelland 1977); American 

marten occur within dense, mid- to late- seral spruce/fir/lodgepole pine forests (Ruggiero et al. 1994); and 

goshawks nest within multi-storied, mid- to late-seral forests at all but the highest elevations (Reynolds et 

al. 2006). Although these habitat associations are well researched and accepted in the scientific 

community, “outliers” or rare occurrences of individuals using uncommon habitats do occur and are 

acknowledged in the literature. For instance, research shows that goshawks have a preference for stands 

no less than 30 acres in size (Reynolds et al. 2006), yet McGrath et al. (2003), sampled nest stands that 

were much smaller. McClelland (1977) found that pileated woodpeckers almost exclusively nest in 

ponderosa pine, cottonwood, and western larch (west of the divide), but reported a rare use of Douglas-fir 

snags. Researchers typically acknowledge but disregard outlying results when identifying habitat 

associations. Consequently the analysis presented assumes that species sustainability is best modeled by 

using what the scientific literature designates as typical habitat for a species and does not consider 

atypical outliers unless data collected in the project area supports use of ‘atypical’ habitat relationships.

Rate of Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality

In western disturbance-prone forests, the distribution of habitats is strongly influenced by the severity and 

frequency of natural disturbances. While these disturbances are inevitable, it is usually difficult to predict 

when, where, and to what extent they would occur. Because of this uncertainty, disturbances are disclosed 

as “risks.” The mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreak in the Stonewall Project area, however, has 

approached a point of relative certainty and MPB outbreaks are at epidemic levels. Annual insect and 

disease detection surveys show greatly increased levels of MPB mortality (USDA Forest Service 2012a). 

Vegetation data based on R1-VMAP across the project area are categorized as pre-kill data (what R1-

VMAP identified as being present in 2005) and post-kill data (current conditions). Mountain pine beetle 

mortality has increased and is expected to continue into the future, thus, post-kill conditions best describe 

the existing condition for most species and establish the baseline against which the effects of different 

alternatives are compared for wildlife. The pre-kill data, however, provides important context for the 

vegetative changes that have transpired in the last few years, and may be used to display changes in 

habitat for some species. The data used is discussed under the methodology sections for each species.

Rate of Snag Attrition Following Mortality

The Stonewall Project area is expected to have a high density of ponderosa pine snags due to anticipated 

mortality. The Regional Snag Protocol (USDA Forest Service 2000) describes large, old ponderosa pine 

snags as being highly durable in that they can stand for decades after death. Smith (2000) and Perrakis 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

245

and Agee (2006) attribute this durability to age, slow growth, and repeated exposure to nonlethal fire 

scarring that induces damaged trees to exude pitch, which inhibits rot. In contrast, according to Smith 

(2000), the high density of 80- to100-year-old ponderosa pine snags that result from the current MPB 

infestation would fall within the decade. This is due to a lack of factors that make these snags durable.

The trees are young (80–100 years), grew rapidly, have a high ratio of sapwood, and were not exposed to 

nonlethal fire-scarring. Observations in the project area and other comparable areas reaffirm Smith’s

(2000) findings. Snags typically fall 3–4 years after death. Most appear to have rotted off at ground level.

While a few snags may stand longer than 3–4 years, it is expected that virtually all would be on the 

ground within 10–20 years. Consequently, the availability of snags, including large-diameter ponderosa 

pine snags preferred by the pileated woodpecker (Bull 1987; McClelland 1977) and flammulated owl 

Hayward and Verner 1994; Wright 2000) is expected to be greatly reduced under all alternatives. 

Probability of Severe Wildfires following Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality

Wildfires are inevitable (Arno 2000; Arno et al. 1995; Arno et al. 1997). They are essential for many 

wildlife species, beneficial to some, and detrimental to others, depending upon the magnitude and severity 

of the fires. Higher-than-normal severity wildfires that cover larger-than-normal expanses can be 

detrimental to wildlife (Turner et al. 1994), especially when they occur on landscapes that historically had 

low or moderate severity wildfires. Wildfire severity is typically modeled using NEXUS, FlamMap, or 

other models (USDA Forest Service 2012d) and is usually based on such factors as stand density and 

structural complexity (ladder fuels) (Finney 2006). Models are commonly used to address the long-term 

sustainability of wildlife habitats. In most cases, changes in wildfire severity are considered an indirect 

effect upon wildlife. Effects are further qualified as to the degree that wildlife habitats can be sustained 

into the future based on the risks and severity of predicted fires.

To some degree, climate change has occurred and will continue in the future. Ramifications of a changing 

climate on wildlife are likely to include; reduced snowfall or earlier snow melt in the spring, extended 

periods of drought or extended dry periods in the spring and summer, more frequent and larger wildfires, 

increased bark beetle mortality and changes in site characteristics that promote climax vegetation or 

community changes (USDA Forest Service 2007f). 

These changes cause seasonal ranges and food sources for wildlife to shift and can affect the timing of 

reproduction. Reduced snowpack and changes in precipitation can affect amphibians by reducing water 

levels in lakes and ponds, as well as affect species such as Canada lynx, marten and wolverine that rely on 

deep or persistent snow. Forested tracts and remote habitats can also become isolated, reducing landscape 

connectivity and habitat for species such as wolverine (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The timing 

of spring green up can also affect food availability for migratory birds or forage conditions for big game 

(United States Geological Survey 2008, USDA Forest Service 2007f, Wolverine Network 2012, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

The changing climate presents an aspect of uncertainty in future conditions, disturbance regimes, and 

vegetative and wildlife responses. Strategies that can be used to help reduce impacts include; managing 

for diverse conditions, maintain healthy and connected populations, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, 

prevent and control invasive species, and ensure ecosystem processes and habitat connectivity (Mawdsley 

et al. 2008). While how well each of the alternatives addresses these strategies varies, it is assumed that to 

a certain extent, climate change and associated effects to wildlife would occur under all alternatives.

Risk of Invasive Weeds on Disturbed Sites

Grasses and forbs underlying open, dry ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands provide valuable habitat and 

forage for wildlife. Invasive weeds such as leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, and Dalmatian toadflax, 

which are well-adapted to occupy dry sites, can out-compete native grasses and forbs and dramatically 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

246

reduce the habitat quality (Ortega et al. 2006). Actions that reduce the forest canopy and disturb the soil 

can make sites vulnerable to invasive weeds. Equipment used to thin forest canopies and roads used for 

vehicle access further increase the vulnerability of droughty sites to weeds by creating vectors for weed 

introduction. While measures to avoid invasive weeds can be effective (DiTomaso 2000), it is assumed 

that future monitoring and treatment would be implemented under all alternatives to help contain or 

control invasive plants. 

R1-VMAP and Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Intensified Grid Data

R1-VMAP data are remotely sensed while FIA (intensified grid data) are from on-the-ground plots. These 

two datasets are used to describe the habitats in this analysis. R1-VMAP represents a broad-scale, coarse 

filter depiction. It relies on satellite imagery and describes three main vegetation components—canopy 

cover, tree dominance type, and stand size. R1-VMAP spatially represents habitats at the landscape level 

and within the project area. It also provides a context against which to identify treatment effects on a 

given habitat. The intensified grid data are point data and generally incorporate additional vegetation 

parameters not included in R1-VMAP. For example, snag and down wood habitat data are collected as 

part of intensified grid point data and cannot be derived from R1-VMAP. Point data also provide an 

opportunity to refine and verify broad scale spatial data (i.e., R1-VMAP) and also provide a baseline 

against which future management actions may be measured.

Overview of Issues

The following issues were identified as a result of public scoping and used to develop alternatives to the 

proposed action. Also, these issues as well as other issue indicators identified to measure potential 

impacts to wildlife from alternatives considered in the project environmental impact statement are 

displayed in table 61. Effect indicators are collectively used to assess species viability or population 

changes. 

Restoration of vegetation communities 

Grizzly bear habitat impacts 

Elk security cover and the LRMP standard. 

Lynx habitat: Designated Critical Habitat and Stand Initiation Phase acreage 

Wildfire hazard, risk, and fuels

Habitats including ponderosa pine, western larch and aspen: maintenance or restoration 

Road impacts to elk and grizzly bear habitat as well as disturbance factors 

Table 61. Wildlife issue indicators

Species Indicator

Threatened and Endangered Species

Grizzly Bear

Effects to individuals and changes in security cover and 

potential conflicts with humans. Security Core habitat, 

Open Road Density (ORD) and Total Road Density 

(TRD) are specific measures used to evaluate changes 

within the recovery area, whereas changes in cover and 

forage within and outside the NCDE are assessed. 

Canada Lynx

Effects to individuals and acres of stand initiation, multistory and mid-seral habitat affected in Lynx Analysis 

Units (LAUs bl-7 and bl-8). Compliance with the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) 

standards and guidelines. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

247

Species Indicator

Wolverine

Effects to individuals and acres of natal denning and 

foraging habitat. Availability of remote and dispersal 

habitat and changes in connectivity and human access.

Sensitive Species

Gray Wolf Effects to individuals and changes in big game. Den, 

rendezvous and foraging habitat affected.

Fisher Effects to individuals and acres of den, rest and foraging 

habitat. Changes in human access.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Effects to individuals and acres of and effect to foraging 

habitat.

Bald Eagle

Effects to individuals, suitable nest habitat affected, 

effects to reproduction and nest and foraging habitat 

availability.

Black-backed Woodpecker Effects to individuals, acres of suitable habitat, changes 

in quality and distribution of suitable snag habitat.

Flammulated Owl

Effects to individuals and acres of suitable habitat. Short 

and long-term changes in the quality of suitable opencanopy habitat, availability of large diameter (>=19 

inches) snags.

Western Toad Effects to individuals, acres of breeding and upland 

habitat affected.

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Acres of nest and 

foraging habitat, nest, foraging and post-fledgling habitat 

affected, landscape level changes in habitat. Ability of 

the project area to support nesting pairs.

Pileated Woodpecker

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Acres of old 

growth habitat, existing and affected suitable habitat, 

changes in quality of foraging and nesting habitat, large 

snag (>=20 inches d.b.h.) availability and changes in 

project area distribution and use.

Hairy Woodpecker

Effects to individuals and reproduction, acres of suitable 

habitat, acres of suitable habitat affected, changes in

quality of suitable habitat, snag (all size classes) 

availability. Changes in project area distribution and use

American Marten

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Existing and 

affected suitable habitat. Changes in the quality of den 

and foraging habitat, project area distribution and use, 

and snag and downed woody debris (DWD) availability.

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk 

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, habitat effectiveness, 

acres of security habitat, changes in access and 

mortality, acres of foraging habitat, and compliance with 

the Montana logging study. Changes in hunting 

opportunity.

Mule Deer

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, acres of foraging 

habitat, changes in project area distribution and use and 

hunting opportunities. 

Migratory Species

Migratory Birds Changes (acres) in available habitat (Biophysical 

settings), compliance with MBTA.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

248

Affected Environment

Wildlife Species Evaluated

Species considered in this analysis include species listed as federally threatened, endangered, or candidate 

on the HNF (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b), Forest Service sensitive species (USDA Forest 

Service 2011a) and MIS species identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986). A total of 24 

species were evaluated (table 62). In order to determine the scope of analysis, a preliminary evaluation 

(Step 3 above) was conducted for each potentially affected wildlife species and table 63 identifies those 

species that were considered, but would not be evaluated in detail in the analysis. Species evaluated in 

detail are identified in table 64. 

Table 62. Wildlife species considered

Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Federally Proposed, Candidate, Threatened and Endangered Species

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened, MIS

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes Endangered

Sprague’s Pipit Anthus spragueii Candidate

Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed

Regionally Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus De-listed

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines anatum Sensitive

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Sensitive

Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Sensitive

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Sensitive

Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis Sensitive

Gray Wolf Canus lupus De-listed

Fisher Martes pennanti Sensitive

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Sensitive

Northern Bog Lemming Synaptomys borealis Sensitive

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Sensitive

Plains Spadefoot Toad Spea bombifirons Sensitive

Western Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas Sensitive

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis MIS

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus MIS

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus MIS

American Marten Martes americana origines MIS

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk Cervus elaphus nelsoni Big Game

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Big Game
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

249

Table 63. Wildlife species eliminated from detailed analysis

Common Name Rationale for Elimination Determination

Spraque’s Pipit

No recent documentation (Montana Field Guide 2011) and the 

project area lacks large low elevation grassland habitat (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2011b). 

No Effect

Black-footed Ferret

Outside current range (Montana Field Guide 2011) and project area 

lacks open grassland/shrub steppe habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2011b)

No Effect

Peregrine Falcon Project area lacks suitable cliffline nesting habitat. No Impact

Harlequin Duck Project area is outside its current range (MFWP 2006). No Impact

Bighorn Sheep Project area lacks cliff/rocky habitat required by this species. 

Species not present. No Impact

Northern Bog Lemming Project area lacks suitable high elevation sphagnum moss habitat. No Impact

Northern Leopard Frog Project area lacks low-elevation standing water habitat. No Impact

Plains Spadefoot Outside the current range (Montana Field Guide 2011). No Impact

Table 64. Wildlife species evaluated in detail

Species Habitat

Federally Listed Species

Grizzly Bear

The project area is in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and occurs in two subunits 

including Arrastra, and Red Mountain. The project area provides suitable foraging and den 

habitat and Grizzly bears are present. 

Canada Lynx The project area occurs within critical lynx habitat (Unit 3) and is occupied by lynx. 

Regionally Sensitive Species**

Gray Wolf

Wolves are known to occur within the general vicinity of the project area. Also suitable den, 

foraging and rendezvous habitat is present. Wolves have recently been delisted in Montana 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a) and the gray wolf is evaluated as a Forest Sensitive 

Species.

Wolverine

Wolverine are uncommon but have been documented within the combined boundary. Suitable 

remote forest habitat occurs throughout the northern third of the project area and modeled den 

habitat exists on approximately 12,000 acres.

Fisher

Documented on adjacent lands, potential suitable habitat exists throughout much of the project 

area and fisher use is possible; however, the likelihood of occurrence is low based on recent and 

historic accounts, rareness of the species etc.

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat

There is no documentation of this species in the Stonewall project area and the closest 

documented Townsend’s Big-eared bat location is approximately 30 miles from the project area. 

While the project area does not provide suitable cave/hibernacula, it does contain suitable 

foraging habitat. 

Bald Eagle

An eagle nest was recently documented in the Beaver Creek drainage, outside the project area, 

but within the combined boundary (cumulative effects). Suitable foraging habitat also occurs 

along the Blackfoot river. Although de-listed under ESA, the bald eagle is protected under the 

Bald and Golden Eagle protection act and is evaluated as a sensitive species.

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Although not documented within the project area, it has been documented adjacent to the area in 

the vicinity of the Snow Talon fire (2003). As a result and considering that the concentrated 

mountain pine beetle mortality has created suitable habitat, it is likely that the Black-backed 

Woodpecker (BBW) is present.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

250

Species Habitat

Flammulated 

Owl

While not documented within the project area this species has been documented within the 

combined boundary. Suitable low elevation, open ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir habitat exist is 

common. . 

Western Toad Suitable forested wetland habitat exists within and adjacent to the project area and although not 

documented, occurrence is likely as adult toads travel long distances overland after breeding.

Management Indicator Species

Northern 

Goshawk

The project area contains two active nest sites and suitable nest, foraging and post-fledgling 

habitat is common.

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Documented from the project area. Suitable habitat occurs at scattered locations across the 

project area.

Hairy 

Woodpecker The hairy woodpecker occurs within the project area and suitable habitat is widespread.

American Marten

Although not recently documented, suitable habitat is available and presence is possible. Marten 

have been trapped along Stonewall Creek in recent years and are known to occur near Reservoir 

lake and higher toward Huckleberry pass.

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk The project area provides summer, transition and winter habitat and elk commonly use the 

project area.

Mule Deer The entire project area provides suitable habitat and deer use is common. Most of the project 

area provides summer and transition range, whereas winter range is limited to lower elevations.

**- Includes ESA de-listed and candidate species

Wildlife Habitats Evaluated

Methodology and Process

Wildlife habitats are assessed by looking at existing conditions and changes to biophysical settings and 

site-level habitats. Biophysical settings are land delineations based on the physical setting (e.g., elevation 

and aspect) and the potential vegetation community that characterizes the site and are mapped at the 

landscape scale using geographical information systems (GIS). The Stonewall project area biophysical 

settings includes: Dry Forests, Cool, Moist Forests, Upper Subalpine Forest (whitebark pine), Mountain 

Meadow and Shrub, and Riparian communities. Site-level habitats including aspen, snags and downed 

woody debris (DWD) are based upon Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data from western Montana 

and estimates of snag densities from eastside forests (Bollenbacher et al. 2008). More detailed 

information on biophysical settings and vegetation information collected can be found in the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project Fire and Fuels Report and the Silviculture Report (USDA Forest Service 2012a and 

2012d). 

Wildlife use of biophysical settings and site-level habitats is based on information provided in the 

Montana Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan (PIF 2000), the Avian Science Center Landbird 

Monitoring Program (http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mpcp/mtpif/TOC.htm) (2006a and 2006b), the 

Blackfoot Landscape Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1995a), the Montana Natural Heritage Program 

(http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us), the Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Western 

Montana (Montana Steering Committee: the Birds and Burns Network, and Montana’s Comprehensive 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005). 

This analysis discusses standing and downed woody debris as it relates to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

See the Aquatic Resource Report (Rief 2012) for consideration of large wood recruitment in aquatic 

systems, the Soils Report (Walters 2011) for a discussion of the importance of dead wood for nutrient 

cycling, and the Fire/Fuels Report (B. 2012) for a discussion of fuel loading. Also, the Stonewall 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

251

Vegetation Project Snag Analysis Report (Amell 2012c) summarizes the methodologies used to assess 

snags and provides more detail on snag availability.

The Region 1 Connectivity Protocol (USDA Forest Service (1997) was used to set the context and 

categories relative to connectivity. Connectivity is discussed relative to the types of corridors utilized by 

wildlife, whereas effects are evaluated by looking at remote forest habitat (i.e., elk security and grizzly 

core), increased human access, fragmentation and landscape-level conditions.

Species diversity is discussed at the coarse filter scale by assessing changes in habitats of similar 

vegetation composition and structure. 

Changes in structural condition resulting from treatment would result in site-specific changes; therefore, 

direct and indirect effects on habitats are analyzed across the project area. However, to better evaluate 

possible changes in habitat across the landscape, cumulative effects are evaluated on that portion of the 

combined boundary in which biophysical settings data is available (approximately 65,000 acres). 

Dry Forest Habitats (Ponderosa Pine and Douglas-fir)

Habitat Description

Dry forest types comprise 5 million out of 25 million total forest acres in Forest Service Region 1. 

Approximately 4 million acres are located in Montana—primarily east of the Continental Divide in a 

band running through the southwestern, central, and north-central part of the state at lower to middle 

elevations (5,300 to 7,350 feet) on both public and private lands. 

Wildlife species associated with dry forests that occur in the project area include flammulated owls, 

goshawks, Hammond’s and dusky flycatchers, and Williamson’s and red-naped sapsuckers, among others; 

all listed as high priority species by the Intermountain West Joint Ventures (Montana Steering Committee 

2005). 

This forest community includes open, parkland stands composed almost exclusively of ponderosa pine, 

with an open understory of shrubs and other herbaceous vegetation at lower elevations. On other dry sites, 

generally at elevations above the ponderosa pine belt, dry forests include a combination of ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir or grand fir, whereas dry forest sites composed exclusively of Douglas-fir occur on sites 

that are usually too cold for ponderosa pine (PIF 2000). 

Prior to the European settlement, fire intervals in the dry forest types ranged from 5 to 25 years (Brown 

and Smith 2000). These frequent fires were usually of low intensity and promoted a forest structure of 

open, uneven-aged ponderosa pine or ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands (Arno and Gruell 1983). 

Douglas-fir encroachment into grasslands was rare and limited to periods with long fire return intervals 

(Gruell 1983). Due to the increased number of immature trees, dry forests have also changed from stands 

that were previously open, single-storied and patchy, to stands that are currently dense and relatively 

continuous across the landscape (Fischer and Clayton 1983; Gruell 1983; Losensky 1993). As a result the 

rich grass, forb and shrub components have been replaced with young conifers, needle mats and sparse 

ground vegetation. 

In the absence of fire, the cool dry forests in central Montana have expanded in previously nonforested 

grasslands and shrubland habitats. Aspen stands have deteriorated due to competition from Douglas-fir 

and ponderosa pine and old growth forest has declined due to logging of older trees, particularly lowelevation ponderosa pine (Fischer and Clayton 1983, Gruell 1983, Losensky 1993). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

252

This change in fire frequency has also resulted in shifts in wildlife species composition today, from what 

occurred in dry forests historically (PIF 2000). For example, open grown pre-settlement stands provided a 

unique combination of overstory structure and ground level forage for herbivores of all sizes (Knight and 

Wallace 1989). This contrast most stands today, which exhibit closed or open canopies with cluttered, 

multi-layered understories. This structure provides more hiding cover and structural diversity, but less 

forage than historic stands. Changes in stand structure have also resulted in modifications to the bird 

community. For example, due to the increased tree density and canopy cover, migratory species such as 

the Townsend’s warbler and ruby-crowned kinglet are more common today (Hutto and Young 2002, PIF 

2000). Conversely, species that were closely tied to the late-seral, open dry structure that occurred 

historically such as the flammulated owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, chipping sparrow, Cassin’s finch, 

Hammond’s flycatcher and red-crossbill have declined and are currently listed as priority I and II species 

in Montana (Hayward and Verner 1994, PIF 2000). Also the flammulated owl either does not occur or is 

much less common in dry forests today (PIF 2000). 

Project Area Dry Forest Habitat

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) biophysical setting data indicate that dry forest habitats dominated 

by ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir comprise approximately 7,742 acres and 5,579 acres respectively

of the Stonewall Project area, with ponderosa pine at lower elevations between 4,400-5,500 feet, and a 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir mix at elevations of 5,500-6,000 feet. 

Ponderosa pine was historically more prevalent in the project area. However due to fire exclusion, dry 

sites within the project area today include primarily a mixture of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Also 

because of years of fire suppression and past harvest, many dry forest stands have been changed from 

stands that were previously open, single-storied and patchy, to stands that are currently dense and 

relatively continuous across the landscape (Fischer and Clayton 1983, Gruell 1983, Losensky 1993). 

These stands are more susceptible to stand-replacing fires (IWJV 2005), which has increased recently due 

to the MPB outbreak. 

The reference fire regime for this setting was one of high frequency (a 22-year mean fire return interval) 

and low intensity and severity (24 percent overstory mortality). Currently, the fire frequency is much 

higher (70 years) than the reference and expected severity is higher than reference conditions (70 percent) 

(USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

Cool-moist Habitats

Cool-moist habitats include Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine communities at mid-elevations and lower 

subalpine fir at mid- to upper elevations. The following is a discussion of each. 

Moist Douglas-fir/Lodgepole Pine

Douglas-fir forests are difficult to classify and describe, because interior Douglas-fir (var. glauca) has the 

broadest ecological amplitude of any western tree (Arno 1991). It is moderately shade-tolerant, so it can 

be a climax species in some areas as well as being a common seral species in many habitat types. The 

moist Douglas-fir stratum covers the transition zone between warm, dry, lower elevation forests 

dominated by Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine and the cool, moist higher elevation forests dominated by 

lodgepole pine and subalpine fir. 

Historically, these stands were co-dominated by Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine, and experienced mixed 

severity fire regimes where fire intervals averaged 30 to 100 years (Arno 1980, Barrett et al. 1991, Brown 

et al. 1994, Arno and Fischer 1995). Mixed severity fire regimes are marked by variability with some 

trees dying and many surviving (Brown 1995). The result was a patchy, erratic pattern that fostered 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

253

development of diverse plant communities and wildlife habitats within forested stands and across the 

landscape as a whole (Barrett et al. 1991).

Cool/moist Lower Subalpine Forest

Within the lower, subalpine community, lodgepole pine is generally the most common conifer with 

Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce occurring as well. Whitebark pine occurs in some of the 

upper elevations of this setting. Particularly moist sites are dominated by subalpine fir and spruce.

Engelmann spruce is prominent particularly on north slopes, in draws, and along streams and other 

riparian areas. These forests occur at higher elevations in cool, moist conditions, and they occupy all 

aspects.

Historically, fires were relatively infrequent but often burned with high intensity, replacing entire forest 

structures over extensive areas. Young forests were initially dominated almost entirely by lodgepole pine 

because of its ability to regenerate after stand replacing fires. However, the structure of older forests 

varied. Because lodgepole is a thin-barked tree not likely to withstand fire, where periodic underburning 

did occur, large, sometimes widely spaced overstory trees with thick understory vegetation occurred. In 

areas that were not periodically burned, heavier fuels and sub-alpine fir developed on the site, and these 

areas were highly susceptible to stand-replacing fires. 

Both Communities

The combination of logging at the turn of the century and fire-suppression has produced a more 

homogeneous landscape in the cool, moist forest habitat today than occurred historically (PIF 2000). In 

the past, stands often formed a complex and intricate mosaic on the landscape as a result of the highly 

variable fires that occurred. Because succession changes forest structure most rapidly in the early decades, 

it has only taken a few decades for fire suppression to allow large expanses of continuous forest to form 

across the landscape as most stands reach a closed-canopy stage (Tande 1979). 

Priority bird species historically associated with the more diverse structure characteristic of these 

communities include sharp-shinned hawk, Northern goshawk, Williamson’s sapsucker, pileated 

woodpeckers, Olive-sided flycatchers, Cassin’s vireo and Townsend’s warbler, although specialized 

habitat and structures such as snags, riparian areas, large woody debris or edge are necessary for some 

species. Species more commonly found in the more homogeneous mid-seral and late-seral closed-canopy 

forest that exists today include species such as the red-breasted nuthatch, mountain chickadee, rubycrowned kinglet, gray jay, dark-eyed junco, pine siskin, red squirrel, deer mouse and mule deer. 

Upper Sub-alpine Forests (Whitebark Pine)

While the following provides a brief discussion of whitebark pine, a more detailed assessment can be 

found in the Stonewall Vegetation Project Silvicultural Report (Amell 2012)

Habitat Description

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a subalpine conifer that is relatively slow-growing, intolerant of 

shade, but tolerant of poor soils, steep slopes, windy exposures, and cold environments (Arno and Weaver

1990). The major mechanisms for dispersing whitebark pine seed depends primarily upon the seed 

harvesting and caching behavior of Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) (Tomback 1982, Hutchins 

and Lanner 1982), although a number of other birds and small mammals also utilize the seeds and store 

them as winter food.

Whitebark pine can be found growing in a wide range of plant communities. It can be found growing in 

small stands at higher elevations or as a co-climax species on sites capable of supporting shade tolerant 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

254

species such as subalpine fir. On moister subalpine fir habitat types, it can be present as a major seral 

species, whereas it is a minor component on dry sites. 

Whitebark pine’s presence as a seral species in subalpine fir habitat types is maintained by disturbances, 

mainly fires (USGS 2008). Prior to 1900, fires burned through whitebark pine forests at average intervals 

ranging from about 30 to 400 years, usually with mixed-severity (Barrett et al. 1991, Brown et al. 1994, 

Keane and Parsons 2007, Tomback et al. 2001), although the longest fire return intervals were associated 

with a stand-replacing fire regime (Keane 2008). Some whitebark pine stands have been maintained by 

low intensity fires that kill the sub-alpine fir. Mixed severity fires, which are necessary to create 

conditions that allow nutcrackers to cache seeds have been absent from the landscape. Consequently 

whitebark pine has been declining across its range (Kendall and Keane 2001). 

In addition to fire suppression, white pine blister rust has led to the most rapid decline in whitebark pine. 

Impacts from the disease have been highest in the more mesic parts of its range; although all stands can 

be considered to be at risk. Whitebark pine has also been affected by mountain pine beetle and increased 

competition, and collectively these factors have all contributed to the rangewide decline of this species.

With large seeds high in fats, whitebark pine trees are an important source of food for many animal 

species. Wildlife species that eat whitebark pine seeds include woodpeckers, jays, ravens, chickadees, 

nuthatches, finches, chipmunks, ground squirrels, bears and probably mice (Hutchins and Lanner 1982, 

Tomback et al. 2001). Pine squirrels (Tamiasciurus spp.) harvest and cache whitebark pine cones in 

middens (Hutchins and Lanner 1982). Whitebark pine seeds serve as an important food source for grizzly 

bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (U. americanus) which raid the seed middens (Kendall 1983). 

Because whitebark pine are long-lived and can grow large in diameter, they also provide valuable snag 

habitat. 

Project Area Upper Subalpine Forest Habitat

The upper subalpine fir community exists on approximately 580 acres or 2 percent of the project area. 

Although this community occurs largely at elevations above 7,800 feet, it is commonly found at lower 

elevations down to approximately 6,900 feet. Project area whitebark pine is highly infected by white pine 

blister rust and is considered seral to subalpine fir. As a result, it depends on fire to maintain its 

dominance (Keane et al. 2001, Kendall and Keane 2001). In the absence of fire, subalpine fir has 

increased in presence and the combination of increases in subalpine fir and associated whitebark pine 

mortality, and lack of regeneration due to white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle have resulted in 

a large decline in whitebark pine. 

The reference fire regime was one of infrequent high-intensity and mixed-severity fires. The current 

frequency and severity is not substantially different from the reference condition (Amell 2012).

Riparian Habitats

Habitat Description

Riparian habitats typically support more species of breeding and migratory birds than any other terrestrial 

habitats in the West. They are diverse, dynamic and complex habitats and are sites of biological and 

physical interaction at the terrestrial/aquatic interface (Kaufman et al. 2000). Riparian zones have a high

degree of biodiversity and the microclimate of riparian zones is also influenced by its position on the 

landscape, which is different than the surrounding forest (Thomas et al. 1979). 

While riparian habitats occur in a variety of communities (e.g., conifer and hardwood) they make up a 

relatively small amount of the landscape. However because of the proximity to water and associated 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

255

habitats, they receive a disproportionate amount of wildlife use. For example riparian areas provide more 

breeding habitat for birds than any other vegetation type in North America (Kaufman et al. 2000). In the 

Rocky Mountain Region, they contain more listed and vulnerable bird species than any other habitat type. 

Also numerous landbird species are relatively restricted to the shrubs or deciduous trees associated with 

riparian environments (Hutto and Young 2002). 

Reptiles use riparian areas for foraging, overwintering, and migration. Most amphibians require riparian 

areas and aquatic habitat for all (e.g., spotted frogs, tailed frogs) or part (e.g., western toads) of their life 

cycle. Because of their limited mobility, continuous riparian zones are important for dispersal and 

migration to other unoccupied habitat. Mammals also disproportionately use riparian zones, because of 

the high structural diversity, proximity to water, and favorable microclimates that create high plant 

diversity that results in a varied and abundant forage supply. Consequently, riparian areas serve as 

migration routes between summer and winter range for big game and provide travel corridors between 

habitats for many terrestrial species such as carnivores, birds, and bats.

Birds that are known to occur in the project area commonly associated with riparian habitat include ruffed 

grouse, cedar waxwings, yellow warblers, cordilleran flycatchers, McGillivray’s Warbler and song 

sparrows. Fire return intervals can be longer in riparian zones and mammals such as fisher and wolverine 

also prefer riparian habitat due to the increased cover and downed woody debris that often occurs there 

(Self and Kearns 1992 in Ruggerio et al. 1994). 

Project Area Riparian Habitats 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project area contains a small amount of the riparian biophysical setting (24 

acres), 66 miles of stream and 26 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland. Because many 

wildlife species select habitat in close proximity to water, for the purpose of this analysis, riparian habitat 

is defined as lands within 100 feet of a stream or wetland. Stream riparian habitat exists on almost 1,700 

acres or 7 percent of the project area, whereas wetland riparian habitat exists on approximately 300 acres. 

So collectively the project area contains approximately 2,000 acres of riparian habitat. 

Aspen

Habitat Description

Aspen occurs as isolated relatively pure stands commonly associated with conifers along water courses. It 

is often but not always associated with riparian or more mesic upland sites and is relatively rare in 

Montana when compared to other Rocky Mountain States (PIF 2000). 

Aspen reproduces primarily from sprouting following a disturbance, and fire is the primary factor that 

perpetuates aspen. In the absence of fire, remaining aspen trees eventually lose vigor, fail to sucker 

(reproduce), and are eliminated from the community. Consequently without wildfire, aspen will be 

replaced by coniferous forest (Stam et al. 2008). Fire suppression has resulted in a decrease in the 

abundance and distribution of aspen stands within the Stonewall project area. 

Aspen is an important component of the vegetation of Montana, and whether in pure stands or mixed with 

conifers, aspen provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife and adds to habitat diversity. It is often the 

only broad-leafed tree within coniferous forests and therefore provides unique foraging substrates for a 

variety of insectivorous birds (PIF 2000, DeByle 1985, Shepperd et al. 2006). The suckers, twigs and bark 

are used by wintering ungulates, particularly deer, elk and moose. Snowshoe hares and cottontail rabbits 

feed on the twigs and buds, while ruffed grouse are highly dependent on the buds in winter. Aspen also 

provides cavities and snags for cavity-dependent species (PIF 2000), and Birds and Burns surveys 

conducted from 2002 through 2006 south of the project area found that hairy woodpeckers are strongly 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

256

associated with aspen on the HNF (Bate 2003; Bate 2004; Bate 2005a and b; Bate 2007, Mosher and Saab 

2009). Also many cavity excavators select aspen trees at remarkably high rates compared to their 

availability (Hutto 1995). 

Project Area Aspen Habitat 

Historically, aspen was widely scattered in the project area (based on remnant stands and range maps). 

Stands were generally associated with seeps and springs, riparian areas and other moist sites. Under 

naturally occurring wildfires, aspen stands provided a diversity of structure and size classes. Fires were 

frequent enough that it was maintained across the landscape. Due to conifer encroachment, age and fire 

suppression, existing aspen stands are largely decadent with little or no reproduction. Remaining aspen 

are widely scattered across the project area. 

Mountain Meadow and Shrub

Big sagebrush is the dominant mountain shrub and often occurs as a sagebrush/fescue or 

sagebrush/wheatgrass community. Sagebrush plays an important role for several wildlife species. It is an 

important winter food as it may be the only source of green vegetation available. It provides cover for 

mule deer and breaks up snow pack, providing access to grasses. Throughout the rest of the year, it is an 

important habitat component as forage, protective cover, and nesting habitat (Ritter and Paige 2000). 

Sagebrush has always been a common habitat in drier, lower elevation valleys in the West, where 

distribution and patchiness was a result of natural moisture and fire regimes (Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Sagebrush and associated perennial grasses and forbs provide food and cover for many wildlife species 

(Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2012). 

Mountain meadows typically consist of native bunchgrasses and forbs, which are often interspersed 

among shrubs. The herbaceous and shrub structure provides habitat for a variety of species, including 

migratory birds, deer and elk. These areas can be particularly important for big game when they occur at 

lower elevations, because of the forage they provide on transition range. 

Sagebrush and open-land habitat are decreasing across the West (Grove et al. 2005). Without disturbance, 

conifers are able to out-compete herbaceous species for sunlight, nutrients and water. Large-scale changes 

in land use have altered the distribution and condition of these communities. Nonnative species invasions 

have also reduced habitat. 

Project Area Mountain Meadows and Shrub Habitat

Mountain meadows and shrubs currently occur on approximately 700 acres or 3 percent of the project 

area, whereas shrub habitat exists on 138 acres. Approximately half of the existing habitat was created 

during the Keep Cool fire in 2006. The remainder is widely scattered at upper elevations in the 

headwaters of Keep Cool and Beaver Creeks. Due to conifer encroachment, this community has been 

declining.

Dead Wood

Habitat Description

Dead wood, including both standing and downed woody debris is discussed because many species, 

including threatened, endangered and sensitive species rely on this important habitat component. Dead 

wood contributes to biological richness in many ways: as substrate, cavity sites, foraging sites, nesting or 

denning sites, food storage sites, runways and cover or shelter (Bull et al. 1997). It is estimated that about 

0.33 percent of the bird and mammal species that live in the forests of the Rocky Mountains use snags for 

nesting or denning, foraging, roosting, cover, communication, or perching. Rose et al. (2001) lists 57 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

257

wildlife species plus 4 species groups associated with snags, and 20 wildlife species associated with 

hollow living trees. In addition, large snags and downed wood play central roles in diverse ecosystem 

processes and functions such as nutrient recycling, shelter for growing trees, and habitat for wildlife and 

fish (Rose et al. 2001). 

Snags are often examined in terms of cavity use by different wildlife species. There are two types of 

cavity users: primary and secondary. Primary cavity users excavate their own cavities; secondary cavity 

users occupy those cavities already created. Primary cavity excavators use snags differently. Some species 

can only excavate soft wood; others only excavate hard wood. Hence it is important to distinguish 

between types of snags (Thomas 1979). For example, pileated woodpeckers and black-backed 

woodpeckers excavate trees with hard exterior sapwood shell and decaying heartwood. Weaker 

excavators, e.g., red-breasted nuthatches and chickadees, select trees with softer exterior wood such as 

those created by armillaria root rot and other saprophytic fungi (Rose et al. 2001). Woodpeckers usually 

excavate a new cavity each year (Bull et al. 1997), therefore old cavities are continuously available for 

secondary cavity users.

Reliance on dead wood habitat occurs at a variety of scales, from large landscapes, to small patches, to 

individual snags or downed logs. More mobile species that depend on dead wood habitat include black 

bears, Canada lynx, wolverines, marten, fisher, bats, woodpeckers, and owls. Less mobile species that 

depend on dead wood include snowshoe hares (the primary prey of Canada lynx), red-backed voles (the 

primary of prey of marten, fisher, boreal owl, northern goshawk), and shrews (Bull and Blumton 1999, 

Brown et al. 2003).

The number, species, size, and distribution of snags also affect snag-dependent wildlife. Large-diameter 

snags are particularly important because they occur in fewer numbers and many species require large 

diameter snags for nesting. Large diameter snags also remain standing longer and are much more likely to 

develop suitable decay conditions for cavity-using species (McClelland et al. 1979, Bull et al. 1997).

Ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and deciduous tree snags are the species predominately used 

by cavity-using birds and mammals in the Stonewall Project area. Most are relatively resistant to 

windthrow and are less likely to require felling for safety concerns. Smaller-diameter snags also get some 

use as nest habitat by some species, and can play an important role by helping to keep other snags 

standing (Russell et al. 2006). 

Downed trees and other woody material are critical for many species (Maser et al. 1979 in USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). In the Pacific Northwest, 47 vertebrate species respond positively to downed wood 

(Bunnell et al. 2002). Downed logs and stumps are required for denning and resting, are vital for hunting 

below the snow in winter (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994 ), and are also used as travel cover, particularly 

when living plant cover is absent. American marten often den and forage in the under-snow cavities that 

occur under downed logs. Canada lynx, fisher, and wolverine dens are associated with abundant woody 

debris, usually large-diameter logs (Bull et al. 2001). Winter wrens do most of their feeding underneath 

suspended logs and several amphibians and reptiles make use of large woody debris for shelter and 

breeding sites (Bull et al. 1997). Many ant species that need large-diameter downed logs are major 

predators of defoliating insects such as western spruce budworm (Torgersen and Bull 1995). Longer 

large-diameter downed trees are generally most important because they can be used by a far greater range 

of species. In addition, they provide stable and persistent structures as well as better protection from 

weather extremes. However, a variety of sizes and decay classes are needed in downed wood “in order to 

conserve functional processes that foster sustainable forest ecosystems” (Torgersen and Bull 1995).

Standing and downed dead trees have many ecological roles in a landscape recovering from wildfire 

(Beschta et al. 1995, Saab and Dudley 1998, Smith 2000, Brown et al. 2003, Beschta et al. 2004, Saab et 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

258

al. 2004). The snags and down logs that result from fire serve a vital role in the structure and function of 

healthy forest ecosystems and play an important role in post-fire recovery and long-term site productivity. 

Also, Hutto (1995) found that 15 species of birds were more frequently found in post-fire habitats than in 

any other major cover type in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Project Area Dead Wood Component 

Due to decades of overstocking and widespread MPB mortality, snags and coarse woody debris currently 

occur in a variety of size classes and are widespread and abundant across the Stonewall project area. In 

2007 and 2008, the HNF measured FIA Intensification plots within the Stonedry analysis area, which 

includes the Stonewall project area. For that analysis, it was assumed that plots included tree mortality 

through 2008. Within the FIA Intensification plots, there were an average of about 40 snags per acre 

greater than or equal to 7 inches d.b.h., which is 20 times the Forest Plan requirement of providing 70 

percent of optimum. Table 65 summarizes snags by size class within the Stonewall project area, whereas 

figure 67 displays general snag distribution. 

Table 65. Snag distribution data by size class from 2008 FIA plots 

Diameter (d.b.h.) Class Average Snags per Acre

7-11 26

12-19 13

>=20 1 

Total 40
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

259

Figure 67. Project area snag distribution

Connectivity

Connectivity refers both to the abundance and spatial patterning of habitat and to the ability of animals to 

move from patch to patch of similar habitat (USDA Forest Service 1997). Corridors are a means by which 

connectivity is provided and are defined as strips or stepping stones of “hospitable territory traversing 

inhospitable territory providing access from one area to another” (USDA Forest Service 1997). The 

effectiveness of a corridor depends upon the species in question, the type of movement, and the type of 

corridor (WHCWG 2010). Animals need connectivity to forage within their home range, for dispersal to 

new home ranges, and for migration between locations. 

Connectivity as a concept is being increasingly explored in conservation and is also an area of 

controversy. While there is no empirical evidence to support the concept of corridors many conceptual 

models have been built to project connectivity across landscapes (WHCWG 2010). 

The Northern Region Connectivity Protocol (USDA Forest Service 1997) provides a framework for 

describing corridors and the effects of Forest projects and other human activities. Of the five types of 

corridors outlined in the protocol, four apply to the Stonewall Project area: season migration corridors, 

dispersal/emigration corridors, travel corridors, and invasive corridors.

Season migration and cyclic corridors: While the project area occurs in well-established continental 

corridors such as the Central flyway, locally, the most obvious examples of seasonal migrations are spring 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

260

and fall movements by native ungulates between winter and summer ranges. Historically these routes 

were dictated by topography, snow conditions, and the availability of resources (particularly forage, 

water, and cover). Over the past 150 years, these routes have shifted in response to human development. 

In part, they follow the old resource/topography-driven routes but divert as necessary to avoid roads and 

other centers of human activity and to take advantage of cover. Wildfire and insect and disease such as 

concentrated MPB mortality have also affected landscape and watershed level connectivity resulting in 

local shifts in migration corridors. These corridors are maintained by minimizing human access and 

fragmentation, and by ensuring contiguous forested upland and riparian areas are available across the 

landscape. 

Travel corridors are local routes established by individual animals or groups of animals to move within 

home ranges between foraging habitat, cover, breeding sites, and so on. As with local seasonal migration, 

these routes may shift in response to human activity or landscape-level changes from wildfire and insect 

and disease infestation. The Stonewall Project area provides connectivity between more remote lands to 

the north (e.g., Scapegoat Wilderness) and the Blackfoot River and lands to the south extending along the 

continental divide. The Blackfoot River is an important corridor for species moving up and down the river 

corridor as well as for movement between habitats to the north and south. Like seasonal and migration 

corridors, maintaining forested conditions while minimizing human access and development help to 

maintain existing travel corridors.

Dispersal corridors promote movement into unoccupied habitats. Dispersal behavior is most common 

when density is too high within an area to support the population, resulting in natural colonization of 

suitable but unoccupied habitat elsewhere. Because the project area adjoins large blocks of more remote 

habitat to the north and the Blackfoot River to the south, it provides an important dispersal corridor for a 

wide variety of species.

Invasive corridors may be continental (e.g., eastern blue jays moving across the Great Plains via wooded 

river corridors), or local (e.g., cowbirds following cattle trailing up onto National Forest System land). 

These corridors may affect biodiversity in local ecosystems that have inadequate resistance to invaders, 

particularly in the case of exotic weeds such as knapweed or leafy spurge. Maintaining landscape-level 

conditions and minimizing fragmentation is necessary to ensure that invasive corridors are not 

established. 

Fragmentation is generally considered a change in landscape structure that leads to smaller patch sizes, 

less interior habitat, and greater distances between patches which can lead to sub-population isolation 

(Reed et al. 1996, Tinker et al. 1998, Temple and Wilcox 2000). 

Fragmentation can affect animal populations by decreasing species diversity and densities due to the 

smaller patches of habitat created, as well as by increasing edge habitat and effects. Edge is the interface 

between forest and nonforest, whereas an ecotone is the zone on either side of the edge that is influenced 

by the transition between contrasting vegetation types (Thomas 1979). Edges and ecotones often support 

a more diverse array of wildlife species than either of the adjacent habitats alone. Elk, deer and black 

bears often frequent edges because the forested stands provide cover whereas the openings provide 

forage. Edges also provide habitat conditions conducive for nest parasites (e.g., cowbirds), invasive 

species and nest predators (e.g., great horned owls). Consequently increased fragmentation can adversely 

affect a variety of species including neo-tropical migratory birds as well as increase risks from invasive 

species. When evaluating effects of fragmentation, landscape conditions such as the amount of intact 

forest habitat and nonforest habitat need to be considered. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

261

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Canada Lynx 

Methodology 

The Helena National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was amended in March 2007 by the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USDA Forest Service 2007b). This 

amendment established management direction to conserve and promote the recovery of the Canada lynx, 

by reducing or eliminating adverse effects from land management activities on NFS lands, while 

preserving the overall multiple use direction in existing plans. This management direction incorporated 

new science on lynx and was based on recommendations in the Lynx Conservation Strategy Assessment 

(LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000). The NRLMD avoids or reduces the potential for projects proposed under 

Forest Plans to adversely affect lynx through a suite of standards and guidelines that promote and 

conserve the habitat conditions needed to produce adequate snowshoe hare (lynx primary prey) densities 

to sustain lynx home ranges, and thus sustain lynx populations.

The project area is identified as occupied core lynx habitat, as well as lynx critical habitat. Therefore, all 

applicable standards and guidelines in the NRLMD that apply to treatments are addressed in the analysis 

for the two LAUs included in the project area.

Modeling of lynx habitat components was done at the landscape scale and used the best information 

available. The process used for modeling the different lynx habitat components can be found in the 

project file and used categories for lynx habitat structure described in the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Opinion (BO) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b) and NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 

2007b). Mapped lynx habitat was updated for this project in 2012 and lynx habitat estimates and maps 

were derived from R1-VMAP and Pfister et al. (1977). Methodologies and assumptions associated with 

this data are described in; Pfister et al. 1977, R1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification System and its 

Relationship to Inventory Data, the Region 1 Existing Vegetation Map Products (2009) and the Eastside 

R1-VMAP Accuracy Assessment (2010).

Because LAU habitat has been affected by recent wildfire and other landscape-level influences, direct and 

indirect effects are evaluated by LAU, whereas cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined 

LAU boundaries. 

Species Status and Biology

The population, distribution, life history, habitat status and recovery objectives for Canada lynx in Region 

1 are detailed in Ruggiero et al. (1999), Ruediger et al. (2000), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) 

and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2007b). The following is a brief summary of lynx habitat 

preferences and biology. 

Lynx are highly specialized predators of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) and habitat can generally be 

described as moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters and a snowshoe hare prey base (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). The predominant vegetation of boreal forests is conifer trees, primarily 

spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abis spp.), and in the contiguous United States, the boreal forest transitions to 

subalpine forest in the West (Agee 2000 in Ruggiero et al. 1999). 

Snow conditions also determine the distribution of lynx (Ruggiero et al. 1999) as lynx are adapted for 

hunting snowshoe hares and surviving in areas that have cold winters and deep, fluffy snow for extended 

periods. These adaptations provide lynx a competitive advantage over potential competitors such as 

bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) (Ruediger et al. 2000, Ruggiero et al. 1999, USDI Fish 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

262

and Wildlife Service 2007b). Because of the patchiness and temporal nature of high quality snowshoe 

hare habitat, lynx populations require large boreal forest landscapes to ensure that sufficient high-quality 

snowshoe hare habitat is available at any point in time so that lynx may move freely among patches of 

suitable habitat and among subpopulations of lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

Lynx are highly mobile, and long-distance movement (greater than 60 miles) is characteristic (Aubry et 

al. 2000 in Ruggiero et al. 1999; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). Lynx disperse primarily when 

snowshoe hare populations decline.

Sub-adults also disperse when prey is abundant and lynx make exploratory movements outside their home 

range (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

Lynx den sites are located where coarse woody debris, such as downed logs and windfalls, provides 

security and thermal cover for lynx kittens and the amount of structure (e.g., downed, large woody debris) 

appears to be more important than the age of the forest stand for lynx habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2006). Denning habitat may be located in older regenerating stands or in mature forest where 

downed woody debris is available. During the winter of 2011/2012 researchers from the rocky Mountain 

Research Station captured and collared a female lynx denning within the 1988 Canyon creek burn area 

(Squires 2012). Since no trees were removed and allowed to fall naturally this area supports a high degree 

of structure and stand regeneration supports a healthy snowshoe hare population. Denning habitat in or 

near foraging habitat is likely to be most functional and selected by females and multiple nursery sites are 

often used. Downed logs and overhead cover throughout the home range provides security habitat when 

kittens are old enough to travel (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). 

Lynx productivity is highly dependent on the quantity and quality of winter snowshoe hare habitat, which 

is a limiting factor for lynx persistence. As a result, the term foraging habitat used in this analysis refers to 

winter snowshoe hare habitat. Winter snowshoe hare habitat may be found in dense young regenerating 

forests where trees protrude above the snowline and in multi-storied forests where limbs of the overstory 

trees and understory trees provide horizontal cover. Based on research of the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station in Montana, in winter, lynx preferentially forage in spruce-fir forests with high horizontal cover, 

abundant snowshoe hares, deep snow conditions and large diameter trees (Squires et al. 2006). 

Regenerating lodgepole pine stands also provide good winter hare habitat, particularly when spruce is 

limited. 

Primary mortality factors include; predation by mountain lions primarily in the spring and fall (31 

percent), starvation primarily in winter (29 percent), unknown factors (22 percent) and trapping/shooting 

(18 percent) (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Suitable lynx habitat varies greatly depending on the vegetation structure on a site and the amount of 

cover and forage (i.e., snowshoe hare habitat) provided. The following is a description of the five 

structural stages for lynx habitat considered in this analysis, which are displayed in Figure 68 and 

summarized in Table 67. These are collectively referred to as mapped or suitable habitat throughout the 

analysis.

1. Stand initiation unsuitable - Represents young (less than 15 years old) regenerating stands 

after stand replacing fire or regeneration harvest. Trees are all about the same age and size 

and generally do not protrude above the snow. This structural stage does not yet provide 

winter snowshoe hare habitat.

2. Stand initiation - Represents older (15-40 years old) stand initiation after stand replacing fire 

or regeneration harvest. Tree size becomes more variable with trees protruding above the 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

263

snow providing winter forage for snowshoe hares. Sites have enough structure to provide den 

habitat. 

3. Stem Exclusion - Represents relatively even-aged stands with high stem densities and closed 

canopies that have grown out of reach of snowshoe hares. Competition for sunlight and 

moisture precludes understory development. Stands generally do not have sufficient dead and 

down to support denning and do not provide hare habitat. 

4. Mid-seral - Represents the successional stage of the stand at more of a midpoint as it moves 

from bare ground to climax. These stands have greater variability of stand conditions than 

stand initiation or stem exclusion. Stands may be single story or support more than one age 

class but understory regeneration is not dense enough to provide winter snowshoe hare 

habitat. Developmental stages included in this habitat classification range from young 

multistoried stands to single storied mature stands with little or no understory development. 

This habitat type may provide denning habitat if sufficient coarse woody debris is present. 

5. Multi-storied -Represents stands of varying ages with three or more layers. Young multistoried forest is generally not winter snowshoe hare habitat because only limited understory 

development is within reach of hares. Mature and old multistoried stands provide snowshoe 

hare habitat if the understory is dense enough to provide cover and forage, and is within reach 

of hares. These stands may provide denning habitat if sufficient large woody debris is present. 

Structural

Stage/Habitat Description Contribution to Lynx Habitat

Stand Initiation Unsuitable

May provide 

den habitat if 

sufficient 

structure is 

present. Not 

winter 

snowshoe 

hare habitat.

After a stand-replacing fire or 

regeneration harvest, new seedlings 

establish and develop. A single-story 

layer of shrubs, tree seedlings and 

saplings.

Is considered unsuitable for the first 15 after a disturbance 

because the trees and shrubs are not tall enough to 

protrude above the snow. May provide denning habitat. 

Stand initiation

Winter 

Snowshoe 

Hare 

(foraging) and 

den habitat

Becomes winter snowshoe hare habitat after about 15 years as young trees protrude above the 

snow and provide cover. Provides winter foraging and den habitat. 

Stem Exclusion

Limited understory because little light reaches the forest floor. Not winter hare or den habitat

Single storied 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

264

Structural

Stage/Habitat Description Contribution to Lynx Habitat

stand. Little 

dead and 

down 

material. 

Mid-seral

Crowns too 

high to 

provide cover. 

Limited dead 

and down 

material. 

Generally not winter snowshoe hare habitat because only a limited understory developed within the 

reach of snowshoe hares. Denning habitat if there are piles of coarse woody debris.

Multi-storied Habitat

Understory 

Re-initiation

As the forest ages, some overstory 

trees begin to die or are removed, 

making openings where a new 

generation of understory trees can 

grow in a multi-storied condition. 

Winter snowshoe hare habitat if the understory is dense 

enough to provide cover and forage, and is within reach of 

hares. Denning habitat if there are piles of coarse woody 

material. 

Winter 

snowshoe 

hare 

(foraging) and 

den habitat.

Old MultistoriedSome old forests develop a multistoried structure with an understory.

Winter snowshoe hare habitat if understory is dense 

enough to provide cover and forage, and is within reach of 

hares. Denning habitat because it generally provides plenty 

of large coarse woody debris. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

265

Structural

Stage/Habitat Description Contribution to Lynx Habitat

Winter 

snowshoe 

hare 

(foraging) and 

den habitat

Figure 68. Description of different structural stages and their contribution to lynx forage and den habitat 

conditions21

Lynx Project Area Habitat

The project area is within identified lynx core and occupied habitat as well as designated critical habitat. 

Core habitat was identified in September, 2005 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the 

Recovery Plan Outline for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of Lynx (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2005). The document identified critical habitat designation until a draft recovery 

plan is completed, and also served as an interim strategy and guide to recovery efforts. Core areas 

represent lands with the strongest long-term evidence of lynx persistence (NRLMD FEIS 2007). 

Identified core habitat includes all National Forest System lands on the Helena National Forest north of 

Highway 12. 

The Helena National Forest supports occupied and unoccupied lynx habitat (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Occupied habitat was jointly identified by the USFWS and Forest 

Service in May 2006 as a component of the May 2005 Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement (USDA 

Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Occupied habitat is identified as a subset of 

“mapped lynx habitat.” Criteria for identifying occupied habitat included: at least two verified lynx 

sightings since 1999 (unless verified as transients), or evidence of reproduction. For the HNF all mapped 

lynx habitat within the identified core habitat area north of Highway 12 was identified as “occupied.” 

Some HNF lands south of Highway 12 and outside identified core habitat were also mapped as occupied, 

while the remaining lands south of Highway 12 are identified as unoccupied. 

Lynx critical habitat was designated on March 25, 2009 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

published the Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct 

Population Segment of the Canada Lynx: Final Rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). 

 

21 Taken with some modification from figure 3-2, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, FEIS, volume 1, 

pages 146−147
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

266

The project area includes two LAUs including Blackfoot (BL)-07 in the west and BL-08 in the east. The 

ownership, lynx habitat and road density of each LAU are displayed in table 66, whereas mapped lynx 

habitat is summarized by LAU in table 67 and displayed in Figure 69. Northern Rocky Mountain Lynx 

Management direction applies to “occupied” or mapped lynx habitat, whereas critical habitat applies to all 

NFS lands, mapped or not. 

Table 66. Lynx analysis unit ownership and habitat

LAU

Ownership Lynx Habitat

Total Landscape

PVT NFS Mapped Patterns Non-lynx 

Habitat

Ac % Ac % Ac % Ac % Acres

BL-07 478 2 26,184 98 17,632 66 9,030 34 26,662

Large blocks of connected suitable hare 

habitat throughout the LAU. Road 

Density 2.8 mi/mi2

. 

BL-08 197 1 27,352 99 21,421 78 6,128 22 27,549

Unsuitable winter hare habitat in the 

north and east due to recent wildfires. 

Large blocks of well-connected suitable 

hare habitat in the south and west. 

Road Density 1.9 mi/mi2

. 

Table 67. Mapped lynx habitat

Lynx Habitat

Lynx Analysis Units

BL-7 BL-8

Acres Percent Acres Percent

Stand Initiation Unsuitable 331 1 7,864 28

Stand Initiation 1,312 5 659 3 

Mid-seral 7,431 28 9,014 33

Stem Exclusion 156 <1 373 1 

Multi-storied 8,402 32 3,511 13

Total Mapped Lynx Habitat 17,632 66 21,421 78

While mapped lynx habitat is abundant within both LAUs, available winter foraging habitat varies. For 

example, while 78 percent of BL-08 provides lynx habitat, due to several recent (since 2003) wildfires, 

winter foraging habitat only occurs on 15 percent of the LAU. Available winter foraging habitat in BL-08 

is widely scattered, with little interspersed with multi-storied habitat. Conversely, winter foraging habitat 

within BL-07 is better connected and interspersed throughout the LAU (figure 69). 

While BL-07 contains less total lynx habitat, due to past regeneration harvest, it contains a larger 

component of stand initiation hare habitat, as well as almost three times the amount of multi-stored 

forging habitat. Due to recent MPB mortality, levels of DWD and available denning habitat have 

increased within both LAUs. While more concentrated mortality generally occurs in the southern portion 

of the project area, DWD has increased across the landscape.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

267

Figure 69. Existing project area lynx habitat by LAU
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

268

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA 2003) defines “at risk” communities or Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) as (1) communities or lands that are in the vicinity of NFS lands that are at high risk from 

wildfire, or (2) lands in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire event for which a 

significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire. The WUI as defined by 

HFRA is discussed here because treatments are proposed with the WUI to reduce potential for wildland 

fire to at risk communities and because the NRLMD provides specific direction related to treatment of 

snowshoe hare habitat within a WUI (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 

In response to direction provided by HFRA (HFRA 2003), the tri-county fire working group, which is 

composed of representatives from Broadwater, Jefferson and Lewis & Clark counties developed the 2010 

Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).This plan identified the WUI as the area within 4 

miles of interface communities that possess a population density exceeding 250 people per square mile 

(USDA Forest Service 2012d). The plan also assigned the following wildfire risk categories for lands 

within the WUI; lands within 1 mile of an at risk community were assigned a very high wildfire risk, 2 

miles were considered high risk, 3 miles moderate risk and 4 miles low risk. Lands beyond 4 miles are 

outside the WUI. Additionally, lands with a high or very high risk are sometimes referred to as the 2-mile 

zone. 

Due to decades of fires suppression, concentrated MPB mortality and elevated fuel conditions, 

approximately 68 percent of the Stonewall project area currently contains conditions that are likely to 

create flame lengths that cannot be effectively controlled through direct attack and 32 percent of the 

project area contains conditions conducive to creating a crown fire. Also local fire manager’s state that a 

significant fire spread on the HNF is generally due to spotting and wind-driven crown fires, as evidence 

by the 2003 Snow Talon Fire adjacent to the project area (USDA FS 2012d). Because of these conditions 

there are private lands within the tri-county WUI with residences and other structures within and 

immediately adjacent to the project area that are outside the 2-mile zone, but were considered to be at risk 

from wildland fire by the Stonewall Interdisciplinary Team. As a result, some treatment is proposed in 

winter snowshoe hare habitat that falls outside the 2-mile WUI, but meets the definition of an at risk 

community as defined by HFRA. 

Approximately 43 percent of BL-07 and 59 percent of BL-08 falls within the tri-county WUI displayed in 

Figure 70. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

269

Figure 70. Stonewall Lynx LAU – Tri-County WUI

One hundred percent of the timber harvest and over 60 percent of the burning proposed under both action 

alternatives occurs within the tri-county WUI. Also, there is no winter hare habitat proposed for treatment 

outside the WUI.

Grizzly Bear 

Methodology and Process

The Stonewall project area occurs within the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem 

(NCDE) grizzly recovery area. The analysis presented is based on management direction provided for the 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

270

recovery area, as well as Forest Plan direction for lands within and outside the NCDE, which is 

summarized below. 

Forest Plan Direction and Access Management

The Forest Plan (1986) provides direction and guidelines for the management and conservation of grizzly 

bear habitat. This direction is described in the Forestwide Goals (FP-II/1), Forestwide Objectives (FP 

II/4), Forestwide Standards (FP II/17, 19), Individual Management Area direction (FP III/56, 59, 60), 

Forest Plan Monitoring Requirements (FP IV/8) Forest Plan, Resolution of Issues and Concerns and 

Guidelines for Management of Grizzly Bear Habitat. 

The moving windows analysis, which measures the exact density of roads is used to identify the amount 

of secure habitat within a Bear Management Unit (BMU) using three criteria including; 1) Total 

Motorized Road Density (TMRD), 2) Open Motorized Road Density (OMRD) and 3) Core habitat. Each 

BMU and subunit is evaluated against these three criteria to determine if they meet the standards or are in 

a degraded condition. 

The Forest identified all lands within the recovery zone as either Management Situation (MS) 1 or 2, 

which are adapted from the guidelines developed for the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Lands outside the 

recovery zone include MS 3, 4 and 5, although only MS 1 and 2 lands are formally designated in the 

Forest Plan. The following is a description of MS 1 and 2 lands: 

Management Situation 1 – This area contains grizzly population centers and habitat components 

needed for survival and recovery of the species. Grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement, and 

grizzly and human conflict minimization will receive the highest priority and management decisions 

will favor the needs of the grizzly bear over other land uses (USDA Forest Service 1986). The 

probability is very great that major federal activities or programs may affect the grizzly.

Management Situation 2 – The area lacks distinct grizzly population centers. Highly suitable habitat 

does not generally occur, although some grizzly habitat components exist and grizzlies may be 

present occasionally. Habitat maintenance and improvement, and grizzly and human conflict 

minimization may be, in some cases, important but not the most important management 

considerations. The effects of major Federal activities or programs on the conservation and recovery 

of the species are not generally predictable. 

In addition to the above management situations descriptions, the Helena National Forest uses the 

following information for managing grizzly habitat.

6. Coordination dates for grizzly habitat use are: 

○ Spring habitat (concentrated use areas ) – April 1 to June 30 

○ Breeding areas (May 1 to July 15).

○ Alpine feeding areas (July 1 to September 15. 

○ Subalpine fir/whitebark pine habitats (August 1 to November 30). 

○ Denning habitat – October 15 to March 31. 

7. Maintain existing seasonal grizzly habitat use in constituent elements and habitat 

components. 

8. Coordinate man’s activities using the measures listed or discussed in “Rocky Mountain Front 

Grizzly Bear Monitoring and Investigation” (Aune et al. 1984) as appropriate to the habitats 

and grizzly use on the Helena National Forest. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

271

Appendix E of the Forest Plan provides direction for grizzly bear management outside the recovery zone 

and includes guidance for identifying grizzly bear habitat that is not currently inventoried and to help 

determine levels of bear activity from which to base management (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. E/1-

E/2). Management guidelines apply to areas of known grizzly bear activity, including those within 

portions of the project area. However currently there are no known grizzly bear biological activity centers 

(BAC) in the distribution zone, as defined in appendix E of the Forest Plan. 

Species Status and Biology

The grizzly bear was listed as threatened throughout its range in the lower 48 states on July 28, 1975. The 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was approved in 1982, updated in 1990 and 1992, and revised in 1993 (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Seven grizzly bear ecosystems were identified for recovery to be 

completed. Five of the seven ecosystems are currently occupied. One of these, the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) occurs in part on the Helena National Forest. The Stonewall Project area is 

located in the southern most extension of the NCDE grizzly bear recovery zone. The overall goal of the 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan is to remove the grizzly bear from threatened status in each of the occupied 

or reintroduced ecosystems in the 48 contiguous United States.

Grizzly bears are considered habitat generalists, using a broad spectrum of habitats. They are 

opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food; grizzly bear movements are 

determined largely by their search for food. For example, upon emergence from the den in the early 

spring, grizzlies move to lower elevations and drainage bottoms in search of plants that are greening up. 

Throughout the late spring and early summer they move towards higher elevations, often following the 

snow line as food becomes available. Spring habitat tends to be at lower elevations, therefore, increased 

potential exists for conflict between bears and humans in these areas. In addition to being utilized for 

feeding, riparian zones are also heavily used by grizzlies for travel corridors (Moss and LeFrance 1987 in

USDA Forest Service 2005).

Coniferous forest cover is very important to grizzly bears. Ninety percent of aerial radio relocations of 46 

radio-collared grizzlies were in forest cover too dense to observe the bear. Dense forests are also 

important for thermal cover, hiding cover, and day beds; most beds are located within 6 feet of a tree. The 

importance of open grassy parks with coniferous forest cover has also been documented (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993). 

Grizzly bear habitat is best described in terms of the availability of large tracts of relatively undisturbed 

land that provides some level of security from humans (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Effective 

habitat is often described in terms of core habitat or areas free of motorized access during the nondenning period. Open and total road densities are also important measurements in determining core areas 

and understanding the extent of habitat security for bears (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) indicates the most important 

element in grizzly bear recovery is securing adequate effective habitat. This is a reflection of an area's 

ability to support grizzly bears based on the quality of the habitat and the type/amount of human 

disturbance in the area. Controlling and directing motorized access is one of the most important tools in 

achieving habitat effectiveness and managing grizzly bear recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

1993). 

Analysis Area

Grizzly bears are the largest, most wide-ranging forest carnivore in western Montana. The needs of 

grizzly are met at the Forest level and through management and maintenance of Bear Management Units 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

272

(BMUs), which help ensure the conservation of this species. The Stonewall Project area is included in the 

Landers Fork Bear Management Unit and includes portions of the Arrastra and Red Mountain sub-units. 

The analysis for grizzly involves a multi-scale assessment. Direct and indirect effects are evaluated across

the 24,000 acre project area. This area was selected because it includes all treatment units as well as 

adjacent habitat that might affect use of the area by bear. Cumulative effects are evaluated across a larger 

area that includes: lands affected by recent wildfires within the Arrastra and Red Mountain sub-units, 

recovery lands between the project area and the Scapegoat Wilderness to the north, and lands outside the 

recovery area that are utilized by bear to access the Blackfoot River and lands to the south. The 

cumulative effect area totals approximately 89,200 acres. In addition, Total and Open Motorized Road 

Densities (TMRD and OMRD) and Security Core habitat are assessed across the Arrastra and Red

Mountain sub-units as a whole.

Grizzly Bear Habitat 

The Helena National Forest manages more than 76 percent of the land within the Arrastra Mountain and 

Red Mountain subunits. Table 68 summarizes the status of these lands within the project and cumulative 

effect areas. 

The recovery zone occupies 91 percent of the cumulative effects area and 97 percent of the project area. 

Lands outside the recovery zone include those that connect the project area with the Blackfoot River to 

the south, as well as private lands within each sub-unit. Management Situation 1 lands include high 

quality habitat that adjoins the Scapegoat Wilderness, which occurs on approximately 10 percent of the 

project area recovery zone, whereas over 85 percent of the project area occurs as Management Situation 2 

lands. 

Modeled den and core habitat within the project area are discussed below and summarized in table 69. 

Modeled den habitat is not available for the entire cumulative effects area. 

Table 68. Project area bear management units

Grizzly Bear Habitat Status

Project Area

(24,005 ac)

Cumulative Effect Area

(89, 216 ac)

Acres % Acres % 

Arrastra Mountain Sub-unit 17,616 732 36,931 41

Management Situation 1 2,264 9 3,187 4 

Management Situation 2 15,101 63 29,361 33

Lands not Designated (private) 251 1 4,383 4 

Red Mountain Sub-unit 5,833 242 44,571 50

Management Situation 1 14 <1 6,854 8 

Management Situation 2 5,819 24 25,618 28

Lands not Designated (private) 0 0 12,099 14

Occupied Lands Outside Recovery Zone1 506 2 7,714 9 

1 - % of project and cumulative effect area

2 - % of project area BMU
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

273 

Table 69. Grizzly core and den habitat within the project area

Den/Core Habitat

Arrastra Mountain sub-unit Red Mountain sub-unit

Ac %1 Ac %1

Den Habitat 2,814 16 1,234 21

Potential 2,635 15 1,232 21

High Potential 179 1 2 <1

Core Habitat 7,727 44 2,625 45

Den Habitat

The Forest Travel Management Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2008c) summarizes the 

process used to identify modeled grizzly bear habitat identified in table 69. The parameters used identified 

habitat most commonly used by denning bears including higher elevation slopes sufficiently steep and 

shaded to retain snow throughout the denning season, which also contain soil types conducive to den 

excavation and maintaining den structural integrity. These parameters are consistent with denning habitat 

mapping efforts and finding of grizzly denning studies within the NCDE. Modeled potential denning 

habitat includes lands greater than 6,200 feet in elevation with slopes between 35 and 100 percent. High 

potential habitat includes areas with north, northeast or northwest aspects that are greater than 6,200 feet 

and have slopes between 35 and 100 percent. 

Grizzly bear denning habitat occurs at upper elevations scattered across the project area. While there is 

little high potential habitat, potential den habitat occurs on 15 and 21 percent of Arrastra and Red 

Mountain, respectively. This includes scattered parcels in the head of Lincoln Gulch and larger blocks in 

the vicinity of Stonewall Mountain and lands to the west. Potential denning habitat also occurs on over 

40,000 acres north of the proposed action area in the Scapegoat Wilderness. Of this, approximately 

14,000 acres occur as high potential den habitat. 

Core Habitat and Access Management

Within the Landers Fork BMU, road densities are managed in accordance with the Flathead National 

Forest Amendment 19, which considers parameters of open route density (OMRD), total route density 

(TMRD) and security core habitat. These measures are collectively used to conserve grizzly bears within 

the NCDE using established guidelines. Existing OMRD outside the recovery zone are managed to 

provide secure areas for big game and grizzly bear.

Table 70 summarizes existing TMRD, OMRD and security core habitat for the Arrastra and Red 

Mountain sub-units. 

Table 70. Arrastra and Red Mountain bear subunit road density and core

Subunit OMRD TMRD Core1

Percent of Area Meeting Guideline

Arrastra Mountain 17 21 73

Red Mountain 25 24 56 

Guidelines

TMRD <= 19 percent of each subunit with >2.0 miles/mi2

OMRD <=19 percent of each subunit with >1.0 miles/mi2

Core >=68 percent of the subunit considered core 1

 –Greater than 2500 contiguous acres, >=0.3 mi. from motorized route, no roads or trails receive high intensity use. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

274

While total road density within the Arrastra Mountain subunit currently falls below the recommended 

guideline of 19 percent, it exceeds guidelines for open road density and core habitat. The Red Mountain 

subunit does not meet any of the IGBC guidelines and is currently considered to be in a “degraded 

condition.” 

Approximately 45 percent of project area habitat within each sub-unit occurs as core habitat and includes 

a 3,800-acre block in the east, a 2,700-acre block in the west and a 3,800-acre block in the north-central 

portion of the project area. The north-central block of core within the Arrastra Mountain unit connects to a 

larger block of core habitat in the Scapegoat Wilderness (>100,000 acres). Project area core habitat in the 

Red Mountain sub-unit and the southwestern block in the Arrastra Mountain unit are also part of a 6,000- 

to 7,000-acre block that extends outside the project area within the cumulative effect boundary. Also 

approximately 64 percent of the modeled den habitat within the project area occurs within core habitat.

North American Wolverine 

Methodology and Process

Data for wolverines are derived from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (Montana NHP 2011) and 

from snow-tracking surveys (Wild Things Unlimited 2011). Wolverine natal denning habitat was modeled 

on Hillis and Kennedy (2003) and focused on areas of late season snow persistence. 

Special habitat requirements for wolverine include large areas of unroaded security habitat, secure 

denning habitat and available ungulate carrion in winter. Also more than any other factor, wolverines are 

susceptible to mortality through hunting and trapping and human caused disturbances near den sites 

(Hornocker and Hash 1981; Copeland 1996). Habitat and potential effects to wolverine are evaluated by 

looking at the availability of remote habitat, potential effects to suitable den habitat, and changes in 

human access and ungulate availability. 

Wolverines range widely across the landscape in search of suitable habitat and prey. Given their 

propensity to travel long distances, direct, indirect and cumulative effects are analyzed across the 

combined boundary, which totals 101,977 acres. This area was selected because it is large enough to 

assess home range considerations, and evaluate landscape-level effects. It includes preferred remote 

habitat conditions and lands affected by recent wildfires.

Species Status and Biology

The wolverine is now a proposed threatened species, per findings of the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

50 CFR Part 17, 78 FR 7864, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the 

Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United 

States, dated February 4, 2013, found at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-0148. It has a global rank of G4, 

and a state rank of S3. 

Wolverine is a solitary and highly mobile species that tends to inhabit remote areas and occurs at 

relatively low densities (Banci 1994). Wolverines range widely from subalpine talus slopes to big game 

winter ranges, occupying higher ranges in the summer and riparian habitats in the spring. Ruggiero et al 

(1999) found that wolverines used higher elevations in the snow-free season to avoid high temperatures 

and human activity. In the northern Rocky Mountains, wolverines make extensive use of coniferous forest 

(Hornocker and Hash 1981). While wolverines are generally regarded as wilderness animals, they may 

include clear-cut areas in their home ranges (Hornocker and Hash, 1981) and are reported to scavenge 

around northern Canadian communities (Banci 1994). Wolverines exhibit some fidelity to particular areas 

for months or years, however, the species is thought to have a flexible behavioral system when changing 

environmental conditions (e.g., food supply), that supersedes boundary considerations (Hatler 1989). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

275

Wolverine habitat is best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large sparsely inhabited 

areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations. No particular habitat 

components or habitat management techniques can presently be singled out for wolverine and success of 

wolverine may relate to the availability of large areas of remote, rugged uplands that are difficult to 

access by humans (Hatler 1989). Wolverines occur in low densities in all places they have been studied 

(Ruggiero et al. 1994). This is generally attributed to naturally low reproductive rates and delayed sexual 

maturity of the species. 

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. They 

primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small mammals and birds, and eat fruits, berries and insects 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). In both Montana and Idaho, big game carrion appears to be the 

major food source with snowshoe hare, squirrels, and small mammals making up the rest of their diet 

(Hornocker and Hash 1981). Large mammal carrion is an important dietary component, particularly in 

winter when other prey is scarce (Banci 1994, Pasitschniak and Lariviere 1995) and they rely heavily on 

the presence of other predators. Wolverines will also search for caches made by itself, other wolverines, 

or other carnivores during the winter. 

Female wolverines use two kinds of dens for reproduction. They use natal (birthing) dens to give birth 

and raise kits early postpartum, prior to weaning. These are excavated in snow and persistent, stable snow 

greater than 5 feet in depth appears to be a requirement because it provides security for offspring and 

buffers cold winter temperatures (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). In Montana, natal dens occur 

above 7,874 feet and are located on north aspects in avalanche debris typically in alpine habitats near 

timberline (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Prior to weaning, females may move kits to one or 

multiple alternate den sites, referred to as maternal dens. The movement of kits from natal to maternal 

dens may be a response by the female to den disturbance, better food availability in the new location, 

predation risk, or deteriorating den conditions in the natal den (Magoun and Copeland 1998). 

Post-weaning dens are called rendezvous sites. These dens may be used through early July. Females leave 

their kits at rendezvous sites while foraging, and return periodically to provide food for the kits. These 

sites are characterized by natural (unexcavated) cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs 

(avalanche debris), and snow (Inman et al. 2007). They may also occur in talus or coniferous riparian 

zones. 

Wolverine home ranges are generally extremely large and the availability and distribution of food is likely 

the primary factor in determining wolverine movements and home range. Home ranges of adult 

wolverines range from less than 38.5 square miles to 348 square miles (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2010). Home ranges of adult males and females overlap extensively with the range of one male covering 

the ranges of two to six females, which is considered one reproductive unit. 

Wittmer et al. (1998) suggested long-term conservation of wolverine can be achieved through 

maintenance of large, remote areas of habitat and engaging in management activities that do not decrease 

ungulate prey density.

Threats

Wolverines have few natural predators although both interspecific and intraspecific mortalities have been 

documented. Wolverines are susceptible to mortality through hunting and trapping and human caused 

disturbances near den sites (Banci 1994, Hornocker and Hash 1981, Copeland 1996). Montana is the only 

state where wolverine trapping is still legal. However the State of Montana contains most of the habitat 

and wolverines that exist in the current range of the DPS, and regulates trapping to reduce the impact of 

harvest on wolverine populations. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, the 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

276

USFWS concluded that that level of trapping and incidental mortality in Idaho and Montana by itself 

would not be a threat to the wolverine DPS. However harvest, when combined with the likely effects of 

climate change (described below) may contribute to the likelihood that the wolverine would become 

extirpated in the future (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

Wolverine naturally occur at low densities (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Copeland 1996) and within the 

area known to currently have wolverine populations, relatively few wolverines can coexist due to their 

naturally low population densities. Given their natural limitations on population density, it is likely 

historical wolverine populations were low (Inman et al 2007) and that the northern Rocky Mountains 

where populations currently exist may not be substantially lower than densities prior to European 

settlement (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). It is estimated that wolverine habitat in the contiguous 

United States supports approximately 250 to 300 wolverines. However habitat is shrinking and it is likely 

to continue to shrink with increasing climate change (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

In their proposed rule to list the wolverine as threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), it was 

determined that the impacts of climate change constitute a threat to the contiguous U.S. DPS of the 

wolverine. Wolverine populations in the remaining U.S. range appear to be at numbers so low that their 

continued existence could be at risk. These risks come from three main factors: (1) small total population 

size, 2) effective population below that needed to maintain genetic diversity and demographic stability, 

and 3) fragmented nature of wolverine habitat in the contiguous United States that results in smaller, 

isolated island patches separated by unsuitable habitats. Other threats are secondary and only rise to the 

level of threats to the DPS as they may work in concert with climate changes to affect the third risk factor; 

habitat. In their finding on the wolverine DPS, the USFWS discussed a variety of impacts to wolverine 

habitat including: (1) climate change, (2) human use and disturbance, (3) dispersed recreational activities, 

(4) infrastructure development, (5) transportation corridors, and (6) land management. The primary 

impact of climate change on wolverines is expected to be changes to the availability and distribution of 

wolverine habitat.

North American Wolverine Project Area Habitat and Documentation

The Stonewall combined boundary is near the eastern extent of this species range in Montana (MNHP 

2011). While foraging habitat is widespread, natal denning habitat is restricted to more remote upper 

elevation lands in the northern half of the analysis area, which contains approximately 12,500 acres of 

modeled habitat. This den habitat is the southern extension of a 35,000-acre block of natal denning habitat 

that largely occurs in the Scapegoat Wilderness to the north. 

Over 23,000 acres of wildfire have burned approximately 3,000 acres of natal denning habitat within the 

analysis area since 2003. Generally, much of the southern half of the analysis area is at lower elevations, 

contains less persistent snow cover, is more heavily roaded and characterized by year-round human 

presence. As a result these lands provides primarily foraging habitat. 

The analysis area contains historical documentation of wolverine and wolverine have been documented 

periodically adjacent to the area (Montana NHP 2011). More recently a tracking survey was conducted 

and a baited camera station established in the Cooper Creek drainage during the winter of 2010/2011. 

While no carnivore visits were recorded by the camera, wolverine tracks were documented during the 

track survey on January 11, 2011) (Wild Things Unlimited 2011). This documentation occurred at 

approximately 6,200 feet near the eastern edge of the combined boundary, within lands affected by the 

Snow Talon fire. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

277

Sensitive and Federal Candidate Species

Gray Wolf

Methodologies and Process

Wolves are considered highly productive habitat generalists (MFWP 2011a), therefore, risks include 

primarily a reduction in prey (deer and elk), or mortality associated with increased human interaction and 

tolerance. There are no known den or rendezvous sites within the Stonewall project area, therefore, wolf 

habitat for this analysis is evaluated by looking at changes in primary prey species and foraging, the 

availability of remote and dispersal habitat and the amount of and changes in human access. 

Elk are considered a primary prey species for wolves, as a result, the analysis of wolf habitat parallels that 

of elk. Direct and indirect effects are evaluated across the project area, whereas cumulative effects are 

evaluated across the combined boundary. 

Species Status and Biology

The population distribution, life history, habitat status and recovery objectives for the gray wolf are 

summarized in the recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). The legal status of a wolf under 

the ESA is tied to its location rather than its point of origin. In Montana, wolves are part of the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct population Segment (DPS) and have achieved biological recovery 

under ESA. Consequently on May 5, 2011, wolves that are part of the DPS segment encompassing Idaho, 

Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah were delisted under ESA. As a result, the gray wolf 

is evaluated as a Regionally Sensitive Species.

Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae), and typically prey on medium and 

large mammals. Prey species in the Rockies include white-tailed and mule deer, moose, elk, woodland 

caribou, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, beaver, and snowshoe hare, with small mammals, birds, and large 

invertebrates sometimes being taken (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Opportunistic feeders, they 

will also prey on carrion when it is available. Habitat can include forests of all types, rangelands, brush 

land, steppes, agricultural lands, wetlands, deserts, tundra, and barren ground areas. 

The gray wolf is territorial in most areas. Territories are defended by howling, scent-marking, and 

physical defense against wolf interlopers. Territories typically range from 20 mi2 to 214 mi2 (Mech 1970 

in Tucker 1988, Peterson 1977 in Tucker 1988). Daily pack movements vary and distances traveled are 

greater in winter than in summer. Lone wolves cover larger areas than packs and their use areas may 

overlap two or three pack territories (Mech 1973 in Tucker 1988, Fritts and Mech 1981 in Tucker 1988). 

Wolves tend to be most active in the early or late evening and travel within their territories at night. 

Patterns of activity are influenced by weather and season of year. While wolves are generally not 

considered migratory, they may wander great distances daily, within their home range, predominantly 

influenced by searching for prey. When reproduction increases population numbers within an area, young 

adult wolves may disperse to new areas. Wolves may establish “runways” by following the same routes 

within territories. Vegetative cover affects wolf survival by providing shelter for prey species such as deer 

and elk, and in general, healthy wolves need little cover (Mech 1970 as cited in Tucker 1988). 

Wolf dens are used for bearing and protecting pups, and are often abandoned when pups reach 2 months 

of age. The same den may be used year after year, or different dens may be selected. Pups are sometimes 

moved from one den to another. Dens may be holes dug in the ground, rock caves and crevices, old 

beaver lodges, and hollow logs or other ground debris. Den sites are typically located near water, dug in 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

278

sandy and well-drained soils, and located in a variety of landforms (Mech 1970 as cited in Tucker 1988 

and Fritts 1982 in Tucker 1988). 

Wolves are highly social animals requiring large areas to roam and feed. Key components of wolf habitat 

include; (1) sufficient, year-round prey base of big game and alternate prey, (2) suitable and somewhat 

secluded denning and rendezvous sites, and (3) sufficient space with minimal exposure to humans (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). 

Gray Wolf Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Wolf habitat within the project area is variable, with more marginal denning habitat occurring in much of 

the southern portion of the project area due to the density of roads and proximity to human activity. More 

remote habitat conditions preferred for denning occur in the headwaters of the Lincoln Gulch, Klondike, 

Yukon and Park Creek drainages. 

Wolf occurrences have consistently been documented in and around the project area for several years. 

Most of the occurrences were believed to be those of transient individuals. In the winter of 2008/2009 a 

pack was verified in the Marcum Mountain area less than 10 miles from the project area. This pack was 

known to use the Arrastra Creek area, and suspected in the Patterson Prairie area adjacent to the project 

area. There have not been recent accounts of the pack however; so it is currently not known if they are 

still established in the area.

Although there are no known wolf dens or rendezvous sites, two packs have been documented within the 

cumulative effects boundary including use by the Arrastra pack in the Beaver Creek drainage and use by 

the Landers pack on private lands southwest of the project area in the Landers fork drainage. In general, 

management for wolves is best achieved by maintaining adequate habitat for big game species to provide 

sufficient prey for wolves and by minimizing wolf/human interactions. Predation of ungulates (i.e., deer 

and elk) by wolves as well as other predators has been high and MFWP is proposing actions to moderate 

both wolf and mountain lion densities in the vicinity of the project area (Kolbe 2012). 

Fisher 

Methodology and Process

Fisher were initially evaluated using the habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the 

Northern Goshawk, Black-backed woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American 

Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b), as described in the criteria for wildlife models, Helena National 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Initially habitat was based on data that estimated anticipated MBP 

mortality and was identified as summer and winter habitat, based on canopy closure and tree size class.

Region 1 revised the fisher model in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012f). This effort was based on 

information from published scientific literature on fishers, especially studies from the Northern Rockies, 

and on previous habitat modeling efforts by Samson (2006a) and Hills and Lockman (2003). This model 

identifies two types of habitat including, (1) resting/denning/foraging habitat that includes moist, mesic 

forests with dense canopies in mid- to late-successional stages, providing the full suite of fisher life 

history needs, and (2) other foraging habitat or moist, mesic forests with dense canopies including 

younger successional stages providing foraging opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2012f).

Specific parameters in the revised model include; (1) potential climax vegetation preferred by fishers, (2) 

a minimum canopy closure of 40 percent, (3) tree size class including trees greater than 10 inches d.b.h. 

for resting/denning/foraging habitat and trees up to 9.9 inches d.b.h. for other foraging habitat and (4) a 

maximum elevation of 6,500 feet. Small isolated habitat less than 160 acres in size or greater than 600 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

279

feet from the nearest existing habitat was eliminated. Habitat estimates from the updated model identified 

a total of approximately 4,400 acres of widely scattered habitat across mid- to low elevations within the 

project area.

Both models used R1VMAP data and considered changes in habitat due to recent wildfires, The models 

differed somewhat in that the revised model identified some large blocks of low elevation den/rest/forging 

habitat in areas where there has been concentrated MPB mortality. So while the revised model (USDA 

Forest Service 2012d) is used to identify fisher habitat, based on field observation in the project area and 

estimates of future mortality, it is expected that some lands currently identified as suitable fisher habitat 

would fall below 40 percent canopy closure in the next 5 to 10 years, making these areas marginally 

suitable or unsuitable.

Fisher tend to select habitat based on structural conditions, therefore, fisher habitat is also evaluated by 

looking at availability and changes to horizontal (landscape) and vertical (site level) structure, including 

downed woody debris and large snag availability. Changes to suitable riparian habitat are also assessed 

because of strong support in the literature for the association of fishers within riparian habitat (USDA 

Forest Service 2012f). 

Direct and indirect effects to fisher are evaluated across the project area (24,000 acres), which is large 

enough to evaluate landscape-level effects at the home range scale. However, in order to evaluate 

landscape-level influences across all ownerships and assess impacts from recent wildfire, cumulative 

effects are evaluated on the combined boundary, which exceeds 100,000 acres. 

Species Status and Biology

The State rank for the fisher is S3 (MFWP 2011a), and although they are a Montana State species of 

concern, they are also classified as a furbearer. As a result it is legally trapped under a limited quota 

system, allowing for take of seven individuals statewide. Presumed extirpated by the 1920s, until recently 

fisher populations in Region 1 were thought to be derived from re-introductions that occurred from 

populations in B.C., Canada, and Minnesota in the 1960s and late 1980s (Vinkey 2003). Genetic testing of 

fisher in western Montana indicates that Statewide individuals are part of the original population that 

existed prior to any reintroductions (Vinkey 2003).

The home range of fishers varies in size from 4 to 32 square miles; optimum habitat is thought to include 

mature, moist coniferous forest with a woody debris component, particularly in riparian/forest ecozones 

in low- to mid-elevation areas that do not accumulate large amounts of snow (Heinemeyer 1993; 

Ruggiero et al. 1994). A review of fisher research suggests the species uses a diversity of tree age and size 

class distributions at the patch or stand level that provide sufficient overhead cover (either tree or shrub). 

Banci (1989) believes the best fisher habitats are multi-aged stands interspersed with small openings 

containing riparian habitats. Fisher feed on snowshoe hares, porcupines, carrion, squirrels, small 

mammals and birds (Banci 1989; Powell and Zielinski 1994 in Ruggiero et al. 1994). This diverse diet 

makes them less vulnerable to shifts in prey abundance than lynx and other predators that rely heavily on 

one or two prey species. 

Like marten, fishers avoid large openings (parks, meadows, early seral clearcuts, and burns). Also like 

other forest carnivores, fishers maintain relatively low population densities and range widely in search of 

prey and key habitat sites (structurally complex forest) (Banci 1994). Because of their aversion to 

openings, they seek out forested connections between the key habitats in which they focus activity (Banci 

1994). These connecting habitats may consist of a variety of forest formations and seral stages and do not 

necessarily exhibit the complex structure and prey density of their preferred habitat sites (Heinemeyer and 

Jones 1994). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

280

Forest stands containing or immediately adjacent to riparian areas are important to fishers. The 

importance of riparian and wetland associated areas was documented by investigators in several areas of 

North America, including Idaho (Jones 1991) and Montana (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). In Montana, 

fishers prefer areas within 600 feet of water (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). Many have documented that 

riparian corridors are used extensively as travel corridors (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994), and Jones (1991) 

suggests that preferred resting habitat and prey are likely more available within forested riparian areas. 

Fishers appear to select structure rather than forest type—vertical and horizontal complexity, down woody 

debris, light gaps, and overhead cover. Fishers need structure that leads to high diversity of dense prey 

populations, as well as desired structure at dense and resting sites (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They also appear 

to be associated with areas of low snow accumulation—flat areas and bottoms—and avoid mid slopes 

(Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

Dense coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forests are preferred and this species is always found 

in or near forests with continuous overhead cover. Fisher prefers forests with high canopy closure (greater 

than 80 percent) and avoid areas with low canopy closure (less than 50 percent). Forest stands with low 

canopy closure were used only if they were adjacent to areas with dense cover (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1983). Documented den sites have occurred in cavities of live and dead trees in forested areas 

with some structural diversity (i.e., forb/shrub cover, down wood and multiple canopy layers) that 

maintain a diversity of prey species (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Young are born in early March to mid-April 

(NatureServe 2011).

Region 1 forests contain a total of 4,239,280 acres and 1,882,031 acres of rest/den/foraging and other 

foraging habitat respectively. As a result regionwide, available fisher habitat is well above any of the 

minimum threshold amounts reported by Smallwood (1999) or Samson (2006a) and fisher habitat is 

abundant to support a viable population of fishers. Of the available habitat regionwide, the Helena 

National Forest contains approximately 4 percent or 230,381 acres of habitat (USDA Forest Service 

2012f). 

Fisher Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

The Stonewall Project area is near the southeastern extent of this species range in Montana. Although not 

documented within the project area, fisher have been documented to the south, north and west of the 

project area (MNHP 2011), including recent documentation within the Arrastra drainage adjacent to the 

cumulative effects boundary. As a result, it is likely the project area is utilized by fisher. 

Alteration of forest structure due to natural or human-caused disturbances can adversely affect habitat for 

fisher. Much of the project area has been affected by MPB mortality, and considering that open-canopy 

conditions now predominate in these areas, suitable closed canopy fisher habitat has been reduced across 

the landscape. Conversely, this mortality has increased the amount of standing dead and DWD available 

across much of the landscape, including preferred large diameter snags. Using the revised Region 1 model 

parameters described in the methodology section, suitable fisher habitat currently occurs on 

approximately 4,400 acres within the project area. Of this, approximately 3,050 acres occur as 

rest/den/foraging habitat and approximately 1,350 acres occur as foraging only habitat. This existing 

habitat has been greatly reduced in the last 5-10 years due to MPB mortality and is therefore scattered 

across the project area. It is expected that existing habitat would be further reduced due to ongoing and 

anticipated future mortality. So while levels of DWD have been increasing, canopy cover and suitable 

fisher habitat has been reduced across the landscape. As a result, it is expected that the project area is less 

likely to be utilized for denning and would likely be utilized primarily for foraging or dispersal. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

281

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat 

Methodology and Process

Data presented on Townsend’s big-eared bat are based on available research and surveys from Montana 

(Hendricks and Maxell 2005; MNHP 2011; USDA Forest Service 2011c). The project area lacks suitable 

hibernacula, so effects to this species are evaluated by looking at the availability of, and changes to, 

foraging habitat. Since this species would be most affected by the structural changes from proposed 

treatment (i.e., understory and overstory conditions), direct, indirect and cumulative effects are evaluated 

across the project area. This area is also large enough to evaluate landscape-level changes in habitat. 

Species Status and Biology

A year-round resident, the State rank for the Townsend’s big-eared bat is S2 (MNHP 2011). It is 

considered at risk because of very limited and potentially declining population numbers, range or habitat, 

making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state.

The Townsend’s big-eared bat has been documented throughout most of Montana, with the exception of 

the far northeastern corner of the state. They are found at elevations between 1,968 and 7,820 feet. 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are generally found at low densities across occupied habitats, and Montana is 

no exception. Only five maternity colonies have been located, ranging in size from less than 20 adult 

females to an estimated 50-75. The best-known colony is at Lewis and Clark Caverns State Park 

(approximately 125 miles from the project area), although less than 30 hibernacula have been located, 

most with just a few hibernating bats (MFWP 2006).

Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in mesic to dry conifer forests, ponderosa pine and limber pine 

woodlands, juniper, mountain mahogany, riparian, and shrub-steppe habitats where suitable roost sites are 

present. Studies in other states indicate that Townsend’s big-eared bats also forage over wetlands and 

agricultural areas. Caves and abandoned mines are the primary roost sites through most of the range, 

although buildings have been used by maternity colonies in the northern, cooler portions of the range. In 

Montana, four maternity colonies are in natural caves and one is in an abandoned mine (MFWP 2011a).

The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a moth specialist with over 90 percent of its diet composed of moths. 

They forage in edge habitats along streams and woodlands, and within a variety of woodland types. They 

can travel long distances while foraging, including movements of over 90 miles during a single evening 

(WBWG 2005). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats feed on various nocturnal flying insects near the foliage of trees and shrubs, 

but appear to specialize primarily on small moths. There are reports of gleaning insects from foliage, but 

most are captured in the air.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

While the project area does not contain caves suitable for hibernacula or maternity colonies, Townsend’s 

big eared bats have been documented from Powell County approximately 30 miles southeast of the 

project area (USDA Forest Service 2011c). Also suitable foraging habitat occurs at lower elevations. So 

while the project area lacks hibernacula and roost sites, considering the long distances this species can 

travels in a single night (WBWG 2005), it is possible that portions of the project area could be utilized for 

foraging.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

282

Bald Eagle 

Methodology and Analysis Area

Because an eagle nest was recently documented south of the project area, the analysis addresses the 

availability of and changes to eagle nest, roost and foraging habitat. Information used includes forest and 

district-wide nest observations, state monitoring data and information provided in the Montana Natural 

Heritage website (MNHP 2011). Potential effects and identification of PDFs were based largely on the 

2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 

Because the combined boundary includes the Beaver Creek eagle nest, as well as foraging habitat along 

the Blackfoot River, this area was used to evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Species Status and Biology

Until recently the bald eagle was listed as Federally Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

However effective August 8th, 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially delisted the bald eagle 

and this species has been added to the Northern Region (R1) sensitive species list. The Forest Service 

would continue to follow management direction outlined in the Montana Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 

(USDI-BOC 1994) and this species is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The State rank for the bald eagle is S3, and although it may be abundant in 

some areas, it is potentially at risk because of limited or decline in numbers, range or habitat.

Bald eagles are associated with large bodies of water and major river drainages, which provide most of 

their foraging opportunities. Wintering habitat may include upland sites, and nesting areas are generally 

located within larger forested areas near lakes and rivers. In Montana, bald eagles nest in stands 

containing large trees (greater than 30 inches d.b.h.) with uneven canopy structure, and in direct line of 

sight of a river or lake generally less than 1-mile away (MFWP 2011a). Nest site selection is dependent 

upon maximum food availability and minimum disturbance from human activity. Eagles are opportunistic 

feeders, preying on fish, waterfowl, small mammals and carrion (MNHP 2011). During migration and at 

wintering sites, eagles tend to concentrate on locally abundant food and often roost communally. 

General objectives of habitat management for bald eagles in Montana include; maintaining prey bases;

maintaining forest stands currently used for nesting, roosting, and foraging; maintaining potential nest 

habitat; and minimizing disturbances in nesting territories, communal roosts and at feeding sites (MFWP 

2011a).

Bald Eagle Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

A new eagle nest was documented in 2011 on private land, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project 

area in lower Beaver Creek drainage. Also, suitable eagle nest habitat occurs on private and NFS lands 

within approximately 1 mile of the Blackfoot River. The combined boundary contains approximately 14 

miles of suitable foraging/roost habitat along the Blackfoot River, as well as foraging habitat along 

approximately 25 miles of lower elevation streams in the Beaver Creek, Keep Cool, Lincoln Gulch and 

Landers Fork drainages. 

Black-Backed Woodpecker 

Methodology and Analysis Area

The analysis for the black-backed woodpecker (BBW) is based on the northern region model developed 

by Samson (2006a, 2006b), and the BBW northern region overview (USDA Forest Service 2007c), 

whereas information from R1-VMAP was used to identify potentially suitable habitat. Also habitat quality 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

283

is based on work by Russell et al. (2007) and Dudley and Saab (2007), who define “high quality post fire 

BBW habitat as having the following attributes: a large pre-fire patch size (approximately 200 acres), 

moderate to high pre-fire canopy cover (40 to 100 percent) and moderate to high burn severity. Data used 

to evaluate effects to habitat are based on the Black-backed Woodpecker Northern Region Overview – 

Key Findings and Project Considerations (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

Because BBWs appear to be strongly dependent upon 1- to 6-year-old burns (Hutto 1995; Caton 1996; 

Hitchcock 1996; Saab et al. 2004), and considering that the combined boundary contains over 20,000 

acres of recently burned forest, this area was used to evaluate existing habitat, as well as assess direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects. 

Species Status and Biology

Although the BBW is considered secure with a Global Rank of G5, in Montana it is a species of special 

concern with a rank of S3 (MNHP 2011). Black-backed woodpeckers are a resident species of Montana, 

and observations in the state indicate that this species normally does not move outside of its breeding 

range in the winter (Montana Natural Heritage 2011).

The BBW is considered opportunistic and responds to outbreaks of wood-boring beetles (Cerambycidae

and Buprestidae) and bark beetles (mountain pine bark beetles, Dendroctus spp.) in conifer forests 

following windfall, disease, or fire (Samson 2006a). In the Northern Region the BBW is known to use 

three types of forest habitat including; (1) post-fire areas, (2) areas with extensive bark beetle outbreaks 

causing widespread tree mortality, and (3) landscapes with a natural range of disturbances resulting from 

fire and insect use (Samson 2006a). 

Research has shown that use of post-fire habitat is temporary and that beetle foraging woodpeckers like 

the BBW rapidly colonize stand-replacing burns within 1 to 2 years after the fire (Saab et al. 2007). 

However the favorable effects of fire are not long-lasting, and population levels of both the bark beetle 

and wood-boring beetle drop within 4 to 8 years after a fire depending on location (Werner and Post 1985 

in Samson 2006a). This decline results in reduced densities within 5 years post-fire, after which beetle 

foraging woodpeckers such as the BBW are considered rare (Saab et al. 2007). 

Even though many studies have shown BBWs to primarily use post fire habitat (Hitchcox 1996; Caton 

1996, Hejl and McFadzen 2000, Powell 2000, Kotliar et al. 2002 in USDA Forest Service 2007c), some 

studies have found these woodpeckers in areas without recent fire. For example, both Bonnot (2006 in

USDA Forest Service 2007c) and Goggans et al. (1988 in USDA Forest Service 2007c) found BBWs 

within extensive mountain pine beetle outbreaks that occurred in the absence of fires. 

In an effort to document the use of BBW in beetle-killed areas, in 2006 the Avian Science Center and 

Region 1 (2006c) focused survey efforts for BBWs in beetle outbreak areas (Cilimburg et al. 2006). 

Survey areas were located on the Lolo, Bitterroot, Helena, Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Nez Perce NFs, 

and 428 point counts were conducted. No BBW were found in beetle outbreak areas during these point 

counts in Montana. There were two detections of BBW on the Nez Perce NF in Idaho, which gave a 

detection rate of BBW at 0.46 percent of the points in beetle outbreak areas. A concurrent survey of postfire areas had a detection rate of BBW at 7.1 percent of the points. 

Even though few BBW were located in bark beetle-infested stands in Region 1, these stands may still 

provide some secondary habitat. Samson (2006b) estimated that 29,405 acres of habitat are needed to 

maintain a viable population of BBWs across Region 1. Dead and dying trees resulting primarily from 

MPB are widespread across the Helena National Forest. Even though these dead trees do not provide the 

abundant food source that post-fire stands produce, this bark beetle habitat alone greatly exceeds the 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

284

amount of habitat that Samson (2006b) estimated was needed to maintain BBW viability across the entire 

region. 

Suitable post-fire BBW habitat currently occurs on over 200,000 acres of the Helena National Forest. Of 

this, almost 23,000 acres occur within or immediately adjacent to the Stonewall project area. While some 

of these lands have been salvaged, considering the availability of burned habitat regionwide, adequate 

habitat exists across the landscape to maintain viable BBW populations (Samson 2006a).

Black-Backed Woodpecker Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Black-backed woodpeckers have been observed in the Snow Talon Fire area that contains approximately 

22,800 acres of post-fire high-quality BBW habitat, as defined by Russell et al. (2007). In addition, lower 

quality foraging habitat exists in concentrated areas of MPB mortality, including over 2,000 acres that 

have experienced tree mortality of 40 or greater trees per acre (USDA Forest Service 2012a). As a result, 

and considering that BBWs have been documented adjacent Snow Talon Fire area, the Stonewall Project 

area is considered occupied BBW habitat. 

Flammulated Owl

Methodology and Analysis Area

Flammulated owl documentation is based on data derived from the Montana Natural Heritage Database 

(2011), and the USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Management Wildlife Database (2011c). Habitat 

is based on information provided in “A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Blackbacked woodpecker, Flammulated Owl and Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest 

Service” (Samson 2006a), “Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern 

Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and 

Fisher” (Samson 2006b), and “Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena National Forest” (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a). 

Habitat estimates and maps are derived from R1-VMAP, R1-Summary Database and Helena National 

Forest Summary Database. Methodologies and assumptions associated with this data are described in 

“Region One Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms” (USDA Forest Service 2006a) , “R1 Grid 

Intensification using CSE Protocols – Field Procedures” (USDA Forest Service 2007d), “R1 Multi-level 

Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis System” (USDA Forest Service 2007e), and 

“FIA Field Guides, Methods, and Procedures” (available at http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guidesmethods-proc/). 

This species relies heavily on site-specific structural conditions that may be affected by treatment or lack 

of treatment. As a result, and considering that this area is large enough to evaluate landscape-level 

conditions that may affect use, direct and indirect effects are evaluated across the project area. However, 

because the combined area also contains available habitat and is closer to recent documentation, 

cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined boundary. 

Species Status and Biology

The flammulated owl has a conservation status rank of G4 (NatureServe 2011) and this species is 

considered uncommon, but usually widespread. The Montana Partner in Flight (PIF) Plan (2000) 

considers the flammulated owl a Priority Level 1 species; or a species in which Montana has a clear 

obligation to implement conservation action (PIF 2000). 

The flammulated owl is poorly monitored in Montana, but known to have a preference for open dry forest 

conditions. It is considered a species potentially at risk because of limited and potentially declining 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

285

numbers, extent and/or habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. It has a state rank of S3 

(breeding) (MNHP 2011). 

Flammulated owls are a common raptor of the montane forests of the western United States. They 

primarily forage on insects, especially moths and beetles (McCallum 1994). They forage by “hawking” 

which consists of the bird perching on a branch at the lower portion of the forest canopy and waiting for a 

moth to fly by, or a grasshopper to walk by (Wright 1996). Such foraging behavior is presumably 

facilitated by the open, park-like conditions typical of ponderosa pine forests. Home range size varies on 

average from approximately 35 acres in Colorado (Linkhart et al.1998) to 40 acres in Oregon (Goggans 

1985). 

Flammulated owls are seasonal migrants that occupy home ranges in the northern Rocky Mountains 

during spring, summer, and early fall. They are strongly associated with ponderosa pine forests during 

breeding and prefer open, single-storied stand structures for foraging (PIF 2000). The Montana PIF Plan 

(PIF 2000) considers this species to be associated with dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with open 

understories, largely covered with grasses and a few shrubs or small clumps of regenerating trees. The 

flammulated owl subsists nearly exclusively on insects, especially moths and beetles, and forages in the 

tree canopy and on the ground (Samson 2006a). Linkhart et al. 1998 in Samson 2006a) reported a mean 

territory size of between 27 and 45 acres. 

A study by Wright (1992) in the Bitterroot Valley concluded that this species selects for microhabitat 

features such as large trees and snags, but only within an appropriate landscape context. Flammulated 

owls were not present unless the larger landscape consisted of open understory ponderosa pine/Douglasfir forests, and then only where grassland or xeric shrubland openings were present at a home-range scale. 

Flammulated owls appear to avoid clear cuts and intensively cutover areas, but they would use thinned or 

selectively logged stands.

Samson (2006a) estimated flammulated owl breeding habitat available in each national forest in R1. 

These models were then used to query the FIA database, resulting in statistically reliable habitat estimates 

by national forest. Results indicate that breeding habitat is well distributed regionwide. Although a 

modest decline in ponderosa pine from 1942 to present has been reported in 9 of 12 national forests, 

Douglas-fir has increased in abundance more substantially, suggesting an overall increase in habitat for 

the owl. 

Although dry, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir habitat are naturally limited on the HNF (Samson 2006b); 

FIA estimates prior to the MPB epidemic show flammulated owl habitat exists on approximately 8,000 

acres of the HNF, which is 1.7 times the amount needed to maintain a minimum viable population 

regionwide.

Loss of large-diameter ponderosa pine and increasing stand densities from long-term fire exclusion, are 

major threats to flammulated owls (Hayward and Verner 1994). Wherever possible, management of dry 

forest sites should address the needs of flammulated owls by incorporating structural and component 

complexity at the microhabitat and home range scale in the form of suitable nest snags and trees, open, 

mature vegetation around the nest site, small clearings, and roost sites in close proximity to each other 

(PIF 2000). 

Flammulated Owl Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

The presence of large diameter snags and open understory conditions make it likely that ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir stands that characterized the project area historically met the needs of flammulated owls. 

Over time preferred habitat conditions have declined due to decades of fire suppression and increased 

stand density resulting in closed-canopy conditions and smaller- diameter trees. The recent MPB 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

286

epidemic has increased the availability of large-diameter ponderosa pine snags and opened the forest 

canopy, improving flammulated owl habitat; however, many of these stands are regenerating conifers, 

which may make these areas largely unsuitable in the next 20 to 30 years. Potential habitat has been 

modeled based on methods described above, and currently approximately 1,500 acres of suitable 

flammulated owl habitat are within the project area. While widely scattered, virtually all of this occurs as 

low-elevation bottomland and lower-slope ponderosa pine habitat. 

No recent surveys have been conducted; the flammulated owl has not been documented within the project 

area. Flammulated owls were documented in 2005 and 2008 at two locations within 5 miles of the project 

area, including one within 0.2 miles (USDA Forest Service 2011c). It is likely lower elevations within the 

project area that contain suitable habitat are used for foraging, if not nesting.

Boreal (Western) Toad 

Methodology and Analysis Area

Information presented on boreal toads is based on Werner et al. (2004), Maxwell et al. (2003), the heritage 

database (MNHP 2011) and USDA Forest Service (2011c). 

Due to the small home range for this species, direct, indirect and cumulative effects are evaluated across 

the project area.

Species Status and Biology

This species has a global ranking of G4 and is apparently secure, although it may be quite rare in parts of 

its range. The State of Montana lists the boreal toad as a special concern species with a S2 ranking. As a 

result, statewide, the boreal toad is an at risk species because of very limited and/or potentially declining 

population numbers, range and/or habitat. 

This toad is a subspecies of the western toad, Bufo boreas, which historically was widely distributed 

across the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains. Adult boreal toads are largely terrestrial and are 

considered habitat generalists that use a variety of habitats. They generally breed in lakes, ponds and slow 

streams and roadside ditches, where they prefer shallow areas with mud bottoms (MNHP 2011). Egg 

laying usually takes place 1 to 3 months after the snow melts (Reichel and Flath 1995, Werner et al. 2004 

in NatureServe 2011). These toads may wander miles from their breeding sites through coniferous forests 

and subalpine meadows, lakes, ponds and marshes (Werner et al. 2004). Generally boreal toads are active 

during the day and night, with the active period generally running from April or May through October in 

Montana (MNHP 2011).

In Montana, this toad occurs in mountainous terrain on both sides of the continental divide. These toads 

were once common and widespread in western Montana, but they are now uncommon and few breeding 

populations were found in recent surveys on six national forests in the state (Werner et al. 2004). Declines 

have also been noted in adjacent states (Reichel and Flath 1995). There are no clear reasons for these 

declines, and possible causes range from acid rain, pesticides, parasites, ozone depletion, and habitat loss 

and climate change. Declines have even been noted in remote locations such as wilderness areas and 

national parks. 

Primary risk factors include those that affect breeding and riparian habitat; including activities that result 

in the elimination of key riparian vegetation or that adversely affect water quality. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

287

Boreal (Western) Toad Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Potentially suitable breeding habitat is widespread and the project area contains approximately 30 acres of 

wetlands and open water habitat, and 66 miles of streams and numerous roadside ditches. There have 

been no surveys for this species and it has not been documented within the project area (MNHP 2011, 

USDA Forest Service 2011c). Within the past 5 years, this species was documented in several locations in 

both Powell and Lewis and Clark counties (MNHP 2011). As a result, and due to the presence of suitable 

breeding and dispersal habitat, it is possible this species occupies the Stonewall Project area. 

Management Indicator Species

Management indicator species (MIS) are used in concert with other indicators to gauge the effects of 

management on wildlife habitat. MIS represent groups of wildlife associated with similar vegetative 

communities or key habitat components. In general, the MIS approach is used to reduce the complexity of 

discussing all the wildlife species on the Forest. Evaluating the effects of management practices on

selected MIS and their habitat also displays the effects of alternatives on the ecological communities they 

represent and helps to ensure that biodiversity is maintained. Forest MIS include the northern goshawk, 

pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and American marten. The following is a summary of habitat 

conditions for Helena National Forest MIS that have been documented and either occur or are likely to 

occur within the project area. 

Methodology and Analysis Area

The HNF Forest Plan provides specific direction related to providing for and managing old-growth 

habitat, which is described below. Old growth definitions are based on Green et al. (2005). More detailed 

information can be found in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986). 

The National Forest Management Act (1976) and Forest Service direction prescribe an ecological 

approach to old growth that considers it important to biological diversity (Green et al. 2005). The Helena 

National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) also recognizes old growth as an important forest 

component and 5 percent of each 3rd-order drainage is to be managed for old growth. All stands meeting 

old growth definitions (as defined by Greene et. al. 2005) are designated old growth. If this amount does 

not constitute at least 5 percent of each 3rd-order drainage than additional stands would be designated.

The Stonewall Old Growth and Snag Report (Amell 2012) summarizes the Forest process related to old 

growth, and identifies the steps used in designating old growth within 3rd-order drainages, as well as 

identification of lands outside drainages that are managed as old growth. 

The analysis boundaries used to evaluate old-growth habitat and effects to old-growth-dependent species 

vary and are described under the specific species sections.

Existing Old Growth

Following the process identified in the project old growth report, 5 percent of each 3rd-order drainage was

designated as old growth. Additionally, because over half of the project area occurs outside of the 3rdorder drainages, and to better identify old growth across the landscape, lands to be managed as old growth 

outside of 3rd-order drainages were also identified. Therefore, the project area contains 592 acres of 

designated old growth within 3rd-order drainages, as well as 175 acres of verified old growth and 436 

acres of potential old growth on NFS lands outside of the 3rd-order drainages. These lands are summarized 

by analysis area in table 71 and displayed in figure 71. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

288

Table 71. Existing project area old growth

Old Growth by Analysis Area Acres

Project Area

Designated old growth 592

Potential/field validated old growth1 611

Total old growth 1,203

Cumulative Effect Boundary

Designated old growth 1,415

Potential/field validated old growth 611

Total old growth 2,026

1 – meets the old growth definition identified by Green et.al. 2005

Designated old growth is widely scattered across the cumulative effects analysis area and includes one 

block greater than 100 acres (112 acres), 8 blocks between 50 and 100 acres and 28 blocks less than 50 

acres. Also all of the project area old growth occurs in the western half of the area in the headwaters of 

Beaver Creek and Lincoln Gulch. Old growth MIS include northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker. 

The following is a discussion of the status, biology and project area habitat for each species. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

289

Figure 71. Project and Combined Boundary Old Growth 

Northern Goshawk 

Methodology and Analysis Area

Documented use is based on Forest and District observation and monitoring data, the Heritage Database 

(MNHP 2011) and the USDA Forest Service NRM Database (USDA Forest Service 2011c). Habitat 

information is based largely on the Northern Region Model (Samson 2006a) and Conservation 

Assessment (Samson 2006b) for this species, as well as information provided in USDA Forest Service

2006b, USDA Forest Service 2007e, USDA Forest Service 2009c and “Criteria of Wildlife Models on the 

Helena National Forest” (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Effects are evaluated by looking at changes in 

nesting, foraging and post-fledgling habitat (Samson 2006a, b) and the “Northern Region Overview: Key 

Findings and Project Considerations” (USDA Forest Service 2009c). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

290

Recent MPB mortality has reduced canopy closure in much of the project area, so goshawk habitat in the 

project and cumulative effects areas are based on R1-Vmap values using MPB post-kill data. Modeled 

habitat includes nest habitat, dominant tree types include Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, 

aspen, and mixed stands with tree sizes greater than 10 inches in diameter and canopy cover greater or 

equal to 25 percent, and foraging habitat, dominant tree types include Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine, aspen and mixed stands with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy closure. Diversity 

matrices are also used to describe foraging habitat and the post-fledgling area (PFA) (USDA Forest 

Service 2009c). Samson (2006a) and (USDA Forest Service 2009c) provide a detailed rationale on the 

basis for these structural characteristics used to describe goshawk habitat. 

All recent goshawk nesting occurs within the project area, which provides adequate habitat for the home 

range of existing nests, therefore, direct and indirect effects are evaluated across the project area. The 

combined boundary was used to assess cumulative effects because historical use occurred within the 

combined boundary, and this area includes impacts from recent wildfire as well as private land influences. 

Species and Population Status 

The northern goshawk has a conservation status rank of G5 (NatureServe 2011) and this species is 

considered globally secure (common; widespread and abundant). In Montana it is identified as a species 

of special concern with an S3 ranking (MNHP 2011). The Montana PIF Conservation Plan identifies the 

northern goshawk as a priority II species or a species that the State is responsible for monitoring 

regarding status and conservation actions (PIF 2000). 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) indicates that northern goshawk trends have been 

increasing since 1966 (Available at: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html). However Anderson et 

al. (2005 p. 7) concludes that BBS data are inadequate to estimate population trends for goshawks 

because the number of routes where goshawks are detected and the encounter rate of goshawks are too 

low.

Some authors have hypothesized that goshawk populations may be declining (Bloom et al. 1986 in

Anderson et al. 2005; Zinn and Tibbits 1990 in Squires and Kennedy 2006). Hoffman and Smith (2003) 

analyzed migration data and concluded that uncertainty exists as to the status of western goshawk 

populations, and Kennedy (1997) and Anderson et al. (2005) concluded that current sampling techniques 

may be inadequate to determine if goshawk populations are declining, increasing or stable. Finally 

Squires and Kennedy (2006) conclude that this difficulty is due to several factors, including that 

goshawks are secretive and difficult to survey and that many studies have small sample sizes.

The most recent petition for listing the goshawk under ESA occurred in 1997. After a formal 

12-month review by a scientific committee, the USFWS determined that listing under ESA was not 

warranted. Analysis of data from 17 states comprising 222 million acres indicated “that the goshawk 

population is well distributed and stable at the broadest scale”.

Until June 2007, the northern goshawk was listed as an R1 sensitive species. However, regional studies 

demonstrated that (1) habitat exists to support reproductive individuals on each forest, (2) habitat is well 

distributed, and (3) individual goshawks can interact with one another across the region; hence, the 

goshawk did not meet the sensitive species criteria in FSM 2670.5 and was removed from the R1 

sensitive species list. Although the goshawk is no longer a sensitive species, on the HNF the goshawk is 

considered an MIS and analysis of goshawks and their habitat are assessed at the project and forest levels.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

291

Species Biology

Goshawks are the only large diurnal raptor adapted to interior forest environments in the northern 

Rockies. Key elements of goshawk habitat are extensive blocks of mature forest with groups of large 

nesting trees, abundant prey (squirrels, grouse, hares, larger songbirds), and mid-level flyways. Goshawks 

are most commonly associated with mature and old-growth Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forest. 

However, surveys over the past 15 years on the Helena, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Lewis and Clark, and 

Medicine Bow National Forests have found that goshawks make extensive use of lodgepole pine stands as 

long as the basic structural attributes that they require are in place and prey is adequate (Lemke 1994; 

Squires and Ruggiero 1996). 

In the more fragmented forest environments east of the Continental Divide where mountains and plains 

intermingle, goshawks often occupy mosaics of forest and grassland or a mixture of different forest seral 

stages. They are capable of foraging through open parks and woodlands and along forest edges, and in 

certain circumstances do so on a regular basis. Competition from red-tailed hawks and great-horned owls 

confines goshawks to dense forest, but this applies primarily to nest sites and potential predation on 

young rather than to foraging by adults (Reynolds et al. 1992). 

In Montana the northern goshawk is a year-round resident (MFWP 2011a) and breeding season habitat 

includes three areas including the nest area, post-fledgling area (PFA) and foraging habitat. The following 

is a discussion of each. 

Nest Habitat

Although the goshawk is considered a habitat generalist and uses a wide variety of forest types, it tends to 

nest in a relative narrow range of structural conditions (Reynolds et al. 1992; Squires and Reynolds 1997; 

Kennedy 2003). Goshawks prefer mature forests with large trees, relatively closed canopies and open 

understories (Reynolds et al. 1992; Hayward and Escano 1989; Squires and Reynolds 1997). Despite 

differences in some habitat characteristics, high canopy closure and tree basal area at nest areas were the 

most uniform habitat characteristic between study areas in northern Idaho and western Montana 

(Hayward and Escano 1989; Kennedy 2003; Clough 2000). Goshawk nest sites include the nest tree and 

approximately 40 acres around the nest (USDA Forest Service 2009c) and breeding areas often contain 

several alternate nests that are used over several years and are usually located within 0.25 mile of each 

other (Roberson et al. 2003). 

Key findings in the literature that characterize nest areas include; (1) goshawks nest in a variety of forest 

types throughout their range, (2) in general, the nest area vegetation is described by a comparatively 

narrower range of structural characteristics than the post-fledgling area (PFA) or foraging area, and 

includes mature forests with larger trees and relatively closed canopies, (3) average size of the nest area 

varies, and (4) in west central Montana, goshawks selected nest stands of mature and older forest 

approximately 40 acres in size and surrounded by a mix of younger and nonforested habitat (USDA 

Forest Service 2009c).

More than habitat composition or any other factor (i.e., prey abundance), territoriality determines nest 

distribution and spring weather determines nest success (Joy 2002; Reich et al. 2004). 

Post-fledgling Area Habitat

The post-fledgling area (PFA) habitat surrounds the nest area and is defined as the area used by the family 

group from the time the young fledge, until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food (Roberson 

et al. 2003). During the fledgling-dependency period (4 to 6 weeks) the activities of young are centered 

near their nests, with the distance they move from the nest increasing over time (ibid). These areas may be 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

292

of importance to fledglings by providing prey items to develop hunting skills, as well as cover from 

predators and prey. 

The Northern Region recommends that each pair of nesting goshawks should be provided with a 420 acre 

PFA within their home range (USDA Forest Service 2009c). Based on habitat and occupancy data 

collected in northern Idaho, the region recommends maintaining at least 40 percent of the PFA in trees 

greater than 5 inches d.b.h., with greater than 50 percent canopy cover, and some structural diversity in 

the understory (USDA Forest Service 2007c). Unlike foraging habitat, post-fledgling habitat is actively 

defended (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

Foraging Habitat 

Goshawks are opportunistic predators that kill a wide assortment of prey that varies by region, season, 

vulnerability, and availability. Main foods include small mammals, ground and tree squirrels, rabbits and 

hares, large passerines, woodpeckers, game birds, and corvids (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Goshawks 

are classified as prey generalists (ibid) and typically forage on a suite of 8–15 species (Reynolds et al. 

1992). Preferred goshawk foraging habitat varies in the literature (USDA Forest Service 2009c), however 

key findings or conclusions that characterize goshawk foraging include: 

9. Size of the typical home range or foraging area for the goshawk (1,409 to 8,649 acres) may vary 

depending on prey abundance and availability, age and sex of the bird and local habitat conditions. 

10. Goshawk foraging areas are heterogeneous and may include mature forest, as well as a mix of other 

forest and nonforest components. 

11. Emphasis should be placed on creating or maintaining vegetation diversity and that a juxtaposition of 

seral stages including mature timber should be provided (USDA Forest Service 2009c). 

Goshawk foraging areas are approximately 5,000 acres and comprised of a diversity of vegetative types.

The composition of vegetative types characterized by higher canopy closures, mature trees, and open 

understory conditions located outside the nest area blend into the surrounding landscape beyond the PFA

scale, to the degree that differences in habitat composition in occupied versus random foraging areas 

cannot be detected (McGrath et al. 2003 in Samson 2006a). As such, management efforts are generally 

concentrated at the PFA and nest area scales.

Home Range and Landscape Considerations 

Goshawks use large landscapes, integrating a diversity of vegetation types over several spatial scales to 

meet their life-cycle needs (Squires and Kennedy 2006). In The Northern Goshawk Status Review 

(2009c), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the goshawk typically uses mature forests or larger 

trees for nesting habitat, however, it is considered a forest habitat generalist at large spatial scales (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The Service found no evidence in its finding that the goshawk is 

dependent on large, unbroken tracts of “old growth” or mature forest (63 FR 35183 June 29, 1998) 

(USDA Forest Service 2009c). Nonetheless, the pattern of goshawk nest site selection in coniferous 

forests, especially mature forests with closed canopy and open understory conditions, has emerged 

repeatedly in numerous studies throughout western North America (Squires and Ruggiero 1996; Clough 

2000). 

The issue of goshawks selecting for some level of mature forest in the home range was the subject of 

recent debate in the literature. Greenwald et al. (2005) prepared a literature review of a few selected 

studies and concluded that goshawks select mature to older forests in their home range. Greenwald et al. 

(2005) criticized Reynolds et al. (1992) on their recommendation to maintain a mix of seral stages and 

vegetation types that reflect historical landscape patterns. Reynolds et al. (2007) provided a rebuttal to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

293

Greenwald et al. (2005) finding that Greenwald’s criticisms were based on an incomplete review of the 

literature; misunderstandings of the desired goshawk habitats described in the “Management 

Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States” (Reynolds et al. 1992); 

an under-appreciation of the extent of variation in vegetation structure among forest types and seral stages 

used by goshawks; a limited understanding of the ecological factors limiting goshawks; and a failure to 

understand the dynamic nature of forest habitats. Reynolds et al. (2007) findings were consistent with the 

Service’s 1998 status review of the species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

The breeding season home range for the northern goshawk varies depending on sex and habitat 

characteristics (Squires and Reynolds 1997) and can range from 1,250 acres to over 6,000 acres (Squires 

and Reynolds 1997; Reynolds et al. 1992; Kennedy 2003). Also several authors have suggested that 

forested habitat for the northern goshawk should be managed at both the landscape and stand levels to 

provide adequate foraging and nesting habitat (Reynolds et al. 1992). In order to meet all the nesting 

requirements of this species, the Northern Region goshawk guidelines recommend that at least 240 acres 

of nesting habitat should be maintained in patches of at least 40 acres per home range. Recommendations 

related to providing desired home range and PFA habitat also include maintaining a variety of habitat 

conditions and a mosaic of vegetation structural stages (USDA Forest Service 2009c). Finally sustaining 

goshawks across the landscape requires maintaining habitat at the home range scale (Reynolds et al. 

1992). 

Viability

The four criteria used to evaluate goshawk viability are (1) habitat availability, (2) human disturbance, (3) 

biotic interactions, and 4) managing for ecological processes. The following is a brief discussion of each, 

from which effects of proposed actions are evaluated. 

Habitat Availability

Currently habitat is abundant for the northern goshawk in the Northern Region, as well as by national 

forest and ecological region. Samson (2006b) identified critical thresholds for the northern goshawk, 

black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker and American marten. Also based on 

FIA data, current habitat estimates were made for all forests in Region 1. For the Helena NF, a minimum 

of 315,306 acres of goshawk habitat needs to be maintained to ensure viability is maintained. Currently, 

using intensified grid data, the HNF contains 371, 944 acres of habitat, which is above the minimum 

viability threshold. 

Human Disturbance

Northern goshawks in the Northwest United States are reported to select areas to nest near human 

activities (McGraath et al. 2003 in Samson 2006a). Human disturbance is not a factor for northern 

goshawks as long as 70 percent of the nest stand structure is maintained and timber management 

operations are restricted.

Biotic Interactions

Inter-specific competition for habitat and prey is not well understood. Other raptors may exclude 

goshawks from nest areas, although goshawks and other raptors are known to nest in close proximity to 

one another (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Numerous raptors and mammalian predators prey on many of 

the same species as goshawks. These predators include red-tailed hawk, Coopers hawk, great horned owl, 

barred owl, fox, coyote, Canada lynx, weasel, and American marten (Squires and Kennedy 2006, Samson 

2006a). The extent to which species co-exist with goshawks may depend on the openness of habitat 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Natural and man-made changes that result in reduced forest 

canopy may favor the habitat needs of more open-forested competitors, such as red-tailed hawks, and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

294

reduce goshawk habitat; although to date no scientific studies have conclusively documented such a 

replacement. Reynolds et al. (1992) recommend vegetation management treatments that maintain habitat 

at a home-range scale to sustain goshawks across the landscape.

Ecological Processes

While suppression of natural fire processes in the Northern Region has benefitted the northern goshawk 

by increasing the distribution and abundance of forested habitats, it has also resulted in increased fuel 

loading and creation of ladder fuels that puts existing goshawk habitat at risk. Additionally, fire and other 

ecological processes are important to maintain a continuing supply of mature trees, and either an 

understory or open understory depending on need (e.g., PFA vs. foraging and heterogeneity required in 

foraging habitat) (Samson 2006a). Consequently, re-introduction of fire needs to be implemented in order 

to maintain preferred goshawk habitat conditions, while reducing the risk of long-term loss of habitat 

from catastrophic wildfire.

Northern Goshawk Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Goshawk use within the project area includes both historical (1995) documentation, as well as recent 

activity, including two active goshawk nests in 2010. Both active nests (Stonewall East and West) are 

located in the southern portion of the project area on lower slopes within 0.25 mile of drainages (see 

Figure 72). 

Nesting and Forging Habitat R1-VMAP Analysis

R1-VMAP is used to describe nesting and foraging habitat in the project area and within the combined 

boundary or cumulative effect area, according to models developed by Samson (2006a, b) as described in 

the Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Of the project area 

acres, approximately 758 acres and 1,051 acres of nesting and foraging habitat respectively are also 

designated as old growth. 

Existing nesting and foraging habitat for both the project and cumulative effect areas is summarized in 

table 72 and displayed in Figure 72. Due to MPB mortality, goshawk nesting habitat has declined from 

13,205 acres (48 percent reduction), and foraging habitat has declined from 18,841 acres (57 percent 

reduction). 

Table 72. Existing goshawk nesting and foraging habitat (Samson 2006a)

Analysis Area

Size Nesting Habitat Foraging Habitat

Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent

Project Area 24,005 6,342 26 4,445 19

Cumulative Effect Area 101,977 17,258 17 9,437 9 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

295

Figure 72. Project area goshawk habitat and nest sites

Home Range Analysis 

Foraging Habitat 

Goshawk nesting and foraging habitat characteristics in the project area and PFA are based on diversity 

matrices described in the guidelines identified for the Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview: 

Key Findings and Project Considerations (USDA Forest Service 2009c). Table 73 summarizes the 

vegetation composition of suitable habitat from Reynolds et al. (1992) and Clough (2000) and compares it 

with habitat conditions within the project area.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

296

Table 73. Percent of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat recommendations3

Landscape

Habitat

Clough 

(Montana) 

Reynolds1

(SW U.S.)

Project Area

Habitat

Seedling/Sapling (0-4.9 inch d.b.h.) 9.3% 10% 16%

Young Forest (5-9.9 inch d.b.h.) 65.7%1 20%1 44%

Mature Forest (10 inch+ d.b.h.) 11.3% 60% 35%

Mature (>40% CC and > 5 inches d.b.h.)2 69.0%2 60%2 18%

Grass/Forb/Shrub 7.3% 10% 4%

1 – recommended size class in Reynolds for young and mature forest is 5-12 inches d.b.h.

2 – includes stands with >50 percent canopy cover

3 – based on Reynolds et al.(1992) and Clough (2000)

Clough’s (2000) and Reynolds et al. (1992) findings for grass/forb stands or natural openings and young 

seedling stands are similar to each other despite vegetative differences between the two regions, although 

grass/forb/shrub habitat within the project area falls below both authors findings. Conversely the project 

area contains a larger amount of seedling/sapling stage forest. The two authors differ in that in Montana a 

high percentage of young forest was used, whereas mature forest predominated in the Southwest. Existing 

project area habitat falls between the two, whereas it falls well below the amount of closed canopy forest 

that characterizes goshawk home ranges in both Montana and the Southwest U.S. So in summary, while 

the project area deviates somewhat from conditions found by Clough (2000) and Reynolds et al. (1992), it 

has a diversity of habitat conditions and provides habitat conditions consistent with goshawk use. 

Nest Habitat

Reynolds et al. (1992) recommends that 5,000 acres of habitat (home range) are needed to support a 

nesting pair of goshawks. Recommendations are that 40 acres of habitat be provided at each nest site, and 

a total of 240 acres of nest habitat should be available for each home range (USDA Forest Service 2007f). 

The project area contains over 6,300 acres of nest habitat, most of which occurs in blocks greater than 40 

acres and is widely distributed. Considering that the Stonewall Project area is approximately 24,000 acres 

in size, it could support three to four nesting pairs of goshawk. 

Post-Fledgling Area Habitat

The PFA area includes 420 acres immediately around the nest site that are used by young-of-the-year. 

Table 74 displays PFA habitat for the Stonewall east and west nests, and compares it with PFA conditions 

documented by Clough (2000) and Reynolds et al. (1992). 

Table 74. Post-fledgling habitat Summary

Structural Condition Clough Reynolds

Project Area PFAs

Stonewall 

East

Stonewall 

West

Forest 92.7% 90% 100% 99%

Shrub/herb 7.3% 10% <1% 0%

Trees (<4.9 inches d.b.h.) 9.3% 10% 19% 12%

Trees (5.0-9.9 inches d.b.h.)2 65.7% 20% 53% 37%

Trees (>10 inches d.b.h.) 11.3% 60% 28% 51%

Canopy Cover (>40% and >5.0 inches 

d.b.h.) 68.9%1 60%1 23%1 31%1

1 – use 50 percent canopy closure

2 – recommended size classes in Reynolds for young forest is 5-12 inches d.b.h.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

297

Both PFAs are similar to landscape-level habitat in terms of the amount of seedling/sapling and young 

forest. While the amount of closed-canopy, mature forest falls short of that characteristic of other PFAs 

studied, the Stonewall West PFA contain 3 times the amount of closed-canopy forest than the project area 

as a whole. Similarly, the amount of closed-canopy mature forest in the Stonewall East PFA is well above 

that found across the landscape. So while the composition of the existing PFA habitat is similar to that 

found across the landscape for most structural attributes, the data indicates that areas that contain more 

closed-canopy conditions are being selected as nest sites. 

Both PFAs lack the grass/forb/shrub component that is commonly associated with goshawk PFAs (Clough 

2000; Reynolds et al. 1992), and both nests are approximately 0.50 mile from an open road. 

Pileated Woodpecker 

Methodology and Analysis Area

Potential effects to this species are evaluated by looking at changes in the availability of large-diameter 

snags and suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Suitable habitat for this species is based on the Northern 

Region Model (Samson 2006a) and Conservation Assessment (Samson 2006b). Suitable habitat is 

identified using R1-VMAP post-kill data and is based on models developed by Samson (2005, 2006a) and 

described in HNF Model Criteria (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Analysis area documentation is based on 

the Heritage and Forest Service NRM Databases (MNHP 2011; USDA Forest Service 2011c), landbird 

survey data and field observations. 

Minimum habitat model values (USDA Forest Service 2009c) are based on R1-VMap values and include 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, aspen and mixed forest types that contain tree sizes greater than 10 inches 

d.b.h. to include forage and nest trees. Landscape-level old-growth estimates are nonspatial and are based 

on FIA and intensified grid data. Old-growth polygons at the 3rd order drainage scale are mapped using 

stand exam data.

Habitat estimates and maps are derived from the HNF Intensified Grid Summary Database. 

Methodologies and assumptions associated with these data are described in the following documents: 

Region One Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms (updated 2006a), R1 Grid Intensification using 

CSE Protocols – Field Procedures, R1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and 

Analysis System (USDA Forest Service 2007e), and FIA Field Guides, Methods, and Procedures at 

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/. 

Methods related to snag and coarse woody debris are described under dead wood in section 3.18. 

Species Status and Biology

Although common in parts of its range, the pileated woodpecker has a global ranking of G5 which is 

defined as common, widespread and abundant, although may be rare in parts of its range. It is not 

vulnerable in most if its range. It has a state ranking of S3 (potentially at risk) and is a species of concern 

that is potentially at risk (MNHP 2011). The North American Breeding Bird Survey indicates that pileated 

woodpecker trends have been increasing since 1966 (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html). 

The pileated woodpecker’s range extends from central British Columbia south into Northern California, 

east from Idaho across North Dakota and west from a general line descending south from Minnesota to 

eastern Texas (Bull and Jackson 1995). This species is not considered to be migratory and is most often 

associated with mature forests across its range. The presence of large trees for nesting is considered more 

important than forest age, and the species appears to do well in young and fragmented forests with 

abundant remnant older structure (Kirk and Naylor 1996). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

298

This species nests in snags and each year excavates a new cavity, usually in a dead tree at least 21inches 

in diameter and at least 30 feet high (Bull et al. 2005). Due to their longevity and large size, western larch 

and ponderosa pine were found to be preferred in old-growth habitat (McCelland and McClelland 1999), 

although selection of the nest tree also depends on the availability of suitable snags (Kirk and Naylor 

1996). Bull and Holthausen (1993) found that the presence of snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. was 

found to be the best predictor of occupied habitat. The Helena National Forest model (USDA Forest 

Service 2009c) for the pileated woodpecker uses a minimum size of 15 inches d.b.h. for suitable nest 

trees.

The pileated woodpecker relies heavily on snags and downed woody debris for foraging, and 12 to 30 

tons of DWD is typical for stands that are utilized. They forage primarily for carpenter ants and other 

wood boring beetles in both live and dead wood, and often forage on or near the ground in logs, snags, 

live trees and stumps (Bull and Holthausen 1993). 

Winter roosts are important, and appear to be in habitats similar to those used during the breeding season. 

As a result, the foraging model for the pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region is based on winter 

foraging requirements, which includes sites containing trees greater than or equal to 10 inches d.b.h. 

(Samson 2006a). 

In general, there is a positive correlation between forest age and the amount of wood decay (McClelland 

and McClelland 1999). So, while this species prefers late-successional and old- growth habitat, foraging 

within younger stands is documented and territories are not confined just to old-growth habitat 

(McClelland et al. 1979 in USDA Forest Service 2008a). Also, Bonar (2001 in Samson 2006a) found that 

the pileated woodpeckers used all available habitats at all scales to select suitable nest cavity trees and 

foraging habitat.

This species has a large home range, and although home range size varies (700 acres to 1,500 acres), in 

the Northern Region it is considered to be approximately 1,000 acres (Samson 2006a). Suitable nest 

habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains is generally characterized as areas with greater than 30 percent 

canopy cover and tree size greater than 20 inches d.b.h. for nesting (McClelland and McClelland 1999), 

although elsewhere it may use trees as small as 11 inches for nesting (Birds of North America 2012). 

Smaller home ranges tended to have a high percentage of the area in grand fir, old growth, unlogged 

stands and stand with greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy closure (Bull and Holthausen 1993). 

Pileated Woodpecker Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

The project area is near the southern end of this species range in Montana (MNHP 2011). While 

uncommon, most occurrences have been around the Stonewall Mountain area and foraging activity was 

observed in several stands. As a result the project area is occupied pileated woodpecker habitat. 

Due to MPB, mortality of ponderosa pine habitat within the project area has been high, and understories 

in much of the project area contain dense Douglas-fir seedlings. With the large amount of recent 

ponderosa pine mortality, there is currently an abundance of large-diameter snags. However, within the 

next 10-20 years most of these would likely fall to the ground and available nest trees may be scarce. 

Existing pileated woodpecker habitat within the project area and CE area are summarized in table 75 and 

displayed in figure 73. The large amount of unsuitable habitat in the northeast portion of the CE area is 

due to recent wildfires. While there are currently an abundance of large-diameter snags, habitat suitability 

has been reduced due to the reduction in canopy cover. As a result, and assuming that a nesting pair of 

pileated woodpeckers requires 1,000 acres per home range, the project area can currently support 

approximately seven to eight nesting pairs. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

299

Table 75. Existing pileated woodpecker habitat

Analysis Area Acres Percent

Project Area 7,824 33

CE Area 27,178 27

Figure 73. Existing pileated woodpecker habitat

Snag Availability

Due to decades of overstocking and widespread MPB mortality, snags and coarse woody debris currently 

occur in a variety of size classes and are widespread and abundant across the Stonewall project area. In 

2007 and 2008, the HNF measured FIA Intensification plots within the Stonedry analysis area, which 

includes the Stonewall project area. For that analysis, it was assumed that plots included tree mortality 

through 2008. Within the FIA Intensification plots, there were an average of about 40 snags per acre 

greater than or equal to 7 inches d.b.h., which is 20 times the Forest Plan requirement of providing 70 

percent of optimum. Table 76 summarizes snags by size class within the Stonewall project area, whereas 

snag distribution is displayed in figure 67. It should also be noted that due to ongoing mortality, 

particularly in larger diameter ponderosa pine, the availability of 20-inch snags today would be greater 

than indicated in table 76, which is based on 2008 data. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

300

Table 76. Snag distribution data by size class from 2008 FIA plots

Diameter (d.b.h.) Class Average Snags per Acre

7-11 26

12-19 13

>=20 1 

Total 40

Hairy Woodpecker

Methodology and Analysis Area

Documentation of this species is based on field observation, landbird data and data provided in the 

Heritage Database (MNHP 2011). Hairy Woodpecker habitat models are derived from the R1 Draft Model 

Set All Species (USDA Forest Service 1998) as described in the Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena 

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009a), based on R1-VMap values and include: dominant tree 

types Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, and aspen as well as mixed stands that include

these types (with the exception of Engelmann spruce), tree sizes greater than 10 inches diameter, and 

canopy cover greater than 10 percent.

Habitat estimate maps are derived from R1-VMAP. Methodologies and assumptions associated with these 

data are described in the Region One Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms (updated USDA 

Forest Service 2006a), and R1 Multi-level Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis 

System (USDA Forest Service 2009c).

Because of this species’ small home range and the widespread availability of suitable habitat, direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects are evaluated across the project area. 

Species Status and Biology

The hairy woodpecker has a state ranking of S5 and although it may be uncommon, in parts of its range it 

is considered common, widespread and abundant (MNHP 2011). The North American Breeding Bird 

survey indicates that hairy woodpecker trends have been increasing since 1966 (BBS 2011). 

The hairy woodpecker represents species dependent on snags and is a mid-sized bird found from low to 

high elevation forest cover types. They nest and forage in mid- to large-sized snags and have been 

documented within the project area. The only species of woodpecker that is perhaps more common is the 

northern flicker. Nests can occur within short, small diameter snags, although like pileated woodpeckers, 

they often locate cavities near the tops of snags (Bull 1987; Thomas 1979). The landbird survey (Hutto 

and Young 2002) found hairy woodpeckers widely distributed across most forest community types. 

Hairy woodpeckers are year-round resident primary cavity nesters, which subsequently provide nest 

cavities for myriad small birds and mammals. They reside in many forest communities and use a variety 

of tree sizes. They feed on insects, primarily ants, wood borers, and grubs as well as fruits and berries 

(Birds of North America 2011). Hairy woodpeckers forage on a variety of substrates, including snags and 

down woody debris (DWD) They may concentrate in areas of insect outbreaks in response to the 

increased food source (Sousa 1987). Territory size ranges from about 2.5 acres to 37 acres (Sousa 1987). 

Because of ongoing MPB epidemic, small to medium diameter snags are not limited in the project area. 

Hairy Woodpecker Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Hairy woodpeckers have been documented, and the project area is considered occupied habitat. Also, 

because of the ongoing MPB epidemic, suitable small-to medium-diameter snags are widespread and 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

301

abundant (see table 76 under pileated woodpecker and figure 67). Currently suitable habitat occurs on 

over 7,800 acres or 32 percent of the project area. 

Assuming an average home range of 10 acres, the project area can potentially support a large number of 

nesting pairs. 

American Marten

Methodology and Analysis

Analysis area documentation is based on the MHNP Database (2011) and the USDA Forest Service NRM 

Database (2011c). Habitat estimates are based on information provided in Habitat Estimates For 

Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, 

Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Fisher (Samson 2006b). Throughout most its distribution, 

American marten are reported to be closely associated with relatively closed canopies (greater than 30-50 

percent) (Bushkirk and Ruggiero 1994) and in some areas may utilize areas with canopy cover greater 

than or equal to 25 percent (Chapin et al. 1997). For the purpose of this analysis, canopy cover greater 

than or equal to 25 percent is used to predict marten habitat. 

Habitat models used in Samson (2006b) are described in the Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena National 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009b). Model values are based on R1-VMap values and include: dominant 

tree types Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and aspen as 

well as mixed stands that include these types, tree sizes greater than 10 inches diameter, and canopy cover 

greater than 25 percent.

The average territory ranges from 160 to 1,800 acres, so the project area is large enough to evaluate direct 

and indirect effects. However, because use of an area is largely determined by landscape-level influences 

(Powell et al. 2003), and considering the widespread MPB mortality and recent wildfires, the combined 

boundary is used to assess cumulative effects. 

Species Status and Biology

Marten have a global rank of G5 and are considered common, widespread and abundant, although they 

may be rare in parts of their range. They are not vulnerable in most of their range (MNHP 2011). In 

Montana the marten has a status of S4, and although apparently secure, it may be declining and rare in 

parts of its range (MNHP 2011). 

The American marten is an indicator used to monitor the quality of large continuous blocks of mature 

cover. They prefer mid- to late-seral forests with moderate to high crown closure (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

Preference for mature forests is strongest during the winter. This may be related to snow depths and 

increased success of encountering and capturing prey (Thompson and Colgan 1994). 

The American marten is associated with late-seral coniferous forest characterized by closed canopies, 

large trees, and abundant standing and downed woody material. Of particular importance is the quantity 

of downed debris on the forest floor as it provides protection from predators, access to the under snow 

environment for hunting and resting, and thermal protection from heat and cold (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

Chapin et al. (1997) found that vertical and horizontal structure was more important than age or species 

composition, and Thompson and Colgan (1994) found higher densities of marten in unlogged forests 

versus logged forests possibly due to reduced predation. Thomson and Colgan (1994) hypothesized that 

martens do not necessarily avoid openings but are more vulnerable to larger predators when crossing 

openings. Thus, landscapes containing large, well-connected patches of mid- and late-seral forest are 

more likely to sustain higher numbers of martens than more fragmented or naturally-patchy lands. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

302

Research indicates that martens abandon, or fail to colonize home-range size landscapes with less than 60 

percent mature forest (Powell et al. 2003), reinforcing other studies that indicate that martens avoid 

regenerating clearcuts for several decades. Managers should provide adequate densities of snags, large 

trees, and logs and provide large blocks of interconnected mature forest (Powell et al. 2003). 

While marten and fisher have similar habitat requirements, marten are largely restricted to higher 

elevations, engage in more arboreal and subnivean activity (i.e., tunnels under snow), eat smaller prey, 

can forage in deep snow and are more strongly related with coniferous stands (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

American Martin Project Area Habitat and Documentation 

Marten have been consistently observed to the west and north (MNHP 2011, USDA Forest Service 2011c) 

and a DNA hair sample was obtained from Stonewall face in 2011. Although data from this sample is not 

yet available, the project area is considered occupied marten habitat. 

Approximately 35 percent of the project area contains mature forest conditions preferred by marten 

(greater than10 inches d.b.h.). Prior to the MPB epidemic, using the model developed by Samson 

(2006b), approximately 13,500 acres or 56 percent of the project area provided suitable habitat. Habitat 

has declined due to increased tree mortality and currently the project area provides approximately 6,800 

acres of suitable marten habitat (28 percent of the project area). Also, when viewed across the larger 

landscape (cumulative effect boundary), there is little marten habitat to the northwest of the project area, 

and generally the project area does not contain the landscape-level mature forest conditions preferred 

(Powell et al. 2003). As a result, the project area does not provide habitat conditions characteristic of den 

sites. It is likely that foraging or dispersal at upper elevations would constitute the primary use of the 

project area if used by marten. 

The average territory size for marten varies from 160 acres (Kirk and Zielinski 2009) to 1,804 acres for 

transient males (Slough 1989). In addition, home range size varies by habitat quality and food availability, 

and in the northern Rockies, it is estimated that 1,920 acres are necessary to provide adequate habitat in 

years when food is scarce. So while it is unlikely that the project area would be utilized for denning, and 

habitat conditions have been reduced, snag and CWD habitat are abundant and the project area contains 

adequate habitat to support marten. 

Snowmobile use occurs throughout much of the lower elevations, primarily along groomed trails and 

roads, although some cross country use in larger openings off-trails does occur. Use at higher elevations 

where marten would likely exist is primarily along designated trails.

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk 

Methodology and Analysis Area

The methodologies used to assess elk habitat were developed largely to measure elk vulnerability, which

is the relationship between elk and land management practices, combined with the demand for elk hunting 

and non-hunting experiences. Elk are evaluated in part by looking at three variables including summer 

range hiding cover, road densities and winter range thermal cover. The following is a summary of how 

Forest Plan standards relevant to elk management focus on these variables: 

Summer Range Hiding Cover - Forest Plan standard 3 addresses both summer and winter range. For 

the purpose of this analysis, the Montana FWP definition of hiding cover (a stand of coniferous trees 

having a crown closure of greater than 40 percent) is used. Also hiding cover must have a minimum 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

303

patch size of 40 acres. Using this definition, the requirement for Forest Plan standard 3is to maintain a 

minimum of 50 percent hiding cover within each herd unit (USDA FS 1986 p. II/18). 

Winter Range Thermal Cover – Forest Plan standard 3 also requires that 25 percent of each herd unit 

winter range provide elk thermal cover. The Forest Plan defines thermal cover as a stand of 

coniferous trees 40 feet or more tall with an average crown closure of 70 percent or more, and a 

minimum size of 15 acres.

Big Game Security – Forest Plan standard 4a addresses big game security during the hunting season. 

This standard uses a hiding cover to open road density within a herd unit to address elk vulnerability 

during the hunting season. An objective of this standard is not to exceed 40 percent of the total bull 

harvest during the first week of the general big game hunting season. 

In addition to analyzing these parameters for compliance with Forest Plan standards 3 and 4a, two 

additional analysis tools are used to assess potential effects at the elk herd unit level: Habitat effectiveness 

and elk security. The following is a summary of each:

Habitat Effectiveness – Habitat Effectiveness evaluates open road densities with respect to habitat use 

of summer range outside the big game season. This tiers to the Montana Elk Logging Study 

Recommendations in appendix C of the Helena Forest Plan. Although Plan direction is to follow 

recommendations in appendix C, the Plan does not establish specific habitat thresholds to be met. 

Habitat effectiveness is based on summer open road densities. 

Elk Security – An elk security analysis is completed to address elk vulnerability during the hunting 

season. It is based on Hillis et al. (1991) and includes large areas greater than or equal to 250 acres in 

size that are equal to or greater than 0.50 mile from an open road. While the security area analysis is 

not a Plan requirement and specific Plan thresholds to be met are not established, it does consider 

distance from open roads and patch size, along with a recommended goal for the amount of security 

area within a herd unit. 

The Stonewall project area is located in two elk herd units including Beaver Creek and Keep Cool. 

Because elk have a strong fidelity to specific areas, the existing condition and direct and indirect effects 

are evaluated by herd unit, whereas cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined herd unit 

boundary. 

Assumptions and Information Used

Elk documentation is based on field surveys and herd unit information provided by the Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks (MFWP 2004) elk management plan, as well as by more recent assessment of herd 

conditions (Kolbe 2012). The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Elk Distribution GIS layer was used to 

identify summer and winter range within both project area herd units across all ownerships. Elk security 

areas, hiding cover and thermal cover are derived from R1-VMAP, and are based in part on the “R1 

Vegetation Council Classification Algorithms” (USDA Forest Service 2006a), and the “R1 Multi-level 

Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis System” (USDA Forest Service 2007e). 

Forest Plan hiding and thermal cover calculations are based on R1-VMAP data and HNF wildlife models 

for this species (USDA Forest Service 2009a). While canopy cover has recently been reduced due to MPB 

mortality, mortality is ongoing. As a result, and because standing dead trees continue to provide screening 

and some snow intercept properties, pre-kill canopy closure is used to identify Forest Plan thermal and 

hiding cover. 

Road density information is derived from the HNF INFRA database and Montana’s roads database. 

Private roads are assumed to have less impact on elk than public roads. Rowland et al. (2000) examined 

the relationship between open, closed and administrative roads on elk habitat use. He found that 

administrative roads (restricted vehicle use, not open to the public) are similar to private roads as far as 

vehicle use, and open roads have the greatest impact on elk habitat use. Based on this and other research 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

304

(Lyon 1979; Witmer and deCalesta 1985) this analysis assigns a weight of 0.25 to private and 

administrative roads. A value of 1.0 is assigned to open roads, which include all roads and motorized 

trails open to public use between May 16th and October 14th. 

Elk Population and Montana FWP Herd Unit Summary

Montana is broken down into 35 Elk Management Units (EMUs) that were established based on similar 

ecological characteristics, with each generally encompassing the yearlong range of a major elk 

population. The Stonewall project area is included in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex EMU and 

includes Hunting District (HD) 281, as defined in the Montana Elk Plan (MFWP 2004). The Blackfoot 

River, which adjoins the project area to the south, forms the southern boundary of HD 281. 

Because it provides upper-elevation habitat, all of the project area is considered elk summer range. The

lower elevation winter range occurs on approximately 31,500 acres or 41 percent of the combined herd 

units. More than 80 percent of the elk observed in this EMU use wilderness habitats during at least a 

portion of the year, and 88 percent of the elk that utilize wilderness areas migrate to non-wilderness 

winter range (MFWP 2004). In addition to providing important summer range, the southern portion of the 

EMUs also provide transition range, or range between high elevation summer and low-elevation winter 

habitat. 

At the time the State elk management plan was produced, elk populations wintering in HD 281 were near 

modern day highs, although winter cow calf ratios were approximately half of what occurred in the EMU 

in the 1980s (MFWP 2004). More recently elk populations have been affected by increased predation and 

calf recruitment has been reduced by approximately 40 percent from the long-term averages (Kolbe 

2012). In response to the increased predation, MFWP has virtually eliminated antlerless harvest to keep 

recruitment from falling below objectives in the short term, while proposing actions to moderate wolf and 

mountain lion densities and reduce predation over the long term. 

Additionally, due to the large amount of wilderness and roadless area that has limited habitat 

management, combined with decades of fire suppression, elk populations within much of this EMU have 

been affected by reduced forage availability and extensive habitat-altering events, such as forest fires that 

must occur before increased elk populations could be realized (MFWP 2004). However the increased fuel 

loadings also increase the risk of high intensity fire. So while forage within project herd units has been 

created on much of the acreage (17,800 acres) affected by recent (since 2003) wildfires, due to the high 

fire intensity that occurred, cover has been greatly reduced, particularly in the Keep Cool unit (figure 74).

As a result, utilization of the increased forage is reduced in many areas until cover develops. 

Consequently low to moderate levels of wildfire are necessary to create forage, while continuing to 

provide adequate cover to encourage elk use. 

The overall objective for this EMU is to manage elk populations in a healthy condition at levels 

commensurate with available habitat in order to provide a variety of recreational experiences, including 

hunting and general enjoyment by the public. Specific habitat management strategies include; 1) use of 

natural and prescribed fire on wilderness and roadless public lands to improve elk habitat, 2) maintain elk 

habitat security and associated walk-in hunting opportunities, and 3) cooperate with other land managers 

in the development of integrated strategies to improve the prevention and control of nonnative invasive 

plants (NNIS). Population objectives by subunit include maintaining 150 to 200 elk in the Beaver-Keep 

Cool drainages (MFWP 2004), which includes the project area. A number of variables are considered 

when evaluating elk habitat including; available summer and winter range, elk security and hiding cover, 

thermal cover, and forage availability. Table 77 through table 82 displays the existing condition of the 

Beaver Creek and Keep Cool herd units related to these variables. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

305

Species Status and Project Area Habitat 

Elk in Montana have a status of S5, and although rare in parts of its range, statewide they are considered 

common, widespread and abundant (MFWP 2011a). Elk are also considered habitat generalists that are 

mobile, adaptive and wide ranging. They occur in a variety of habitats ranging from high mountainous 

areas to highly managed forests to cold deserts (Skovlin et al. 2002). 

Elk serve as a management indicator for hunted species and management for elk requires meeting basic 

elk habitat requirements, including understanding the socioeconomic value of elk. Lonner (1991) 

identified the following primary considerations in elk management, (1) maintaining habitat security to 

protect elk during the hunting season, (2) preserving/recovering desired elk population characteristics as 

determined by elk managers and distribution relative to land management, and (3) satisfying the growing 

demand for quality hunting and non-hunting experiences. Several methodologies have been developed 

that measure elk vulnerability, or the relationship between elk, land management practices and the 

demand for elk hunting and non-hunting experiences. These methodologies are the focus of much of the 

analysis presented and include an assessment of summer range, security habitat and winter range. The 

following is a summary of key elk habitat components as they pertain to the Stonewall Project area. 

Summer Range 

Summer range includes upper-elevation lands where elk typically migrate following snowmelt. During 

the summer elk use much of the Stonewall Project area, although as summer progresses, high elevation 

cool/moist areas are frequently used. New grasses and forbs within forested communities provide the 

necessary summer food and cover requirements for elk. In addition, some research indicates that the 

quality of summer range is one of the more important variables when determining annual variation in herd 

growth. The quality of summer range is measured in terms of percent of hiding cover on summer range 

and habitat effectiveness, which is a measurement of open road densities during the summer. 

Hiding Cover 

As described above, hiding cover is based on the MFWP definition and includes forested stands that have 

40 percent of more canopy closure and are at least 40 acres in size. Forest Plan standard 3 requires that 

hiding cover be maintained on a minimum of 50 percent of each EHU. The amount of hiding provided on 

each project area EHU and whether they comply with Plan standard 3 is displayed in table 77. 

Table 77. Forest Plan hiding cover on elk summer range

Elk Herd Unit Summer Range

Acres

Forest Plan

Hiding Cover

Percent Plan

Hiding Cover

Meets Plan

Standard #3

Beaver Creek 32,406 17,701 55 Yes

Keep Cool Creek 44,325 15,725 35 No

Habitat Effectiveness

Elk generally avoid human disturbance and/or exhibit physiological stress when exposed to human 

activity (Cassirer et al. 1992). In forested landscapes, open road density is used as a variable to assess 

levels of human disturbance upon elk. This is calculated as elk habitat effectiveness (Christensen et al. 

1993; Lyon 1983), which analyzes how well summer range meets the needs of elk for growth and for 

welfare during the non-hunting season. Habitat effectiveness is determined by a curve generated by the 

Montana Elk- Logging study which recommends a minimum of 50 percent habitat effectiveness on elk 

summer range (Figure 74). Table 78displays the existing open road density for the project area EHUs and 

whether they comply with the recommended 50 percent. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

306

Figure 74. Percent Elk habitat effectiveness curve (Lyon 1983)

Table 78. Elk herd unit summer open road density 

Elk Herd Unit Open Road 

Density1

Percent Elk 

Use Potential2

Meets MFWP

50 Percent Threshold

Beaver Creek 1.69 51 Yes

Keep Cool Creek 1.74 57 Yes

1 – includes roads that are open to the public and Forest Service administration roads that receive periodic use.

2 – taken from figure 9

Existing Condition

Summer range, which occurs on 

upper-elevation lands consisting 

primarily of Douglas-fir or 

mixed conifer communities, 

encompasses both units in their 

entirety. The reduced amount of 

hiding cover in the Keep Cool 

unit is due to recent wildfires 

(since 2003) in the northern half 

which have affected over 17,000 

acres. However, it should be 

noted that the Stonewall project 

area contains a disproportionate 

amount of existing elk hiding 

cover, when compared to the 

herd unit as a whole. 

Figure 75. Existing hiding cover 

in Beaver Creek and Keep Cool 

herd unit
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

307

For example, while the project area makes up approximately 55 percent of the Beaver Creek herd unit, it 

contains 80 percent of the existing hiding cover. 

Similarly, although the project area only includes 13 percent of the Keep Cool herd unit, it contains 30 

percent of the existing hiding cover. Consequently, summer range hiding cover within the project area is 

widely available as shown in figure 75. 

Winter Range

Winter range includes lower-elevation forest that provides forage and cover. Densely wooded lowlands 

and north/northeast-facing slopes provide valuable hiding cover, whereas drier, more open 

south/southwest-facing slopes that remain relatively free from snow provide available forage. Since 

human disturbance causes elk to expend more energy, lack of disturbance is also an important factor 

associated with good winter habitat (NRCS 1999). 

As described above, the Forest Plan requires that winter thermal cover be provided on 25 percent or more 

of each elk herd unit. Existing winter range thermal cover, as well as compliance with Forest Plan 

Standard 3 is displayed in table 79. 

Table 79. Forest Plan thermal cover on elk winter ranges1

Elk Herd Unit Total EHU

Acres

Winter Range

Acres

Plan Thermal

Cover Acres

Percent Plan 

Thermal Cover

Meets Plan 

Standard #3

Beaver Creek 32,406 17,787 938 5.3 No

Keep Cool Creek 44,325 13,754 527 3.8 No

1 Winter range thermal cover

Elk winter range occurs on 55 and 31 percent of the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool units respectively. 

Because lower elevation winter range lands contain more open ponderosa pine habitat and/or shrub and 

nonforest communities, currently thermal cover only exists on approximately 1 to 3 percent of the winter 

range within each herd unit. As a result neither herd unit meets Forest Plan standard 3, which requires that 

thermal cover be maintained on 25 percent of the winter range within each herd unit. However, research 

indicates that classic thermal cover (conifer stands more than 40 ft. tall with canopy closure of at least 70 

percent) is probably of little value to elk except in extreme conditions (Cook et al. 1998, pp. 41-48). This 

is due to the fact that elk are better able to maintain body conditions by taking advantage of solar 

radiation in open habitats. In addition, more recent studies in Montana winter range indicate that, when in 

forested habitats, elk prefer stands with more open or patchy canopies capable of supporting forested 

forage (Thompson et. al. 2005). Forage in dense thermal cover stands is usually too sparse to sustain elk 

during severe winter conditions. 

Definitions for elk thermal cover (Thomas 1979) are based upon what elk were assumed to prefer in the 

mid-1970s in northeast Oregon. Unfortunately, in droughty, interior forests, the Forest Plan definition of 

thermal cover generally exceeds what the sites are capable of growing or what can be sustained over time 

given inevitable, natural disturbances. As a result, while the project area falls below the Forest Plan 

standard for thermal cover, existing winter range conditions, which include more open stands with 

increased solar radiation and forage are considered adequate to sustain wintering elk. 

During the winter, snow and cold temperatures often push elk onto low-elevation, south-facing winter 

ranges outside the project area on private land. Also, elk have a strong fidelity to a given winter range and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

308

most cows return year after year to the same general area. Winter range within the project area herd units 

is displayed in figure 76. 

Figure 76. Elk winter range, thermal cover and security habitat

Elk Security during Hunting Season

Hiding Cover/Open Road Densities

During the hunting season, management of elk includes balancing the need to provide for and protect 

certain sex and age classes of elk and to provide hunting opportunities. While these parameters are a 

management function of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Helena National Forest strives to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

309

compliment these objectives through management of open road densities relative to the amount of hiding 

cover in elk herd units. Table 80 summarizes the Forest Plan standards based on the MFWP definitions 

and thresholds discussed above which are used in this analysis. Table 81 summarizes the amount of Forest 

Plan hiding cover by EHU, associated road densities during the hunting season, and whether the current 

conditions meet the Forest Plan standards for hiding cover/open road densities. Currently neither EHU 

meets Plan Standard 4a. 

Table 80. Forest thresholds for hunting season elk security

Existing Percent Hiding 

cover1(according to MFWP definition

of hiding cover)2 Max Open Road Density

80 2.4 mi/mi2

70 1.9 mi/mi2

60 1.2 mi/mi2

50 0.1 mi/mi2

1-Existing hiding cover to open road density ratio should be determined over a large geographic area, such as a timber sale analysis 

area, third order drainage or elk herd unit.

2- A coniferous stand having crown closure of greater than 40 percent (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. II/18). 

Table 81. Elk herd unit data comparing hiding cover and open road density

Elk Herd 

Unit

Total 

Square

Miles

Forest Service Plan 

Hiding Cover Acres

Percent Plan 

Hiding Cover

Open 

Road 

Miles1

Open Road 

Density1 Meets Plan 

Standard 4a

Beaver 

Creek 51 17,701 55 70.4 1.4 No

Keep Cool 

Creek 69 15,725 35 88.5 1.3 No

1 – Open roads during the hunting season

Hunting Season Elk Security

The relationship between open road densities and hiding cover serves as the basis for the Forest Plan 

standard and while this relationship is important, it does not take into account the spatial arrangement and 

size of unroaded patches, weather driven road access, or foraging condition during any given autumn. 

Additionally it is not necessarily an accurate predictor of elk security during the hunting season. 

Conversely, stands that may not meet the definition of hiding cover may well prove to be secure areas for 

elk, given local conditions of topography, remoteness and vegetation structure (i.e. a heavy downfall) that 

make hunter access more difficult. Therefore hiding cover alone is not synonymous with security (Lyon 

and Canfield 1991, Unsworth and Kuck 1991, Lyon and Christenson 1992 and Christenson et. al. 1993). 

Elk vulnerability to hunting results from an extremely complex relationship involving access, cover, 

topography, hunter density and weather (Christensen 1993). Security is the result of a combination of 

factors that allow elk to remain in the specific area while under stress from hunting. More specifically 

these are areas of coniferous cover large enough and far enough away from open roads to provide 

security. The “Hillis (1991) paradigm” provides these and can be used as a general guide (Christensen 

1993). Hillis et al. (1991) concluded that maintaining greater than 30 percent of each herd unit as security 

areas with a minimum patch size of 250 acres and at least 0.5 miles from open roads (areas where elk can 

evade hunters), would slow the elk harvest rate and increase the probability that some bulls would be 

available for harvest even late in the season. Hillis et al. (1991) acknowledged that their model was most 

applicable on densely forested areas with steep topography and might be less applicable on more open 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

310

forests. Christensen et al. (1993) suggests that roads more than any other factor affect hunting 

opportunity, suggesting the Hillis et al. (1991) model might be conservative. Also Burcham et al. (1999) 

concluded that where posted private lands occur within a herd unit, many elk may move to private land 

during the hunting season in spite of there being large blocks of security on public lands. 

Elk vulnerability during the hunting season is in part based on Hillis et al. (1991) (described above), and 

table 82 displays security habitat on lands greater than 250 acres that are further than 0.50 mile from an 

open road for the two project area herd units. Existing security habitat is displayed in figure 76. Security 

habitat is provided in relatively dense stands that are not particularly susceptible to MPB (mostly Douglas 

fir or sapling lodgepole pine). As a result while some stands that currently provide security habitat may 

become more open after MPB has killed susceptible trees, most stands would still provide security 

following mortality. Even in stands that due suffer concentrated mortality, within 10 years most dead 

ponderosa and lodgepole pine would have fallen, resulting in a jackstraw layer of downed woody debris. 

This may actually improve security simply because these stands would be extremely difficult to walk 

through by hunters, although no research exists to model or test this hypothesis. Table 82 displays acres 

and percent of existing elk security by herd unit. 

Table 82. Existing elk security by herd unit

Elk Herd Unit Total Acres Security Habitat

Beaver Creek 32,406 8,463 acres 26%

Keep Cool 44,325 11,828 acres 27%

Transition Range 

Transition range is used by elk when migrating between summer and winter range, and is commonly 

made up of habitats such as Douglas-fir, aspen/pine, and other communities intermixed with grassland or 

shrub communities. These transitional range habitats provide forage needed by elk to build fat reserves in 

the fall and to support calving in the spring. Since winter range forage quality is typically poor, 

transitional range can be extremely important in sustaining elk populations (NRCS 1999). Project area 

transition range occurs largely on mid-elevations habitats or generally mid- to upper-elevation elk winter 

range. 

Water and Riparian Habitat

Elk require water on a daily basis and consume it from open sources such as springs, lakes, wetland 

ponds, rivers and streams. Riparian areas can also be important and studies in Montana (Marcum 1975, 

1976 in Thomas 1979) indicate that elk make disproportionate use of areas within 1,050 feet of open 

water.

Summary 

Cover 

Decades of fire suppression have resulted in closed-canopy conditions that have increased elk cover 

across the project area, although this has been reduced somewhat due to recent MPB mortality. Hiding 

cover has been further reduced on over 18,000 acres due to wildfires in the last 10 years. While elk hiding 

cover has been reduced in both herd units (currently 35-55 percent), hiding cover within the project area 

is more widespread (80 percent). Future hiding cover is expected to decline as standing dead trees (due to 

MPB mortality) fall to the ground. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

311

Forage 

As described in the habitat section (section 3.1), decades of fire suppression and conifer encroachment 

has reduced shrub and herbaceous vegetation, as well as mountain meadow habitat and aspen. 

Collectively this has resulted in a reduction in elk forage within both herd units. While lands burned in the 

Snow Talon and more recent wildfires have increased available forage, elk use in these areas is reduced 

due to the large reduction in cover. While available forage in these areas would continue to increase, very 

little transition habitat and winter range has been affected by recent fires. As a result, forage availability in 

these areas remains low and is expected to continue to decline. 

Forest Plan Consistency

Forest Plan Standard 3 (Summer Range Hiding Cover) – Because this analysis uses canopy cover to 

identify hiding cover, Forest Plan standard 3 states that elk summer range will be maintained at 50 percent 

or more of each elk herd unit. Hiding cover within the Beaver Creek unit (55 percent) currently meets 

Plan standard 3 guidelines, whereas the Keep Cool herd unit (35 percent) does not meet Plan standard 3. 

Forest Plan Standard 3 (Winter Range Thermal Cover) - Forest Plan Standard 3 requires 25 percent

thermal cover within each EHU. Forest Plan thermal cover currently occurs on 1 to 3 percent of the 

Beaver Creek and Keep Cool elk her units and neither herd unit meets Plan standard 3. This is due largely 

to the dry cover types that result in more open stand conditions that characterize winter range on NFS 

lands. 

Forest Plan Standard 4a (Hiding Cover and Open Road Density) – Forest Plan standard 4a limits the 

hunting season open road density based upon the existing percentage of hiding cover. The existing 

hunting season open road densities are 1.4 miles per square mile and 1.3 miles per square mile for the 

Beaver Creek and Keep Cool units respectively. Consequently neither unit complies with Plan standard 

4a. 

Habitat Effectiveness and Security 

Habitat Effectiveness – Habitat effectiveness is used to measure human disturbance to elk and is 

determined by a curve generated in the Montana elk logging study which recommends a minimum of 50 

percent habitat effectiveness on elk summer range. The Beaver Creek unit is currently at 51 percent 

habitat effectiveness and the Keep Cool unit is at 57 percent. Consequently both units currently meet the 

50 percent threshold. 

Security – Elk security is based on Hillis et al. (1991) who recommend maintaining greater than 30 

percent of each herd unit as security areas with a minimum patch size of 250 acres and at least 0.5 miles 

from an open road. Using this definition elk security habitat currently occurs on 26 percent and 27 percent 

of the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool herd units respectively, and neither unit meets the 30 percent 

recommendation. 

Mule Deer 

Methodology and Analysis Area

Due to the variety of forest and nonforest communities utilized, virtually all of the Stonewall Project area 

provides suitable deer habitat. Like elk, effects are analyzed by looking at changes in cover and forage 

conditions on summer, winter and transition range and available mule deer cover is expected to be similar 

to that described for elk. Mule deer winter range and season-long use areas is based on MFWP range 

maps. Hiding and thermal cover models are based on R1-VMap data, whereas hiding and thermal cover 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

312

models are described in the Criteria for Wildlife Models Helena National Forest Version June 2009 

(USDA Forest Service 2009b). 

Suitable habitat and use by deer is widespread. In Montana the average deer home range is less than 500 

acres (Riley and Dodd 1984). As a result, and considering the project area contains year-round, winter and 

transition range, direct, indirect and cumulative effects are evaluated across the project area.

Species Status and Biology 

Mule deer have a global ranking of G5 and a Statewide ranking of S5, indicating they are common, 

widespread and abundant. Although they may be rare in parts of their range, mule deer are not considered 

vulnerable (MNHP 2011).

Mule deer are habitat generalists, mobile, adaptive and wide ranging. As a result they use a wide variety 

of habitats from open to dense montane and subalpine coniferous forests, aspen, shrub communities and 

brushy areas. In summer they are widely distributed in forest and subalpine habitats, and in winter use 

lower-elevation, open, shrub-dominated areas (MNHP 2011). Within woody vegetation types, mule deer 

use all seral stages and do best in areas where there is a mix of seral communities.

Food habitats vary seasonally and by year. Preferred forage species include bitterbrush, mountain 

mahogany, chokecherry, serviceberry, grasses and forbs. Forbs are most important in summer, whereas 

shrubs are used year-round but are important in fall, winter and spring (MNHP 2011). Competition with 

elk can be significant because elk have a more varied diet and on shared range, mule deer are most often 

negatively impacted (MNHP 2011; Frisina et al. 2006). 

Optimum deer habitat contain a mixture of forage and cover habitat that is well interspersed and 

generally, a mixture of 40 percent cover and 60 percent forage is considered optimum (Thomas 1979; 

Knight 2011). Available cover should include a combination of hiding, thermal and fawn rearing cover. 

Because deer cover and forage requirements are very similar to elk, the discussion of preferred hiding 

cover and forage for elk, would also apply to mule deer. Since deer are smaller, the height and density of 

vegetation suitable for cover (hiding and thermal) would be less than that required by elk (Thomas 1979). 

Also like elk, deer require water (particularly on summer range) (Julander 1966 in Thomas 1979) and 

optimum habitat occurs within approximately 0.5 mile of water (Mackie 1970 in Thomas 1979). 

Consequently riparian areas can be particularly important. 

Fawning habitat for mule deer consists of foraging areas with hiding and thermal cover, and is typically 

on spring transition range with gentle slopes with abundant succulent vegetation within 600 feet of water. 

While many habitats are used for fawning and rearing fawns, those providing relatively large quantities of 

herbaceous vegetation are most important.

While deer numbers and herd health are affected by a number of factors, forage is often most limiting on 

carrying capacity (Knight 2011), particularly on winter range. Equally important to forage quantity is 

forage quality and reproduction and animal condition is best maintained if high quality (i.e., nutritious and 

palatable) forage is available. As a result, a combination of herbaceous and woody vegetation needs to be 

available.

Mule deer occupy nearly all habitats of the Lincoln Ranger District at nearly all elevations during summer 

and fall, although they are most abundant where large quantities of nutritious forage is available. 

Transition range is found at the lower elevations of the summer range and contains abundant grass and 

forbs, intermixed with the shrub and aspen communities. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

313

Major impacts to mule deer habitat in northern forests include: (1) modification of vegetative structure, 

(2) decrease in nutritional quality of woody shrubs as they age, (3) modification of vegetation species 

composition, and (4) loss of usable habitat due to human encroachment and associated activities (Hayden 

et al. 2008). 

Mule deer in Montana have a history of population fluctuations (see figure 77). These fluctuations vary 

among populations in response to environmental conditions and may reflect general, long-term changes in 

distribution and demographics, periodic fluctuations, year to year fluctuations, and season to season 

changes within years (Mackie et. al. 1998 p. 110). 

Figure 77. Mule Deer Fluctuations in Montana from 1970 to 2011 (Montana Field Guide)

Mule Deer Project Area Habitat

Because the project area includes a mixture of mature and regenerating forest interspersed with nonforest 

(on NFS and adjacent private lands), all of the project area provides deer habitat. Spring, summer and fall 

range occur on approximately 85 percent of the project area, although some of this is also utilized in the 

winter, whereas winter/yearlong range occurs on approximately 15 percent (See figure 76) (MDFWP

2005-GIS distribution layer). While canopy cover has been reduced due to recent MPB mortality, like elk, 

standing dead trees continue to provide hiding cover. As a result cover is widespread and approximately 

80 percent of the project area contains hiding cover (See figure 78). Of this over 99 percent is on NFS 

lands. The availability of thermal cover is reduced due to the more open ponderosa pine stands occurring 

at lower elevations. Also, while pre-kill data is used to identify existing thermal cover, cover in areas with 

concentrated mortality would be expected to decline in the next 10 years as mortality continues and trees 

fall to the ground. Currently, thermal cover exists on 492 acres or 14 percent of the project area mule deer 

winter range (See figure 78). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

314

Figure 78. Mule deer range and cover within the project area

While there has been very little regeneration harvest in the last 15 years, some regenerated stands, 

particularly at lower elevations still contain higher quantities of deer forage, although early successional 

forage would continue to decline. Overall, due to fire suppression increasing stand density and conifer 

encroachment, aspen as well as understory diversity (grasses, forbs and shrubs) have been declining 

within forested stands. Conifer encroachment has also reduced shrub and herbaceous diversity in 

nonforest habitats. Finally in the absence of fire, there is little shrub regeneration and many existing 

shrubs, particularly on transition and winter ranges are becoming decadent. Collectively these conditions 

have contributed to a reduction in forage across much of the project area. Conversely, forage has 

increased on approximately 365 acres that recently (since 2003) burned by wildfire, although all of this 

occurs on upper elevation habitat. Also, forage would increase over time in areas where MPB have 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

315

opened up the forest canopy, although conifer encroachment and elevated levels of downed woody debris 

may reduce the availability of forage for deer (Hayden et al. 2008).

In summary, while deer hiding cover is widespread due to the more open stand conditions that exist and 

MPB mortality, thermal cover within deer winter ranges is presently low and would continue to decline. 

While forage availability has been improved on summer range affected by wildfire, forage on winter and 

transition range, as well as most of the summer range has been reduced due to increased conifer 

encroachment and the absence of fire. 

Migratory Birds

Methodology and Analysis Area

Migratory birds use diverse habitat conditions; therefore, existing habitat and environmental effects are 

primarily addressed in the assessment of the habitat conditions under the biophysical settings discussed in 

section 3.1. Additionally the bald eagle, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, 

and pileated woodpecker are priority I and II species in Montana; and the needs of migratory birds are 

also addressed in the analysis provided for these species. As a result, migratory birds are collectively 

addressed through the habitat and species-specific sections of this document. 

While the analysis areas vary somewhat by species, generally, because bird use is determined by both 

site-specific and landscape considerations, direct and indirect effects to migratory birds are evaluated 

across the project area, whereas cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined boundary. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

In December 2008, the Forest Service entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the 

United States Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

to further clarify agency responsibilities (USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2008). Four key principles embodied in the MOU direct the Forest Service to (1) focus on bird 

populations; (2) focus on habitat restoration and enhancement where actions can benefit specific 

ecosystems and migratory birds dependent on them; (3) recognize that actions taken to benefit some 

migratory bird populations may adversely affect other migratory bird populations; and (4) recognize that 

actions that may provide long-term benefits to migratory birds may have short-term impacts on individual 

birds. The parties agreed that through the NEPA process, the Forest Service would evaluate the effects of 

agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their 

priority habitats and key risk factors. 

Migratory birds are included under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and incorporate most species 

of birds present in the project area. Executive Order 13186 directs departments and agencies to take 

certain actions to further implement the MBTA. Specifically, the Order directs federal agencies, whose 

direct activities will likely result in the “take” of migratory birds, to develop and implement a 

memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that shall promote the 

conservation of bird populations. Under Executive Order 13186, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

responsible to ensure that environmental analyses of federal actions evaluate the effects of actions and 

agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. 

In general, most birds migrate to some degree, including seasonal movements from higher to lower 

elevations within the same geographic region. The three most referenced groups of migratory birds are 

waterfowl, raptors, and neo-tropical migrants. Birds protected under the act include all common 

songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, swifts, 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

316

martins, swallows and others, including their body parts (feathers, plumes etc.), nests, and eggs. A 

complete list of protected species is found at 50 CFR 10.13. 

Project Level Migratory Birds

The Helena National Forest has participated in the Region One Landbird Monitoring Program in 

partnership with the Avian Science Center (ASC) at the University of Montana. Habitat and distribution 

surveys have been conducted for landbirds from 1994- 2008. The USFS Northern Region Songbird 

Monitoring Program (Hutto and Young 2002) has provided data on population trends, habitat 

relationships, and effects from past management activities for birds breeding in western Montana. 

According to Hutto, “There are not nearly enough years of data to make meaningful use of our population 

trend data yet, but the preliminary data suggest that most populations have remained fairly stable during 

the 12-year period from 1994-2006” (See http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu/projects/trends.php). 

The project area contains three bird point count transects that were monitored from 1994-2004. Over 

1,000 bird observations were made during this period. Table 83 identifies those birds identified as part of 

the Landbird Monitoring Program, the number of observations and preferred habitat. As described 

previously, migratory birds are also addressed through the habitat analysis presented. 

Table 83. Project area migratory birds

Bird Species1 Habitat Bird Species1 Habitat

American Crow (4) Open Lands Mountain Bluebird (3) Grassland/Shrub

American Dipper(4) Riparian Mountain Chickadee (56) Dry Forest

American Goldfinch (1) Grassland/Shrub Northern Flicker (22) Snags

American Robin (54) Generalist Olive-sided Flycatcher (1) Cool Moist Forest

Bank Swallow (1) Riparian Orange crowned Warbler (1) Riparian

Barred Owl (1) Cool Moist Forest Osprey (1) Riparian/Open Water

Black-capped Chickadee (1) Dry Forest Pileated Woodpecker (3) Snags

Brown headed cowbird (12) Forest Edge Pine Siskin (94) Dry Forest

Brown Creeper (1) Dry Forest Red-breasted Nuthatch (49) Snags/Forest

Canada Goose (1) Riparian/Open Water Red-winged Blackbird (9) Riparian

Cassin’s Vireo (5) Dry Forest Red-naped Sapsucker (3) Snags/Riparian Forest

Chipping Sparrow (27) Dry Forest Ruby Crowned Kinglet (130) Dry Forest

Clark’s Nutcracker (7) Dry Forest Ruffed Grouse (14) Young Forest

Common Nighthawk (1) Dry Forest Song Sparrow (17) Riparian

Common Raven (42) Generalist Swainson’s Thrush (24) Dry and Cool Forest

Common Yellowthroat (22) Riparian Towensend’s Warbler (52) Dry and Cool Forest

Dark-eyed Junco (103) Generalist Tree Swallow (7) Grassland/Edge

Dusky Flycatcher (15) Dry Forest Varied Thrush (18) Dry and Cool Forest

Fox Sparrow (4) Forest Edges Warbling Vireo (25) Riparian

Golden-crowned Kinglet (10) Spruce Fir Forest Western Tanager (9) Dry Forest

Gray Jay (3) Cool moist/subalpine 

Forest Williamson’s Sapsucker (3) Snags, Dry Forest

Great Blue Heron (3) Riparian/Open Water Willow Flycatcher (5) Riparian

Hairy Woodpecker (5) Snags/Aspen Wilson’s Snipe (8) Riparian

Hammond’s Flycatcher (3) Cool moist forest Wilson’s Warbler (5) Riparian/Shrub 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

317

Bird Species1 Habitat Bird Species1 Habitat

Hermit Thrush (8) Cool Moist Forest Winter Wren (2) Forest Riparian

Lincoln’s Sparrow (6) Grassland/Shrub Yellow-rumped Warbler (46) Forest Generalist

MacGillivray’s Warbler (13) Shrubland Yellow Warbler (64) Riparian Forest

Mallard (1) Riparian/Open Water

1 – number in parenthesis is the number of observations for that species. 

The project area provides diverse, well distributed habitats for a variety of bird species. Some species are 

positively affected by land management while others are negatively affected. Hejl and others (1995) 

recommend a bird conservation strategy composed of three parts: (1) maintain, mimic, and restore natural 

vegetation patterns and processes; (2) ensure that the specific habitat components required by focus 

species are created and/or maintained; and (3) monitor the habitats and individual species.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for identifying migratory non-game birds that, without 

conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under ESA. To that end, the Service 

identifies birds of conservation concern by region (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The Stonewall 

Project area falls within Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10, which includes 22 species. Of these, nine 

species have been documented in or near the project area or the project area provides suitable habitat. 

Table 84 identifies these species, their preferred habitat conditions and where environmental effects are 

assessed.

Table 84. Project area birds of conservation concern

Species General Habitat Summary1 Environmental 

Consequences 

Assessed

Bald Eagle Prefer late successional forests and shorelines adjacent 

to open water lakes and rivers. 

Sensitive Species – Bald 

Eagle

Flammulated Owl

Mature forest with open canopy. Avoids dense young 

stands. Usually open conifer forests containing pine, with 

some brush or saplings. Shows strong preference for 

ponderosa pine. 

Sensitive Species – 

Flammulated owl 

Calliope 

Hummingbird

Seral shrublands and forest openings to moderate 

elevation in the mountains. Use re-growth from 8 to 15 

years after logging or fire. 

Habitats – Meadows and 

Shrubland

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker

Middle to high elevations in montane spruce-fir, Douglas 

fir, lodgepole and ponderosa pine forests. Also in mixed 

deciduous/coniferous forest with aspen. Favors nest 

sites adjacent to open ponderosa pine forests. 

Restricted to large diameter trees and snags for nesting, 

except in aspen. 

Habitats – Snag and 

downed wood; MISPileated Woodpecker

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Primarily breeds in open ponderosa pine forest, burned 

coniferous forest and open riparian woodlands. Occupy 

burned habitats after a shrub understory is established

Habitats – Dry Forest

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher

While they may occur in forested openings (e.g., 

disturbed areas), or open forests with low canopy cover. 

They are adapted to fire dependent landscapes and 

most often associated with post-fire habitat. Common in 

spruce and aspen but uncommon in mixed conifer or 

ponderosa pine. 

Habitats – Cool, Moist 

Forest and Aspen

Willow Flycatcher Breed in riparian habitat that has a mid-story of willows 

or alders and an intact shrub layer. Shrubs are often Habitat - Riparian
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

318

Species General Habitat Summary1 Environmental Consequences 

Assessed

interspersed with openings. 

Brewer’s 

Sparrow 

Associated with shrublands, primarily sagebrush. Prefer 

unburned to burned habitat. 

Habitats – Meadows and 

Shrubland

Cassin’s Finch

Prefers open dry coniferous forests with mature 

lodgepole and ponderosa pine but will utilize Douglas fir 

or mixed coniferous forest. Post-fire and heavily logged 

sites used extensively. 

Habitats – Dry and Cool, 

Moist Forest

1 – Habitat information taken from Montana Partners in Flight (2000)

Environmental Consequences

Methodology

Information used in the effects analysis includes aerial photographs, stand exam data, Northern Region 

Vegetation Mapping Project (R1-VMAP) data, field surveys and photos, data collected from project field 

visits and research literature including species and regional conservation assessments. Because this 

assessment involves a multi-scale analysis, Geographical Information System (GIS) coverages and data 

sets for vegetation stand and landscape structural characteristics, past management activities, stream, 

riparian and aquatic data, wildfire activity, national and state wildlife documentation databases and 

district and Forestwide observation data and surveys were collectively used to assess wildlife habitat 

conditions and effects. 

Potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects are evaluated by looking at the issue indictors identified 

in section 2.4. This section discusses effects of individual treatments, alternative effects and effects to 

species and habitats evaluated in detail (table 85). Because anticipated effects are based upon 

implementation of project design features (PDFs), design features specific to wildlife are also presented.

Project Design Features

The Stonewall Vegetation Project has been designed with features that are intended to minimize or avoid 

potential adverse effects while meeting project objectives. In addition to the proposed action treatments 

described in this section, design features would be implemented where applicable. A description of the 

project design features relating to wildlife and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The design features in table 9 pertaining to wildlife are WL-1, through WL-27. This analysis is based on 

the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both action alternatives. 

Specific design features listed above applicable to wildlife are designed to protect other resources such as 

water and soil. 

Alternative Effect Summary

The following table displays a summary of effects to habitat and species in the Stonewall Vegetation 

Project area by alternative. Information presented is based on alternative, treatment and species/habitat 

specific effects discussed throughout section 4. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

319

Table 85. Wildlife effects summary by alternative

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Dry Forest

Due to the absence of low severity fire, 

open-canopy dry forest habitat would 

likely continue to decline. There may also 

be a long-term reduction in species 

diversity (ponderosa pine) and large 

diameter trees and snags. A total of 

13,322 acres of closed-canopy habitat 

and scattered open-canopy habitat exists. 

Habitat for species that prefer or require 

open-canopy habitat would continue to 

decline. 

This alternative would result in the greatest 

increase in open-canopy habitat (4,681 acres), 

whereas the forest canopy would be reduced to 

8,640 acres. Species diversity, ponderosa pine 

and large diameter trees and snags would be 

maintained or increase on sites treated. Habitat 

for species that prefer or require dry forest 

open-canopy mature forest and large 

ponderosa pine would increase by 35 percent 

of this BPS. The long-term sustainability of the 

dry forest BPS would be maintained on sites 

treated.

Similar to alternative 2 except that open-canopy 

habitat would be reduced by 23 percent from 

Alt. 2. 9,907 acres of closed-canopy and 3,414 

acres of open-canopy habitat would occur. 

Species diversity, ponderosa pine and large 

diameter trees and snags would be maintained 

or increase on sites treated. Habitat for species 

that prefer or require open-canopy mature 

forest and large ponderosa pine would increase 

by 26 percent or this BPS. The long-term 

sustainability of the dry forest BPS would be 

maintained on sites treated.

Cool-moist Forest

In the short and long term stands would 

continue to progress to climax, with a 

decrease in seral species (ponderosa 

pine, aspen, whitebark pine,, aspen 

Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce. 

Stands would become more 

homogeneous with closed-canopy 

conditions predominating on 

approximately 9,600 acres and continued 

decline in early seral and open-canopy 

habitats. Habitat for species that prefer or 

require open-canopy habitat would 

continue to decline. 

Proposed timber harvest would result in a small 

increase in early seral habitats (50 acres), 

whereas early seral habitat would occur on 

approximately 600 acres due to high intensity 

burning. More open stand conditions would 

occur on approximately 2,000 acres due to low 

severity fire. So while closed-canopy conditions 

would predominate (6,600 acres), early seral 

and open-canopy habitat would increase on 28 

percent of the project area cool-moist forest 

habitat. Landscape and stand level diversity 

within the BPS would increase.

Proposed timber harvest would result in a small 

increase in early seral habitats (50 acres), 

whereas early seral habitat would occur on 

approximately 500 acres due to high intensity 

burning. Open stand conditions would occur on 

approximately 1,500 acres. So while closedcanopy conditions would predominate (7,200 

acres), early seral and open-canopy habitat 

would increase on 22 percent of the project 

area cool-moist forest habitat. Landscape and 

stand level diversity within the BPS would 

increase.

Upper Sub-alpine 

Fir

Due the continued absence of fire and 

insect and disease concerns, both stand 

and landscape level whitebark pine would 

likely continue to decline. If high intensity 

fire does occur it is likely that existing pine 

regeneration would be reduced. Habitat 

for species such as grizzly, red squirrel 

and Clark’s nutcracker, as well as many 

mammals and birds that utilize its seeds 

may also decline. 

Approximately 900 acres of stands containing a predominance of whitebark pine would be burned 

with mixed severity fire. Of this, 125 acres or 21 percent of the upper sub-alpine fire BPS would be 

treated. Over the long term this is expected to maintain whitebark pine across the landscape and 

provide habitat for grizzly and other species that prefer or require this declining habitat. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

320

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Riparian

Riparian habitats would be largely 

unchanged and continue to be available. 

Over the long term, hardwood and shrub 

diversity would likely continue to decline 

due to conifer encroachment and habitat 

for species that prefer these components 

may be reduced.

With implementation of INFISH buffers, much of the riparian habitat would not be treated, although 

scattered low-intensity burning would occur. Where burning occurs, herbaceous vegetation and 

shrubs/hardwoods would increase and riparian habitat would be maintained or improved. Riparian

habitats would remain intact and would continue to be available across the landscape. 

Mountain 

Meadow/Shrub

Shrub and meadow habitat may expand 

somewhat where MPB mortality is high. 

Due to continued conifer encroachment, 

over the long term mountain meadow & 

shrub habitat would continue to decline. 

Little shrub regeneration would occur and 

mature and decadent shrubs would 

increase. This habitat would largely be 

maintained, although herbaceous 

vegetation and shrub diversity may 

continue to be low or decline. 

Prescribed fire is proposed in 11 percent and 13 percent of the mountain meadow and shrub 

habitat respectively. Over the short term herbaceous and shrubs would be reduced on the acreage 

treated, although grass/forb abundance and diversity would increase within 1-2 years of treatment 

and with implementation of project design features a shrub component would be maintained on all 

sites. Over the long term, herbaceous vegetation and shrubs would increase due to stimulation of 

new growth by burning and reduced conifer encroachment. Forage and cover associated with 

these communities would be improved on the acreage treated. 

Aspen

Due to the absence of fire existing aspen 

would continue to decline and over the 

long term the distribution and abundance 

would be reduced or eliminated (in the 

absence of future disturbance). Habitat for 

wildlife species that prefer or require 

aspen would continue to decline.

Lands containing an aspen component would 

be treated on approximately 6,000 acres. In 

addition to improving the amount of aspen, 

prescribed fire is also expected to improve the 

nutritionally quality of forage. Habitat for wildlife 

species that prefer or require aspen would be 

maintained or improved on sites treated. 

Lands containing an aspen component would 

be treated on approximately 5,000 acres. In 

addition to improving the amount of aspen, 

prescribed fire is also expected to improve the 

nutritionally quality of forage. Habitat for wildlife 

species that prefer or require aspen would be 

maintained or improved on sites treated.

Dead Wood

Snag availability in all size classes would 

remain high for the next few years. While 

the availability of small to medium 

diameter snags would remain high, as 

existing large snags fall down and due to 

a reduction in ponderosa pine 

regeneration, recruitment of future large 

diameter snags would be reduced. Habitat 

for species that utilize downed woody 

debris would remain high both in the short 

and long term.

Snag availability would remain high in treated 

and untreated areas. Downed woody debris 

would be reduced on approximately 35 percent 

of the project area, although Forest Plan and 

Regional levels of dead wood would be retained 

on all sites. Therefore, while dead wood would 

be reduced within treatment sites, with 

implementation of PDFs and considering 25 

percent of prescribed fire units would be left 

unburned and that dead wood would be 

relatively unchanged within riparian buffers, 

adequate snags and downed wood would be 

maintained across the landscape to meet 

wildlife needs. 

Snag availability would remain high in treated 

and untreated areas. Downed woody debris 

would be reduced on approximately 27 percent 

of the project area, although Forest Plan and 

Regional levels of dead wood would be retained 

on all sites. With implementation of PDFs and 

considering 25 percent of prescribed fire units 

would be left unburned and that dead wood 

would be relatively unchanged within riparian 

buffers, adequate snags and downed wood 

would be maintained across the landscape to 

meet wildlife needs.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

321

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

All Biophysical 

Settings 

Due to elevated fuels across the project 

area the risk of wildfire would remain high. 

The likelihood of high intensity stand 

replacing wildfire is highest under this 

alternative. 

Risk of wildfire would be reduced on 

approximately 35 percent of the project area 

proposed for treatment. Due to the landscape 

level burning proposed, wildfire risk would also 

be reduced on lands interspersed with treated 

areas and this alternative would result in the 

lowest risk of stand replacing wildfire. 

Risk of wildfire would be reduced on 

approximately 27 percent of the project area 

proposed for treatment. Due to the landscape 

level burning proposed, wildfire risk would also 

be reduced on lands interspersed with treated 

areas. Wildfire risk would be reduced, but at a 

reduced level from that of alternative 2.

Lynx

Over the short term there would be little 

change in lynx habitat. As stands open up 

due to MPB mortality, conifer regeneration 

and foraging habitat would increase. 

Cover would remain high due to elevated 

levels of downed wood and continued 

development of the understory. Stands 

with little MBP mortality would remain 

closed and cover and forage would be 

slow to develop. Den and foraging habitat 

have been reduced on 28 percent of BL08 as a result of recent fires. Due to 

wildfire risk, the likelihood of a further 

reduction in cover/foraging habitat would 

remain high. Stand initiation occurs on 

1,971 acres, although it would continue to 

decline. Multi-storied foraging habitat 

would occur on 11,913 acres, and midseral habitat would occur on 16,445 acres. 

Winter use and snow compaction would 

be largely unchanged. 

Localized, short-term increases in disturbance 

would occur. There would be a 22 percent 

reduction in stand initiation habitat, a 1 percent 

reduction in multi-storied habitat and an 8 

percent reduction in mid-seral habitat. All winter 

foraging habitat proposed for treatment occurs 

in the CWPP WUI. While some foraging habitat 

would be retained on sites treated (unburned 

areas and riparian buffers), it would take 15 to 

20 years before foraging habitat is restored on 

these sites. There would be some increase in 

over snow activity at lower elevations in harvest 

sites, but use would largely stay on designated 

trails. Proposed actions would promote aspen 

and increase shrub and conifer diversity on 

5,824 acres of mapped lynx habitat, and 

increase long-term winter foraging habitat on 8 

percent of both BL-07 and 08. Connectivity and 

landscape-level habitat would be maintained. 

Risk of high intensity wildfire would be reduced. 

Proposed actions and anticipated effects are 

consistent with the NRMLD and BO. Multistoried critical habitat would be reduced by 117 

acres. 

Localized, short-term increases in disturbance 

would occur. There would be an 11 percent, 1 

percent and 6 percent reduction in stand 

initiation, multi-storied and mid-seral habitat 

respectively. All winter foraging habitat 

proposed for treatment occurs in the CWPP 

WUI. While some foraging habitat would be 

retained on sites treated (unburned areas and 

riparian buffers), it would take 15 to 20 years 

before foraging habitat is restored. There would 

be some increase in over snow activity at lower 

elevations in harvest sites, but use would 

largely stay on designated trails. Proposed 

actions would promote aspen and increase 

shrub and conifer diversity on 4,244 acres of 

mapped lynx habitat, and improve long-term 

winter foraging habitat on 6 percent and 7 

percent of BL-07 and BL-08 respectively. 

Connectivity and landscape level habitat would 

be maintained. Risk of high intensity wildfire 

would be reduced. Proposed actions and 

effects are consistent with the NRMLD and BO. 

Multi-storied critical habitat would be reduced 

by 94 acres. 

Wolf

No known den or rendezvous sites would 

be affected. Human access and potential 

impacts to wolves would be largely 

unchanged. Prey availability (deer and 

elk) and suitable den, rendezvous and 

foraging habitat would also be largely 

unchanged. While big game cover would 

increase, available forage would continue 

to decline. Risks of stand replacing 

wildfire are highest under this alternative. 

No known den or rendezvous sites would be 

affected. Disturbance to foraging wolves during 

implementation could occur, but would involve 

short-term disturbance during implementation. 

Big game populations and wolf foraging 

opportunities would be maintained in the short 

term and increased in the long term. The 

likelihood of stand replacing wildfire is lowest 

under this alternative. 

No known den or rendezvous sites would be 

affected. Disturbance to foraging wolves during 

implementation could occur, but would involve 

short-term disturbance during implementation. 

Big game populations and wolf foraging 

opportunities would be maintained in the short 

term and increased in the long term. The 

likelihood of stand replacing wildfire would be 

reduced across the landscape, but at a reduced 

level from that of alternative 2.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

322

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Grizzly

Core, security habitat, TMRD and OMRD 

would be unchanged. Human access and 

potential impacts to bear would be largely 

unchanged. Over the short term habitat 

would be unchanged, although it is 

expected that whitebark pine would 

continue to decline and there would be a 

long-term reduction across the landscape. 

Risks of high intensity wildfire and a large 

reduction in cover are highest under this 

alternative. 

Localized and short-term increases in human 

disturbance would occur during implementation. 

Human access would be largely unchanged. 

While no mortality is anticipated, short-term 

disturbance and displacement is possible during 

treatment. A total of 5,526 acres and 2,691 

acres of the Arrastra and Red Mountain subunits would be affected. Cover would be 

reduced on most of this acreage, although untreated areas would be maintained and 

interspersed within and adjacent to treatment 

units. Within modeled den habitat, 250acres 

would be reduced and 980 acres would be 

burned, although 94 percent of the existing den 

habitat would be retained and no high quality 

den habitat affected. Whitebark pine would be 

maintained in the short and long term on sites 

treated, and the likelihood of stand replacing 

wildfire is lowest under this alternative. Core 

and security habitat would be unchanged in 

both sub-units. Within Arrastra Mountain there 

would be a short-term increase (2.6 miles for up 

to 5 years) in total and open road density. There 

would be no change in TMRD or OMRD within 

the Red Mountain sub-unit.

Localized and short-term increases in human 

disturbance would occur during implementation. 

Human access would be largely unchanged. 

While no mortality is anticipated, short-term 

disturbance and displacement is possible during 

treatment. A total of 4,179 acres and 2,039

acres of the Arrastra and Red Mountain subunits would be affected. Cover would be 

reduced on this acreage, although un-treated 

areas would be maintained and interspersed 

within and adjacent to treatment units. Within 

modeled den habitat, 232 acres would be 

reduced and 937 acres would be burned, 

although 94 percent of the existing den habitat 

would be retained and no high quality den 

habitat would be affected. Whitebark pine would 

be maintained in the short and long term on 

sites treated, and the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire would be reduced. Core and 

security habitat would be unchanged in both 

sub-units. Within Arrastra Mountain there would 

be a short-term increase (0.4 miles for up to 5 

years) in total and open road density. There 

would be no change in TMRD or OMRD within 

the Red Mountain sub-unit.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

323

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wolverine

Human access, prey availability including 

big game (carrion) would be largely 

unchanged. Den habitat would be 

maintained or possibly improved due to 

increased levels of downed woody debris. 

Landscape level connectivity and 

travel/dispersal corridors would be 

maintained. Risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is highest under this alternative. 

Seven percent of the analysis area natal den 

habitat would be affected by burning. Because 

most sites are at lower elevations with reduced 

snow cover and due to the timing of burning, 

there are no anticipated impacts to denning 

animals. Suitable den habitat would be widely 

available within and adjacent to the analysis 

area. Short-term disturbance to foraging 

individuals could occur during treatment. Due to 

reductions in canopy cover and downed wood, 

suitable foraging habitat would be reduced on 

approximately 2,000 acres proposed for 

regeneration harvest and openings associated 

with mixed severity fire. Foraging habitat quality 

would be affected on another 6,500 acres that 

maintain a mature canopy but have reduced 

canopy and DWD. Landscape connectivity, 

travel corridors and prey/carrion availability 

would be maintained and the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire is lowest under this alternative 

Seven percent of the analysis area natal den 

habitat would be affected by burning. Because 

most sites are at lower elevations with reduced 

snow cover and due to the timing of burning, 

there are no anticipated impacts to denning 

animals. Suitable den habitat would be widely 

available within and adjacent to the analysis 

area. Short-term disturbance to foraging 

individuals could occur during treatment. Due to 

reductions in canopy cover and downed wood, 

suitable foraging habitat would be reduced on 

approximately 1,765 acres proposed for 

regeneration harvest and openings associated 

with mixed severity fire. Foraging habitat quality 

would be affected on another 4,800 acres that 

maintain a mature canopy but have reduced 

canopy and DWD. Landscape connectivity, 

travel corridors and prey/carrion availability 

would be maintained and the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire would be reduced.

Fisher

While there would likely be some future 

reduction in canopy cover, with increased 

levels of downed woody debris, suitable 

habitat would be largely maintained. 

Similarly, prey availability would not be 

expected to change, although risk of stand 

replacing wildfire is greatest under this 

alternative.

Human access would be largely unchanged. 

While no mortality is anticipated short-term 

disturbance to foraging individuals could occur 

and up to 2,171 acres of suitable habitat. Of 

this, suitable habitat would be reduced on 

approximately 367 acres of den/rest habitat and 

502 acres of foraging habitat. Approximately 88

percent of the existing suitable habitat would be 

maintained. Preferred riparian habitat and travel 

corridors as well as prey availability would be 

maintained and the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is lowest under this alternative. 

Human access would be largely unchanged. 

While no mortality is anticipated short-term 

disturbance to foraging individuals could occur 

and up to 1,459 acres of suitable habitat. Of 

this, suitable habitat would be reduced on 

approximately 290 acres of den/rest habitat and 

389 acres of foraging habitat. Approximately 91 

percent of the existing suitable habitat would be 

maintained. Preferred riparian habitat and travel 

corridors as well as prey availability would be 

maintained and the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire would be reduced under this alternative 

Townsend’s bigeared bat

Hibernacula, swarming and roost habitat 

would not be affected and foraging habitat 

would be largely unchanged. The risk of 

stand replacing wildfire is highest under 

this alternative.

Hibernacula, swarming and roost habitat would 

not be affected A total of 8,562 acres of suitable 

foraging habitat would be affected by treatment. 

No mortality is anticipated although short-term 

disturbance from smoke to foraging bats could 

occur. Available foraging habitat would be 

widespread and the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is lowest under this alternative. 

Hibernacula, swarming and roost habitat would 

not be affected. A total of 6,562 acres of 

suitable foraging habitat would be affected by 

treatment. No mortality is anticipated although 

short-term disturbance from smoke to foraging 

bats could occur. Available foraging habitat 

would be widespread and the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire is reduced under this 

alternative.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

324

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Bald Eagle

Nest, foraging and roost habitat would be 

largely unaffected. There are no 

anticipated impacts to the existing eagle 

nest, although the risk of wildfire is highest 

under this alternative.

With implementation of project design features, 

there are no direct effects to nesting birds or 

reproduction anticipated. Approximately 100 

acres of potentially suitable nest habitat would 

be reduced. Foraging habitat would not be 

treated, although short-term disturbance to 

foraging birds could occur. Untreated nest and 

foraging habitat would continue to be widely 

available. Risks of wildfire are lowest under this 

alternative.

With implementation of project design features, 

there are no direct effects to nesting birds or 

reproduction anticipated. Approximately 100

acres of potentially suitable nest habitat would 

be reduced. Foraging habitat would not be 

treated, although short-term disturbance to 

foraging birds could occur. Untreated nest and 

foraging habitat would continue to be widely 

available. Risks of wildfire would be reduced.

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Existing low quality habitat would be 

unchanged, although existing high quality 

habitat would continue to decline. 

Because the risk of wildfire is highest 

under this alternative, it is likely that 

suitable high quality burned habitat would 

continue to be available. Suitable BBW 

habitat would continue to be widely 

available across the Forest.

Because no high quality habitat would be 

affected, there is no mortality anticipated and 

the likelihood of disturbance is low. Low quality 

habitat affected by MPB mortality would be 

reduced on approximately 3,100 acres, 

whereas future high quality habitat would be 

created on approximately 1,200 acres due to 

high intensity burning. Existing high quality 

burned habitat would continue to decline and 

the likelihood that future high quality habitat 

would be created through wildfire would be 

reduced. Suitable BBW habitat would continue 

to be widely available across the Forest.

Because no high quality habitat would be 

affected, there is no mortality anticipated and 

the likelihood of disturbance is low. Low quality 

habitat affected by MPB mortality would be 

reduced on approximately 1,895 acres, 

whereas high quality habitat would be created 

on approximately 800 acres due to high 

intensity burning. Existing high quality burned 

habitat would continue to decline and the 

likelihood that future high quality habitat would 

be created through wildfire would be reduced. 

Suitable BBW habitat would continue to be 

widely available across the Forest.

Flammulated Owl

Because this species is strongly 

associated with open-canopy habitats, 

particularly in the dry forest BPS, suitable 

flammulated owl habitat would continue to 

decline under this alternative. While large 

diameter nest trees would increase in the 

short term, availability would decline over 

the long term. The likelihood of high 

intensity wildfire is greatest under this 

alternative. 

Due to this species infrequent occurrence and 

small amount of preferred habitat, the likelihood 

of mortality and disturbance is low. Suitable 

nest habitat would be reduced by approximately 

1 percent due to proposed regeneration 

harvest, whereas burning would provide 

preferred open-canopy foraging habitat on 45 

percent of the existing habitat. Additionally, owl 

habitat would be restored or created on almost 

4,200 acres or 31 percent of the dry forest 

community. Treatments would promote 

ponderosa pine and potential nest trees across 

the landscape and the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire is lowest under this 

alternative. 

Due to this species infrequent occurrence and 

small amount of preferred habitat, the likelihood 

of mortality and disturbance is low. Suitable 

nest habitat would be reduced by approximately 

1 percent due to proposed regeneration 

harvest, whereas burning would provide 

preferred open-canopy foraging habitat on 29 

percent of the existing habitat. Additionally, owl 

habitat would be restored or created on almost 

2,800 acres or 21 percent of the dry forest 

community. Treatments would promote 

ponderosa pine and potential nest trees across 

the landscape and reduce the likelihood of 

stand replacing wildfire. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

325

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Western Boreal 

Toad

Western boreal toads and their habitat 

would not be affected. The risk of stand 

replacing wildfire and a long-term 

reduction in breeding and upland habitat 

is highest under this alternative. 

Because breeding habitat would not be treated, 

and with implementation of project design 

features (SMZ zones), the likelihood of mortality 

is low and direct effects would involve largely 

short-term disturbance. Over 8,500 acres of 

upland habitat would be affected, although 

suitable habitat would continue to occur on sites 

treated and long-term foraging habitat would be 

improved. The likelihood of impacts to breeding 

and upland habitat from high severity wildfire 

are lowest under this alternative. 

Because breeding habitat would not be treated, 

and with implementation of project design 

features (SMZ zones), the likelihood of mortality 

is low and direct effects would involve largely 

short-term disturbance. Over 6,500 acres of 

upland habitat would be affected, although 

suitable habitat would continue to occur on sites 

treated and long-term foraging habitat would be 

improved. The likelihood of impacts to breeding 

and upland habitat from high severity wildfire 

would be reduced.

Northern Goshawk

Human access and disturbance to nesting 

and foraging birds would be largely 

unchanged. Existing old growth habitat 

would remain unchanged. Suitable nest 

habitat would increase, although 

landscape diversity associated with 

foraging and post-fledging habitat would 

be largely unchanged. Risk of stand 

replacing wildfire and a reduction in 

suitable nest habitat is highest under this 

alternative. 

With implementation of project design features, 

no direct effects to nesting birds or reproduction 

are anticipated. Short-term disturbance to 

foraging birds and fledged young during 

implementation is likely. Regeneration harvest 

and openings created by mixed severity fire 

would reduce nesting and foraging habitat by 

444 acres and 348 acres respectively. Over 92 

percent of the suitable nest and foraging habitat 

would be retained. Suitable nest, forage and 

PFA habitat would occur in all affected 

drainages and landscape conditions resulting 

from treatment are consistent with goshawk 

use. The risk of stand replacing wildfire and a 

reduction in suitable habitat is lowest under this 

alternative. 

With implementation of project design features, 

no direct effects to nesting birds or reproduction 

are anticipated. Short-term disturbance to 

foraging birds and fledged young during 

implementation is likely. Regeneration harvest 

and openings created by mixed severity fire 

would reduce nesting and foraging habitat by 

275 acres and 180 acres respectively. Over 95 

percent of the suitable nest and foraging habitat 

would be retained. Suitable nest, forage and 

PFA habitat would occur in all affected 

drainages and landscape conditions resulting 

from treatment are consistent with goshawk 

use. The risk of stand replacing wildfire and a 

reduction in suitable habitat would be reduced. 

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Old growth habitat would not be treated. 

Suitable large diameter snags for nesting 

would remain common for the next 10-20 

years. Due to reduced ponderosa pine 

regeneration and concentrated mortality of 

existing trees, f large diameter snags 

would be reduced in the future, although 

they would continue to be available.

Foraging habitat would increase due to 

continued insect and disease related 

mortality. The risk of stand replacing 

wildfire and a reduction in suitable habitat 

is highest under this alternative. 

Approximately 36 percent of the suitable habitat 

would be affected by treatment and 

disturbance/mortality is possible, although risk 

of mortality is reduced with implementation of 

project design features. A long-term reduction in 

habitat would occur on 540 acres, whereas the 

quality of suitable habitat would be reduced for 

10 to 20 years on 2,666 acres. Over the long 

term restoration of open grown ponderosa pine 

and western larch may improve habitat on 

5,700 acres and the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire Is lowest under this alternative.

Approximately 28 percent of the suitable habitat 

would be affected by treatment and 

disturbance/mortality is possible, although risk 

of mortality is reduced with implementation of 

project design features. A long-term reduction in 

habitat would occur on 200 acres, whereas the 

quality of suitable habitat would be reduced for 

10 to 20 years on 1,920 acres. Over the long 

term restoration of open grown ponderosa pine 

and western larch may improve habitat on 

4,500 acres and the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire Is reduced under this alternative.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

326

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Hairy Woodpecker

Suitable snags and nesting and foraging 

habitat would be maintained and continue 

to be widely available. 

Effects are expected to be similar to those 

described under pileated woodpecker. 

Effects are expected to be similar to those 

described under pileated woodpecker

American Marten

Suitable closed-canopy habitat has been 

greatly reduced due to MPB mortality and 

existing habitat would be maintained. The 

risk of stand replacing wildfire is highest 

under this alternative. 

While mortality or disturbance are possible, 

because marten are largely restricted to upper 

elevations and deep snow (i.e. lands not 

proposed for treatment) and because 

widespread canopy reduction has reduced 

habitat suitability and likely use of the area, the 

likelihood of mortality is low. Suitable habitat 

would be reduced by 459 acres (7 percent) due 

to regeneration harvest and mixed severity 

openings. Also due to structural changes 

(canopy/dead wood), there would be a 15- to 

20-year reduction in habitat quality on 1,731 

acres. Treatments would improve species and 

landscape diversity, and maintain 93 percent of 

the suitable habitat over the long-term. Also the 

risk of stand replacing wildfire is lowest under 

this alternative. 

While mortality or disturbance are possible, 

because marten are largely restricted to upper 

elevations and deep snow (i.e. lands not 

proposed for treatment) and because 

widespread canopy reduction has reduced 

habitat suitability and likely use of the area, the 

likelihood or mortality is low. Suitable habitat 

would be reduced by 283 acres (4 percent) due 

to regeneration harvest and mixed severity 

openings. Also due to structural changes 

(canopy/dead wood), there would be a 15- to 

20-year reduction in habitat quality on 1,088 

acres. Treatments would improve species and 

landscape diversity, and maintain 96 percent of 

the suitable habitat over the long term. The risk 

of stand replacing wildfire is reduced under this 

alternative.

Elk 

Hunter access and hunting/non-hunting 

mortality would be unchanged. No change 

in open road density, elk security or 

habitat effectiveness would occur, 

although neither herd unit would comply 

with Plan standard 4a. Hiding cover would 

be provided on 55 percent (17,701 acres) 

and 35 percent (15,725 acres) of the 

Beaver Cr. and Keep Cool herd units 

respectively. Compliance with Plan 

standard 3a would occur on Beaver Cr, 

whereas Keep Cool would continue to fall 

below the Plan threshold. Winter range 

thermal cover would be provided on 

approximately 5 percent (938 acres) of the 

BC unit, and 4 percent (527 acres) of the 

KC unit. Both units would continue to fall 

below Plan thresholds. Continuing MPB 

mortality would reduce hiding and thermal 

cover in some areas. Forage would 

remain low, hardwood & shrub diversity 

would continue to decline, and herd 

No change in open road density or elk security 

would occur, although neither herd unit would 

comply with Plan standard 4a. There would be 

a short-term (<5 years) increase in 

administrative road density (2.6 miles) within 

the Beaver Creek unit, but habitat effectiveness 

recommendations would be maintained. Shortterm increases in hunter related mortality may 

occur, but no long-term hunting/non-hunting 

mortality is anticipated. Hiding cover would be 

provided on 46 percent (14,826 acres) and 34 

percent (14,994 acres) of the Beaver Cr. and 

Keep Cool Cr. units respectively. Neither herd 

unit would comply with hiding cover 

requirements in Plan standard 3. Winter range 

thermal cover would be provided on 

approximately 4 percent of the BC (754 acres) 

and KC (501acres) herd units, and both units 

would continue to fall below Plan thresholds

(Plan standard 3). Forage would be increased 

on 5,863 acres and 2,700 acres of the BC and 

KC units respectively and herd health would be 

No change in open road density or elk security 

would occur, although neither herd unit would 

comply with Plan standard 4a. There would be 

a short-term (<5 years) increase in 

administrative road density (0.4 miles) within 

the Beaver Creek unit but habitat effectiveness 

recommendations would be maintained. Shortterm increases in hunter related mortality may 

occur, but no long-term hunting/non-hunting 

mortality is anticipated. Hiding cover would be 

provided on 49 percent (16,034 acres) and 34 

percent (15,237 acres) of the Beaver Cr. and 

Keep Cool Cr. units respectively. Neither herd 

unit would comply with hiding cover 

requirements in Plan standard 3. Winter range 

thermal cover would be provided on

approximately 4 percent of the BC (754 acres) 

and KC (508 acres) herd units, and both units 

would continue to fall below Plan thresholds

(Plan standard 3). Forage would be increased 

on over 4,500 acres and 2040 acres of the BC 

and KC units respectively and herd health 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

327

BPS/Habitat/Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

numbers would be largely unchanged. 

Effects of predation would be largely 

unchanged. The risk of a long-term 

reduction in cover from wildfire is highest 

under this alternative. 

maintained in the short term and improved over 

the long term. Effects of predation would be 

largely unchanged. The risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is lowest under this alternative. 

would be maintained in the short term and 

improved over the long term. Effects of 

predation would be largely unchanged. The risk 

of stand replacing wildfire is reduced under this 

alternative.

Mule Deer

Hunter access would be largely 

unchanged. Hiding and winter range 

thermal cover would be reduced in areas 

with MPB mortality and unchanged over 

much of the project area. Forage would 

remain low and hardwood/shrub diversity 

would continue to decline. Herd health is 

not expected to change. The risk of 

wildfire is highest under this alternative. 

Short-term and localized increase in hunter 

access would occur, although no long-term 

changes in hunter access is anticipated. Hiding 

cover would be reduced by approximately 3,395 

acres, and winter range thermal cover would be 

reduced by 92 acres. Forage on summer, winter 

and transition range would be increased on 

over 7,000 acres. Shrub, hardwood and 

landscape diversity would be improved. Herd 

health would be maintained in the short term 

and increase in the long term. The risk of stand 

replacing wildfire would be lowest under this 

alternative. 

Short-term and localized increase in hunter 

access may occur. No long-term changes in 

hunter access. Hiding cover would be reduced 

by 2,029 acres and winter range thermal cover 

would be reduced by 78 acres. Forage on 

summer, winter and transition habitat would be 

increased on over 5,000 acres. Shrub, 

hardwood and landscape diversity would be 

improved. Herd numbers are expected to 

increase in the long term due to increased 

forage. The risk of stand replacing wildfire 

would be reduced under this alternative. 

Migratory Birds

While overstory cover would decline in 

some areas due to continued MPB 

mortality, understory cover would continue 

to increase. Migratory bird habitat would 

remain largely unchanged. This 

alternative complies with the MBTA.

Proposed treatments would alter overstory and 

understory conditions on approximately 7,000 

acres. Migratory bird habitat, including habitat 

for bird species of conservation concern, would 

be maintained across the landscape and 

declining habitats would be increased over the 

long term. Project design features are in place 

to maintain migratory bird habitat and reduce 

potential mortality. This alternative complies 

with the MBTA.

Proposed treatments would alter overstory and 

understory conditions on approximately 5,000 

acres. Migratory bird habitat, including habitat 

for bird species of conservation concern, would 

be maintained across the landscape and 

declining habitats would be increased over the 

long term. Project design features are in place 

to maintain migratory bird habitat and reduce 

potential mortality. This alternative complies 

with the MBTA.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

328

Alternative 1 (No Action)

There would be no direct effects to wildlife because there are no treatments proposed under this 

alternative. Forested communities that largely developed with long fire-return intervals and the wildlife 

species characteristic of these communities would be largely unchanged. 

Many project area forest communities historically developed with short fire-return intervals (see section 

3.1). Anticipated indirect effects under this alternative include continued shifts in species composition and 

diversity within these communities. For example, understory conditions including conifer encroachment 

and increased abundance of shade-tolerant species have increased across the project area. In the absence 

of large-scale disturbance, these understory conditions would continue to increase. Effects on wildlife 

include increased habitat for species that prefer closed-canopy forest conditions and for species that prefer 

understories dominated by regenerating conifer. Conversely, there would be continued reduction in the 

open understory conditions that characterize fire dependent communities (e.g., ponderosa pine), and 

continued decline in suitable habitat for species that prefer or require open, forested stands with an 

herbaceous and shrub understory. Similarly, due to continued reductions in aspen and whitebark pine, 

available habitat for species that prefer or require these communities would continue to decline.

Due to the shifts in fire and fire-tolerant species, as well as increased stand density, stands would be more 

susceptible to insect and disease-related mortality under this alternative. As a result, there would continue 

to be an increase in snags and down woody debris (DWD) and habitat for species that prefer or require 

these components. However due to the anticipated reduction in ponderosa pine, over the long term the 

availability of large-diameter trees and snags would be reduced.

As described under the affected environment, due to years of fire suppression and past harvest, much of 

the project area currently contains dense forested stands that are relatively continuous across the 

landscape. As a result and considering fuels have further increased due to MPB mortality, the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire is highest under this alternative. 

Potential effects of invasive weeds on wildlife are discussed in the Forest Weed Treatment FEIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2006c), whereas the likelihood of increased spread within the project area are discussed in 

the project weed report (USDA Forest Service 20011d). Without control it is expected that existing 

infestations would increase by approximately 14 percent per year. However with implementation of 

biological and chemical control, this increase would be reduced and is expected to be largely contained. 

Stand replacing wildfires are known to increase the risk of invasion and spread of invasive species 

(D’Antonia 2000). As a result and considering that the risk of high intensity wildfire is greatest under this 

alternative, it is expected that invasive weeds would increase in the event of a wildfire. The effect on 

wildlife would vary depending on the acres affected and access (i.e. for control), but there would likely be 

a localized decrease in cover and forage as a result. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (Action Alternatives)

Direct and indirect effects of treatments are discussed by group and include species composition and 

structure changes, as well as potential direct and indirect effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Potential 

effects from timber harvest are discussed under Groups 1 through 5. However, because some burning is 

proposed within all groups and because effects vary depending on the type of burning proposed (e.g., low 

intensity vs. mixed severity), effects of burning are discussed by burning type. Also effect of roads and 

road management are discussed separately. The habitat and species-specific effects discussed in sections 

4.5 and 4.6 are based largely on the treatment effects discussed here. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

329

Effects by Treatment Group

Group 1(Intermediate Harvest) – Proposed harvest treatments would thin live trees and remove dead 

trees. All thinning would be from below and would favor trees of desired species. Trees would be thinned 

to an average spacing of 20 to 40 feet and 25 to 40 percent canopy cover would be maintained. Snags and 

5-20 tons per acre of DWD including large diameter logs would be retained. 

While canopy closure would be reduced, mature forest conditions would continue to predominate on all 

sites receiving treatment and connectivity would not be reduced. Although the residual crown closure and 

composition of material removed would vary somewhat by site and forest type. 

Treatment would alter stand structure and understory conditions by removing primarily small and medium 

diameter trees and increasing light levels to the forest floor. This results in a short-term decrease in cover 

and an increase in the establishment of understory vegetation. While increases in herbaceous vegetation 

would occur immediately following treatment, increased availability of woody vegetation would take 5-

15 years.

Direct effects to wildlife from these harvest treatments are generally short term (less than 1 year) and may 

involve some direct mortality of some less mobile species during logging. Cutting may also result in 

avoidance of the site by some species sensitive to disturbance, while other species would be attracted to 

the site because of the increased slash and associated cover or the increased forage that would be 

available on the site (generally within 2 years of treatment). 

Over the long term (greater than 10 years) as the woody understory develops, treatment would create 

more diverse stand conditions with continued increases in both forage and cover. While mature forest 

species in the Rocky Mountains are generally less affected by partial harvest than regeneration harvest 

(Hejl 2011) (described below), a shift in species use following harvest can be expected, with benefits to 

ground foraging birds and small mammals and decreased use of some canopy and bole foraging species 

(Raphael et al. 1988 in Hejl 2011), (Salabanks and Arnett 2002, USDA Forest Service 2006b). Potential 

effects to reptiles and amphibians would also vary, and because few reptiles occupy closed-canopy forests 

in the western United States (with the exception of the rubber boa), potential impacts to this group would 

be expected to be low and short term. Conversely, because reducing canopy cover would result in warmer 

and drier conditions, potential impacts to amphibians would be greater including some reduction in 

diversity and abundance (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Due to increased structural diversity on these 

sites, amphibian diversity and abundance is expected to be maintained over the long term. 

Dead trees would be removed, so impacts to species requiring snags can be expected (Salabanks and 

Arnett 2002; Hejl 2011). Project design features that retain snags greater than 20 inches, as well as a 

component of small-diameter snags and snag recruitment trees would reduce impacts to these species and 

help to maintain suitable habitat on the treated site. Forest Plan snag requirements would be met or 

exceeded on all sites. Treatments would result in improved stand structure and diversity over the long 

term; it is expected that the diversity of snag and downed wood dependent species would be maintained 

or improved (USDA Forest Service 2006b). 

Following harvest, units would be underburned to promote ponderosa pine, early and fire tolerant species 

or jackpot burned to reduce fuels. Also periodic low-intensity fire would be used to maintain stand 

resistance to fire and insects (described in the following section Burn Treatment Effects)

Collectively, treatments would initiate restoration of open stands dominated by mature Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine. Stands would be more resistant to wildfires and insect activity reducing potential for high 

intensity and high severity wildfires (USDA Forest Service 2012b) and insect epidemics. Treatment 

would promote development of future large diameter trees and snags. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

330

Group 2 (Intermediate Harvest) – Precommercial thinning treatments would thin small diameter trees 

to a spacing of 12 to 20 feet and would be completed by hand or machine, depending on tree size. Target 

canopy closure would be 25 to 40 percent, and like Group 1 harvest, with implementation of PDFs a 

minimum of 5-20 tons per acre DWD, and large-diameter DWD and snags would be retained following 

treatment. Because moderate to closed canopy conditions would be maintained, connectivity would not be 

reduced. 

Direct effects to wildlife would be similar to Group 1 and involve short-term behavioral avoidance of the 

site and some direct mortality to less mobile species. Like group 1, treatment involves modifying the 

overstory stand structure by opening up the canopy and increasing light to the forest floor. As a result, 

treatment would increase herbaceous and woody vegetation on the forest floor and increase understory 

diversity on the site. While there would be an immediate (1-2 years) increase in herbaceous species, 

increases in woody vegetation would take longer (5-10 years). Conversely, there would be a decrease in 

cover until woody understory vegetation is established on the site (10 to 15 years). As a result, effects 

include a reduction in habitat, decreased abundance of some mature forest species and improved habitat 

conditions for early seral and ground foraging species. Over the long term, treatments would result in a 

more diverse stands with increased levels of foraging and cover throughout the site. 

Slash would be piled and burned in some units; effects are described in the Burn Treatment Effects 

section below.

Treatment would improve the health and vigor of remaining trees and increase resistance to insects and 

disease. Treatment would also promote the growth of large fire resistant trees and over the long term, 

would promote restoration of open stands of mature Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and western larch. 

Group 3 (Regeneration Harvest) - Treatments include seedtree and shelterwood regeneration harvest. 

This treatment differs from Group 1 and Group 2 in that most of the live, and many of the dead trees 

would be removed, although seed and reserve trees would be retained. In some shelterwoods trees would 

be retained in groups, whereas in other units the remaining trees would be evenly distributed. Ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir and western larch would be planted where necessary to regenerate the stands to the 

desired seral and fire resistant species. 

Because most of the existing canopy would be reduced, contiguous blocks of mature forest habitat would 

be reduced. However proposed regeneration harvest is not proposed in areas of remote habitat (e.g. elk 

security or grizzly bear core) and these areas would be maintained. Also these treatments are only 

proposed in areas with concentrated mortality that are already having their canopy reduced. Consequently 

potential impacts to connectivity would be reduced and existing travel, migration and dispersal corridors 

by species that prefer closed canopy conditions would be largely unchanged. 

As with Groups 1 and 2, effects include some direct mortality to less mobile species and avoidance by 

species that are sensitive to disturbance. While intermediate harvest treatments (Groups 1 and 2) result in 

relatively minor changes in wildlife use, regeneration treatments can result in a much more dramatic 

change and some mature forest wildlife may be displaced for over 50 years, until a predominantly mature 

canopy is re-established. Species diversity and abundance can be expected to change (Salabanks and 

Arnett 2002). The reduction in overstory trees results in an increase in herbaceous vegetation, shrubs and 

tree seedlings, which provides habitat for many early seral species, as well as species that utilize a 

combination of early successional and mature forest. 

Wildlife use of the site following treatment also varies over time. For example habitat for species that 

utilize herbaceous vegetation would be improved immediately following treatment, whereas it would take 

up to 15 years for woody vegetation (seedlings and shrubs) to develop on the site. So while the wildlife 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

331

community would shift to primarily early seral species immediately following treatment, many mature 

forest species such as elk would continue to use the sites due to the large quantities of forage and low 

growing cover created. As the canopy closes (30-40 years), early seral species would be replaced by midseral species and over the long term, wildlife diversity and abundance would be improved on the site due 

to improved species and structural diversity. 

Many of the units would be burned following harvest to reduce fuels and prepare the site for natural 

regeneration or planting. Natural regeneration in combination with species diversity planting would 

increase dominance by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and western larch. Over the long term treatment 

would promote development of a multi-storied stand that is dominated by fire resistant species, but also 

contains a minor Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir component that is more resilient to wildfire and 

insect activity.

Group 4 (Regeneration Harvest) – Treatments include a clearcut harvest in which all trees would be 

removed except for scattered clumps or individual trees and trees necessary to meet resource needs (e.g., 

snags and DWD to meet wildlife and soil objectives). Following harvest, units would be burned to reduce 

fuels and promote natural regeneration. Sites are expected to naturally regenerate, although some planting 

of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and western larch may be done. 

In the short term, units would naturally regenerate to single-storied stands of predominantly lodgepole 

pine with some Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine regeneration and remnant large- diameter trees. Over the 

long term, treatment (including supplemental planting) would promote a more diverse insect and fire 

resistant stand that is predominantly lodgepole pine, but contains large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and 

western larch component in the overstory. Changes to connectivity would be the same as those described 

under Group 3. 

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be similar to those of Group 3 and the resulting stand 

conditions would be maintained by periodic low intensity fire described in the Burn Treatment Effects 

section below. 

Group 5 (Intermediate Harvest) – Treatment includes a sanitation salvage harvest that would remove 

dead and dying trees. Trees would be removed using ground based equipment. Slash would be reduced by 

hand piling and burning. While there would be little change in overstory stand conditions, effects of 

treatment include a reduction in ladder and surface fuels and understory vegetation. 

Because 40 to 60 percent canopy cover would be maintained on all sites and with implementation of 

PDFs to retain snags and downed woody debris, effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be similar 

to those described under Group 1. 

Slash would be piled and burned in some units; effects are described in the Burn Treatment Effects 

section below.

Group 6 (Prescribed Burn) – Treatment involves cutting small trees on portions of the treatment units to 

create fuel beds conducive to low intensity burning. The prescribed burning would create openings less 

than 5 or 10 acres in size, with opening size varying by unit. Units would be prescribed burned to reduce 

fuels, kill small-diameter undesirable trees and prepare sites for natural regeneration. Prior to burning, all 

units would be assessed to identify existing whitebark pine regeneration that needs to be protected during 

burning, and existing aspen clones would be released by cutting conifers within and around the clone. 

Herbaceous vegetation would increase within the second year of treatment and continue to provide 

increased levels of forage for up to 30 years. Within 5 years woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) would 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

332

start to become established on the site. Tree regeneration would establish in the openings and other areas 

of low stocking, with increases in Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, whitebark pine and western larch. Over 

the long term, stands would be characterized by more complex, multi-stored conditions with a variety of 

age classes, and would be more resilient to wildfire and insects.

Overall, burning would occur in a patchy mosaic and approximately 20 percent of the site being 

unaffected, 25 percent of the site would appear as fire-created openings, and approximately 55 percent of 

the site would be underburned. 

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are discussed in the Burn Treatment Effects section below. 

Groups 7 and 8 (Prescribed Burn) – Treatments include cutting small trees on portions of the site to 

create fuelbeds conducive to low intensity burning. Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut 

to create small openings around whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir to promote 

regeneration. Units would be burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees and 

prepare the sites for natural regeneration. Treatments would create patches of mortality of 5, 10 or 20 

acres in Group 7 units and 30 to 75 acres within Group 8 units. Like Group 6, all units would be assessed 

prior to burning to identify existing whitebark pine regeneration that needs to be protected during burning. 

Pre-burn treatments that would be implemented to promote whitebark pine include cutting and direction 

felling of conifer trees to increase fuel loading, improve the continuity of the fuelbed and reduce fuel 

loads around whitebark pine trees. These treatments would also be used to establish 1- to 5-acre areas that 

can be established as nutcracker caching sites. Like Group 6, suppressed conifers would be removed 

around existing aspen. 

Effects would be similar to those described under Group 6, however, because of the larger canopy gaps 

created by more intense burning conditions, shade intolerant and fire tolerant species would increase, with 

the greatest increase occurring under Group 8. Also horizontal structure and age class diversity would 

increase due to the larger openings and pockets of understory regeneration created. 

Approximately 25 percent of the site would be unburned within both group 7 and 8 units. Also within 

group 7 units approximately 20 percent would occur in openings 5 to 20 acres in size and 45 to 50 percent 

would receive a low intensity burn. Within group 8 units approximately 30 percent of the site would be in 

fire created openings of between 30 and 75 acres and 40 to 45 percent of the site would be underburned 

with low intensity fire. Effects on wildlife are discussed below under burn treatments. 

Group 9 (Prescribed Burn) – This treatment is only proposed under alternative 3 and involves 

prescribed burning using low intensity fire to reduce fuels on the site following harvest. Effects are 

similar to those described under Group 6. 

Group 10 (Intermediate Harvest mix with no harvest and Jackpot/pile burning) – This treatment is 

only proposed under alternative 3 and involves patches of thinning while maintaining canopy closure and 

burning piles to reduce fuels on the site following harvest. Effects are similar to those described under 

Group 1. 

Effects on wildlife are discussed in the Burn Treatment Effects section below. 

Burn Treatment Effects

This section summarizes effects of proposed burning under each of the action alternatives including low 

severity/underburning, mixed severity (MS) burning and pile/jackpot burning. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

333

Low Severity Fire, Site Preparation Burn, Broadcast Burn and Underburning

In order to ensure that desired burning conditions are met, all areas would be burned when weather 

conditions provide for safe ignition. A prescribed burn plan and all required documentation in accordance 

with USDA Forest Service, Region 1 or Helena National Forest standards must be completed and 

approved prior to implementation. These actions would ensure that burning conditions would be 

controlled and adequate smoke dispersal would occur. Additionally, prior to treatment Forest Service 

personnel would survey the site and identify firing patterns and retention areas expected to achieve 

objectives, including protection of riparian areas, shrub communities and unique or uncommon habitats. 

Collectively these actions would help to ensure that fire-related effects are consistent with those 

anticipated. 

Burning would take place in the spring (April-June) or fall (August-November), as long as required fuel, 

moisture and weather conditions are present. Once ignited, the burn moves through the project area driven 

by wind and terrain. Flame lengths should range from a few inches to 3 feet in height, consuming litter, 

grass, forbs and smaller fuels. 

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are determined by a number of factors including the burning 

intensity, as well as site-level fuels, topography and moisture conditions. This burn intensity is expected 

to consume the litter, fine fuels and small diameter trees and shrubs less than 5 inches in diameter 

(Bowles et al. 2007); it generally would not be hot enough to scorch the soil or result in mortality of 

overstory trees on most of the area burned. There would be small areas that contain higher fuel levels 

and/or site conditions that create more intense burning conditions. In these areas, some overstory 

mortality may occur; however, any mortality would be widely scattered and consist of small canopy gaps.

Burning intensity would not be uniform and treatment areas would have a mosaic of burned and unburned 

lands due to variations in site conditions. On average and based on past treatments, it is estimated that 

approximately 75 to 80 percent of the treatment area would be burned, with fingers and pockets of 

unburned areas occurring on approximately 20 to 25 percent of the unit. The amount and uniformity of 

burning would vary by forest type and topographic position. For example, south-facing slopes, plateau 

tops and drier forest types would likely experience a higher percentage of burned area. Burning intensity 

would be reduced in riparian areas, on northern exposures and within portions of units containing more 

mesic sites due to higher moisture conditions and lower slope position. 

After ignition operations are completed and the prescribed burn has adequate time to move through the 

unit, mop-up operations extinguish those areas that are still burning. Mop-up usually involves putting out 

burning or smoldering vegetation such as tree stumps, snags or downed logs. Mop-up does not occur 

unless the source is likely to cause the fire to spread outside of the control lines. Control is accomplished 

with water spray and/or hand tools, although it may also include falling burning snags that would drop 

outside the fire line.

Direct Effects

Approximately 64 percent and 73 percent of the project area would not be treated under alternatives 2 and 

3 respectively, and there would be no direct effects on those areas. The following is a discussion of 

potential direct effects on the acres proposed for treatment. 

Proposed burning is expected to have some direct effects on wildlife inhabiting the site at the time of 

treatment, although this would vary depending on time of burn and fuel conditions, proximity to breeding 

habitat and species. For example, fall burns burn hotter, increasing the likelihood of mortality. However 

while some animals may be killed during burning, behavioral avoidance of wildlife by fire is well 

documented and large mobile mammals, adult birds and even small less mobile species (e.g., frogs and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

334

toads) are capable of either moving quickly to unburned refugia, or seeking out refugia in burrows and 

crevices (Kennedy and Fontaine 2009; Russell et al. 1999; Smith 2000; Yager et al. 2007). Potential direct 

impacts to riparian areas, as well as impacts to amphibian breeding habitat would be reduced with 

implementation of PDFs, streamside management zones, and considering that burned areas would be 

interspersed with unburned lands. 

Most undesirable direct effects are overcome by choosing proper times, places and methods of prescribed 

burning. For example, because burning would occur largely outside the breeding season, potential for 

direct mortality is reduced (Bagne and Purcell 2008). Natural and human-ignited fire has historically been 

a part of Montana landscapes (Amacher et al. 2008) and many forest species have evolved with the 

presence of fire. Consequently, when mortality does occur, it is usually negligible at the population level 

(Lyon et al. 1978) and is not expected to adversely affect local populations for any species. 

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in vegetative conditions on the 

affected sites at both the stand and landscape level (Kennedy and Fontane 2009). Generally, burning 

would result in a reduction in shrubs and woody material and an increase in herbaceous vegetation 

(Bowles et.al. 2007; USDA Forest Service 2006b). In the short term this is expected to improve habitat 

for species that prefer or require forested habitat with a grass/forb understory, and decrease habitat for 

species that utilize understory shrubs or low cover provided by small- diameter woody vegetation. 

Burning intensity would vary and most treatment areas are expected to have a mosaic of understory 

conditions. These changes vary over time and Metlen and Fiedler (2006) found that while burning 

initially reduced cover and richness of the understory, by year 3, understory richness increased when 

compared to the pre-treatment and control. While there would be a reduction in DWD on the site, 

between 5 and 20 tons of DWD would be maintained. As a result, all sites would continue to meet or 

exceed Forest Plan guidelines for standing and downed woody debris, and suitable habitat for all species 

that currently use the site would continue to be available following treatment. 

Burning would modify understory conditions on up to 80 percent of the site, so there would be shifts in 

species diversity and abundance immediately following treatment. Changes in understory would vary 

over time. For example, small mammals that need high shrub cover to avoid predators may do poorly the 

first few years following treatment, whereas their numbers would be expected to exceed pre-treatment 

population levels when shrubs recover and forage (herbaceous vegetation and mast) increases (USDA 

Forest Service 2006b). So while impacts would affect species that prefer closed-canopy mature forest and 

utilize DWD and woody vegetation removed during burning, effects are expected to be short term. 

Considering that structural complexity and heterogeneity may be improved on the site (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b) and that the treated stand may be more resistant to wildfire and insects and disease, over 

the long term, habitat conditions and wildlife diversity and abundance would be improved both within the 

unit and across the landscape. 

Mixed Severity Fire

Like low-severity fire, a prescribed burn plan would be completed prior to implementation. Since mixed 

severity burning is complex, Forest Service personnel would identify firing and holding patterns to 

achieve objectives, including protection of sensitive or unique communities/features. So like low severity 

burning, these actions would ensure that mixed-severity fire effects are consistent with those anticipated. 

Burning and mop up processes and conditions described under low severity burning would be similar. 

Treatment consists of low intensity burning that consumes herbaceous vegetation and small diameter 

woody vegetation as well as in pockets of more intense burning (resulting from fuels created in the preburn treatments) where much of the overstory is killed. Low intensity burning would occur on 50 to 55 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

335

percent of the site, whereas mixed severity burning would result in overstory mortality on between 

approximately 10 percent (Group 6), 20 percent (Group 7) and 30 percent (Group 8) of the unit. 

Approximately 20 to 25 percent of the site would be unburned, and based on effects of past treatment, 

unburned areas are expected to be dispersed across the site, as well as in riparian areas.

Direct Effects

Direct effects to wildlife resulting from mixed-severity burning would be similar to those described under 

low-severity burning, except that due to increased burning intensity in portions of the unit, the likelihood 

of mortality is greater. Mortality is expected to be low and is not expected to adversely affect local 

populations for any species since at least 70 percent of the site would be unburned or lightly burned. 

Indirect Effects

Burning stimulates re-growth of vegetation and effects include enhancement of herbaceous vegetation on 

the area burned, as well as development of grasses, forbs, seedlings and shrubs within the canopy gaps 

created. Vegetative conditions post burning would be more diverse with small pockets of regenerating 

forest or herbaceous vegetation imbedded within the larger forested landscape. Over the long term the 

resulting forest communities would be more diverse and more resistant to stand replacing wildfire due to 

the development of fire-tolerant trees (e.g., ponderosa and whitebark pine) and shrubs as well as early 

seral species (e.g., aspen).

Mixed severity burning promotes both early and late-successional habitat conditions that Halofsky et al. 

(2011) suggest can provide a unique vegetation and wildlife response. The critical habitat feature of 

mixed severity fire regimes affecting wildlife habitat is the mosaic of vegetation created, as well as the 

dynamic nature of that mosaic over time and space (Agee 1998 in Lehmkuhl et al. 2006). For example, 

low severity fires typically result in mature single-storied stands dominated by fire-resistant species. On 

mesic sites, understories can have a high component of fire-adapted shrubs. Moderate severity fires 

typically result in patchy mixed-age stands dominated mostly by large trees of fire-resistant species with a 

diverse understory. Consequently, the proposed burning is expected to promote more diverse habitat 

conditions. 

While burning would decrease DWD, the dynamics following a mixed severity burn are complex, with 

consumption of debris on the forest floor compensated by the creation of snags and patches of higher 

severity burning (Agee 2002). Also on average, woody debris appears relatively abundant in mixed 

severity vegetation types, although availability varies over time (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004), with high quality 

snags available for cavity nesting species (Bull et al. 1997). Also, although the availability of DWD 

fluctuates more than that of low severity fire, it contains elevated and relatively uniform levels of DWD, 

when compared to low intensity burning (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004). 

Wildlife use of a site varies and species in early seral to mid-seral patches can vary depending on the size 

of the patch, seed source availability, or vegetative regeneration. Generally, the larger the patch, the 

greater the dominance of early seral tree species, and the proportion of species breeding in early seral 

stages tend to increase with increasing fire size and intensity (Lehmkuhl et al. 2004). As a result, sites 

receiving a Group 8 treatment (30- to75-acre openings) would provide more habitat for species that utilize 

a mixture of early and mid- to late-seral habitat, whereas sites receiving a Group 6 treatment (less than 10 

acres) would be favored by species that prefer a mid- to late-seral habitat, but also utilize the structure 

provided by small early-successional forest. Due to the development of small to medium-sized openings, 

Group 7 treatment would likely provide habitat for a diverse group of species including early 

successional, mature and late seral species. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

336

In their evaluation of fire severity and patch size on bird species response, Saab and Powell 2005, found 

that unburned areas in close proximity to burned areas were needed to serve species dependent upon live 

woody vegetation, especially foliage gleaners. While some species were more abundant in unburned sites 

(golden crowned kinglet, mountain chickadee, hermit thrush) and some species more abundant in burned 

sites (black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, three-toed woodpecker, mountain bluebird), a 

mixture of burned and unburned forest provides habitat for a wide variety of species. Some species that 

frequently nest in large dead trees but forage in live trees for seeds such as the white-headed woodpecker 

benefit from the mosaic of live and dead trees created by low and mixed severity fires (Saab and Powell 

2005). Conversely, habitat for species that prefer or require closed-canopy mature forest conditions would 

be reduced on the areas that are intensively burned, due to the overstory mortality. 

While proposed mixed severity burning would create openings within existing forest, 20 to 25 percent of 

the burn unit would be unaffected and existing canopy conditions would be maintained on another 50 to 

55 percent. As a result forest habitat would not be isolated due to creation of the openings and 

connectivity would be maintained. Also treatments would create landscape conditions characteristic of 

and within the range of historic conditions. 

Low and Mixed Severity Burning Summary

Effects of proposed broadcast burning (low and mixed severity fire) on wildlife habitat vary by forest 

community (e.g., lodgepole, mixed conifer and ponderosa pine), as well as by fire return interval (Saab 

and Powell 2005). Many western conifer forests were historically affected by frequent, low to mixed 

severity fires (Amacher et al. 2008), therefore, native species are adapted to historical fire regimes and the 

resulting habitats (Saab and Powell 2005). Most effects are expected to be short term considering that 

prescribed burning often maintains or restores the composition and structure of naturally fire dependent 

vegetation. Fire management that includes a broad range of variability, including areas of more severe 

fire, are more likely to preserve a broad range of wildlife habitat than restoration with narrowly defined 

historic fire regimes (Allen et al. 2002 in USDA Forest Service 2006b; Fulé et al. 2004, Kaufman 2004, 

Kotliar et al. 2007, Noss et al. 2006, Schoennagle et al. 2004 in Kennedy and Fontaine 2009). 

Collectively, implementation of the proposed burning, combined with the widespread availability of 

untreated habitat (greater than 64 percent of the project area and 20 percent of each treatment unit), is 

expected to result in a more diverse landscape that provides habitat for all species that currently use the 

project area, as well as improve habitat for species that prefer or require declining fire dependent 

communities. 

Pile and Burn and Jackpot Burning

This activity involves piling harvest-generated fuels, natural fuels, brush, and heavy accumulations of 

litter with mechanize equipment such as a tractor-mounted brush rake or a grapple or by hand. Burning 

usually occurs in the winter when fire danger is low. On some sites burning is allowed to creep away from 

piles allowing for a small scale underburn. This treatment would also reduce concentrations of natural 

fuels and those created from harvest activities resulting in predicted fire behavior within desired 

intensities. 

While it is possible that wildlife could be directly affected by this treatment, the likelihood of mortality is 

low because of the widespread availability of unburned lands interspersed between areas burned. Like 

low and mixed severity burning, indirect effects include a reduction in DWD on the site and habitat for 

species that utilize this component would be reduced. With implementation of PDFs, down woody debris 

including large-diameter logs would be maintained on site and suitable habitat would continue to be 

available. Consequently, potential effects would be localized and short term. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

337

Roads 

Roads can affect wildlife in many ways including; 

Direct loss of habitat through a loss of forest cover 

Degradation of habitat quality through increased sedimentation or risk of invasive plants 

Habitat fragmentation including increased edge or a loss of interior habitat 

Avoidance by wildlife sensitive to the disturbance 

Increased mortality associated with hunting or poaching 

Road mortality, or barriers to wildlife movement and dispersal (NRDC 1999) 

Conversely, benefits may result to species that utilize the herbaceous vegetation associated with the road 

right-of-way (ROW). 

The following is a description of the road treatments and a discussion of the general effects on wildlife, 

whereas additional road related effects are also addressed in the species specific analysis. 

Roads Built then Obliterated Immediately Following Timber Removal

Direct effects are largely limited to activities that occur to the roadbed and the associated right-of-way 

(ROW). Roads built then obliterated immediately following timber removal would involve clearing a 20-

foot ROW within existing forest, which would result in approximately a 6-acre and 1-acre reduction of 

forested habitat under alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. It may also include shaping, adding culverts, 

improving drainage, and applying surfacing material. Effects include a short-term increase in sediment, as 

well as possible mortality to less mobile wildlife and behavioral avoidance of some mobile wildlife 

species during construction. However, potential effects depend in part on the location of the project road 

corridors. For example, all proposed roads occur within 0.25 mile of an existing road and do not access 

previously unroaded areas. As a result, the areas affected do not provide preferred habitat for species 

sensitive to disturbance and use associated with roads. 

All roads would be closed to public access during project implementation, so potential impacts associated 

with road use including road related mortality, poaching, noise and increased human activity are reduced. 

Additionally because all but 0.75 mile of proposed roads to be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal occur within 0.25 mile of an existing open road, proposed roads are not 

expected to significantly increase human activity or access. Though roads would be permanently closed 

following use, by creating a new ROW, some increased human access would be expected to occur. Also 

low standard roads similar to those proposed have been shown to be barriers to the dispersal of some 

small mammals, reptiles and amphibians (NRDC 1999); hence, potential effects can be expected to occur 

on a localized basis for some species. Effects to movement and dispersal are not expected to affect longterm reproduction or local populations of affected species due to the small amount of acres affected, 

proximity to existing roads, and considering proposed roads do not isolate any forest patches. 

Interior habitat or lands greater than 0.25 mile from a road or human-caused opening is widespread in the 

northern half of the project area and occurs on 11,500 acres or 48 percent of the project area. While no 

large blocks of existing interior habitat would be affected, roads built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal proposed under alternative 2 would only reduce interior habitat by 

approximately 10 acres. Consequently remote habitat conditions would largely unaffected under both 

alternatives.

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance includes shaping the roadbed, adding culverts and/or applying surfacing material. Like 

road construction, this activity is expected to result in increased sedimentation during activities, although 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

338

implementation of PDFs and Best Management Practices (BMP) would reduce these impacts. Like road 

construction, effects to wildlife also include possible mortality to less mobile species, as well as 

behavioral avoidance during maintenance activities. Wildlife related disturbance and mortality would be 

low because this activity would occur on existing roads. 

Road Management

Many effects to wildlife are determined by road management, or whether a road is open, closed or 

restricted. The HNF reduces impacts to wildlife by keeping roads into key habitats closed or restricted 

during critical periods of the year. In addition, all roads used by the project which are currently closed or 

restricted to meet wildlife or other resource objectives would be maintained in their pre-project status. 

Further, in order to reduce disturbance-related impacts to wildlife, all roads to be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal would be closed to public access during and following 

implementation. As a result, the road management strategy in effect is expected to greatly reduce potential 

road-related impacts to wildlife under both alternatives.

Invasive Weeds

Of the 24 species of noxious weeds found in the State, five are known to occur within the project area 

including butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), houndstongue 

(Cynoglossum officinale), St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa). In addition Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) is listed as a noxious weed by Lewis and 

Clark County and it is likely that oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare also known as Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) occur along roadways, especially near areas of recent 

disturbance. There are currently 564 acres of known infestation (Englebert 2012a).

The Forest weed treatment project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006c) provides a detailed discussion on 

the effects of invasive weeds and their control on wildlife and this information is incorporated by 

reference into this analysis. 

A number of weed prevention project design features are in place to reduce to reduce the spread of 

invasive species during treatment and anticipated effects are discussed in detail in the project invasive 

weed report (Englebert 2012a). While the spread of noxious weed would continue under all alternatives, 

the rate of spread would be expected to be faster in areas proposed for treatment and it is estimated that 

alternatives 2 and 3 would result in an additional 311 and 233 acres of weed infestation respectively. 

Combined with known infestations within treatment areas, it is estimated that 653 acres of invasive weeds 

would occur under alternative 2 and 526 acres would occur under alternative 3. 

It is anticipated that a combination of biological and chemical control would be used to control 

infestations and by year 2 or 3 the project would continue to treat a minimum of 114 acres or potentially 

more depending on monitoring results. While invasive weeds would continue to spread over time, it is 

expected that ongoing monitoring and weed control would provide benefits over time through control of 

existing and new infestations. So while potential effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat from invasive 

plants would increase under both action alternatives, with implementation of PDFs to reduce weed 

infestation and monitoring and control treatments to reduce spread, it is expected that any effects would 

be localized and there would be no large areas of cover or forage affected. Also effects to sensitive 

habitats such are riparian areas and wetlands would be reduced due to implementation of INFISH buffers 

and reduced treatments in these areas. Finally there are no effects to wildlife anticipated that were not 

considered in the Forest Weed Treatment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006c). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

339

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

This section summarizes anticipated cumulative effects that would occur under all alternatives and 

information presented is used in the habitat and species cumulative effects analysis presented in the 

following sections. 

Cumulative effects (CE) related to wildlife are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable 

future activities that could affect wildlife when considered cumulatively over time. When considering 

CEs to wildlife based on past and anticipated future disturbances, the primary factors of change included 

timber harvest, wildfire, insect and disease related tree mortality, road construction and management, 

private land development, grazing and recreational use. A complete list of past, ongoing and future 

activities that were considered in the cumulative effect analysis can be found in volume 2, appendix C; 

whereas a general discussion of effects to wildlife and wildlife habitat is provided below. 

The cumulative effects (CE) boundary used in this analysis varies by species. For example, CEs for 

species with small home ranges would be analyzed across the project area, whereas some species are 

analyzed across designated management areas such as lynx analysis units, bear management units, or elk 

herd units. For species that have large home ranges and select habitat based partially on landscape 

conditions (e.g., wolverine, gray wolf, fisher, etc.), the CE analysis area includes the project area 

combined with adjacent lands affected by mountain pine beetle (MPB) mortality and past wildfire. This 

combined area totals approximately 101,977 acres, including 67,042 acres of NFS land, and 34,935 acres 

of private land. Rationale for selection of this area includes:

This area is large enough to assess the individual home range for all species analyzed, thereby 

framing the context and significance of potential impacts to each species.

The CE area includes more developed private lands adjacent to the project area, which contain 

habitat components or levels of disturbance that may influence wildlife use of NFS lands.

This area includes all of the two Elk Herd Units (EHU) and Lynx Analysis Units (LAU) affected.

This area is large enough to assess landscape-level considerations and connectivity, including 

potential impacts to affected Bear Management Units (BMUs), EHUs and LAUs. 

Including lands to the north and northwest would tend to dilute effects because of the large 

amounts of designated Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

The CE area includes over 20,000 acres that have been recently (since 2003) affected by wildfire, 

which influence landscape level use and effects. 

Wildlife habitat conditions and land uses within the area are representative of those found across 

the larger landscape or watershed(s). 

A determination of significance is made for each species/habitat evaluated. For the purpose of this 

analysis, significant cumulative effects are defined as effects that singly or incrementally could result in 

long-term impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat that could result in a loss or reduction in viability 

(defined above). 

Past, Ongoing and Future Activities

Past activities include commercial and non-commercial timber harvest, reforestation treatments, fuel 

treatments, grazing, mining, special use and outfitter guide permitting, motorized and non-motorized 

recreational use and wildfire. Effects of these activities vary spatially and temporally and while 

understory cover and forage was reduced immediately following partial harvest, reforestation and fuel 

treatments, understory structure and resulting cover and forage on many of the sites have been restored or 

enhanced. Similarly, overstory conditions on older regeneration harvest sites and sites affected by 

sanitation and intermediate harvest have closed, whereas more recent treatments (since 2000), continue to 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

340

have more open overstory conditions. Also levels of harvest have been declining and many of the 

treatments between 2003 and 2009 were designed to remove fuels and re-establish natural vegetation 

following wildfire. 

In addition to management activity, approximately 23,000 acres have been affected by more recent 

wildfire (2003 to 2009). Most of this occurred as high intensity wildfire associated with the 2003 Snow 

Talon fire in the Copper Creek and Landers Fork drainages in the northeast corner of the analysis area. 

Overstory mortality within these drainages was widespread and most of the meadow shrub biophysical 

setting that exists on the analysis area was created by this event. Understory conditions are somewhat 

variable and while herbaceous vegetation has become established, woody regeneration is scattered. Also 

because of the widespread reduction in overstory, many of these lands currently don’t provide habitat for 

species that require high forested cover, or species that require overstory cover in close proximity to 

forage. Conversely, because of the abundance of snags and downed wood, this area provides habitat many 

species that utilize dead wood, as well as species such as the black backed woodpecker that prefer postfire landscapes. 

As described in the project silvicultural report (Amell 2012), insect- and disease-related mortality has 

been occurring across much of the analysis area and has resulted in widespread overstory mortality. This 

has increased levels of standing and downed wood, created more open canopy conditions across much of 

the landscape and increased understory development on many sites. Vegetation and habitat changes 

resulting from past activities are largely reflected in the existing habitat condition discussed throughout 

this analysis. Also, effects of these activities on wildlife are variable and the methodology section for each 

discusses the data source(s) used. Past, present and future activities are displayed in volume 2, appendix 

C. Wildfires that occurred within the analysis area are shown in appendix C. A brief discussion of the 

effects of these past, ongoing and future treatments on wildlife follows, whereas more detailed analysis is 

provided in the individual species/habitat cumulative effect sections.

Cumulative Effects Pertaining to Wildlife 

While anticipated cumulative effects have occurred on over 25,000 acres under all alternatives, not all 

activities result in long-term cumulative effects. For example, areas affected by outfitter guide use, or 

much of the trail or road maintenance work, does not modify habitat conditions and effects of these 

activities are short term (a few days per year), whereas activities such as grazing, hazard tree removal, 

prescribed burning, dispersed recreation, or firewood collection, can have long-term effects. The 

following is a brief summary of ongoing and future activities on wildlife. Also, it should be noted that a 

biological evaluation has (in the case of hazard tree removal) or would be completed to assess any future 

in-stream work or NNIS treatment and potential impacts to this species would be reduced through that 

process.

Personal Use Firewood – Standing dead trees and downed woody debris would be removed on lands 

adjacent to roads open to the public. Effects include disturbance during collection, as well as reduced 

standing and downed wood along open road corridors. 

Road Maintenance – This involves re-surfacing, culver replacement, and right-of-way (ROW) 

maintenance (e.g., brushing) of existing roads. Effects include short-term disturbance during maintenance 

activities, and periodic removal of woody vegetation and associated wildlife cover along road ROWs. 

Short-term sedimentation would also occur, although activities would result in a reduction in sediment 

over the long term. 

Mining – Effects include localized disturbance to vegetation, soils, and stream banks. Effects to wildlife 

include disturbance during mining and a localized reduction in habitat for species sensitive to disturbance. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

341

Outfitter Guide Permits – This includes outfitter and guide special use permits for big game and spring 

bear seasons and associated day use and overnight camping. Effect include temporary displacement of 

wildlife from the affected area.

Non-motorized Dispersed Recreation – This includes trail use (e.g., hiking, mountain bikes, stock use) 

maintenance on approximately 6 miles of hiking trial in the Sauerkraut drainage (outside the project area), 

use at three dispersed campsites in the northern half or the project area and hunting/fishing use. Effects to 

wildlife include avoidance of the immediate trail corridor and campground sites by species sensitive to 

human disturbance, as well as changes in movement patterns during hunting seasons. Effects also include 

increased presence of nonnative plant species, particularly at heavy use areas such as trailheads.

Motorized Dispersed Recreation – This includes both road and snowmobile use and occurs largely on the 

existing road system, although the combined area also contains 15 miles of motorized trail. Because 

vehicle access in much of the project and combined area is good, effects include increased stress, changes 

in foraging behavior and use, long-term avoidance of open road corridors, seasonal avoidance along roads 

open for part of the year, and increased presence of invasive species. This impact is controlled to some 

extent through area closures, travel management and invasive weed control, which is discussed in the 

Blackfoot Travel Plan (USDA Forest Service 2012g). 

The cumulative effects area contains over 50 miles of snowmobile trail, most of which occur as groomed 

trails along existing roads, although there are approximately 8 miles of un-groomed trail. Additionally, all 

of the project area and most of the CE area are open to cross country snowmobile use. Effects of 

snowmobile on wildlife are discussed in detail in the Blackfoot Travel Plan (USDA Forest Service 2012g) 

and include increased stress, altered forging behavior and possible disturbance to denning or hibernating 

individuals. Similar to road related use, this can result in a long-term effects and loss of suitable habitat 

for species sensitive to disturbance. 

Effects of motorized and non-motorized use are evaluated in the Blackfoot Travel Plan, which includes 

reducing existing snowmobile trails within the cumulative effects area (USDA Forest Service 2012g).

Private Land Development – This includes development for housing in several areas in the vicinity of 

Lincoln. Effects include increased disturbance and road use and possible displacement of wildlife. 

Because these lands occur in highly fragmented portions of the analysis area, effects would occur 

primarily to species that are not sensitive to human disturbance or fragmentation. 

Grazing – Grazing has the potential to reduce understory diversity and composition. This could reduce 

wildlife forage, including both herbaceous and woody vegetation. Overgrazing could also reduce 

understory vegetative structure and wildlife cover, as well as the diversity of preferred species such as 

aspen, increase the spread of invasive species, and result in impacts to streams, riparian areas, and water 

quality. Conversely, managed grazing by livestock can increase the productivity and nutritive quality of 

forage (Clark et al. 2000). 

There is currently one riparian area adjacent to the Pine Grove campground that receives multiple impacts 

from grazing and recreation. Fencing was installed in 2012 to alleviate impacts from grazing, and it is 

expected that resource impacts will be reduced. Conifer encroachment reduced grasses and forbs and has 

affected use on transitory range in the Stonewall allotment. Use on the Keep Cool allotment has not 

exceeded 25 to 35 percent annually and use of this allotment is considered light to moderate. Also there 

are established INFISH buffer monitoring sites on Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creeks, which would be 

implemented in the future to identify and reduce resource impacts. Most of the primary forage areas on 

the Arrastra allotment occur on leased ground and cattle use on the allotment is strictly drift from leased 

ground (USDA Forest Service 2012b). While continued cattle use is expected to affect wildlife cover and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

342

forage, considering that (1) the existing impacts to Beaver Creek would be reduced with approved 

fencing, (2) use of the area has generally been moderate to light, (3) use is not expected to change but 

would be modified if necessary to reduce resource impacts, and (4) grazing systems would be designed to 

be compatible with wildlife needs (USDA Forest Service 2012b), there are no significant effects to 

wildlife from grazing anticipated under any alternative. Additionally, implementation of PDFs under the 

action alternatives help ensure that aspen and vegetation diversity is maintained following treatment. 

Hazard Tree Removal – Harvest involves removal of dead and dying trees within approximately 100 feet 

of roads. While snags and future downed woody debris are reduced, treatment includes implementation of 

Forest Plan standards, which include retention of snags on the site. As a result, a snag and future downed 

wood component is maintained. Effects to wildlife include short-term disturbance during treatment, a 

reduction in available snag and den trees, and an increase in herbaceous vegetation along affected 

roadsides. Due to the proximity to open roads, effects would occur primarily to species that are not 

sensitive to human disturbance. 

Campground Activities – This includes activities associated with campground maintenance and ongoing 

recreational use. Because of the concentrated human activity, effects are primarily related to disturbance 

during maintenance and use. Although habitat conditions would be largely unchanged, effects would 

include a localized long-term reduction in habitat for species sensitive to human activity. 

Wildfire – All recent (since 2011) fires burned in a patchy mosaic including some areas of low to 

moderate burning, as well as areas where the burning intensity was high. Based on assessment of the East 

Fork fire, which affects the largest acres, approximately 60 percent of the recent wildfires burned hot 

enough to result in overstory mortality, whereas approximately 40 percent were unburned or lightly 

burned. Effects include a long-term loss of forested cover on 60 percent of the acreage affected and a 

reduction in habitat for species that require mature forest conditions. Effects on the remaining 40 percent 

would be similar to those described under low severity burning and would include a short-term reduction 

in understory cover. Conversely wildlife forage would be expected to increase on all of the affected acres 

within the next 5 to 10 years. 

While older wildfires such as the Snow Talon fire (2003) reduced wildlife cover, they also increased 

herbaceous and woody vegetation on the site. Also, due to the continued development of understory 

vegetation, wildlife forage has been and would continue to increase. As a result, it is expected that by the 

end of the analysis period (2022) suitable habitat for species such as snowshoe hare, and species that 

utilize forage and low cover would increase. Conversely, habitat for species that require high forest cover 

would continue to be widely scattered or absent. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality – It is expected that MPB mortality would continue to occur with some 

areas of concentrated mortality. As a result, recruitment of snags and downed wood, including larger 

diameter trees, would continue to occur across the landscape during the analysis period; whereas habitat 

for species that require more closed canopy conditions would be reduced. 

Blackfoot Winter Travel and North Belts Travel Management Plans – These analyses are ongoing and 

would address wildlife issues related to winter use and road management. A complete analysis of effects 

to wildlife would be completed. Also, because any decision would be consistent with existing regulation 

and direction related to wildlife, there are no effects anticipated that would result in long-term impacts to 

wildlife. Finally, while motorized and non-motorized recreation can adversely affect wildlife, ongoing 

travel planning efforts would likely be beneficial through modifications to access management and 

authorized recreational use (USDA Forest Service 2012g). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

343

NNIS Treatment – Treatment of nonnative invasive plants involves both mechanical and chemical 

treatment of target species, primarily along roads, infested riparian areas and administrative sites. Effects 

to wildlife include short-term disturbance during treatment, although long-term benefits to native 

vegetation and associated wildlife cover and forage would occur due to the control or containment of 

nonnative species.

Prescribed Burning – Effects of burning activities included in the proposed action are described under 

treatment effects and effects to wildlife vary depending on the type of burning proposed. Pre-approved 

burning would be similar to low-intensity burning. 

Trail Work – These activities would result in some localized tree removal and a loss of understory 

vegetation on the trail surface. While effects include short-term avoidance of the area by wildlife during 

construction/maintenance, habitat conditions are largely maintained. 

Timber Harvest – Effects of harvest under the action alternatives is discussed in the Alternative Effects 

section, whereas effects of past harvest are discussed in appendix C. Off-forest harvest would be variable 

and include localized disturbance during operations, removal of live and dead and dying trees and 

potential for the spread of invasive species. It is assumed that habitat for species that utilize mature forest 

would be reduced on the affected acres. Because lands of other ownerships occur at lower elevations in 

highly fragmented portions of the analysis area, it is not expected that harvest activities would further 

reduce landscape-level connectivity or adversely affect movement of wildlife species that are sensitive to 

fragmentation and human activity such as lynx, wolverine and grizzly. 

Habitat Effects

This section describes alternative effects on the wildlife habitats associated with the biophysical settings 

described previously. Direct and indirect effects are evaluated across the Stonewall project area, whereas 

cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined cumulative effects boundary described above. Table 

86 displays the amount of each habitat affected by treatments proposed under the two action alternatives, 

and this information is used in the evaluation of effects described in the following sections.

Table 86. Alternative treatment acres by biophysical setting

Habitat

Area Treated

Alt 2 Alt 3

Acres %1 Acres %1

Barren 68 acres - (<1%)

Prescribed Fire 7 10 5 7 

Douglas Fir Dry – 5,579 acres (23%) 1,798 32 1,140 20

Intermediate Harvest 187 3 66 1 

Prescribed Fire 1,511 27 975 17

Regeneration Harvest 100 2 99 2 

Douglas Fir Moist – 5,862 acres (24%) 1,783 30 1,192 20

Intermediate Harvest 50 1 22 <1

Prescribed Fire 1,702 29 1,156 20

Regeneration Harvest 31 <1 14 <1

Mtn. Meadow with Shrub - 678 acres

Prescribed Fire 75 11 75 11

Mtn. Shrubland - 138 acres
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

344

Habitat

Area Treated

Alt 2 Alt 3

Acres %1 Acres %1

Prescribed Fire 18 13 18 13

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir – 7,742 acres 3,821 49 3,077 39

Intermediate Harvest 1,849 23 946 12

Prescribed Fire 1,134 15 1,427 18

Regeneration Harvest 838 11 704 9 

Lower Subalpine Forest – 3,331 acres

Prescribed Fire 900 27 887 27

Upper Subalpine Forest - 580 acres

Prescribed Fire 125 21 125 21

1

 Percent of the biophysical setting within the project area

Dry Forest Habitats

Table 87 displays the amount of closed and open-canopy habitat under each alternative, as well as the 

species likely to be present. This information is used to identify alternative effects discussed.

Table 87. Dry forest wildlife habitat summary by alternative 

Species Status

Acres of Closed Canopy or Open Canopy 

with Dense Conifer Understory by 

Alternative 

Acres of Open Canopy with

Grass/ Forb/ Shrub Understory by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

13,322 8,640 9,907 1 4,6812 3,4142

Species Likely 

to be Abundant 

or Relatively

Common

red-breasted nuthatch, pine siskin, mountain 

chickadee, ruby-crowned kinglet, dark-eyed 

junco, yellow-rumped warbler, Clark’s 

nutcracker, red squirrel, deer mouse, mule 

deer, porcupine

red-breasted nuthatch, pine siskin, dark-eyed 

junco, mountain chickadee, yellow-rumped 

warbler, American robin, Clark’s nutcracker, red 

crossbill, western wood-pewee, chipping 

sparrow, deer mouse, dusky flycatcher, mule 

deer, elk, coyote

Species Likely 

to be Present

but Less 

Common

white-breasted nuthatch, Townsend’s solitaire, 

hairy woodpecker, red crossbill, gray jay, 

evening grosbeak, blue grouse, American 

robin, northern redback vole, dusky flycatcher, 

elk, coyote, ruffed grouse

white-breasted nuthatch, Townsend’s solitaire, 

hairy woodpecker, gray jay, evening grosbeak, 

blue grouse, western tanager, mountain bluebird, 

common flicker, pygmy nuthatch, lark sparrow, 

tree swallow, violet-green swallow, vesper 

sparrow, mourning dove, red-tailed hawk, red 

squirrel, mountain cottontail, yellow pine 

chipmunk, Richardson’s ground squirrel, badger, 

northern pocket gopher, red fox, porcupine, 

gopher snake

Species of

Special 

Concern

northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, 

western toad, wolf 

flammulated owl, northern goshawk, pileated 

woodpecker, western toad, wolf

Priority Species chipping sparrow, blue grouse, pileated 

woodpecker, red crossbill, Cassin’s finch

flammulated owl, chipping sparrow, blue grouse, 

pileated woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, red 

crossbill, Cassin’s finch

Featured

Species elk, mule deer, moose, ruffed grouse elk, mule deer, moose, ruffed grouse
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

345

1-some open-canopy habitat would occur on sites where MPB mortality has opened up the canopy. However, ponderosa pine would 

not increase and over the long term the canopy would close and a dense conifer understory would develop.

2-includes Douglas-fir dry and Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir sites proposed for intermediate harvest or prescribed fire.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

No treatments are proposed in the dry forest wildlife habitat, therefore no direct effects are anticipated. 

Restoration activities would not be implemented so existing ponderosa pine would continue to be lost due 

to continued MPB mortality and the trends toward Douglas-fir dominated stands would continue. Habitat 

for ponderosa pine- associated species including the flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, and 

Williamson’s sapsucker would continue to decline, whereas habitat for closed-canopy mature forest 

species and species that utilize dead wood would continue to increase over time as canopies affected by 

MPB close and understory conifer develops. Snag densities including a component of large- diameter 

ponderosa pine snags would remain high for 10 to 20 years. The availability of large-diameter snags 

would decline after this period as existing snags fall to the ground, and ponderosa pine may not become 

established in the understory. 

The likelihood of stand replacing wildfire is highest under this alternative because stand density would 

continue to increase and fuel loading would remain high or increase. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and anticipated future cumulative effects considered in this analysis are described in volume 

2, appendix C. As described under methodology, cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined 

boundary, of which dry forest makes up 41 percent of the analysis area where biophysical data is 

available. Past regeneration harvest has affected approximately 20 percent of the dry forest community, 

although most of this occurred prior to 1980 and these stands are not characterized by closed canopy 

conditions. Approximately 5 percent has been affected by partial harvest, most of which has involved 

sanitation cutting and these stands are characterized by more open stand conditions, many of which are 

characteristic of this community. Fuel treatments have also occurred on another 5to 10 percent, although 

understory conditions have largely been restored. Wildfire has affected approximately 5,000 acres and 

much of the recent timber harvest has been focused on establishing natural regeneration on lands affected 

by fire. Many of the past and ongoing activities such as trail and campground activities would result in 

minor and localized changes in vegetation. Also while personal use firewood would reduce levels of 

downed woody debris, this would be restricted to roadside areas where there has already been a reduction 

in canopy Ongoing and future activities that would likely modify dry forest habitat and result in changes 

in structure or diversity include the following:

Prescribed fire – 113 acres

NNIS treatment on 2,120 acres 

Grazing – 8,136 acres, 

Hazard tree removal- 460 acres 

Timber harvest on 241 acres 

Wildfire – 44 acres. 

Collectively, these treatments would affect approximately 11,000 acres or 38 percent of the dry forest 

community within the analysis area. However, not all activities would have adverse effects to this 

community since NNIS treatment would reduce impacts associated with nonnative invasive species and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

346

prescribed fire would be expected to restore conditions. Grazing would be expected to modify understory 

diversity within this community, although monitoring is in place to identify and mitigate resource 

concerns associated with grazing. Firewood collection would remove downed woody debris along open 

road corridors and this could be expected to continue over the long term. Activities that would result in 

long-term changes in stand structure include timber harvest, hazard tree removal and past wildfire. 

Collectively this would affect approximately 6,000 acres of the dry forest community. Additionally MPB 

mortality would continue with some areas of concentrated mortality. 

Because over 80 percent of this community would be unaffected by activities that would result in longterm effects, and considering uses (e.g., grazing and recreation) are not expected to change, there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments to the dry forest community under this alternative. While there are 

no irretrievable commitments that can be reasonably predicted at a single point in time, there would be a 

long-term decline in species diversity and canopy conditions characteristic of the dry forest community, 

including a reduction in habitat for species that prefer or require large diameter snags. Some wildlife 

associated with the dry forest community may continue to decline. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

While there would be little short-term change in dry forest habitat, in the absence of fire, existing 

ponderosa pine would continue to be lost due to MPB mortality and encroachment of shade tolerant 

species in the understory, reducing the likelihood that ponderosa pine regeneration would become 

established. Additionally, due to increased fuel loading, risk of high intensity wildfire would continue to 

increase and fire-tolerant species would continue to decline.

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Historically, early seral habitat existed on 15 percent of both the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and dry 

Douglas-fir communities. Regeneration treatments proposed under alternative 2 would create early seral 

habitat on 11 percent and 2 percent of these two communities respectively. Over the short term, habitat for 

early successional species and mature forest species that also utilize early successional vegetation would 

be improved. In the long term, habitat for mature open canopy species such as the flammulated owl or 

Lewis’s woodpecker would be created on this acreage. Additionally, the 2,036 acres of intermediate 

treatments would provide more immediate benefits to these species by creating mid-seral open-canopy 

stands on approximately 15 percent of the dry forest biophysical setting. 

Prescribed fire treatments would create open-canopy habitat on 2,836 acres and collectively, open-canopy 

forested habitat would occur on approximately 35 percent of the dry forest biophysical setting. Although a 

small amount of this (150 acres) would occur as late-seral habitat, most would occur as mid-seral opencanopy habitat. 

As described under treatment effects, collectively activities proposed under alternative 2 would maintain 

or increase species such as ponderosa pine, aspen and western larch and increase species diversity, while 

creating more heterogeneous and patchy stand conditions similar to those that occurred historically. 

Proposed treatments would enhance species diversity and promote development of fire tolerant species. 

Approximately 42 percent of the dry forest setting (includes regeneration harvest) would be at a reduced 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

347

risk from stand-replacing wildfire and insect and disease related mortality. Potential for wildfire is also 

reduced on adjacent lands because treatments are interspersed throughout the project area. 

A total of 58 percent of the dry-forest setting would not be treated and effects would be similar to those 

described under alternative 1. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 also restores open-canopy dry forest habitat, but at a reduced level than alternative 2. Under 

alternative 3, open-canopy ponderosa pine habitat would occur on a total of 26 percent of dry forest 

community, whereas early seral habitat would be improved on 6 percent. Approximately 68 percent of 

this community would not be treated and effects would be similar to those described under alternative 1. 

Reduced risk from wildfire and insect and disease activity would occur on 32 percent of the Dry Forest 

setting under this alternative. Like alternative 2, most wildlife species would benefit due to the reduced 

risk of wildfire. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, implementation of the action alternatives 

would result in up to (alternative 2) the following:

Intermediate Harvest – 2,036 acres 

Regeneration Harvest – 938 acres

Prescribed Fire – 2,645 acres 

Mature forest would be reduced on the acres proposed for regeneration harvest and on approximately 275 

acres proposed for mixed severity burning, due to the openings created in areas burned more intensively. 

This would create early seral habitat conditions on approximately 4 percent of this community. While 

ongoing and anticipated future activities would affect up to (alternative 2) approximately 20 percent of 

the dry forest habitat, mature forest conditions with open understory conditions characteristic of this 

community would be created on almost 80 percent of the acres affected by treatment. As a result 

treatment would be expected to result in a long-term improvement on this acreage. Also regeneration 

treatments are proposed in areas with concentrated mortality and while mature forest would be reduced, 

over the long term treatment is expected to help maintain ponderosa pine on the sites. So while harvest 

and fire would cumulatively affect almost 6,500 acres or 22 percent of the dry forest community, because 

most anticipated activities are designed to restore historic conditions and reduce the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments to wildlife under any alternative. While the action alternatives 

would reduce snags and DWD and modify understory and overstory structure and species composition as 

described above, these habitats would continue to be available across the landscape. Additionally, due to 

fire restoration and reduced conifer encroachment, habitat for species that prefer or require the dry forest 

community would be maintained or improved over the long term. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

348

Action Alternative Conclusions

The action alternatives are expected to re-introduce fire to the landscape and promote the development of 

mature, open-canopy dry forest conditions, promote fire tolerant species, provide long-term habitat for 

species that prefer or require large diameter snags, help to maintain hardwood (aspen) and shrub 

components and reduce risk of stand replacing wildfire. Collectively this is expected to help ensure the 

long-term sustainability of the dry forest community. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Forest Plan Standards applicable to management of dry forest habitat is included in the respective 

management area direction that pertains to the maintenance of big game forage and cover, as well as 

improvement of non-game habitat in MA W-1. Effects to big game habitat are described under the elk and 

mule deer environmental effects sections, whereas non-game habitat is discussed under migratory birds 

and the individual species sections. Because big game cover and forage would be maintained in the short 

term under all alternatives, and improved over the long term under alternatives 2 and 3, all alternatives are 

consistent with management area direction related to big game. Additionally, because all alternatives 

would maintain or improve habitat for migratory birds, sensitive species, birds of conservation concern 

and non-game MIS species, all alternatives are consistent with Forest direction to promote nongame 

habitat. Finally, because proposed actions would help ensure that this community and the wildlife species 

that rely on it are sustained over time, both action alternatives are consistent with National Forest 

Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Cool-moist Forest Habitat

As described previously, cool-moist forest habitats include a mix of seral and climax species with a mix 

of understory conditions. Historically 25 percent existed as early seral habitat, 25 percent as mid- to lateseral open-canopy structure and 55 percent as mid- to late-seral closed-canopy stands. Table 88 displays 

the species commonly associated with mid- and late- seral closed-canopy conditions, whereas species 

expected to move into the area or exhibit a noticeable increase in abundance with increases in early seral 

or open-canopied habitats are discussed following table 88. 

Table 88. Wildlife species associated with closed-canopy forests

Species Status 

Wildlife Species associated 

with Moist Conifer Forests: 

Mid-Seral and Late-Seral Stands with Closed Canopies 

Species Likely to be 

Abundant or Relatively 

Common

red-breasted nuthatch, mountain chickadee, ruby-crowned kinglet, gray jay, darkeyed junco, pine siskin, red squirrel, deer mouse, mule deer

Species Likely to be Present 

but less Common

golden-crowned kinglet, Clark’s nutcracker, black-capped chickadee, Townsend’s 

solitaire, hairy woodpecker, blue grouse, American robin, brown creeper, 

Swainson’s thrush, hermit thrush, yellow-rumped warbler, red crossbill, black bear,

American marten, long-tailed weasel, snowshoe hare, elk, coyote, golden-mantled 

ground squirrel, red-tailed chipmunk, northern flying squirrel, porcupine, northern 

redback vole, vagrant shrew, little brown myotis bat

Species Likely to be 

Uncommon

or Rare

pileated woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, northern goshawk, boreal owl, 

great gray owl, ruffed grouse, red-naped sapsucker, Wilson’s warbler, western 

tanager, northern three-toed woodpecker, evening grosbeak, Stellar’s jay, Cassin’s 

finch, spruce grouse, dusky shrew, long-tailed vole, bushy-tailed woodrat, yellowpine chipmunk, mountain lion, bobcat, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, fisher, wolverine, 

wolf, coyote, moose, white-tailed deer, western toad, rubber boa

Species of Special Concern northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, Canada lynx, wolf, fisher, grizzly bear, 

western toad
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

349

Species Status 

Wildlife Species associated 

with Moist Conifer Forests: 

Mid-Seral and Late-Seral Stands with Closed Canopies 

Priority Species northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, American marten, Canada lynx, fisher

Featured Species elk, mule deer, moose, American marten, ruffed grouse

Species use would vary depending on the availability of within-stand features such as water, woody 

debris, snags, rocks or proximity to edge. Species likely to increase measurably in abundance with 

expansion of early seral and open-canopied habitat include mountain bluebird, warbling vireo, solitary 

vireo, chipping sparrow, dusky flycatcher, western wood-pewee, olive-sided flycatcher, Williamson’s 

sapsucker, Cassin’s finch, northern flicker, western tanager, yellow-rumped warbler, violet-green swallow, 

great horned owl, northern pocket gopher, meadow vole, Richardson’s ground squirrel, badger, red fox, 

and coyote. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed in this alternative, so there would be no direct effects. In the short- and 

long-term stands would continue to progress successionally with continuing decreases in seral species 

(ponderosa pine, whitebark pine, aspen, Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce) and increases in climax 

species. In the absence of fire, stands would continue to become more homogeneous with closed-canopy 

conditions predominating and the availability of early seral habitat would remain low. 

The dense stand conditions resulting under this alternative would provide cover for a variety of species 

including snowshoe hare, deer, and elk. A variety of bird species and small mammals (e.g., squirrels and 

marten) also seek food, cover and nest sites within dense mature forests. Conversely, herbaceous 

vegetation and shrubs as well as wildlife forage would continue to decline. 

Due to the continued increase in fuels, the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire would increase. Should a 

wildfire occur, a long-term decrease in the availability of mature, open and closed-canopy habitat would 

also occur, whereas early-seral habitat would increase. Under either scenario (no fire or stand replacing 

wildfire), cool-moist forests would continue to decline in species and structural diversity and deviate from 

historical conditions. This decline in habitat diversity would result in a corresponding decline in wildlife 

diversity for some species (open canopy). 

The availability of snags and DWD would be similar to those described under dry forest. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and anticipated future cumulative effects are described in appendix C. Since 1960, 

regeneration harvest has occurred on approximately 950 acres or 4 percent of this community, whereas 

partial harvest (e.g., thinning, sanitation and improvement cuts) has occurred on approximately 125 acres. 

Also, approximately 2,600 acres or 11 percent of this community has been affected by fuel treatments 

since the late 1950s. Effects of on vegetative structure and habitat from these activities were considered 

when evaluating the existing condition. Also, because most activities occurred prior to 1980, understory 

structure has been restored on most sites. More recent wildfire (since 2003-2009) has affected 

approximately 5,500 acres of this community. While understories have started to become re-established 

and created elevated levels of wildlife forage, with the exception of large quantities of standing and 

downed wood, cover on these lands is still largely absent. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

350

Ongoing and future activities under this alternative within the cool-moist community include, NNIS 

treatment on 502 acres, road hazard tree removal on approximately 15 acres, grazing on 1,712 acres, 

burning on an estimated 178 acres, and 587 acres affected by 2011 wildfires. Collectively, these 

treatments would occur on approximately 3,000 acres and affect approximately 14 percent of the coolmoist forest community within the analysis area. This would include a long-term reduction in mature 

forest on approximately 370 acres. Additionally, mortality due to stand overstocking and MPB would 

continue. 

While long-term changes in habitat have altered habitat conditions within this community, because use is 

not expected to change and considering the short-term nature of many effects and that habitat conditions 

would be maintained on approximately 75 percent of the cool-moist forest community, there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There would be no irretrievable commitments to wildlife under this alternative. As in the dry forest 

setting, while there are no irreversible commitments that can be reasonably predicted at a single point in 

time, there would be a long-term decline in habitat for some species that require open-canopy conditions 

characteristic of this community, including a reduction in habitat for species that prefer or require large 

diameter snags. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

Alternative 1 would maintain the cool-moist forest across the project area, although species composition 

would continue to decline, structural diversity would remain low and risk of wildfire would continue to 

increase.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both alternatives are designed to promote historical conditions and long-term sustainability through 

timber harvest and prescribed fire. Much of this community is remote with little access. So, proposed 

timber harvest would occur on less than 1 percent of this setting under either alternative. These treatments 

would result in a small increase in mid-seral open- canopy habitat (improvement cutting and 

precommercial thinning ) and early seral habitat (regeneration cutting). Both alternatives also propose a 

small amount of low-severity fire including 50 acres under alternative 2 and 30 acres under alternative 3. 

Effects of treatment would be similar to those described under treatment effects and under dry forest 

setting. 

Mixed-severity fire was the primary disturbance regime in the cool-moist community; as a result, over 95 

percent of the treatment under both alternatives includes restoring mixed- severity fire to the landscape. 

Under alternative 2, mixed-severity fire would occur on 2,553 acres or 28 percent of this type, whereas 

alternative 3 would restore fire on 2,013 acres or 22 percent. Treatments would create more open-canopy 

conditions with increased herbaceous understory diversity on much of the acreage treated, as well as 

small (less than 5 acres) to medium (up to 75 acres) pockets of early seral habitat on sites receiving a 

mixed-severity prescribed burn. 

As described in section 4.3.2, proposed activities would promote more diverse structural conditions, 

increase the component of seral and fire-tolerant or dependent species such as ponderosa pine, aspen, 

whitebark pine and western larch, as well as reduce fuels. Both alternatives would increase the 

availability of open-canopy habitat close to historical levels (25 percent), while increasing the availability 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

351

of early seral habitat over what currently exists. Seventy percent of this biophysical setting would not be 

treated under either action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects described under alternative 1, implementation of the action alternatives would result 

in up to (alternative 2) the following:

Prescribed Fire – 2,602 acres 

Intermediate Harvest – 50 acres

Regeneration Harvest – 31 acres

Cumulatively ongoing and anticipated future activities would affect approximately 5,700 acres or 26 

percent of the cool-moist community, including a reduction in mature forest conditions on approximately 

900 acres or 4 percent of this community (due to wildfire, regeneration harvest, hazard tree removal and 

openings created by mixed severity burning). As described under treatment effects, effects of most of the 

prescribed fire and the intermediate harvest are expected to be short term and treatments are expected to 

help restore or move towards historical conditions, reintroduce fire to the landscape and provide habitat 

conditions for species that prefer or require the conditions characteristic of this community. As a result, 

and considering that approximately 74 percent of the cool-moist forest habitat would not be affected, 

there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. The action alternatives would reduce snags and DWD, 

and modify understory and overstory structure and species composition, including a reduction in mature 

forest; however, these habitats would continue to be available across the landscape. Additionally, due to 

fire restoration and reduced conifer encroachment, habitat for species that prefer or require the open 

canopy or early seral cool-moist forest community would be restored and increased. 

Action Alternative Conclusions

Both alternatives would reduce available mature cool-moist forest, whereas proposed treatments would 

increase species diversity, promote stand- and landscape-level structural diversity and reduce the risk of 

wildfire. Over the long term this is expected to promote a greater diversity of wildlife habitat conditions, 

while maintaining or increasing available cool-moist forest habitat. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Forest Plan Standards applicable to management of cool-moist habitat is included in the respective 

management area direction that pertains to the maintenance of big game forage and cover, as well as 

improvement of non-game habitat in MA W-1. Effects to big game habitat are described under the elk and 

mule deer environmental effects sections, whereas non-game habitat is discussed under migratory birds 

and the individual species/habitat sections. Because big game cover and forage would be maintained in 

the short term under all alternatives, and improved over the long term under Alternatives 2 and 3, all 

alternatives are consistent with management area direction related to big game. Additionally, because all 

alternatives would maintain or improve habitat for migratory birds, sensitive species, birds of 

conservation concern, and non-game MIS species, all alternatives are consistent with MA W-1 direction 

to promote non-game habitat. Finally because both action alternatives would restore fire to the landscape, 

improve species composition, and promote long-term sustainability of this community while providing 

the mix of conditions necessary to maintain habitat for species that prefer or depend on this community, 

both action alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a 

diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

352

Upper Sub-alpine Fir (Whitebark Pine)

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects. However due to the 

absence of fire, continued insect- and disease-related mortality and conifer encroachment, both stand- and 

landscape-level whitebark pine would continue to decline. As a result, habitat for species such as grizzly 

bear, red squirrel and Clark’s nutcracker, as well as many mammals and birds that utilize its seeds may 

decline. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Because this habitat 

is found at upper elevations, there have been few past activities, which have consisted of approximately 

30 acres of timber harvest and fuel treatment and 200 acres of reforestation since 1960. More recent 

wildfire has also occurred on approximately 200 acres. Ongoing and anticipated future activities are 

limited largely to firewood collection and 32 acres of wildfire. Collectively, approximately 20 percent of 

this community has been affected, although vegetative structure and habitat from most past activities have 

been restored. While there would continue to be a reduction in whitebark pine, because over 80 percent of 

this community has been unaffected and considering vegetation and habitat have been restored on most 

lands affected by past treatment, there are no significant cumulative effects to the upper sub-alpine fir 

community anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There would be no irreversible commitments under this alternative. While there are no irretrievable 

commitments that can be reasonably predicted at a single point in time, in the absence of wildfire, 

whitebark pine would continue to decrease. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

Whitebark pine is a fire-dependent species and fire suppression would continue to occur; therefore, risks 

of stand replacing wildfire would continue to increase and the current decline in whitebark pine is 

expected to continue. Over the long term, suitable habitat for species such as the grizzly bear that rely on 

whitebark pine would be further reduced. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both action alternatives propose approximately 900 acres of mixed-severity fire, as well as supplemental 

planting of whitebark pine in select stands proposed for harvest. As described under treatment effects, 

mixed-severity fire would result in a mosaic of burning conditions including both low intensity burning 

(50 percent), high severity burning (25-30 percent) and unburned areas (20-25 percent). As a result, early 

seral habitat would be created on up to 30 percent of the acreage treated or 8 percent of the existing upper 

sub-alpine fir community, whereas 80 percent of this community would be unaffected (includes unburned 

portion of treatment units). 

While effective treatments to restore whitebark pine are still being researched, based on the available 

information (USDA Forest Service 2010a; PIF 2000), the mix of treatments proposed, including preburning fuel enhancement and prescribed fire are the primary tools available for treating deteriorating 

whitebark pine stands and restoring this important species across the landscape. Because it may take 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

353

decades to establish pine seedlings on the site (USDA Forest Service 2010a), it is important to maintain 

existing regeneration and available seed sources. Consequently, maintenance and regeneration of 

whitebark pine would be promoted in all units through a combination of planting and site preparation in 

harvest units, as well as through landscape burning using low- and mixed-severity fire. All units would be 

evaluated prior to burning to protect existing whitebark pine seedlings, and identify areas where pre-burn 

treatments can be applied to promote future regeneration from nutcracker caching. While research 

indicates that the mix of proposed treatments may be effective at development of nutcracker caching sites, 

because of the complexity of whitebark pine regeneration, it is expected that it may take at least 10 to 20 

years for regeneration to become established (USDA Forest Service 2010a). As a result, while both 

alternatives would promote restoration of whitebark pine, there are no short-term benefits and benefits 

associated with regeneration and restoration of pine would be long term. 

Maintenance of whitebark pine has important implications for wildlife because of the reliance of grizzly 

bears on whitebark pine nuts in some ecosystems (Mattson and Jonkel 1989, Mattson et al. 1992 in PIF 

2000). Whitebark pine seeds are also an important food source for many small mammals and bird species.

Red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), chipmunks (Eutamias spp.), and golden-mantled ground 

squirrels (Citellus lateralis) are known to forage on whitebark pine seeds, with red squirrels 

demonstrating a high dependence on whitebark pine in subalpine habitats (Hutchins 1989 in PIF 2000). 

Whitebark pine is also used for foraging by a number of bird species and Clark’s nutcrackers are highly 

dependent on whitebark pine seed in the late summer and fall of each year, utilizing the seed caches 

throughout the winter (PIF 2000). Whitebark pine benefit directly from a mutual relationship with Clark’s 

nutcrackers through enhanced dispersal and seeding success resulting from germination of un-retrieved 

nutcracker caches (Tomback 1982 in PIF 2000). Consequently promoting the long-term restoration of 

whitebark pine, would improve habitat for a variety of mast- dependent wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects described under alternative 1, both action alternatives propose prescribed fire on 120 

acres of the upper sub-alpine community. Because existing whitebark pine would be protected and 

considering that proposed burning is expected to maintain or restore whitebark pine, there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments under these alternatives. Because proposed treatments would 

reduce snags, DWD and modify overstory and understory structure, there would be shifts in available 

mature and early seral upper sub-alpine fir habitat. However due to anticipated whitebark pine 

regeneration, over the long term treatments are expected to promote the long-term sustainability of this 

forest community and the wildlife species that depend on it. 

Action Alternative Conclusions

Based on available information, treatments proposed under the action alternatives are expected to promote 

conditions necessary to maintain whitebark pine across the landscape. Additionally, habitat would be 

improved for grizzly bear and Clarks nutcracker, as well as for species that rely on hard mast in this 

important community. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Forest Plan Standards applicable to management of upper sub-alpine habitat is included in the respective 

management area direction that pertains to the maintenance of big game forage and cover, as well as 

improvement of non-game habitat in MA W-1. Effects to big game habitat are described under the elk and 

mule deer environmental effects sections, whereas non-game habitat is discussed under migratory birds 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

354

and the individual species/habitat sections. Because big game cover and forage would be maintained in 

the short term under all alternatives, and improved over the long-term under alternatives 2 and 3, all 

alternatives are consistent with management area direction related to big game. Additionally, because all 

alternatives would maintain or improve habitat for migratory birds, T&E, and sensitive species, all 

alternatives are consistent with MA W-1 direction to promote non-game habitat. Finally, because of the 

importance of white-barked pine for grizzly bear, and a variety of other wildlife, both action alternatives 

are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal 

communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12 . 

Riparian Habitats

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so riparian habitats would be largely unchanged. 

Although over the long-term, species and structural changes described under alternative effects would 

continue to occur. There is mounting evidence that simply protecting riparian areas from fire and other 

disturbances may result in deterioration of habitat for wildlife (USDA Forest Service 2000b). For 

example, without low-intensity fire, uplands and streamside areas succeed to shade-tolerant coniferous 

species, with reduced dominance or loss of early successional deciduous trees and shrubs. These altered 

conditions can have important consequences for habitats of terrestrial and aquatic fauna (USDA Forest 

Service 2000b). Further, because of elevated levels of fuel loading, riparian areas and the species that 

depend on them would continue to be at risk from stand replacing wildfire. 

Cumulative Effects

While there has been a small amount of timber harvest and fuel treatments within riparian areas since 

1960 (less than 100 acres), riparian habitat has been largely unchanged from treatment. An exception 

would be the Copper Creek and Lincoln Gulch drainages, where wildfire has greatly reduced forested 

riparian habitat. 

Ongoing and future activities that occur within riparian habitat include grazing, a small amount of NNIS 

treatment (10 acres), and a small amount of burning associated with future prescribed fire. However, 

because fire is only allowed to back into riparian areas and with implementation of design features to 

reduce burning intensity, most of the riparian areas would be unburned or lightly burned. 

While wildfire has altered riparian habitat in the Copper Creek/Lincoln Gulch drainages, riparian habitat 

outside these areas and across most (over 75 percent) of the analysis area is expected to be maintained. 

As a result there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

While there may be a gradual reduction in hardwoods and shrubs due to continued conifer encroachment, 

there are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments to the riparian community anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

Riparian habitats would be largely unchanged under this alternative, although due to conifer 

encroachment and continued reduction of aspen, vegetative diversity and structure may be reduced over 

time. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

355

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Based on treatment effects discussed in section 4.3, the action alternatives would result in removal of 

some mature trees, as well as smaller diameter down woody debris. However, with implementation of 

PDFs and streamside management zones, very limited harvest would occur. Any burning within riparian 

areas would be low intensity. As a result, much of the riparian habitat would be unburned or lightly 

burned and habitat for riparian-dependent wildlife would be maintained or improved, due to increases in 

herbaceous, woody and hardwood (aspen) vegetation and forage adjacent to and within the riparian 

community. While improvements would be localized, habitat for species such as the willow flycatcher 

that utilize riparian shrubs interspersed with openings are more likely to be maintained under these 

alternatives.

Due to reduced fuels in adjacent uplands, the likelihood that there would be a long-term reduction in 

mature riparian forest from wildfire would be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include those described under alternative 1, as well some burning that enters riparian 

areas. However, because fire would only be allowed to back into riparian areas, with the exception of 

scattered areas that receive a low-intensity burn, riparian vegetation would be largely unchanged. As a 

result, and due to the small amount of habitat affected, and considering any burned areas would help to 

maintain the riparian shrub/hardwood component, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

While there may be small changes in structure and understory/overstory conditions on a localized basis, 

there are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments anticipated under the action alternatives. 

Action Alternatives Conclusions

While there would be some localized changes in the structure and composition of riparian forest in 

scattered areas from low-severity burning, both action alternatives would maintain riparian habitat and 

reduce the likelihood of high intensity wildfire and a long-term reduction in mature riparian forest. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

The Forest Plan requires that riparian areas be managed to be compatible with dependent wildlife species. 

Because riparian habitat would remained relatively unchanged under alternative 1 and considering that 

both action alternatives protect riparian areas, as well as increase the shrub/hardwood component, all 

alternatives are consistent with this direction, as well as with National Forest Management Act 

requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 

219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Mountain Meadow and Shrub

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects. In areas where MPB 

mortality has occurred, shrub and meadows may expand somewhat as the canopy opens, although 

continued conifer encroachment would likely result in a long-term decline in these communities. This 

may benefit some species in the short term, since cover in close proximity to foraging habitat would 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

356

increase. However due to the absence of fire and expansion of conifers, over the long term, mountain 

meadow and shrub habitat would decline, resulting in decreased forage and cover. Also, because many 

shrubs are decadent with little regeneration occurring, the diversity of shrub age classes would continue to 

decline and the structural diversity important to many bird species that utilize the mountain shrub 

community would likely be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Most of the existing 

mountain meadow and shrub habitat is a result of recent wildfires (2003 to 2009). Consequently, past 

activities have largely been associated with fuel reduction and re-establishment of forest regeneration. 

Past activities within the small meadow/shrub inclusions that are scattered across the analysis area have 

included primarily grazing. Ongoing and future cumulative effects include approximately 1,100 acres of 

continued grazing, 365 acres of NNIS treatment, and 75 acres of wildfire (2011). Cumulatively, 

approximately 1,550 acres or 11 percent of these communities may be affected. As described in section

4.4, grazing use is not expected to change and NNIS treatment would reduce the spread of invasive 

species. As a result, habitat conditions would be largely maintained and there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

While conifer encroachment would continue to reduce mountain meadow and shrub communities, it is 

likely a wildfire would maintain them in the future and there are no irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments under this alternative. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

While habitat would be maintained in the short term under this alternative, conifer encroachment would 

continue to reduce mountain meadow and shrub communities across the project area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose prescribed fire (mixed severity) on 75 acres of meadow habitat (11 percent) 

and 18 acres of mountain shrub habitat (13 percent). Effects of proposed burning include mortality and a 

reduction in shrubs, as well as a change in shrub density on the acres treated. Although there would be 

mortality in the decadent and mature size class, burning would result in development of a younger age 

class or rejuvenate decadent shrubs, as well as increase herbaceous vegetation (Peterson and Best 1987). 

As a result, treatment would improve the diversity and health of stands over the long term, as well as 

provide habitat for species such as the calliope hummingbird that utilize re-growth after a fire (PIF 2000). 

Soil disturbance during burning may make meadows more susceptible to weeds, so implementation of 

burning could lead to increased risk of NNIS, although mitigation and monitoring are expected to reduce 

this risk. 

While treated shrub stands would be more open, with retention of some of the existing shrub cover they 

would continue to provide habitat for wildlife. For example, prescribed burning in Idaho indicated that 

while there may be a short-term (1 to 2 years) reduction in use for birds such as brewer’s sparrows 

immediately following burning, some species such as the sage sparrow and sage thrasher are largely 

unaffected, whereas western meadowlarks increase slightly immediately following burning. Also within 4 

years of the burn, total burn densities were higher than on control plots, and densities of Brewer’s sparrow 

doubled (Peterson and Best 1987). Additionally, because burning within both mountain meadow and 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

357

shrub communities would increase herbaceous vegetation, forage availability for species such as elk and 

mule deer would increase (USDA Forest Service 2006b). So while short-term effects to species diversity 

and abundance may occur, over the long term, increases in wildlife forage, maintenance of unburned 

habitat and improved shrub vigor within burned areas are expected to maintain or improve wildlife 

diversity and abundance within these communities. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, prescribed fire would occur on up to 93 

acres (alternative 2). While some shrub mortality would occur, project design features are in place to 

ensure that some existing shrubs are retained. Additionally, it is expected that proposed burning would 

increase shrub vigor and reproduction. As a result and considering that 89 percent of these communities 

would not be treated, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of shrubs and meadows associated with the action 

alternatives. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Conclusions

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in some mortality of existing shrubs and reduce available grasses and 

foraging habitat on approximately 75 acres of meadow and 18 acres of mountain shrub habitat 

respectively and elevate the risk of invasive plants. The risk of NNIS would be reduced through 

implementation of PDFs and post-treatment monitoring. Habitat for wildlife that depend on shrub and 

meadow communities would continue to be available since a shrub component would be maintained on 

all sites, and over 80 percent of these communities would not be treated. The health and vigor of native 

shrubs and grasses would be improved on approximately 15 percent of the available habitat, and conifer 

encroachment would be reduced. Both alternatives would help promote the long-term sustainability of the 

mountain meadow and shrub communities. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Forest Plan Standards applicable to management of mountain meadow-shrub habitat is included in the 

respective management area direction that pertains to the maintenance of big game forage, as well as 

improvement of non-game habitat in MA W-1. Effects to big game habitat are described under the elk and 

mule deer environmental effects sections, whereas non-game habitat is discussed under migratory birds 

and the individual species sections. Because big game cover and forage would be maintained in the short 

term under all alternatives, and improved over the long-term under alternatives 2 and 3, all alternatives 

are consistent with management area direction related to big game. Additionally, because all alternatives 

would maintain or improve habitat for a variety of nongame species, including bird species of 

conservation concern, all alternatives are consistent with MA W-1 direction to promote nongame habitat. 

Finally, because proposed actions would reduce conifer encroachment and improve herbaceous and 

woody diversity, both action alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act 

requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 

219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

358

Aspen

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct effects. However, due 

to the absence of disturbances such as fire, existing aspen would continue to decline in the short term, and 

would be largely eliminated in the long term (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Should a wildfire occur, 

aspen would be rejuvenated and maintained, although the longer it takes for a wildfire to occur, the 

greater the likelihood that the distribution of aspen may be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Past activities have 

included some timber harvest and wildfire which has helped to maintain aspen, as well as grazing which 

has reduced aspen in some areas. Ongoing and future cumulative effects include continued browsing by 

livestock and elk, possible increases in invasive species and localized improvements due to burning 

associated with the Blackfoot and Dry Creek prescribed fires. However, because grazing use is not 

expected to change and considering proposed fire would help to maintain aspen in affected drainages, 

there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. While it is likely that future wildfire would maintain 

an aspen component, due to continued conifer encroachment, aspen may continue to decline. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

Due to the absence of fire and conifer encroachment the aspen community has been declining across the 

project area. With continued fire suppression, and in the absence of future fire, the amount and 

distribution of aspen would continue to decline and habitat for species that prefer this community would 

be reduced over the long term under this alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Successful regeneration of aspen requires disturbance that stimulates sucker regeneration. As a result 

disturbance associated with prescribed fire and timber harvest proposed under both alternatives would 

successfully regenerate existing aspen and lands containing an aspen component would be treated on 

approximately 6,000 and 5,000 acres of alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. While alternative 2 proposes 

treatment on more acres, PDFs require that aspen be promoted and maintained where it occurs. As a 

result, treatments proposed under both action alternatives are expected to maintain or improve the aspen 

component (USDA Forest Service 2006b, USDA Forest Service 2000b) on the acres affected. Effects to 

wildlife include improved habitat for species that prefer or require aspen such as ruffed grouse, deer, elk, 

and snowshoe hare, as well as a number of nongame species including the olive-sided flycatcher. In 

addition to improving the amount of aspen, prescribed fire is expected to greatly improve the amount and 

nutritional quality of forage within 1 to 2 years following treatment (USDA Forest Service 2006b). 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects described under alternative 1, burning and harvest treatments would occur on up to 

6,000 acres of stands that contain an aspen component (alternative 2). Proposed treatments are expected 

to promote aspen; although continued browsing by livestock and wildlife has the greatest potential to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

359

adversely affect this community. However project design features are in place to protect and promote 

aspen, including potential impacts from livestock grazing. As a result and considering proposed activities 

are expected to help restore historic conditions and promote aspen, there are no significant cumulative 

effects anticipated under either alternative. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Because proposed activities are expected to promote 

the long-term sustainability of aspen, there are no irretrievable commitments on the acreage treated. 

However, like alternative 1, aspen would continue to decline where it exists outside of treatment areas. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Conclusions

Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may result in the reduction of scattered mature aspen due to 

proposed burning. Collectively, proposed treatments are expected to promote existing aspen by reducing 

conifer encroachment and stimulating aspen regeneration. Consequently, aspen forage and cover and 

associated wildlife habitat would be improved in the short term. Over the long term, proposed treatments 

are expected to promote the distribution and sustainability of the aspen community across the project area. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Forest Plan Standards applicable to management of aspen is included in the respective management area 

direction that pertains to the maintenance of big game forage, as well as improvement of non-game 

habitat in MA W-1. Effects to big game habitat are described under the elk and mule deer environmental 

effects sections, whereas non-game habitat is discussed under migratory birds and the individual species 

sections. Because big game cover and forage would be maintained in the short term under all alternatives, 

and improved over the long-term under Alternatives 2 and 3, all alternatives are consistent with 

management area direction related to big game. Additionally, because all alternatives would maintain or 

improve habitat for a variety of non-game species, all alternatives are consistent with MA W-1 direction 

to promote non-game habitat. Finally, because both action alternatives would help to retain aspen across 

the landscape, both action alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements 

to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): 

and FSM 2670.12. 

Dead Wood

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects. However, habitats 

would continue to change and result in effects to wildlife habitat. For example, risks associated with 

disturbance such as wildfire, root disease and insects would likely increase as forested stands become 

denser and more susceptible to these agents. As a result, standing dead and DWD would increase and 

provide habitat for cavity and wildlife dependent on down wood. Although due to the reduction in 

ponderosa pine, over the long term the number of large-diameter snags would be expected to decrease. 

Historically, wildfires included a combination of low, mixed and high-severity fires where some snags 

and large DWD were maintained or increased across the landscape (low- and mixed- severity fires).

Increasing levels of dead wood and ladder fuels leave the project area susceptible to increased, severe 

stand-replacing wildfire, and the likelihood that low-severity fires may occur is reduced. As a result, it is 

likely that a larger area of high-severity fire may occur, than would have occurred historically. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

360

Standing and downed, dead trees have many ecological roles in a landscape recovering from wildfire 

(Beschta et al. 1995, Saab and Dudley 1998, Smith 2000, Brown et al. 2003, Beschta et al. 2004, Saab et 

al. 2004 in USDA Forest Service 2008a). The snags and down logs that result from fire serve a vital role 

in the structure and function of healthy forest ecosystems and play an important role in post-fire recovery 

and long-term site productivity. Also Hutto (1995) found that 15 species of birds were more frequently 

found in post-fire habitats than in any other major cover type in the northern Rockies. As a result, and 

considering that the possibility of stand-replacing wildfire is highest under this alternative, the likelihood 

that habitat would be provided for these species is high. Conversely, because of the large acreage burned, 

habitat for some species that utilize dead wood within a live forest canopy such as mountain bluebirds or 

Lewis’s woodpecker would be reduced (Saab et al. 2007). 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined boundary and past, ongoing and anticipated future 

effects are in volume 2, appendix C. While many past activities have reduced standing and downed wood, 

dead wood has been recruited on older stands affected by harvest and fuel treatments, whereas Forest Plan 

standards for dead wood have been met on all sites affected by harvest since 1986. As a result, sites 

affected by past activities continue to provide habitat for species that prefer or require dead wood. 

Additionally, past MPB mortality as well as wildfire has greatly increased the amount and distribution of 

dead wood across the landscape. 

Potential ongoing and future cumulative effects include a reduction in dead wood along open roads due to 

firewood collection and hazard tree removal, although recent wildfires would increase levels of snags and 

future downed wood. However, dead wood including snags and downed woody debris would continue to 

be widely available. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects to these resources or the 

wildlife species that depend on them. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated, although irretrievable commitments include a 

reduction in large-diameter snags. 

Alternative 1 Determination

Due to continued fire suppression, snags and DWD would continue to be abundant. While the component 

of large diameter snags would be reduced in the future under this alternative, available dead wood habitat 

would continue to be widely available across the landscape and adequate habitat would be available to 

meet the needs of species that prefer or require this component. Also, due to increased risk of large-scale 

wildfire, it is likely that habitat would be provided for species that utilize dead wood associated with postfire habitat.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 2 approximately 64 percent of the project area would not be treated, and effects would 

be the same as that described under alternative 1. As shown in table 89, approximately 40 percent of the 

project area would be affected by treatment and there would be some reduction in DWD on most of this 

acreage. Also, snags would be reduced on approximately 13 percent of the project area due to proposed 

timber harvest. Conversely, snags would be increased on approximately 18 percent of the project area 

proposed for low and mixed severity burning. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

361

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects would be similar to those of alternative 2, except that 73 percent of the project area would not be 

treated and effects on this acreage would be similar to that of alternative 1. Also, because of reduced 

harvest, approximately 8 percent of the project area would have a reduction in DWD. Due to proposed 

burning, alternative 3 would increase snags in all size classes on approximately 15 percent of the project 

area.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Both alternatives propose a mix of treatments that would have varying effects on snags and DWD. Table 

89 displays the different treatments, the amount proposed under each alternative and general effect on 

dead wood. 

Table 89. Snag and DWD effect and treatment summary

Treatment Effects 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Acres % Acres % 

Regeneration Harvest1

Long-term reduction in snags and DWD, Retention of 

large diameter snags >20 inches, as well as a 

component of small diameter snags and snag 

recruitment trees. Some DWD including component of 

large diameter logs retained.

1,713 7 816 3 

Intermediate Treatments1

Reduction in snags and DWD. Retention of large 

diameter snags >20 inches, as well as a component of 

small diameter snags and snag recruitment trees. 

Some DWD including component of large diameter logs 

retained. 

2,106 9 1,054 4 

Low Severity Fire1

Large diameter snags retained and an increasing 

number of small diameter snags available. Reduction in 

small diameter DWD across the area treated, although 

some DWD including large diameter logs would be 

retained. Distribution would be patchy or clustered 

(Agee 2002). Twenty percent of the site would be 

unaffected.

449 2 1,366 6 

Mixed Severity Fire1

Increase in small and large diameter snags. Some 

DWD including large diameter logs retained. DWD 

patchy in areas with low severity fire, whereas more 

intense burning would have decreased DWD and 

increased snags in all size classes. Net increase or 

pulse of DWD likely (Agee 2002). Twenty percent of the 

site would be unaffected.

5,014 21 3,301 14

Unaffected Habitat

Increasing levels of standing and DWD in the short and 

long-term, although possible long-term reduction in 

large diameter snags on sites containing ponderosa 

pine.

14,723 61 17,478 73

1

-Forest Plan and Regional standards related to retention of snags and DWD would be met

Effects Common to the Action Alternatives 

With implementation of PDFs, both alternatives would meet or exceed Forest Plan standards related to 

snags and downed wood. Habitat for some species would be reduced on sites receiving timber harvest and 

low-severity burning, but suitable snags and downed wood habitat would continue to occur on all sites 

treated. Treatments proposed under both alternatives would increase the ponderosa pine component, 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

362

therefore, future recruitment of large diameter snags and large downed wood would increase under both 

alternatives, when compared to no action. 

The distribution of snags also affects wildlife. For example, within treatment units snags retained would 

be more evenly distributed and would likely favor secondary cavity nesters, whereas a more patchy 

distribution of concentrated snag mortality associated with mixed-severity fire would likely favor primary 

cavity nesters (Bunnell et al. 2002). As a result, the mix of treatments proposed combined with the large 

area that would not be treated would provide an adequate distribution of snags to meet the needs of both 

primary and secondary cavity nesting species. 

Both alternatives would result in a reduction in snags and DWD and habitat for some species would be 

reduced. Snags and downed wood would be retained in all units, and considering treatment sites are 

interspersed with unaffected areas, snags and downed wood would continue to be available across the 

landscape. The mix of treatments including the use of mixed and low severity fire is similar to the 

disturbance regimes that occurred historically, so changes to the wildlife community would be expected to 

be within the natural range of variation. As a result, habitat for wildlife species that prefer or require 

DWD would continue to be available under both alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Like alternative 1, anticipated cumulative effects include a continued reduction in snags and DWD due 

hazard tree removal, firewood collection and past wildfire. Additionally, proposed timber harvest would 

reduce snags and downed woody debris on up to (alternative 2) 3,099 acres. However snags and DWD 

would be retained on all units and prescribed burning would be expected to result in an increase in snags 

and recruitment of downed wood. As a result and considering the elevated levels of snags and DWD 

available across the landscape due to ongoing MPB mortality and over stocked stands, there are no 

significant cumulative effects to these resources anticipated. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. While the action alternatives would reduce snags and 

DWD on the acreage treated, standing and downed woody debris would continue to be available on sites 

treated, consequently, there are no irretrievable commitments to dead- wood-dependent wildlife under 

either alternative. Like alternative 1, there would continue to be a reduction in large-diameter snags on 

sites containing ponderosa pine that are not proposed for treatment. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Conclusions

Alternatives 2 and 3 would affect dead-wood habitat on 36 and 27 percent of the project area, 

respectively. Based on the above analysis and the following rationale, both alternatives would maintain or 

improve habitat for dead-wood-dependent wildlife. 

Due to MPB mortality, levels of standing and downed woody debris greatly exceed historical 

levels. Because over 60 percent of the project area habitat would not be treated, snags and DWD 

would continue to be widely available across the landscape. 

Forest Plan and Regional levels of snags and downed wood would be met in all sites proposed for 

treatment.

Proposed treatments would promote development of future large-diameter snags, which may be 

reduced over the long term under no action. 

Adequate snags and downed woody debris would continue to be available to meet the needs of 

dead-wood-dependent wildlife. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

363

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

The following Forest Plan direction is related to snags (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. II-21-22) 

To keep an adequate snag resource through the planning horizon, snags should be managed at 70 

percent of optimum (snags/acre) within each third order drainage – Based on snag monitoring 

data provided under the dead wood section and with implementation of PDFs that require 70 

percent of optimum snag retention during all harvest activities, all alternatives are consistent with 

this direction. 

Large, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, spruce and subalpine fir, in that priority, are the preferred 

species for snags and replacement trees – With implementation of PDFs that identify this order of 

priority for snag retention, all alternatives are consistent with this direction. 

Management areas other than T-1 should be the primary source for snag management. However 

if adequate snags cannot be found outside of T-1, then sizes and snags should be retained at rates 

designated on page II-21 of the Forest Plan – Project Design Features require that snags be 

retained at designated levels and all alternatives are consistent with this direction. 

Landscape Diversity and Connectivity

Landscape Diversity

While many species prefer specific forest communities, wildlife use of an area is often determined by the 

diversity of habitat conditions that exist across the landscape (Reynolds et al. 1992; Wright 1992). As a 

result, this section summarizes alternative changes in the landscape- level, size and age class diversity of 

forested habitat, which is summarized in table 90. Non-forest habitat, which makes up approximately 4 

percent of the project area, is not displayed as it is essentially the same under all alternatives. Existing 

landscape diversity is discussed in the Project Area Description section.

Table 90. Forested size and age class diversity by alternative 

Size Class Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

acres1 %2 Acres1 %2 Acres1 %2

<1 inch d.b.h. (seedling) 0 0 968 4 816 3 

1-4 inches d.b.h. (sapling/pole) 3,845 17 3,747 16 3,776 16

5-9.9 inches d.b.h. (small diameter mature) 10,743 47 10,049 42 10,142 42

10-14.9 inches d.b.h. (medium diameter mature) 8,103 35 7,909 33 7,938 33

>= 15 inches d.b.h. (large diameter mature) 333 1.4 333 1.4 333 1.4

1 Acres within the project area. 

2 Percent of project area.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Landscape diversity would remain largely unchanged under this alternative. As a result, small and 

medium-sized mature forest would continue to predominate on 82 percent of the project area, whereas 

seedling forest would continue to be absent. Consequently, the Stonewall project area would continue to 

provide widespread habitat for mature forest species, whereas habitat for species that prefer a diversity of 

age and structural conditions would continue to be low across most of the project area. Also due to conifer 

encroachment, the availability of mountain meadow and shrub habitat would continue to decline. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

364

The ongoing MPB outbreak most likely has already resulted in altered travel patterns for some species. As 

mortality continues, wildlife in the project area would continue to alter movement patterns to account for 

lack of screening and potential barriers created by large levels of DWD. The availability of dispersal, 

migration, and travel corridors depends on the species of interest and their requirements for movement. 

Over time, the availability of wildlife corridors would fluctuate somewhat with forest succession and, 

potentially, wildfire as these processes change the nature of these corridors temporally and spatially. 

However travel migration corridors would be maintained. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined boundary and past, ongoing and anticipated future 

cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Long-term changes in the landscape and effects on 

wildlife dispersal and travel are most affected by activities that alter the overstory or isolate forest 

patches. Past activities that have fragmented mature forest have included road construction, private land 

development and regeneration harvest on all ownerships and wildfire. Most off-forest harvest occurred at 

lower elevations within portions of the analysis area that had already been fragmented due to human 

development or adjacent to lands dominated by nonforest. Additionally, 8,000 acres of regeneration 

harvest have occurred since the late 1950s. While most of these stands are now characterized by 

predominantly closed canopy conditions, young forest still predominates on approximately 2,200 acres, 

and these sites would continue to reduce habitat and modify movement for many mature forest obligates. 

While past intermediate harvest, (2,300 acres) affected movement following treatment, understory 

conditions and cover as well as movement by wildlife has been largely restored. Similarly, understory 

conditions and wildlife movement would have been largely restored in most area affected by past fuel 

treatments. Recent wildfire (2003 to 2009) has affected 23,418 acres, which has greatly reduced seasonal 

movements and altered migration and dispersal of forest obligate species within much of the Copper 

Creek and Lincoln Gulch drainages. Finally, past and ongoing mountain pine beetle mortality has killed 

most of the mature lodgepole pine, which has altered dispersal, migration and travel corridors, 

particularly on lower elevation lands within the analysis area. 

While some new development of private lands may occur, this is expected to be localized and to occur 

largely in areas that are already developed. No new road work is proposed, although the existing road 

system would continue to impact wildlife species that are affected by the road itself or associated edge 

effects. Ongoing hazard tree removal would affect approximately 570 acres of roadside habitat by 

removing dead and dying trees on approximately 100 feet on either side of the road. Additionally, recent 

wildfire has reduced mature forest on another 450 acres. While the future and recent loss of cover from 

hazard tree removal and wildfire may cause some species to alter movement patterns, because the canopy 

is already dead and considering lands affected by recent wildfire (since 2011) are interspersed with 

unburned lands and surrounded by intact mature forest, it is not anticipated that the seasonal migration, 

dispersal or daily movement for any species would be significantly altered.

Implementation of alternative 1 would contribute to the effects associated with past timber harvest, fuel 

treatments and wildfire. Ongoing and future MPB mortality would continue to reduce mature forest and 

create seral forest conditions. These areas would continue to be avoided by forest obligates. Road use that 

is the result of past actions would continue to impact wildlife that avoid roads. Cumulatively, past 

ongoing and future effects have reduced closed canopy conditions and altered wildlife movement on 

approximately 27,000 acres or 27 percent of the analysis area. However, with the exception of the Copper 

Creek and Lincoln Gulch watersheds, connectivity within the analysis would remain relatively 

unchanged. As a result, and considering that areas of unaffected forest are available to serve as alternate 

travel routes, there are no significant cumulative effects to connectivity or diversity.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

365

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

Early seral habitat would continue to decline, although due to increased risk of wildfire, it is likely that 

this component would increase in the future and there would be no landscape-level irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments under this alternative. 

Alternative 1 Conclusions

While MPB mortality would continue to reduce closed canopy forest conditions, there would be little 

change in landscape-level habitat or age class diversity, and the analysis area would continue to provide 

habitat preferred by species that favor mature forest conditions. While some earl seral habitat would be 

provided in areas of concentrated MPB mortality, habitat for species that prefer or require higher levels of 

horizontal and vertical diversity across the landscape would remain low.

Hazard tree removal and continued MPB mortality would reduce connectivity and alter the seasonal and 

daily movement and dispersal of wildlife. However, unaffected lands would continue to be available to 

serve as alternate movement corridors and existing connectivity would be largely maintained. 

Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Like alternative 1, late-successional habitat (greater than 15 inches d.b.h.) would remain largely 

unchanged. While alternative 2 would result in more seedling (18 percent) habitat, both alternatives 

would increase early seral habitat by 3 to 4 percent and result in a corresponding decrease in mature forest 

habitat. While landscape level diversity would increase, because mature forest conditions would be 

maintained on over 75 percent of the project area, habitat for species that prefer landscapes dominated by 

mature forest conditions would continue to predominate. 

Under the action alternatives, timber harvest and prescribed burning would occur within existing 

dispersal, migration and travel corridors. Intermediate harvest would result in a reduction in canopy cover 

and tree density that may render these areas unsuitable as corridors for mature forest obligates. Treatment 

could also affect movement corridors between summer and winter range or alter the way in which big 

game and other wildlife use these seasonal corridors. Conversely, because understory vegetation including 

the amount and diversity of forage would increase on these sites, treatment would allow animals to forage 

as they move through the area, or increase seasonal use of these sites. 

Regeneration harvest treatments are proposed mainly in stands with concentrated mortality. These stands 

have already lost their suitability as a corridor for species associated with more closed canopy conditions. 

For some species, the removal of standing dead trees would further reduce hiding cover or screening that 

otherwise could allow safe passage throughout the area. 

Low severity and most of proposed mixed severity burning would have little impact on dispersal, 

migration and travel patterns of wildlife. While there may be some short-term displacement during 

prescribed burning activities until the understory is reestablished, impacts should be minimal. Larger 

openings created by mixed severity burning could result in long-term changes in movement or dispersal 

for species such as wolverine, which are reluctant to cross burned areas (Hornocker and Hash 1981). 

Conversely, species including deer and elk would be attracted to these areas because they provide 

elevated levels of forage adjacent to cover (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Finally while burning would 

alter movement and dispersal for wildlife that use the project area, considering that many western conifer 

forests were historically affected by frequent, low- to mixed-severity burning, and that native species are 

adapted to historical fire regimes and resulting habitats (Saab and Powell 2005), it is expected that 

landscape level dispersal, movement and migration following proposed fire would be maintained. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

366

Both alternatives propose activities that would reduce mature forest cover, including regeneration harvest 

and the construction of roads. Alternative 2 proposes approximately 20 percent more regeneration harvest 

than that of alternative 3 and a total of 2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated immediately 

following implementation (versus 0.4 miles under alternative 3). Consequently, the risk of impacting 

wildlife movement is somewhat higher under alternative 2. Effects of these treatments on wildlife are 

discussed in section 4.4. As discussed, proposed roads would occur in areas that are already roaded, 

reducing effects to interior species or species most affected by road use. Proposed roads would result in a 

barrier to some less mobile species, although they would not further fragment patches of forest or isolate 

habitat for any species. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, proposed activities would open up forest 

understories and reduce screening on up to 5,313 acres (intermediate harvest and low severity burning), 

and reduce mature forest habitat and connectivity on up to 2,227 acres (road construction, regeneration 

harvest, high severity fire) under alternative 2. As a result, habitat for mature forest species would be 

reduced and movement and dispersal of wildlife on these lands would be altered. However, these areas 

are interspersed with lands unaffected by treatment, which would provide alternate routes of travel. Also, 

regeneration harvest occurs in areas where MPB mortality has already reduced connectivity, effects of 

intermediate harvest and low severity burning would be short term, and native species have adapted to 

habitats created by low and mixed severity burning (Saab and Powell 2005). Collectively, for these 

reasons and considering both alternatives would increase horizontal and vertical diversity across the 

landscape, there are no significant cumulative effects to landscape level diversity or connectivity 

anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments under either alternative. However, both alternatives would result 

in an irretrievable commitment in the form of proposed project roads to be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal.

Action Alternatives Conclusions

Timber harvest and prescribed burning would open up patches of forest habitat and occasionally disrupt 

movement patterns across the landscape for some forest obligates. Treatments would not preclude travel 

through most sites, but would affect movement to some degree. Areas of untreated forest would remain 

interspersed with treated stands, providing a variety of alternate travel routes. 

Due to changes in the understory, proposed actions would increase sight distances and allow animals 

moving through the area to be seen from further away. The open stands created by partial harvest and 

most of the burning would continue to screen large animals such as elk, deer, moose, and black bear, but 

at reduced levels. Conversely, the forage value of the treated areas would be higher, allowing animals 

more opportunity to feed as they moved through the area. The proximity of forage to cover and potential 

effects are discussed in more detail in section 4.6 and under the species-specific sections.

Due to proposed regeneration harvest and avoidance of late-successional habitat/future old growth, 

landscape-level age and structural diversity would increase and habitat would be improved for species 

that prefer landscapes containing greater horizontal and vertical diversity. Like alternative 1, habitat for 

species that prefer mature forest conditions would continue to predominate. 

In the short term, some wildlife would have to adjust their movement patterns to take advantage of 

untreated areas. Given that harvest and prescribed burn patterns would mimic historic patterns, it is 

expected that landscape level dispersal, movement and migration would be maintained. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

367

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

There are no specific Forest Plan standards applicable to management of dispersal, migration, and/or 

travel corridors. Because habitat connectivity would be maintained, all alternatives are consistent with 

National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Species Effects

Threatened and Endangered Species

This section describes alternative effects on threatened and endangered species evaluated in detail (See 

the Habitat and Species Evaluated section).

Canada Lynx

The analysis of effects to lynx and their habitat concentrate on whether or not the proposed activities are 

consistent with the objectives, standards and guidelines identified in the Northern Rockies Lynx

Management Direction (NRLMD) (USDA Forest Service 2007a), effects described in the Biological 

Opinion (BO) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), and affect to critical habitat. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

No treatments are proposed for the no-action alternative, so there would be no direct effects on lynx. 

However, habitat conditions would change. Many of the stands affected by MPB mortality have been 

opened up, but do not currently provide winter foraging habitat because the understory vegetation is not 

yet established within the canopy gaps. In the absence of wildfire conifer regeneration would continue to 

increase as stands mature. While this would increase the availability of multi-storied habitat, in the 

absence of future wildfire stand initiation habitat would be reduced or largely eliminated within the next 

20 to 30 years. 

Generally, spruce/fir types which provide preferred lynx habitat have been less affected by fire 

suppression due to longer return intervals. Also large stand replacing fires can provide high quality 

snowshoe hare forging habitat after approximately 10 to 30 years (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007b). In the last 9 years 28 percent of BL-08 has recently been affected by wildfire and winter foraging 

habitat has been reduced within this LAU. Also low-elevation mixed conifer stands are interspersed with 

dryer communities that have shorter fire return intervals, and these areas have been affected by past fire 

suppression. As a result, the risk of wildfire is increased (USDA Forest Service 2012d) and the likelihood 

of a further reduction in lynx den and winter foraging habitat is greatest under this alternative. There is no 

way to predict if or when wildfire would occur, but the departure from historical conditions on much of 

the project area, as well as increased fuel loading increases the likelihood of fire.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for lynx includes the combined LAUs (BL-07 and BL-08) affected 

by treatment, which totals 54, 211 acres. This area was chosen because (1) it is large enough to assess 

habitat conditions within the home range of a female lynx, (2) will allow for a good distribution of lynx 

habitat components and can be used to adequately assess effects to movement/connectivity, (3) it includes 

all lynx critical habitat affected, (4) expanding the boundary to the north will incorporate wilderness, 

which would tend to dilute effects, and (5) lands to the south include private land which is highly 

fragmented, which don’t provide preferred habitat conditions.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

368

There are a number of past and ongoing activities occurring within the analysis area that have affected 

lynx habitat; a complete list of all activities considered can be found in volume 2, appendix C. While 

some of these past activities have adversely affected lynx by reducing winter foraging and den habitat, 

others have had positive effects because treatment has improved understory structure and the amount and 

distribution of snowshoe hare habitat. Effects also vary over time. For example, while older regeneration 

harvest treatments reduced multi-story or mid-seral habitat initially, many of these sites now provide 

stand initiation habitat. Similarly, while past partial harvest treatments such as thinnings and improvement 

cuts reduce forage and cover immediately following harvest, many of these sites are now dominated by 

multi-story habitat. Also, much of the recent management (since 2000) in BL-08 has been related to 

salvage and reforestation activities associated with the Snow Talon fire. So while treatments reduced dead 

wood and den habitat, treatments were designed to promote the development of tree regeneration 

following the fire, including increased stand diversity. Also, it is expected that many of these sites would 

provide winter hare habitat by the end of the analysis period (i.e., 2022). 

In addition to past activities that have influenced the existing condition, ongoing and future activities 

within the combined project LAUs include; winter recreation, existing campground and outfitter guide 

use, prescribed burning, trail construction, campground rehabilitation, stream work, grazing, nonnative 

invasive weed treatments (NNIS), road maintenance, hazard tree removal, recent wildfire and the 

Blackfoot Winter Travel Plan. A total of approximately 9,148 acres of mapped lynx habitat would be 

affected by anticipated cumulative effects. Of these 3,610 acres or 26 percent of the existing winter 

foraging habitat would be affected. The following cumulative effects are expected to occur within the 

analysis area by 2022. 

Campground Rehabilitation – 5 acres of mapped habitat (all winter foraging). 

Prescribed Fire – 129 acres of mapped habitat including 86 acres of winter foraging.

Grazing – 5,912 acres of mapped habitat including 2,250 acres of winter foraging.

Off-road Invasive Weed Treatment – 1,358 acres of mapped habitat including 636 acres of winter 

foraging.

Road Treatments including NNIS, Hazard Tree Removal and Recent Wildfire – 1,545 acres of 

mapped lynx habitat including 539 acres of winter foraging. 

Stream Restoration – 3 acres of mapped habitat including 1 acre of winter foraging. 

Trail Construction – 196 acres of mapped habitat including 93 acres of winter foraging. 

Blackfoot Winter Travel Plan – address wildlife issues related to motorized and non-motorized 

winter use. 

While 23 percent and 26 percent of the mapped and winter foraging habitat would be affected during the 

analysis period, many of the treatments would not adversely affect lynx habitat. For example habitat 

would be largely unchanged due to campground rehabilitation, trail construction, stream work and NNIS 

treatments. As a result and considering that lynx are generally tolerant of human activities (Ruediger et al. 

2000), effects would occur largely as short-term avoidance of the area during treatment. Similarly, while 

hazard tree removal and firewood collection would reduce snags and future downed woody debris along 

roads, these areas would not be preferred for denning due to increased levels of human disturbance 

(Ruediger et al. 2000; Koehler and Brittell 1990) and understory vegetation and winter foraging habitat 

would be largely unchanged. As a result effects from these treatments would consist largely of avoidance 

during implementation. Finally it is expected that some of the unsuitable stand initiation habitat created as 

a result of the 2003 Snow Talon fire would have developed enough low cover to provide winter snowshoe 

hare habitat by the end of the analysis period and project implementation. As a result, many of the 

anticipated cumulative effects would not result in long-term adverse impacts to lynx or their habitat.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

369

Approximately 5,900 acres of mapped habitat would be affected by grazing. While understory vegetation 

would be affected, existing use is not expected to change. As a result and with implementation of pdfs to 

reduce grazing impacts to recovering vegetation, winter forage and cover would be largely unchanged. 

Finally, there is no evidence that grazing is a factor threatening lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007b) and there are no long-term adverse effects to lynx anticipated. 

The Blackfoot Winter Travel Plan is expected to address wildlife issues, including potential impacts of 

winter use on lynx. Because the final decision would be consistent with NRLM direction, there are no 

significant cumulative effects to lynx anticipated from winter recreational use. 

New information indicates that climate change may be an issue of concern for the future conservation of 

lynx because lynx distribution and habitat is likely to shift upward in elevation within its currently 

occupied range as temperatures increase (Gonzalez et al. 2007), although this information still needs to be 

developed to determine effects to lynx and their habitat. Also, projections for future climate change in 

lynx habitat are not available. For mountain-dwelling species like lynx, it is likely that upper elevation 

habitat would become increasingly important in the face of climate changes, although in the absence of 

wildfire upper elevation habitat would remain largely unchanged. 

In addition to cumulative effects within the CE area, two projects on critical lynx habitat within the 

Lincoln District are currently being analyzed that fall outside this project’s CE area. These include the 

Dalton Vegetation Management Project and the Helmville Face Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project, 

which lie approximately 3 to 5 miles south of the Stonewall project area. The district has been field 

validating lynx habitat within affected lands and treatments proposed under these projects would not 

reduce winter hare habitat. Additionally, a number of treatments within the Dalton project have been 

dropped to reduce disturbance in areas with documented lynx, wolverine, and grizzly use. As a result, 

although specific treatment areas are not finalized, activities proposed under both projects would be in 

compliance with NRLM direction and there are no long-term adverse effects to lynx anticipated. 

While future timber harvest on state and private lands has been occurring and is expected to continue to 

occur into the future, generally these lands occur at lower elevations or as scattered parcels in fragmented 

portions of the analysis area. As a result these areas provide less suitable or unsuitable lynx habitat and it 

is not expected that past or future activities on state or private land would further reduce suitable lynx 

habitat or create barriers to lynx movement.

So, in summary, considering that (1) effects of many past activities are short term or have improved lynx 

habitat, (2) past and continued MPB mortality is expected to increase the availability of den habitat across 

the landscape, (3) over 70 percent of the mapped and winter forage lynx habitat would be unaffected, and 

(4) existing uses would be largely unchanged, there are no long-term adverse or significant cumulative 

effects to lynx or lynx habitat anticipated under alternative 1. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments to lynx or lynx habitat under this alternative. 

Determination and Conclusions

The risk of wildfire remains high, however, because there are no direct effects and considering winter 

foraging and den habitat remains largely unchanged, implementation of alternative 1 would have no 

effect on Canada lynx. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

370

Action Alternatives 

Direct Effects

Direct effects include those that result from activities or increased human presence that may result in 

harm or harassment to individual lynx and/or affect reproduction. Scientific literature is limited regarding 

the effects of human activities and associated disturbance factors that might affect lynx. To date there is 

little evidence that lynx are particularly sensitive to human disturbance other than near reproductive den 

sites (Ruediger et al. 2000; Koehler and Brittell 1990) and some authors have described lynx as being 

generally tolerant of human activities (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

Potential effects to den sites are largely affected by the likelihood that activities would occur during the 

denning period and research in Montana indicates that lynx mate in late winter and females localize at 

natal dens in mid-May. Also during late May and June, lynx may move kittens from the natal den to a 

series of maternal dens. (Forest Carnivores 2012, Available at: 

http://forestcarnivores.org/lynx/research/denning_ecology.php, accessed 10/2/2012). It is anticipated that 

proposed burning would occur largely in the fall outside the denning period. Also approximately 950 

acres of lower elevation timber harvest in potentially suitable den habitat would occur during the frozen 

winter conditions, outside the spring denning period. Finally, much of the spring denning season occurs 

during spring break-up, or when wet conditions would restrict timber harvest. Collectively for these 

reasons, as well as the widespread availability of unaffected den habitat, the likelihood that an active den 

would be affected by treatment is greatly reduced and considered low. As a result, and considering 

denning habitat is not limiting (USDA Forest Service 2007b p. 15), there are no effects to den habitat 

expected that would reduce lynx viability. 

Approximately 15 and 12 percent of the mapped lynx habitat would be affected under Alternatives 2 and 

3 respectively and direct effects in the form of disturbance to foraging or dispersing individuals during 

treatment may occur. However proposed treatments would occur over a ten year period. Also 20 percent 

or more of stands proposed for prescribed burning would be unaffected by treatment. As a result and due 

to the widespread availability of unaffected habitat, suitable lynx habitat would be available within all 

affected watersheds to accommodate any animals displaced by treatment. Consequently any effects 

associated with disturbance from proposed treatments would be short term. 

Because proposed harvest would open up stand conditions, direct effects also include disturbance 

associated with dispersed recreational use of the area, including snow related recreation (snowmobiling 

and skiing outside of designated areas). While some off-trail snowmobile use does occur, most use occurs 

along designated trails which only affect a small portion of the analysis area. Also any increase in off-trail 

use is expected to be short term because woody vegetation would become established within 10 to 20 

years of treatment and any roads built would be obliterated immediately following timber removal. 

Further most prescribed burn units occur away from roads and access for snowmobiles, and anecdotal 

information suggests that lynx are not displaced by human presence, including moderate levels of 

snowmobile traffic (Mowat et al. 2000, Squires 1999, G. Byrne 1999). Collectively for these reasons, the 

potential for direct effects from snowmobile use is reduced and there are no long-term direct impacts to 

lynx from winter recreation anticipated. 

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are presented in three parts including (1) an alternative summary of habitat changes and 

compliance with NRLMD vegetation standards for affected lynx analysis units, (2) effects of individual 

treatments and proposed actions on lynx habitat, and (3) a summary of alternative compliance with 

applicable NRLMD objectives, standards and guidelines. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

371

Alternative Summary of Habitat Changes For BL-07 and BL-08 Lynx Analysis Units

Expected changes by alternative and compliance with NRLMD vegetation standards are displayed in 

table 91 for BL-07 and table 92 for BL-08. Changes under the action alternatives displayed in these tables 

are based on effects of proposed treatments which are described below.

Table 91. Blackfoot 07 alternative lynx habitat 

Habitat/Condition

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Existing 

Acres (%) Acres (%) Change Acres (%) Change

Habitat Conditions

Total acres 26,662 26,662 0 26,662 0 

Acres mapped habitat 17,632 (66) 17,632 (66) 0 17,632 (66) 0 

Acres potential denning habitat 17,145 (64) 14,133 (53) -3,012 15,146 (57) -1,999

Acres winter hare habitat 9,714 (36) 8,751 (33) -963 9,201 (34) -514

Acres mid-seral habitat 7,431 (28) 6,945 (26) -486 6,990 (26) -441

Acres of unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat 331 (1.2)1 1,780 (6.7)1 +1449 1,286 (4.8)1 +955

Compliance with VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, VEG S6 and VEG G10

Acres of stand initiation hare habitat 

treated 0 460 +460 230 +230

Acres of stand initiation hare habitat 

treated within the WUI 0 460 +460 230 +230

Acres of multi-story habitat treated 0 477 +477 289 +289

Acres of multi-story habitat treated 

within the WUI 0 477 +477 289 +289

Meets VEG S1: No more than 30% of 

the lynx habitat currently in the 

unsuitable stand initiation structural 

stage

Yes Meets

331 acres 

(1) 

Yes Meets

1,780 (7) +1,449 Yes Meets1,286 (5) +955

Do three or more adjacent LAUs exceed 

VEG S1? No No No

Meets VEG S2: Timber management 

projects shall not regenerate more than 

15% of lynx habitat in a 10-year period

Yes Meets

38 acres

(<1) 

Yes Meets

739 (3) +701 Yes Meets613 (2) +582

VEG S5: Precommercial thinning - 

Acres of stand initiation hare habitat 

treated within a WUI

0 432 (2) +432 204 (1) +204

VEG S5 cont’d – Acres of stand 

initiation hare habitat treated under 

exceptions 1-6 

0 0 0 0 0 

VEG S6: Multi-story habitat - Acres of 

multi-story habitat treated within the 

WUI

0 477 (2) +477 289 (1) +289

VEG S6 cont’d: Acres of multi-story 

habitat treated under exceptions 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 

Meets VEG G10 – Fuel treatment 

projects within the WUI

Yes Meets

See Table 

40

Yes Meets

See Table 40

Yes Meets

See Table 40
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

372

Habitat/Condition

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Existing 

Acres (%) Acres (%) Change Acres (%) Change

Forestwide Summary of VEG G10

VEG G10: Acres of total treatment 

Forestwide under exceptions to VEG 

S1, S2, S5 or S6 

82 1,259 +1,177 747 +665

VEG G10 cont’d: Forest wide cap of 

26,400 acres (6 percent of Forest lynx 

habitat)

Revised cap 

of 26,318

Revised cap

of 25,141

Revised cap

Of 25,653

1

 - Due to development of stand initiation habitat by project completion (2022), it is anticipated that the amount of unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat would be reduced from that displayed (see unsuitable stand initiation habitat summary below). 

Table 92. Blackfoot 08 alternative lynx habitat

Habitat/Condition

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Existing 

Acres (%) Acres (%) Change Acres (%) Change

Habitat Conditions

Total acres 27,549 27,549 0 27,549 0 

Acres mapped habitat 21,421 (78) 21,421 (78) 0 21,421 (78) 0 

Acres potential denning habitat 13,184 (48) 11,038 (40) -2,146 11,474 (42) -1,710

Acres winter hare habitat 4,170 (15) 3,938 (14) -232 4,027 (15) -143

Acres mid-seral habitat 9,014 (33) 8,737 (32) -277 8,767 (32) -247

Acres of unsuitable 

Stand initiation habitat 7,864 (28)1 8,373 (30)1 +509 8,254 (30)1 +390

Compliance with VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, VEG S6 and VEG G10

Acres of stand initiation hare habitat 

treated 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres of multi-story habitat treated 0 240 +240 146 +146

Acres of multi-story habitat treated

within the WUI. 0 240 +240 146 +146

Meets VEG S1: No more than 30% of 

the lynx habitat currently in the 

unsuitable stand initiation structural 

stage

Yes Meets

7,864 (28)

Yes Meets

8,373 (30) +509 Yes Meets

8,254 (30) +391

Do three or more adjacent LAUs exceed 

VEG S1? No No No

Meets VEG S2: Timber management 

projects shall not regenerate more than 

15% of lynx habitat in a 10-year period

Yes Meets

495 (2)

Yes Meets

495 (2) 0 Yes Meets

495 (2) 0 

VEG S5: Precommercial thinning - Acres 

of stand initiation hare habitat treated 

within a WUI

0 0 0 0 0 

VEG S5 cont’d: Acres of stand initiation 

hare habitat treated under exceptions 1-

6 

0 0 0 0 0 

VEG S6: Multi-story habitat - Acres of 

multi-story habitat treated within the WUI 0 240 +240 146 +146
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

373

Habitat/Condition

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Existing 

Acres (%) Acres (%) Change Acres (%) Change

VEG S6 cont’d: Acres of multi-story 

habitat treated under exceptions 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 

Meets VEG G10: Fuel treatment projects 

within the WUI

Yes Meets

See Table 

40

Yes Meets

See Table 40

Yes Meets

See Table 40

Forestwide Summary of VEG G10

VEG G10: Acres of total treatment 

Forestwide under exceptions to VEG S1, 

S2, S5 or S6 

82 1,259 +1,177 747 +665

VEG G10 cont’d: Forest wide cap of 

26,400 acres (6 percent of Forest lynx 

habitat)

Revised cap 

of 26,318

Revised cap

of 25,141

Revised cap

Of 25,653

1

 - Due to development of stand initiation habitat by project completion (2022), it is anticipated that the amount of unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat would be reduced from that displayed (see unsuitable stand initiation habitat summary below). 

Effects of Treatment

Treatments proposed under both action alternatives emphasize fuel reduction and reducing wildfire risk, 

while re-introducing fire and improving vegetative species diversity. The following is a discussion of the 

individual treatments proposed under the two action alternatives, their effects to lynx habitat and 

compliance with NRLMD standards and guidelines. 

Individual treatments with similar effects on vegetation structure have been grouped together and include 

regeneration harvest (clearcutting, and shelterwood/seedtree harvest), intermediate harvest (improvement 

cutting, sanitation salvage) and prescribed burning (low and mixed severity fire, underburning and 

jackpot burning). Also burning treatments include lands where only burning would be conducted, as well 

as lands that would receive both harvest and burn treatments. Effects of these activities on lynx habitat, as 

well as compliance with NRLMD objectives, standards and guidelines are summarized in tables 38, 39 

and 40. 

Because both action alternatives have a similar mix of treatments they are discussed collectively. 

However, it should be noted that alternative 3 drops or modifies treatments in order to reduce short-term 

impacts to wildlife, including lynx habitat. 

All effects of treatment assume implementation of project design features identified in table 9, chapter 2, 

and both alternatives would retain downed wood, large diameter logs and understory inclusions of shrubs. 

Additionally, the following would be implemented. 

Multi-story habitat inclusions outside the WUI: While some of the proposed burn units outside the tricounty WUI contain pockets of multi-story habitat, this largely occurs along the unit perimeters and these 

areas would be avoided during layout and implementation. Also, there are a few patches of MS habitat 

that occur as small inclusions within the interior of a burn unit. Past experience has shown that the crew 

would spend up to 2 weeks prior to ignition to identify firing patterns and control lines that would meet 

objectives including retention of unique or sensitive wildlife habitats. This pre-treatment field review and 

implementation of the following project design feature would ensure that any inclusion of MS habitat 

within a prescribed burn unit would not be affected: 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

374

Alternatives 2 and 3

The ignition pattern and/or control lines in all burning units outside the WUI would be modified 

to ensure that lands classified as MS habitat would not be treated.

Promote aspen and reduce impacts to MS and SI habitat within the WUI: Portions of three stands 

contain aspen, which need to be released if this declining community is to be maintained over the long 

term. Additionally, in order to minimize disturbance to MS and SI habitat within the WUI, the following 

PDFs would be implemented: 

Alternatives 2 and 3

To promote and maintain important habitat characteristics in MS and SI habitat where activities 

are proposed, treatments would be designed and laid out in coordination with the local Forest 

Service biologist 

Ignition patterns would be modified to minimize burning in areas classified as MS lynx habitat. 

Alternative 3

Unit 46 – improvement cutting in MS habitat is dropped and treatment is restricted to 

underburning only. 

Unit 75 – treatment in SI habitat is reduced to 19 acres immediately adjacent to private land.

Unit 47 – improvement cutting in MS habitat would be reduced by 50 percent or more and 

targeted entirely at promoting aspen and reducing mortality of large diameter ponderosa pine. 

Also approximately 50 percent of the unit would be underburned. 

Regeneration harvest: All proposed regeneration harvest occurs within the CWPP WUI. Within BL-07, 

regeneration harvest is proposed on 701 acres under alternative 2 and 582 acres under alternative 3. While 

regeneration harvest would occur on up to 107 acres of MS habitat and 21 acres of SI habitat under 

alternative 2, approximately 80 percent of the regeneration harvest under both alternatives occurs in midseral habitat that presently has a poorly developed understory. There is no regeneration harvest proposed 

within BL-08. 

Proposed treatment removes or alters stand structure, and eliminates snowshoe hare foraging/cover and 

lynx cover until the site is regenerated (15 to 20 years) and treatment would create unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat conditions. It also reduces potential for denning and red squirrel habitat by removing 

large trees and down logs on the site (Ruediger et al. 2000). However, with implementation of pdfs that 

includes retention of snags and 5 to 20 tons of DWD per acre including large diameter wood, as well as 

with implementation if INFISH buffer restrictions, some den habitat would be retained on sites treated. 

Sites proposed for treatment only occur in areas where there has been extensive MPB mortality. So while 

regeneration harvest units initially may not be used by hares and lynx, over the long term (in 15 years or 

more depending on the type of forest) treatment would create early successional stages with dense 

understories preferred by snowshoe (USDA Forest Service 2007a, appendix P). As a result, treatment 

would help to maintain a stand initiation habitat component in the future. 

NRLMD Compliance: Proposed treatments occur in areas with concentrated MPB mortality and 

regeneration harvest and reforestation treatments are designed to reduce fuels and wildfire risk, increase 

understory species diversity including fire tolerant species and hardwoods and promote the long-term 

sustainability of forested habitat. As a result, treatments are in compliance with VEG G1. Because 

unsuitable stand initiation habitat would be at or below 30 percent in both BL-07 and BL-08, and less 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

375

than 15 percent of the lynx habitat on NFS lands within affected LAUs would be regenerated during a 10-

year period, both action alternatives are in compliance with VEG S1 and VEG S2. Also because all MS 

and SI habitat proposed for treatment occurs within the WUI, treatments are in compliance with VEG S5 

and VEG S6. Finally, because 80 percent of the treatment would occur in stands that presently lack a 

developing understory and considering treatment would promote development of future SI habitat and 

increase hardwood and conifer species diversity while reducing the risk of future wildfire, treatment 

would help promote the long-term sustainability of lynx habitat and both alternatives are in compliance 

with VEG G10. 

Intermediate harvest: This activity is concentrated adjacent to private lands and structures and all 

intermediate harvest is proposed within a WUI. Within BL-07, intermediate harvest is proposed on 600 

acres of mapped lynx habitat under alternative 2 and 328 acres under alternative 3. Of this, treatment in 

MS habitat would occur on 286 acres under alternative 2 and on 162 acres under alternative 3, whereas 

treatment in SI habitat would occur on 6 acres under both alternatives. Within BL-08, intermediate 

harvest is proposed on 197 acres and 130 acres under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, and all but 3 acres 

of this occurs in MS habitat. Approximately 50 percent of the treatment under both alternatives would 

occur in mid-seral habitat that presently have poorly developed understory conditions. 

Partial or intermediate treatments remove understory and overstory vegetation to improve the growth, 

quality, vigor and species composition of the stand. These may temporarily (less than 10 years) reduce the 

cover and forage values for lynx, and reduce winter forage opportunities for snowshoe hare. This 

reduction in habitat may be due to the harvest of trees, or due to mechanical operations that create skid 

trails or damage to understory vegetation. These treatments can also modify vegetation structure that 

contributes to red squirrel habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000), although large-diameter trees, a downed wood 

component and suitable red squirrel habitat would be maintained within treatment sites. Overall effects 

include a short-term reduction in the quality of foraging and den habitat, although habitat would be 

restored or enhanced as the understory develops (Bose et al. 2012). For example, much of the existing 

multi-storied hare habitat is largely a result of previous partial harvest activities, and treatments are 

expected to promote development of MS habitat sooner than would occur under no action. Also much of 

the intermediate harvest occurs in mid-seral habitat that presently lacks understory structure and winter 

hare habitat. While short-term habitat quality would be affected, implementation of PDFs ensures that 

some foraging and den habitat would be maintained on sites treated. 

NRLMD Compliance. Intermediate harvest, as well as associated burning described below is designed to 

reduce fuels, future conifer mortality and wildfire risk, promote development of herbaceous and woody 

(shrub and conifer) vegetation in the understory, and promote or maintain aspen. Also, because 

approximately half of the intermediate harvest is proposed in mid-seral habitat which presently does not 

provide winter hare habitat, treatment would result in development of future MS habitat sooner than 

would occur under no action. As a result, both alternatives are in compliance with VEG G1 and VEG O4. 

Because all MS and SI habitat affected occurs within the WUI, treatments are in compliance with VEG S5 

and VEG S6. Finally, because both alternatives retain over between 92 and 95 percent of the existing 

winter hare habitat within affected LAUs, increase species and structural diversity within treatment sites, 

promote development of future MS habitat and reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire, treatment 

would promote the long-term sustainability of lynx habitat and are in compliance with VEG G10. 

Precommercial thinning: Within BL-07, precommercial thinning (PCT) is proposed on 712 acres of 

mapped lynx habitat under alternative 2 and on 451 acres under alternative 3. Of this, PCT within stand 

initiation habitat would occur on 432 acres under alternative 2 and on 204 acres under alternative 3. The 

remaining thinning would occur in mid-seral, stem exclusion or unsuitable stand initiation habitat. Within 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

376

BL-08, treatment in mapped lynx habitat would occur on 291 acres and 244 acres under alternatives 2 and 

3, respectively, all of which would occur in mid-seral habitat. 

This treatment involves thinning young trees, which reduces the density of sapling-sized conifer trees and 

understory shrubs and therefore reduces available snowshoe hare habitat (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

Treatment is designed to reduce fuels in close proximity to private lands and all precommercial thinning 

occurs within the WUI. It is assumed that foraging habitat would be reduced over the long term (greater 

than 15 years) and treatment within stand initiation habitat would result in unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat conditions. Potential den habitat would also be reduced, although retention of 5 to 20 tons/acre of 

DWD would help to restore den habitat. 

NRLMD Compliance. Treatment is designed reduce wildfire risk to private land and structures, while 

promoting development of large diameter trees and conifer diversity and reducing future insect and 

disease related mortality. As a result, and because all proposed precommercial thinning occurs within the 

CWPP WUI, both alternatives comply with VEG G1 and VEG S5. About 78 percent of the stand initiation 

habitat was initially avoided (alternative 2) and thinning was only proposed on lands that pose a risk to 

private land/structures from wildfire. Also an alternative (alternative 3) was developed that retained 

approximately 90 percent of the existing stand initiation habitat. As a result, the Stonewall project was 

designed considering VEG S5 and complies with VEG G10. Also, see alternative compliance to VEG 

G10 in table 93. 

Pile and jackpot burning. Within BL-07, treatment would occur on 246 acres of mapped lynx habitat 

under alternative 2 and on 229 acres under alternative 3. Within BL-08, there is no jackpot burning 

proposed under alternative 2, whereas 214 acres would occur under alternative 3. Approximately 73 

percent of proposed jackpot/pile burning under alternative 2 and 40 percent under alternative 3 occurs in 

mid-seral habitat that presently has a poorly developed understory. 

Burning piles or concentrations (jackpots) of fuels would reduce foraging and den habitat. However with 

implementation of PDFs that call for the retention of large DWD and maintenance of INFISH buffers, 

some cover and den habitat would be maintained on sites following treatment. While some den and 

summer foraging habitat would be retained, it is assumed that treatment would reduce habitat for 10 to 15 

years, after which both den and winter foraging habitat would be restored. 

NRLMD Compliance. Treatment is designed to reduce fuels and the risk of wildfire within the WUI. Also 

this treatment is largely used in combination with intermediate or regeneration harvest activities and 

would help to achieve objectives described under these treatments. As a result, treatment is compliance 

with VEG G1 and VEG G10.

Broadcast burning. This includes sites proposed for low severity burning or underburning, as well as 

most of the sites (55 percent) proposed for mixed severity burning. Within BL-07, treatment would occur 

on 773 acres under alternative 2 and on 385 acres under alternative 3. Of this, MS habitat within the WUI 

would occur on 82 acres and 23 acres under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, whereas the remainder 

would occur in mid-seral or unsuitable stand initiation habitat. Within BL-08, treatment would occur on 

1,156 acres and on 899 acres under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. Of this, MS habitat within the WUI 

would occur on 23 acres under alternative 2 and on 2 acres under alternative 3. Approximately 94 percent 

of the proposed burning under alternative 2 and 98 percent under alternative 3 occur in mid-seral habitat 

that presently has poorly developed understory conditions. 

Because treatment kills young trees and reduces small diameter woody debris, broadcast burning is 

expected to reduce available forage and cover on the sites treated. Although, where burning prescriptions 

are designed to retain large-sized woody debris, habitat for snowshoe hare and lynx would be expected to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

377

be retained (Ruediger et al. 2000). As a result, and with implementation of PDFs that retain 5 to 20 tons of 

DWD per acre including large-diameter wood, as well as pockets of understory shrubs and vegetation, 

and considering that 20 percent or more of the site would be untreated, some denning and foraging habitat 

would be retained on treatment sites. Also, broadcast burning is expected to stimulate regrowth by many 

herbaceous plants beneficial to snowshoe hares during summer, and provide heat to release seeds of 

conifers with serotinous cones. Although cover and forage would be reduced for 5 to 10 years, because 

mature forest that have openings created through fire can provide snowshoe hare habitat (Squires et al. 

2006), burning would also be expected to result in establishment of tree seedlings and shrubs and improve 

foraging habitat over the long term. Similarly, due to recruitment of downed woody debris, den habitat 

would be restored within a few years of treatment and is assumed that treatment would result in a shortterm effects to den and foraging habitat. 

NRLMD Compliance. Proposed broadcast burning is designed to achieve a variety of objectives 

including, restoring historic levels of fire to the landscape, reducing fuels and wildfire risk, increase 

understory herbaceous and woody (shrubs) vegetation, promote the development of fire tolerant conifer 

species, and maintain or enhance aspen and white bark pine. Also, all MS habitat proposed for treatment 

occurs within the WUI and most treatment occurs on lands that have poorly developed understories. 

Collectively, for these reasons, treatment proposed under both alternatives would promote the long-term 

sustainability of lynx habitat and are consistent with VEG O4, VEG G1, VEG G10, and VEG S6. Because 

most burning is proposed on steeper sideslopes and with retention of un-burned lands within treatment 

units, habitat and travel corridors along ridgelines would be maintained and both alternatives are in 

compliance with VEG G4. Also, because 20 percent of the site would be left un-burned and due to 

retention of large diameter trees and enhancement of conifer regeneration, habitat for alternate species 

such as red squirrel would be maintained or improved and treatment is consistent with VEG G5. Finally, 

because burning would re-store historic levels of fire to the landscape, as well as increase landscape level 

diversity and winter hare habitat, treatment is consistent with VEG O1, VEG O2, and VEG O3. Snow 

compaction and compliance with VEG G4 is discussed below. 

Mixed severity burning. Within BL-07, mixed severity burning is proposed on 1,269 acres of mapped 

lynx habitat under alternative 2 and on 685 acres under alternative 3. Of this, MS habitat within the WUI 

would occur on 90 acres and 11 acres under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. Within BL-08, treatment is 

proposed on 2,035 acres and 1,564 acres of mapped lynx habitat under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. 

Of this, MS habitat within the WUI would occur on 40 acres under alternative 2 and on 2 acres under 

alternative 3. Over 95 percent of the mixed severity burning under both alternatives is proposed in midseral habitat that presently has poorly developed understories. 

Mixed severity burning would exhibit a wide range of effects on vegetation including unburned (20 

percent of the site), lightly burned (55 percent of the site) and moderate to severe fire (25 percent of the 

site). Effects of lightly burned areas are discussed under broadcast burning. Moderate to severe fire would 

create overstory canopy openings of various sizes ranging from 10 to 75 acres. However over time 

(greater than 15 years) as the understory develops, forage would be created within these openings, 

increasing the diversity of winter foraging habitat across the landscape. Also due to the recruitment of 

dead wood from fire mortality, den habitat would be restored within these openings within 5 to 10 years 

of treatment. 

Due to the canopy reduction resulting from higher severity fire, approximately 25 percent of the acres 

proposed for mixed severity treatment would have a long-term reduction in foraging habitat and 

unsuitable stand initiation habitat conditions would be created on this acreage. There would also be a 

short-term reduction in potential den habitat in these fire-created openings, whereas approximately 55 

percent of the site (i.e., acres affected by low severity burning) would have short-term effects to foraging 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

378

and den habitat. About 20 percent of the site would be unburned and there would be no change in den or 

foraging habitat on these lands. Overall, mixed severity burning would provide a diverse forest in terms of 

both structure and species composition which would maintain foraging and den habitat in the short term 

and long term, and improve the amount and distribution of winter hare habitat over the long term. 

NRLMD Compliance. Treatment would create a variety of conditions on the site and treatment is designed 

to restore historic levels of low and mixed severity fire to the landscape, reduce fuels and wildfire risk, 

promote landscape diversity including future MS and SI habitat, and maintain or enhance species 

diversity including aspen, white bark pine, fire tolerant conifers and herbaceous and woody understory 

conditions. Also, all MS habitat proposed for treatment occurs within the tri-county WUI and over 95 

percent of the treatment occurs in mid-seral stands that currently have a poorly developed understory. As 

a result, treatment is expected to promote the long-term sustainability of lynx habitat while reducing 

wildfire risk and treatment under both alternatives are in compliance with VEG O4, VEG G1, VEG G10, 

VEG S1 and VEG S6. Like underburning, due to the restoration of fire and increased landscape diversity, 

treatment is consistent with VEG O1, VEG O2 and VEG O3. Also because 20 percent of the site would be 

left un-burned and due to retention of large diameter trees and downed wood, habitat for alternate species 

such as red squirrel would be maintained and treatment is consistent with VEG G5. 

WUI Summary

All timber harvest proposed under both alternatives falls within the CWPP WUI. Also, neither alternative 

proposes burning in multi-story or stand initiation habitat outside the WUI. While mid-seral habitat 

outside the WUI is proposed for prescribed burning there are no NRLMD restrictions to this activity. Also 

treatment is expected to promote development of winter hare habitat sooner than would occur under no 

action. 

Habitat Connectivity

Management should be designed to maintain or restore lynx habitat connectivity in and between LAUs 

and in linkage areas (NRLMD objective All O1). With the exception of the northeast portion of BL-08 

that has been affected by recent wildfire, lynx habitat is currently well connected (see figure 69). 

Treatments that would reduce connectivity include roads to be constructed then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal and regeneration harvest. While openings would be created in portions of sites 

receiving a mixed severity burning treatment, it is not expected that they would alter connectivity as they 

would be widely scattered and interspersed with large blocks of mature forest. Also as described under 

treatment effects, proposed roads would not isolate any forest patches, nor would they be built in unroaded areas. Regeneration harvest is also concentrated near private land where MPB mortality has 

already eliminated most of the overstory and treatment units. Collectively, for these reasons and 

considering that research has documented lynx presence and reproduction in a variety of managed 

landscapes (NRLMD p. 153), and that several authors have reported lynx movement through large areas 

of nonforest (Ruediger et al. 2000, Roe et al. 2000 in USDA Forest Service 2007a), it is expected that 

habitat connectivity would be maintained under both alternatives. 

Roads 

While there is no evidence that suggests that forest roads pose a threat to lynx (USDA Forest Service 

2007b, p. 3), roads may reduce lynx habitat by removing forest cover and plowed roads may provide 

access for lynx competitors. Conversely lynx have been documented using less traveled roads where the 

vegetation provides good hare habitat and Squires et al. (2010) concluded that forest roads with low 

vehicular or over-snow vehicle traffic had little effect on lynx seasonal resource-selection patterns in 

Montana. While preliminary information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (USDA Forest Service 2007b, 

p. 26), potential impacts are reduced when access, traffic volume and road speed are reduced. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

379

Consequently, NRLMD guidelines HU G6, HUG7, HU G8 and HU G9 restrict new permanent road 

construction in linkage areas and lands important to lynx movement, reduce potential impacts associated 

with public access and identify road maintenance and management considerations to reduce impacts to 

lynx. 

There are no new permanent roads proposed, nor are there any roads proposed in BL-08, although 2.6 

miles and 0.4 miles of roads to be constructed then obliterated following use would be built in BL-07 

under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. All roads to be constructed occur in portions of BL-07 that are 

well roaded and do not affect linkage areas or travel corridors. As a result, and because no permanent new 

road construction is proposed, both alternatives are in compliance with HU G7. Similarly, because neither 

alternative proposes upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, both alternatives are in 

compliance with HU G6. As described under treatment effects, new roads would be closed to public 

access during project implementation and obliterated following use (approximately 5 years). 

Consequently, both alternatives are in compliance with HU G9. Finally, with implementation of PDFs that 

limit the cutting of brush to the minimum necessary to meet public safety, both alternatives are in 

compliance with HU G8. 

In summary, because no new permanent roads would be constructed, because unroaded areas would be 

unaffected, and considering any roads to be constructed would be closed to public access during 

implementation and obliterated following use, proposed roads would not be expected to increase longterm public access or open up new lands to possible competition from other predators. 

Snow Compaction

NRLMD objective HU O1 pertains to snow compaction and discourages expansion of snow-compacting 

activities in lynx habitat. There are currently 12 miles of designated snowmobile trails within the 

Stonewall project area including the Beaver Creek/Dry Creek Trail (7 miles groomed), the Sucker Creek 

Road (1 mile groomed), the Stonewall Mountain trail (3 miles ungroomed) and the trail near Reservoir 

Lake (1 mile ungroomed). While the Stonewall project would not change any motorized route 

designations, the project area is currently open to cross-country travel by snowmobiles and the creation of 

more open forest conditions by some treatments may enhance opportunities for snowmobiling and a 

potential increase in predators and impacts to lynx and snowshoe hare. Because most burning would 

occur away from roads and snowmobile access and due to dead and down material remaining on these 

sites within unburned areas, potential conflicts are most likely to occur in sites proposed for timber 

harvest, particularly regeneration harvest. However, the likelihood of effects is reduced because by the 

time regeneration sites provide winter foraging habitat, they would no longer be accessible to 

snowmobiles. Similarly, due to development of understory vegetation within partial harvest sites and burn 

units, snowmobile access would be reduced. Finally, research in northwestern Montana concluded that 

there is little evidence that compacted snowmobile trails increased exploitation competition between 

coyotes and lynx during the winter, suggesting that compacted snow routes did not appear to enhance 

coyotes’ access to lynx and hare habitat so would not significantly affect competition with snowshoe area 

(Kolbe et al. 2007). Collectively, for these reasons, there are no long-term increases in cross country 

snowmobile use or impacts to lynx anticipated. 

The Copper Bowls area north of the project area seems to be the most popular destination for crosscountry snowmobiling and any increased use as a result of the Stonewall project would likely be minor, as 

most of the use is concentrated on the designated/groomed trails in this area. In summary, considering that 

(1) approximately 80 percent or more of mapped habitat would be unaffected, (2) that development of 

woody vegetation within treatment sites would reduce snowmobile use over the long term, (3) that 

regeneration harvest sites do not provide winter foraging habitat, and (4) that most snowmobile use is 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

380

expected to occur on designated trails, there are no long-term impacts associated with snow compaction 

and roads anticipated and both alternatives comply with HU O1. 

Grazing

Approximately 5,900 acres of mapped habitat would be affected by grazing. While understory vegetation 

would be affected, existing use is not expected to change. As a result, and with implementation of PDFs 

to reduce grazing impacts through monitoring and management changes, effects to recovering vegetation, 

winter forage and cover and aspen, would be reduced. Finally there is no evidence that grazing is a factor 

threatening lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b) and there are no long-term adverse effects to 

lynx anticipated. As a result, both alternatives are in compliance with GRAZ O1, GRAZ G1, GRAZ G2, 

and GRAZ G3. 

Red Squirrel Habitat

NRLMD objectives include providing habitat for alternate prey species, primarily red squirrel in each 

LAU (VEG G5). While red squirrel habitat would be reduced over the long-term on sites proposed for 

regeneration harvest and high severity burning, 94 and 96 percent of existing suitable mature forest would 

be maintained on BL-07 and BL-08, respectively under alternative 2 and on 95 and 97 percent would be 

retained under alternative 3. Additionally, PDFs require retention of refugia, snags and downed woody 

debris and stand structure on treatment sites. Also, treatments would maintain or promote tree diversity 

and seed production over the long-term, which would maintain or improve red squirrel habitat. 

Collectively for these reasons, habitat for alternate prey species would continue to be available in both 

BL-07 and BL-08 and alternatives 2 and 3 comply with VEG G5. 

Denning Habitat Summary 

NRLMD VEG G11 requires that denning habitat should be distributed in each LAU in the form of 

pockets of large amounts of coarse woody debris, either as down logs, root wads or large piles of wind 

thrown trees. Also, if denning habitat appears lacking in an LAU, then projects should be designed to 

retain some coarse woody debris or residual trees to provide denning habitat in the future. Due to 

widespread MPB mortality and decades of increased stocking, snags and downed wood are readily 

available across the landscape. Also with implementation of PDFs, downed wood, including a component 

of large diameter logs would be retained in all treatment units. Further, implementation of INFISH buffers 

and maintaining unburned lands on 20 percent of the sites proposed for burning would further maintain 

dead wood and den habitat within treatment sites. Collectively for these reasons denning habitat would 

continue to be well distributed within affected LAUs and both alternatives are in compliance with VEG 

G11. 

Unsuitable Stand Initiation Habitat Summary

As shown in table 91, BL-07 currently has approximately 1 percent unsuitable stand initiation habitat. 

Because it would take 10 years to complete proposed burning, by 2022, unsuitable stand initiation habitat 

created by proposed regeneration harvest and mixed severity burning would occur on 1,780 acres and 

1,286 acres under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. Following implementation, the total amount of 

unsuitable stand initiation habitat within BL-07 would occur on 7 percent under alternative 2 and on 5 

percent under alternative 3. Because less than 30 percent of BL-07 would occur as unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat, both alternatives are in compliance with VEG S1 for BL-07. 

While there is no regeneration harvest or precommercial thinning proposed in BL-08 under either 

alternative, mixed severity burning may create up to approximately 509 acres of unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat under alternative 2 and up to approximately 391 acres under alternative 3. This would 

result in approximately 30 percent of BL-08 occurring as unsuitable stand initiation habitat by 2022 under 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

381

both alternatives. However, most of the existing unsuitable stand initiation habitat within BL-08 is a result 

of the 2003 Snow Talon fire. As a result and because large stand replacing fires produce high quality 

winter snowshoe hare habitat after approximately 10 to 30 years (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), 

it is anticipated that by project completion (i.e., 2022), that the amount of existing unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat would be reduced as stands develop. Consequently unsuitable stand initiation habitat 

within BL-08 would be at or below 30 percent and both action alternatives are in compliance with VEG 

S1. 

NRLMD Lynx Risk Factors

Table 93 summarizes lynx management standards and guidelines and conservation measures to address 

factors affecting lynx productivity as outlined in the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

382

Table 93. Lynx amendment alternative comparison of objectives, standards and guidelines

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Objectives

ALL O1 – Maintain or restore lynx habitat 

connectivity in and between LAUs and in linkage 

areas. 

Large areas of forested habitat 

are available across the analysis 

area. Moderate road densities of 

1.9 to 2.8 miles/mi2 occur within 

both LAUs although many existing 

roads are closed year-round

BL-07 and BL-08 - The forested character of the area would be retained and 

connectivity within and between LAUs would be maintained. The project would have 

no effect upon lynx linkage area and both alternatives comply with ALL O1.

VEG O1 – Manage vegetation to mimic or 

approximate natural succession and disturbance 

processes while maintaining habitat components 

necessary for the conservation of lynx.

Fire has been excluded from the 

analysis area and stands are 

losing vigor. Edges between old 

and young forests are sharp due 

to past regeneration harvest. 

Existing stand initiation habitat is 

maturing providing less winter 

foraging habitat. Recent wildfire 

has reduced existing foraging and 

den habitat but would create 

future stand initiation habitat in 

portions of the project area LAUs. 

Widespread MPB mortality is 

increasing stand structure and 

den habitat.

BL-07 and BL-08 combined - Proposed 

treatments are designed to restore 

naturally occurring fire regimes and 

associated vegetative communities. 

Burning is proposed on 3,373 acres of 

mapped lynx habitat. Wildfire risk would 

be reduced. 91% of existing winter 

forage and 83% of existing den habitat 

would be maintained. Winter foraging 

habitat would be better dispersed 

across the landscape and collectively 

for these reasons, alternative 2 

complies with VEG O1.

BL-07 and BL-08 combined - Proposed 

treatments are designed to restore 

naturally occurring fire regimes and 

associated vegetative communities. 

Burning is proposed on 2,509 acres of 

mapped lynx habitat. Risks of wildfire are 

reduced. 95% of the winter foraging habitat 

and 88% of the existing den habitat would 

be maintained. Winter foraging habitat 

would be better distributed across the 

landscape and collectively for these 

reasons, alternative 3 complies with VEG 

O1. 

VEG O2 – Provide a mosaic of habitat conditions 

through time that support dense horizontal cover 

and high densities of snowshoe hares. Provide 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in both the stand 

initiation structural stage and in mature, multistory conifer vegetation.

BL-07 - Multi-storied habitat has 

been increasing. Existing stand 

initiation is limited to a few stands 

created by past timber harvest 

and is widely scattered. BL-08 - 

Recent wildfires have reduced MS 

habitat and created a large block 

of unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat. 

BL-07 and BL-08 combined – 94 and 

77% of existing MS and SI habitat 

would be maintained in the short term. 

Over the long term, treatments would

create SI habitat on 1,518 acres and 

promote horizontal and vertical 

structure and denning/foraging habitat 

on approximately 5,800 acres. 

BL-07 and BL-08 - The distribution of 

foraging habitat would be improved 

across the landscape and alternative 2 

complies with VEG O2. 

BL-07 and BL-08 combined – 96 and 88% 

of existing MS and SI habitat would be 

maintained in the short term. Over the long 

term, treatments would create SI habitat on 

1,136 acres and promote horizontal and 

vertical structure and denning/foraging 

habitat on approximately 4,200 acres. 

BL-07 and BL-08 - The distribution of 

foraging habitat would be improved across 

the landscape and alternative 3 complies 

with VEG O2.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

383

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

VEG O3 – Conduct fire use activities to restore 

ecological processes and maintain or improve 

lynx habitat.

Fire has been successfully 

suppressed within the project area 

since the early 1900s. Little 

prescribed fire has been 

implemented within the project 

area to date.

BL-07 and 08 combined - Prescribed 

fire activities that restore fire to the 

landscape and result in the long-term 

improvement in lynx habitat would occur 

on 3,373 acres. Treatment would occur 

within all watersheds over a 10-year 

period, increasing the amount and 

distribution of foraging and den habitat 

and restoring fire across the landscape. 

Alternative 2 complies with VEG O3. 

BL-07 and 08 combined - Prescribed fire 

activities that restore fire to the landscape 

and result in the long-term improvement in 

lynx habitat would occur on 2,209 acres. 

Treatment would occur within all 

watersheds over a 10-year period, 

increasing the amount and distribution of 

foraging and den habitat and restoring fire 

across the landscape. Alternative 3

complies with VEG O3. 

VEG O4 – Focus vegetation management in 

areas that have potential to improve winter 

snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly 

developed understories that lack dense 

horizontal cover.

Currently 36% of BL-07 and 15% 

of BL-08 provide winter snowshoe 

hare habitat. 

BL-07 – 70% of the treatments are 

proposed in mid-seral habitat that lacks 

a developing understory. Future winter 

snowshoe hare habitat would be 

created on 2,293 acres of existing midseral and stem exclusion habitat. 

BL-08 – 90% of the treatments are 

proposed in mid-seral habitat that lacks 

a developing understory. Future winter 

snowshoe hare habitat would be 

created on 2,320 acres of existing midseral habitat.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because between 

70 and 90% of the treatments in both 

LAUs occur in stands that currently 

have poorly developed understories, 

alternative 2 complies with VEG O4. 

BL-07 – 75% of the treatments are 

proposed in mid-seral habitat that lacks a 

developing understory. Future winter 

snowshoe hare habitat would be created 

on 1,646 acres of existing mid-seral 

habitat. 

BL-08 – 93% of the treatments are 

proposed in mid-seral habitat that lacks a 

developing understory. Future winter 

snowshoe hare habitat would be created 

on 1,898 acres of existing mid-seral 

habitat.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because between 75 

and 93% of the treatments in both LAUs 

occur in stands that currently have poorly 

developed understories, alternative 3 

complies with VEG O4. 

HU O1 – Maintain the lynx’s natural competitive 

advantage over other predators in deep snow by 

discouraging the expansion of snow compacting 

activities in lynx habitat.

Existing snow compacting 

activities are primarily associated 

with roads and designated trails. 

Some off road use is occurring. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal would be closed to public access and obliterated within 5 years. While some 

increased winter motorized use is likely within low-elevation treatment units, this would 

be short term due to encroachment of woody vegetation. Snowmobile use of burned 

areas is not expected to increase due to standing dead tree component. Future use is 

expected to occur largely on designated trails and there are no expected long-term 

increases in snow compacting activities. As a result both alternatives comply with HU 

O1. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

384

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

HU O2 – Mange recreational activities to 

maintain lynx habitat and connectivity 

Existing recreational use is 

concentrated on designated trails. 

Some winter recreation use of 

suitable habitat occurs at 

scattered locations.. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Recreational use would not significantly change or adversely affect 

lynx habitat and connectivity. Both alternatives comply with HU O2.

HU O5 – Manage human activities – such as 

exploring and developing minerals and oil and 

gas, placing utility corridors and permitting 

special uses – to reduce impacts on lynx and 

lynx habitat.

All activities are controlled through 

special use permits. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Activities are not expected to increase and would continue to be 

controlled through special use permits. Both alternatives comply with HU O5.

HU O6 – Reduce adverse highway effects on 

lynx by working cooperatively with other 

agencies to provide for lynx movement and 

habitat connectivity and to reduce the potential of 

lynx mortality.

The Helena NF is involved with 

these interagency relationships

BL-07 and BL-08 – The Helena NF would continue to be involved in interagency 

relationships to provide for lynx movement and reduce potential lynx mortality. Both 

alternatives comply with HU O6.

LINK O1 – In areas of intermingled land 

ownership, work with landowners to pursue 

conservation easements, habitat conservations 

plans, land exchanges or other solutions to 

reduce the potential of adverse impacts on lynx 

and lynx habitat.

The Helena NF is currently 

involved in these types of 

activities and exchanges. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – The Helena NF would continue to be involved with landowners to 

reduce potential impacts to lynx and both alternatives comply with LINK O1.

GRAZ O1 – Manage livestock grazing to be 

compatible with improving and maintaining lynx 

habitat. 

Approximately 5,900 acres or 15% 

of the mapped lynx habitat is 

affected by grazing. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Existing grazing patterns would be largely unchanged, although 

grazing would be deferred in units where aspen is regenerating and where necessary 

to establish vegetation. Both alternatives would increase landscape level forage, 

maintain riparian areas, promote shrub and understory diversity and maintain or 

improve aspen. As a result both alternatives comply with GRAZ O1. 

Standards

ALL S1 – New or expanded permanent 

developments and vegetation management 

projects must maintain habitat connectivity in an 

LAU and/or linkage area. 

Large areas of forested habitat 

are present within both LAUs. 

Road densities are moderate to 

high, but most roads are closed 

year-round. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – No new or permanent developments are proposed. Stands 

proposed for vegetation treatment would be more open and there would be a 

reduction in cover on treatment sites. However because (1) regeneration harvest is 

restricted to areas with concentrated MPB mortality, (2) sites proposed for burning 

would maintain landscape level connectivity, and (3) open road densities would not 

increase and roads built then obliterated immediately following timber removal would 

occur in areas that are already roaded, linkage areas and connectivity within and 

between LAUs would be maintained and both alternatives comply with ALL S1.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

385

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

VEG S1 – Unless a broad scale assessment has 

been completed that substantiates different 

levels of stand initiation structural stages, limit 

disturbance in each structural stage as follows: If 

more than 30% of the lynx habitat in an LAU is 

currently in a stand initiation structural stage that 

does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare 

habitat, no additional habitat may be regenerated 

by vegetation management projects. In addition, 

fuel treatment projects may not result in more 

than three LAUs exceeding the standard. 

BL-07 – Currently 1% exists as 

unsuitable stand initiation habitat. 

BL-08- Currently 28% exists as 

unsuitable stand initiation habitat. 

BL-07 – Regeneration harvest, mixed 

severity burning, and thinning in SI 

habitat would increase unsuitable stand 

initiation habitat to 1,780 acres or 7% of 

the LAU. Three or more adjacent LAU’s

would not exceed VEG S1.

BL-08 – Mixed severity burning would 

increase unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat to 8,373 acres or 30% of the 

LAU. Three or more adjacent LAU’s 

would not exceed VEG S1. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because it would 

take 10 years to complete 

implementation, existing unsuitable 

stand initiation habitat would be 

reduced from the above acreage. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because unsuitable 

stand initiation habitat would occur on 

30% or less of both LAUs, and 

considering 3 or more adjacent LAUs 

do not exceed this standard, alternative

2 complies with VEG S1. 

BL-07 – Regeneration harvest, mixed 

severity burning, and thinning in SI habitat 

would increase unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat to 1,286 acres or 5% of the LAU. 

Three or more adjacent LAU’s would not

exceed VEG S1.

BL-08 – Mixed severity burning would 

increase unsuitable stand initiation habitat 

to 8,255 acres or 30% of the LAU. Three or 

more adjacent LAU’s would not exceed 

VEG S1.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because it would take 

10 years to complete implementation, 

existing unsuitable stand initiation habitat 

would be reduced from the above acreage. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because unsuitable 

stand initiation habitat would occur on 30% 

or less of both LAUs, and considering 3 or 

more adjacent LAUs do not exceed this 

standard, alternative 3 complies with VEG 

S1. 

VEG S2 – Timber management projects shall not 

regenerate more than 15% of lynx habitat on 

NFS lands within a LAU within a 10-year period.

Regeneration harvest on NFS 

lands in the last 10 years has 

included:

Bl-07 – 38 acres (<1 percent)

Bl-08 – 495 acres (2 percent)

BL-07 – A maximum of 701 acres or 4% 

of the NFS lands would be regenerated 

with timber harvest within a 10-year 

period. 

BL-8 – No regeneration harvest would 

occur within lynx habitat during the next 

10-year period. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because less than 

15% of the NFS lands within both LAUs 

would be regenerated, alternative 2 

complies with VEG S2. 

BL-07 – A maximum of 582 acres or 3% of 

the NFS lands would be regenerated with 

timber harvest within a 10-year period. 

BL-8 – No regeneration harvest would 

occur within lynx habitat during the next 10-

year period. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because less than 15% 

of the NFS lands within both LAUs would 

be regenerated, alternative 3 complies with 

VEG S2.

VEG S5 – Precommercial thinning projects that 

reduce snowshoe hare habitat, may occur from 

the stand initiation structural stage until the 

stands no longer provides winter snowshoe hare 

habitat only if they are within 200 feet of admin 

site, dwelling or outbuildings, for research 

There has been no precommercial

thinning in either LAU since 1997. 

BL-07 – A total of 432 acres of stand 

initiation hare habitat would be 

precommercially thinned. All treatments 

lie within the WUI as identified in the 

CWPP and all treatments are designed 

to reduce the risk of wildfire to private 

BL-07 – A total of 204 acres of the stand 

initiation hare habitat would be 

precommercially thinned. All treatments lie 

within the WUI as identified in CWPP and 

all treatments are designed to reduce the 

risk of wildfire to private lands/structures. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

386

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

purposes, if they are based on new information 

that has been peer reviewed, for conifer removal 

in aspen or to restore whitebark pine. This 

applies to all precommercial thinning projects 

except fuel treatment projects that use 

precommercial thinning as a tool within the WUI 

as defined by HFRA. Fuel treatment projects 

within the WUI that do not meet VEG S1, VEG 

S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6, shall occur on no 

more than 6% of the lynx habitat on the Forest 

and would be designed considering standards 

VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 to 

promote lynx conservation (see VEG G10). 

lands and structures. Treatment within 

the WUI would reduce the 26,400-acre 

forest cap by 432 acres. 

BL-08 – No precommercial thinning 

would occur and alternative 2 meets the 

VEG S5 standard. 

Cumulatively Forestwide, the acres of 

treatment under exceptions to VEG S1, 

VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 would 

occur on 1,259 acres, revising the cap 

to 25,141 acres. Also see discussion 

under VEG G10.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because (1) all 

precommercial thinning occurs within 

the WUI, (2) less than 6% of the fuel 

treatment projects on the Forest do not 

meet VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or 

VEG S6, and (3) treatments are 

designed to promote lynx conservation 

(see VEG G10), alternative 2 complies 

with VEG S5. 

Treatment within the WUI would reduce the 

26,400-acre forest cap by 204 acres. 

BL-08 – No precommercial thinning would 

occur and alternative 3 meets the VEG S5 

standard.

Cumulatively Forestwide, the acres of 

treatment under exceptions to VEG S1, 

VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 would 

occur 747 acres, revising the cap to 25,663 

acres. Also see discussion under VEG 

G10.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because (1) all 

precommercial thinning occurs within the 

WUI, (2) less than 6% of the fuel treatment 

projects on the Forest do not meet VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG S6, and (3) 

treatments are designed to promote lynx 

conservation (see VEG G10), alternative 3 

complies with VEG S5. 

VEG S6 – Vegetation management projects that 

reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story or 

late successional forests, may occur only if they 

are within 200 feet of admin site, dwelling or 

outbuildings, for research purposes, or for 

incidental removal during salvage harvest. This 

applies to all projects except fuel treatment 

projects within the WUI as defined by HEFRA. 

Fuel treatment projects within the WUI that do 

not meet VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG 

S6 shall occur on no more than 6% of the lynx 

habitat on the administrative unit (Helena NF). 

Also fuel treatment projects should be designed 

considering VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 (VEG G10). 

There have been no vegetation 

management treatments within 

multi-storied habitat since 1996. 

BL-07 – A total of 477 acres of the 

multi-storied hare habitat would be 

treated. All treatments are designed to 

reduce risk to private land/structures 

and all sites lie within the CWPP WUI. 

BL-08 – A total of 240 acres of multistoried hare habitat would be treated. 

All treatments are designed to reduce 

risk to private land/structures and all 

sites occur within the CWPP WUI.

Cumulatively forest-wide, exceptions to 

VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG 

S6 would occur 1,259 acres of the 

26,400-acre forest cap. Also see 

discussion under VEG G10.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because (1) all 

treatment in MS habitat occurs within 

the CWPP WUI, (2) less than 6% of the 

fuel treatment projects on the Forest do 

BL-07 – A total of 289 acres of multi-storied 

hare habitat would be treated. All 

treatments are designed to reduce risk to 

private land/structures and all treatments 

lie within the CWPP WUI. 

BL-08 – A total of 146 acres of multi-storied 

hare habitat would be treated. All 

treatments are designed to reduce risk to 

private land/structures and all treatments 

occur within the CWPP WUI. 

Cumulatively forest-wide, exemptions to 

VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG S6 

would occur on 747 acres of the 26,400-

acre forest cap. Also see discussion under 

VEG G10.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Because (1) all 

treatment in MS habitat occurs within the 

CWPP WUI, (2) less than 6% of the fuel 

treatment projects on the Forest do not 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

387

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

not meet VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or 

VEG S6, and (3) treatments are 

designed to promote lynx conservation 

(see VEG G10), alternative 2 complies 

with VEG S6.

meet VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, or VEG 

S6, and (3) treatments are designed to 

promote lynx conservation (see VEG G10), 

alternative 3 complies with VEG S6.

Guidelines

VEG G1 – Vegetation management projects 

should be planned to recruit a high density of 

conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs where such 

habitat is scarce or not available. Priority for 

treatment should be given to stem exclusion, 

closed-canopy structural stage stands to 

enhance habitat conditions for lynx or their prey 

(e.g., mesic monotypic lodgepole stands). 

No vegetation management is 

planned under alternative 1. 

71% of the treatments in BL-07 and 

93% of the treatments in BL-08 are 

proposed in mid-seral, stem exclusion, 

or unsuitable stand initiation habitat 

that presently do not provide the 

structural conditions necessary for 

winter hare habitat.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Treatment is 

expected to promote preferred habitat 

for prey species sooner than would 

occur under no action. Treatment 

would maintain or increase aspen and 

whitebark pine, as well as promote the 

development of understory shrubs and 

increase the diversity of prey habitat 

across the landscape. As a result, 

alternative 2 complies with VEG G1. 

76% of the treatments in BL-07 and 94% of 

the treatments in BL-08 are proposed in 

mid-seral or unsuitable stand initiation 

habitat that presently do not provide the 

structural conditions necessary for winter 

hare habitat. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Treatment is expected to 

promote preferred habitat for prey species 

sooner than would occur under no action. 

Treatment would maintain or increase aspen 

and whitebark pine, as well as promote the 

development of understory shrubs and 

increase the diversity of prey habitat across 

the landscape. As a result, alternative 3 

complies with VEG G1. 

VEG G4 – Prescribed fire activities should not 

create permanent travel routes that facilitate 

snow compaction. Constructing permanent 

firebreaks on ridges or saddles should be 

avoided.

No prescribed fire or fire breaks 

are planned under alternative 1. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – While some burning to ridgelines and saddles would occur, most 

burning occurs on steeper slopes away from existing snowmobile trails. Also portions 

of all units would be unburned and establishment of woody vegetation following 

treatment would reduce any long-term access. Consequently, planned prescribed 

burning activities are not expected to create permanent travel routes or facilitate snow 

compacting activities. As a result, and because no fire breaks would be constructed, 

both alternatives comply with VEG G4. 

VEG G5 – Habitat for alternate prey species, 

primarily red squirrel, should be provided in each 

LAU.

Suitable mature coniferous forest 

currently exists on 60 and 45% of 

BL-07 and BL-08, respectively. 

Regeneration harvest and high severity 

burning would reduce suitable mature 

forest on 984 acres in BL-07 and on 

509 acres in BL-08. Approximately 94% 

and 96% of the existing mature 

coniferous forest would be maintained 

in BL-07 and BL-08, respectively. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – PDFs require 

retention of refugia, snags and downed 

Regeneration harvest and high severity 

burning would reduce suitable mature 

forest on 745 acres in BL-07 and on 391 

acres in BL-08. Approximately 95% and 

97% of the existing mature coniferous 

forest would be maintained in BL-07 and 

BL-08, respectively. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – PDFs require retention 

of refugia, snags and downed woody debris 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

388

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

woody debris and stand structure on 

intermediate and burning sites would be 

maintained. Treatments would maintain 

or promote tree diversity and seed 

production over the long term and 

maintain or improve red squirrel habitat. 

Collectively, for these reasons, 

alternative 2 complies with VEG G5.

and stand structure on intermediate and 

burning sites would be maintained. 

Treatments would maintain or promote tree 

diversity and seed production over the 

long-term and maintain or improve red 

squirrel habitat. Collectively, for these 

reasons, alternative 3 complies with VEG 

G5. 

VEG G10 – Fuel treatment projects within the 

WUI as defined by HFRA should be designed 

considering Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG 

S5, and VEG S6 to promote lynx conservation.

No fuel treatments are planned 

under alternative 1. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Proposed actions 

comply with VEG S1 and VEG S2. 

While activities would result in a 

reduction in 432 acres of stand initiation 

habitat (VEG S5) and 140 acres of 

multi-storied habitat (VEG S6), all 

treatments occur within the CWPP WUI. 

Also 77% of the stand initiation habitat 

and 94% of the multi-story habitat would 

be avoided and would remain intact. 

Further, treatments would reduce risks 

from fire and insect and disease, 

increase the amount and distribution of 

winter forage on over 5,500 acres, 

increase hardwood, conifer and shrub 

diversity and promote long-term 

diversity and sustainability of lynx 

habitat. Collectively, for these reasons, 

treatments under alternative 2 were 

developed considering standards to 

VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, and VEG 

S6. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Proposed actions 

comply with VEG S1 and S2. While 

activities would result in a reduction in 204 

acres of stand initiation habitat (VEG S5) 

and 95 acres of multi-storied habitat (VEG 

S6), all treatments occur within the CWPP 

WUI. Also approximately 88% of the stand 

initiation habitat and 96% of the multi-story 

habitat would be avoided and remain intact. 

Further, treatments would reduce risks 

from fire and insect and disease, increase 

the amount and distribution of winter forage 

on over 4,300 acres, increase hardwood, 

conifer and shrub diversity and promote 

long-term diversity and sustainability of lynx 

habitat. Collectively, for these reasons, 

and considering alternative 3 was 

developed in part to reduce impacts to 

winter hare habitat, treatments under this 

alternative were developed considering 

standards to VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5, 

and VEG S6.

VEG G11 – Denning habitat should be 

distributed in each LAU in the form of pockets of 

large amounts of large woody debris, either 

down logs or root wads or large piles of wind 

thrown trees (jack strawed piles). If denning 

habitat appears to be lacking in the LAU, then 

projects should be designed to retain some 

coarse woody debris, piles or residual trees to 

provide denning habitat in the future.

Denning habitat is currently well 

distributed across both LAUs, both 

of which contain large blocks of 

mature forest. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Proposed treatments are designed to retain patches of dead and 

dying trees which would contribute to coarse woody debris recruitment. A minimum of 

5 to 20 tons per acre of downed woody debris would be retained and PDFs require 

retention of large diameter snags and logs. Forest coarse woody debris and snags 

(future debris) guidelines would be met or exceeded. Burning would be designed to 

retain pockets of understory vegetation and shrubs and 20% of the site would be 

unburned. As a result and considering that over 83% of the existing suitable habitat 

would be unaffected, den habitat would continue to be widely available in both LAUs 

and both alternatives comply with VEG G11.

HU G6 – Methods to avoid or reduce effects on BL-07 and BL-08 – No unpaved roads would be upgraded to maintenance levels 4 or 5 and all alternatives comply with HU 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

389

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

lynx should be used in lynx habitat when 

upgrading unpaved roads to maintenance levels 

4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic 

speeds and volumes, or a foreseeable 

contribution to increases in human activity or 

development. 

G6.

HU G7 – New permanent roads should not be 

built on ridge-tops and saddles, or in areas 

identified as important for lynx habitat 

connectivity. New permanent roads and trails 

should be situated away from forest stringers. 

BL-08 and BL-08 – There are no permanent roads proposed and all alternatives comply with HU G7. 

HU G8 - Cutting brush along low-speed, lowtraffic-volume roads should be done to the 

minimum level necessary to provide for public 

safety.

BL-07 and BL-08 – Cutting of brush along roads would be done at levels necessary to maintain public safety and all 

alternatives comply with HU G8. 

HU G9 – On new roads built for projects, public 

motorized use should be restricted. Effective 

closures should be provided in the road designs. 

When the project is over these roads should be 

reclaimed or decommissioned, if not needed for 

other management objectives. 

No roads would be built under 

alternative 1.

BL-07 – 2.6 miles of temporary roads 

would be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal. 

All roads would be closed to public 

access and permanently closed and 

restored following project 

implementation. 

BL-08 – no roads would be built.

BL-07 and BL-08 – alternative 2 is in 

compliance with HU G9. 

BL-07 – 0.4 miles of temporary roads would 

be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal. All roads would be 

closed to public access and permanently 

closed and restored following project 

implementation. 

BL-08 – no road would be built. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – alternative 3 is in 

compliance with HU G9. 

GRAZ G1 – In fire- and harvest-created 

openings, livestock grazing should be managed 

so impacts do not prevent shrubs and trees from 

regenerating.

Approximately 5,900 acres of the 

project area are currently being 

grazed. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Livestock grazing would be maintained at existing levels unless 

range analysis monitoring indicates that changes in numbers are necessary. Grazing 

systems would be designed to be compatible with wildlife needs and if necessary 

improvements for livestock management would be designed in cooperation with a 

wildlife biologist. Both alternatives comply with GRAZ G1.

GRAZ G2 – In aspen stands, livestock grazing 

should be managed to contribute to the longterm health and sustainability of aspen.

Aspen stands are declining due to 

lack of disturbance and existing 

regeneration is being grazed. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Grazing would be maintained at existing levels unless monitoring 

indicates that changes in numbers are necessary. Fencing, temporary herding, or 

other techniques may be used to protect regeneration and aspen where needed. Both 

alternatives comply with GRAZ G2.

GRAZ G3 – In riparian areas and willow areas, 

livestock grazing should be managed to 

contribute to maintaining or achieving a 

preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages 

similar to conditions that would have occurred 

INFISH buffer monitoring for Keep 

Cool Creek and Beaver Creek

have been occurring since 1999 

and mitigation measures have 

been implemented to reduce 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Livestock use is not expected to change and INFISH buffers and 

monitoring would continue to be implemented to reduce grazing related impacts in 

riparian areas. Both alternatives comply with GRAZ G3.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

390

Criteria

Pre-treatment Compliance

(Alternative 1)

Post-treatment Compliance

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

under historic disturbance regimes. grazing impacts to riparian areas. 

GRAZ G4 and LINK G2 – Livestock grazing in 

shrub-steppe habitats should be managed to 

contribute to maintaining or achieving a 

preponderance of mid- or late-seral stages, 

similar to conditions that would have occurred 

under historic disturbance regimes.

There are three grazing allotments 

within the analysis area including 

the Stonewall and Arrastra cattle 

and horse allotments and the 

Keep Cool Liverpool sheep and 

goat allotment. Bunchgrass parks 

and shrub habitats are being 

invaded by conifer. 

BL-07 and BL-08 – Livestock grazing would be maintained at existing levels unless 

range analysis monitoring indicates that changes in numbers are necessary. Grazing 

systems would be designed to be compatible with wildlife needs and if necessary 

improvements for livestock management would be designed in cooperation with a 

wildlife biologist. Both alternatives are in compliance with GRAZ G4 and LINK G2. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

391

Cumulative Effects 

As described under alternative 1, the cumulative effect analysis area for lynx includes the combined 

LAUs (BL-07 and 08) which totals 54,211 acres. There are a number of past and ongoing activities

occurring within the analysis area that cumulatively affect lynx and lynx habitat. Effects of many of these 

activities are discussed under alternative 1; Table 94 summarizes anticipated cumulative effects under 

each of the alternatives evaluated. A complete list of all activities considered when analyzing cumulative 

effects to lynx can be found in appendix C. 

Table 94. Action alternative cumulative effects summary

Activity

Alternative 1-Acres Alternative 2-Acres Alternative 3-Acres

Mapped

Habitat2

Winter

Forage2

Den

Habitat2

Mapped

Habitat2

Winter

Forage2

Den

Habitat2

Mapped

Habitat2

Winter

Forage2

Den

Habitat

Campground 

Rehabilitation 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Prescribed 

Fire1, 129 86 122 3,502 249 3488 2,638 136 2629

Grazing 5,912 2,250 4,552 5,912 2,250 4,552 5,912 2,250 4,552

Off-road NNIS 

treatment 1,358 636 1,255 1,358 636 1,255 1,358 636 1,255

Road 

Treatments 1,545 539 1,342 1,545 539 1,342 1,545 539 1,342

Stream 

Restoration 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 

Trail 

Construction 196 93 159 196 93 159 196 93 159

Partial Timber 

Harvest2 0 0 0 1,800 936 1,771 1,153 507 1,136

Regeneration 

Harvest 0 0 0 701 128 694 582 111 575

Total Acres 9,148 3,610 7,438 15,022 4,837 13269 13,392 4,278 11656

Percent of 

Total Habitat 31 26 25 38 35 44 34 31 38

1 – includes burn only to avoid duplication of acres 

2 – habitat affected

Effects associated with winter recreation are discussed under direct and indirect effects and as described 

there are no long-term effects anticipated. Also as described under alternative 1, lynx habitat would be 

largely unchanged due to campground rehabilitation, trail construction, stream work or NNIS treatment. 

As a result and considering that lynx are generally tolerant of human activities (Ruediger et al. 2000), 

effects would occur largely as short-term avoidance of the area during treatment. Also like alternative 1, 

because roadside areas would not be preferred for denning and considering hazard tree removal and 

firewood collection would not alter foraging habitat, effects from these activities would consist largely of 

avoidance during treatment. 

Lands affected by grazing occur on approximately 5,900 acres of suitable habitat. While understory 

vegetation would be affected, existing use is not expected to change. Also proposed activities would 

increase understory vegetation across the landscape and grazing would be deferred if necessary in areas 

where aspen is regenerating. As a result, and considering that there is no evidence that grazing is a factor 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

392

threatening lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b), there are no long-term adverse effects to lynx 

anticipated.

As described under indirect effects, low intensity burning and improvement cutting would result in shortterm effects (less than 10 years) to den and foraging habitat, whereas longer-term effects (greater than 10 

years) including an increase in unsuitable stand initiation habitat would result from proposed regeneration 

harvest, precommercial thinning within existing SI habitat, and openings created by mixed severity 

burning. Alternative 2 would reduce winter forage and den habitat by 1,195 acres and 5,158 acres, 

respectively. Under alternative 3, winter forage and den habitat would be reduced by 657 acres and 3,709 

acres, respectively.

Potential cumulative effects include climate change and final treatments in the Dalton and Helmville 

Face. However as described under alternative 1, it is anticipated that all treatments included in these two 

projects would be consistent with NRLMD direction. Additionally, because upper elevations would likely 

become more important due to possible climate changes and considering that both alternatives are 

expected to improve the amount, diversity and distribution of winter forage habitat at upper elevations, 

lynx and hare habitat would continue to be available in the future. 

While both action alternatives would reduce the amount and quality of winter forage and den habitat, 

considering that: (1) over 80 percent of the existing den habitat and over 91 percent of winter foraging 

habitat would be maintained, (2) den habitat is widely available across the landscape, (3) proposed 

treatments would increase the future amount and distribution of winter foraging habitat, (4) both 

alternatives would provide for lynx movement and dispersal, and (5) both alternatives are consistent with 

NRLMD direction, there are no cumulative effects anticipated that would adversely affect the recovery of

lynx populations. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments to lynx or lynx habitat under either alternative. While there would 

be a reduction in suitable lynx habitat or habitat quality on sites treated, suitable den habitat would be 

maintained on all sites and foraging habitat would be maintained or improved in the long-term. There are 

no irretrievable commitments anticipated. 

Alternative 2 Determination and Conclusions

Alternative 2 would reduce winter hare and den habitat. Some increased snowmobile use is likely, 

although effects would be short term. A total of 432 acres of SI habitat would be precommercially thinned 

and 717 acres of multi-storied habitat would be treated. All treatments fall within a WUI, meet exceptions 

for VEG 05 and VEG 06, and comply with VEG 10. Treatments comply with VEG 01 and VEG 02, and 

fuel treatment projects that do not meet VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 occur on less than 6 

percent of the available habitat on the Helena Forest. Proposed treatments comply with Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007b), and there are no effects anticipated 

that were not considered in the BO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). As a result implementation 

of alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada lynx. Additionally, based on the 

above analysis and the following rationale, alternative 2 is expected to promote the long-term 

sustainability of lynx habitat. 

80 percent of the mapped lynx habitat within the combined LAU's would be unaffected by proposed 

treatments.

91 percent of existing winter foraging and 83 percent of the potential den habitat within the combined 

LAU's would be unaffected by proposed treatments. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

393

Proposed treatments are designed to restore naturally occurring fire regimes and associated vegetation 

communities. Natural fire regimes would be restored on 3,373 acres. 

Over the long-term treatments would result in greater stand and landscape diversity, including both 

spatial and temporal improvement in winter foraging habitat. Potential den habitat would be 

maintained across the landscape during implementation, and maintained or improved over the longterm. 

Regeneration treatments focus on stands that have MPB mortality in order to promote regeneration of 

lodgepole and ensure suitable lynx habitat is maintained. Collectively treatments are also expected to 

reduce risks from insects and disease, and reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire.

All roads would be closed to public access during and post implementation and no increased 

development is anticipated. 

Treatment would promote development of aspen and increase shrub, conifer and understory diversity. 

Lynx foraging and den habitat would be provided across the landscape and the anticipated increase in 

structural and vegetative diversity would provide the mosaic of habitat conditions necessary for 

snowshoe hare production, which would contribute to the recovery and survival of lynx.

Alternative 3 Determination and Conclusions

Alternative 3 would reduce winter hare and den habitat, but at a reduced level from that of alternative 2. 

Some increased snowmobile use is likely, although effects would be short term. A total of 204 acres of SI 

habitat would be precommercially thinned and 435 acres of multi-storied habitat would be treated. All 

treatments fall within a WUI, meet exceptions for VEG 05 and VEG 06, and comply with VEG 10. 

Treatments comply with VEG 01 and VEG 02, and fuel treatment projects that do not meet VEG S1, 

VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 occur on less than 6 percent of the available habitat on the Helena Forest. 

Proposed treatments comply with Northern Rocky Mountain Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b), and there are no effects anticipated that were not considered in the BO (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b). As a result implementation of alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect Canada lynx. Additionally, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, 

alternative 3 is expected to promote the long-term sustainability of lynx habitat.86 percent of the mapped 

lynx habitat would be unaffected.

86 percent of the mapped lynx habitat within the combined LAU's would be unaffected by proposed 

treatments.

95 percent of the winter foraging habitat and 88 percent of the potential den habitat within the 

combined LAU's would be unaffected by proposed treatments. 

Proposed treatments are designed to restore naturally occurring fire regimes and associated vegetation 

communities. Natural fire regimes would be restored on 2,498 acres. 

Over the long term, treatments would result in greater stand and landscape diversity, including both 

spatial and temporal improvement in winter foraging habitat. Potential den habitat would be 

maintained spatially across the landscape during implementation, and maintained or improved over 

the long term.

Regeneration treatments focus on stands that have MPB mortality in order to promote regeneration of 

lodgepole and ensure suitable lynx habitat is maintained. Collectively treatments are also expected to 

reduce risks from insects and disease, and reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire.

All roads would be closed to public access during and post implementation and no increased 

development is anticipated. 

Treatment would promote development of aspen and increase shrub, conifer and understory diversity. 

Lynx foraging and den habitat would be provided across the landscape and the anticipated increase in 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

394

structural and vegetative diversity would provide the mosaic of habitat conditions necessary for 

snowshoe hare production, which would contribute to the recovery and survival of lynx.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or 

endangered species that may require special management and protection (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006, 2009). Critical lynx habitat affected by the SVP project includes BL-07 and BL-08 as described 

under the affected environment. Critical habitat contributes to individual species conservation by focusing 

on the species’ primary constituent elements (PCEs). Within the Northern Rocky Mountains, the primary 

constituent elements for lynx critical habitat include a boreal forest landscape supporting different 

successional forest stages and containing the following attributes (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009):

a. The presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions including dense 

understories of young trees or shrubs tall enough to protrude above the snow, and mature 

multi-storied stands with conifer boughs touching the snow surface 

b. Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time 

c. Sites for denning having abundant, coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root wads 

d. Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, nonforest, or other habitat types that do not 

support snowshoe hares) that occur between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition (at 

the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat while 

accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range. The important aspect of matrix 

habitat for lynx is that these habitats provide the ability to allow unimpeded movements of 

lynx through them as lynx travel between patches of boreal forest 

Effects to critical habitat are evaluated by looking at effects to or changes in PCEs and the following is a 

summary of effects by element. 

Boreal habitat that contains snowshoe hares and their habitat 

Existing lynx habitat within BL-07 and BL-08 is summarized in table 67 and mapped lynx habitat 

currently occurs on 72 percent of the combined LAUs, hereafter referred to as the analysis area. Suitable 

habitat predominates across the analysis area, and includes 13,844 acres (26 percent) of snowshoe hare or 

lynx winter foraging habitat. Forging habitat has been reduced for a number of reasons including; (1) over 

20,000 acres of recent wildfires, (2) no large disturbance or management that would create suitable 

habitat has occurred in the last 15 years, and (3) decades of fire suppression in combination with logging 

early in the century have created fairly homogeneous stand conditions, including highly stocked stands 

with closed-canopy conditions and little understory development. Blackfoot-BL-08 in particular has 

reduced levels of foraging habitat due to recent wildfire. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3 a total of 1,195 acres and 656 acres of winter foraging habitat respectively are 

proposed for treatment. While 8 percent (alternative 2) and 5 percent (alternative 3) of the existing winter 

foraging habitat would be reduced, as described under treatment effects, implementation of the following 

PDFs would help ensure that these sites continue to contain some suitable hare habitat. 

Between 5 and 20 tons/acre of downed woody debris would be retained in all burn units. 

Where they exist, maintain at least four down logs per acre 12 inches in diameter (at the large end) 

and 20 feet long. 

During burning, avoid consumption of large coarse woody debris to the extent possible. Where 

feasible and consistent with fuel management objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

395

maintain pockets of understory vegetation and shrubs retained during harvest and small pockets of 

understory vegetation at scattered locations in unburned harvest sites. 

Treatments are designed to maintain understory vegetation on the site and promote aspen regeneration. 

Prescribed burning treatments would leave a minimum of 20 percent of the sites unburned. 

Implementation of PDFs and promoting existing hardwood regeneration are expected to maintain some 

hare and denning habitat on these sites. 

Due to elevated fire risk within the WUI and proximity of private land/structures, precommercial thinning 

is proposed within stand initiation hare habitat on 432 acres under alternative 2 and 204 acres under 

alternative 3. With implementation of PDFs, portions of these sites would be expected to continue to 

provide den habitat, although suitable winter hare and den habitat would be reduced. 

While precommercial thinning would affect winter hare habitat, proposed regeneration harvest would 

create an additional 701 acres and 582 acres of early successional habitat under alternatives 2 and 3 

respectively. Within 20 years the amount of stand initiation hare habitat would increase in both LAUs. 

Due to proposed partial harvest and burning within non-winter foraging habitat, understory conditions 

preferred by hare would be improved on over 5,000 acres under alternative 2 and over 3,600 acres under 

alternative 3. Collectively, it is expected that within 15 to 20 years both the amount and distribution of 

snowshoe habitat would be greatly increased under the action alternatives. 

Recent wildfires have resulted in a large reduction in foraging and den habitat within the analysis area. 

Because treatments are designed to reduce fire risk and burning intensity should a wildfire start, while 

improving landscape diversity, both alternatives are expected to promote the long-term sustainability of 

snowshoe hare and critical lynx habitat. 

Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time

Proposed treatments would increase snow compaction during harvest on those sites that are winter 

logged. As described previously, some additional snowmobile use can be expected within some units. 

Compaction due to harvest would be limited to approximately 15 percent of the unit. Approximately 2 

percent of the mapped lynx habitat would be affected. Most of the anticipated snowmobile use is 

expected to occur on designated trails that are groomed and currently do not provide suitable winter 

hare habitat. Any cross-country use would be short term due to encroachment of woody vegetation. 

As a result, both alternatives would maintain the deep, fluffy snow conditions required by hare and 

lynx over the long-term. 

Provide sites for denning that having abundant, coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and 

root wads. 

While treatments proposed under both alternatives would reduce downed woody debris, largediameter logs would be retained on all sites proposed for treatment. Prescribed fire units would have a 

mosaic of burned and unburned lands. It is expected that all sites would continue to provide 

conditions conducive to denning. Due to the widespread MPB mortality and large number of snags 

(see table 65 and figure 67), over 80 percent of the analysis area would contain elevated levels of 

downed woody debris for the next 20 to 30 years. As a result, suitable denning habitat would be 

widespread under both alternatives 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

396

Provide matrix habitat in a manner that will allow unimpeded movements of lynx between patches 

of boreal forest

Over 95 percent of the analysis area contains boreal forest and suitable lynx habitat is currently well 

distributed and interconnected. While mature forest would be reduced on up to 3 percent of the 

analysis area, sites treated would continue to provide key habitat components (e.g., downed wood, 

understory vegetation) to help maintain suitable lynx habitat. Due to their location in roaded areas, 

roads to be built then obliterated following use would not isolate any forested habitat. Approximately 

85 percent or more of the existing suitable habitat would not be affected. It is expected lynx would 

have unimpeded movement across the analysis area. 

Critical Habitat Determination

Based on the above analysis and the following rationale, a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Critical Habitat determination is made for both alternatives 2 and 3. 

Eighty-five percent or more of the mapped lynx habitat would be unaffected. 

Ninety-one percent or more the existing winter foraging and 83 percent of existing den habitat would

be unaffected. 

All sites proposed for treatment would continue to provide some den habitat and would not impede 

lynx movement or dispersal. Also den habitat would continue to be widely available across the 

landscape. 

Without treatment or disturbance, stand initiation habitat would continue to decline. Proposed 

treatments would increase the amount and distribution of stand initiation habitat across the landscape.

The risk of a continued reduction in winter forage and den habitat from high intensity wildfire would 

be reduced. 

All treatments are consistent with the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

30 percent or less of each LAU would occur in the early seral stand initiation stage that is not hare 

habitat and less than 15 percent of either LAU would be regenerated. These conditions promote a 

balance and a mosaic of young and older stands and are not expected to result in adverse effects to 

lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). 

All treatments are consistent with the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). While some treatments 

within winter foraging habitat would occur within the WUI, treatments were designed considering 

standards to promote lynx conservation and collectively application of the standards for vegetation 

management are expected to avoid adverse effects to lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b p. 

43). 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Lynx habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While both action alternatives would reduce 

den and snowshoe hare habitat within critical lynx habitat, suitable den habitat would continue to be 

abundant and well distributed across affected LAUs. Also over the long term the distribution and amount 

of snowshoe hare habitat would be improved and future impacts from insect and disease and 

stand-replacing wildfire reduced. All alternatives would comply with the NRLMD and are consistent with 

the Helena National Forest Plan, as amended (USDA Forest Service 2007b), National Forest Management 

Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 

CFR 219.10(b) and FSM 2670.12), and with Endangered Species Act requirements to conserve 

endangered and threatened species and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species, or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

397

Grizzly Bear

The following issue indicators are used to evaluate effects to grizzly bear:

Compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

Amendment 19 compliance and changes in TMRD, OMRD and Security Core within the NCDE 

Effects to denning bears and den habitat 

Effects to bears outside the denning period and changes in cover and forage. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative; accordingly, there would be no direct effects to 

bears, nor would there be changes in TMRD, OMRD or Core habitat. Risk of wildfire would remain high; 

therefore the likelihood of long-term loss of grizzly bear habitat from stand replacing wildfire is greatest 

under this alternative. Whitebark pine is anticipated to continue to decline, due to continued fire 

suppression and insects and disease under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

As described under methodology, the cumulative effect boundary includes 89,216 acres, or the combined 

sub-units. Of this 75 percent occurs on National Forest System land, less than 1 percent is State owned 

land and 24 percent is in private ownership. Changes to grizzly bear habitat are evaluated in part by 

looking at changes in forested canopy cover, which are based on post-kill data using R1-Vmap. Post-kill 

data is used because it best represents the existing live canopy conditions. Currently the analysis area is 

78 percent forested with 64,825 acres (75 percent) containing canopy cover in excess of 25 percent and 

49,460 acres occurring as more closed canopy stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover. Most of 

the existing nonforested habitat results from recent wildfires, including over 21,000 acres that were 

associated with the 2003 Snow Talon fire. 

Past, ongoing and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. These activities 

include hazard tree removal, campground rehabilitation and trail work, stream restoration, dispersed 

recreation, road maintenance, NNIS treatment, grazing, private land development, dispersed recreational 

use and firewood collection, timber harvest, trail maintenance, wildfire and prescribed burning. Effects of 

past activities have varied temporally and spatially and as described in appendix C, some activities 

reduced cover and forage immediately following treatment, whereas others resulted in long-term 

increases in forage. Effects of past wildfire are also variable and while cover has been reduced, 

particularly in the Copper Creek drainage, herbaceous, shrub and tree diversity would develop over the 

long-term increasing diversity within this drainage. Bear use within the Cooper Creek drainage 

(approximately 20 percent of the analysis area) has been and would continue to be reduced due to the 

widespread reduction in cover. While road density is relatively high in lower elevations and on private 

land, there has been little permanent new road construction on NFS lands in recent years and most roads 

are closed to public use during critical periods of the year. 

Ongoing activities such as NNIS treatment, campground and trail work and stream restoration would 

result primarily in changes to the understory and would not significantly modify bear habitat. Also, 

treatments such as road maintenance and firewood collection largely occur along open road corridors that 

would less likely be utilized by bear. Activities that could result in long-term effects to grizzly include 

those that would alter cover or forage over the long term or increase human activity, including past and 

recent wildfire; future prescribed burning, hazard tree removal and timber harvest. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

398

Ongoing future activities that have or would alter grizzly bear habitat include 408 acres of recent wildfire, 

481 acres of roadside hazard tree removal, 257 acres of pre-approved prescribed burning and 187 acres of 

off-forest timber harvest. Cumulatively, during the analysis period a total of 1,133 acres or approximately 

2 percent of the analysis area would be affected by these activities. Effects of prescribed burning would 

be similar to those described under alternative effects and while some localized tree mortality would 

occur, the canopy would be maintained. Also, effects to the understory would be short term and improve 

grizzly foraging habitat over the long term. However the overstory would be largely removed on sites 

affected by hazard tree removal, off-forest harvest and 60 percent of the recent burning. As a result, there 

would be a reduction in overstory canopy cover on approximately 900 acres under this alternative. There 

are no roads proposed, and road management and dispersed and developed recreation would remain 

relatively unchanged, therefore, human access and bear security would not change. While bear use in the 

Cooper Creek drainage has been reduced, considering there would only be small changes in overstory 

conditions from ongoing and future activities, and human access and bear security would be unchanged, 

there are no significant cumulative effects to grizzly anticipated under this alternative.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments to grizzly. Due to continued fire suppression, white bark pine 

would likely continue to decline and risks of catastrophic wildfire would remain high. Based on available 

information, the continued reduction in whitebark pine that would occur under this alternative may be 

considered an irretrievable commitment. 

Alternative 1 Determination and Conclusions

The risk of stand replacing wildfire remains high, but no direct effects are anticipated and in the absence 

of wildfire, grizzly habitat would be largely unchanged. Because whitebark pine would likely continue to 

decline, implementation of alternative 1 may affect but is not likely to adversely affect grizzly bear. 

Action Alternatives

Action alternatives are evaluated by key elements of grizzly bear habitat including roads/access, den 

habitat, cover/forage and food storage. Table 95 displays treatments within the recovery area by sub-unit, 

whereas changes in grizzly bear habitat resulting from the proposed treatments are displayed in table 97. 

Table 95. Grizzly habitat treated1

Treatments

Core Habitat Treated Den Habitat Treated Total Treatment Acres

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3

Intermediate 

Harvest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,832 1191 197 197

Regeneration 

Harvest 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 764 612 108 108

Total Harvest1 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 2,596 1,803 305 305

Underburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 0 0

Low Severity 

Fire 124 2 0 0 43 18 0 0 303 180 0 0 

Mixed Severity 

Fire <30 acres 1,666 1,036 434 0 442 456 59 27 2,428 1,695 1,352 373

Mixed Severity 

30-75 acres 182 182 178 603 8 8 428 428 199 199 1,034 1,034

Jackpot 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 326
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

399

Treatments

Core Habitat Treated Den Habitat Treated Total Treatment Acres

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Arrastra 

Mountain

Red 

Mountain

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3

Burning

Total 

Burning1 1,848 1,220 612 681 493 482 487 455 2,930 2,376 2,386 1,734

1 - Treatment is also proposed on 314 acres outside the recovery area, including 197 acres of timber harvest and 117 acres of low 

severity burning.

Both action alternatives propose a total of 81 acres of prescribed fire in Management Situation 1 lands, 

whereas all other treatments are in Situation 2 lands. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Disturbance

It is anticipated timber harvest would be completed in the next 5 years, whereas it may take up to ten 

years to complete the proposed burning. Because all treatments increase human presence and activity, it is 

expected some bears would be displaced during the non-denning period while treatments are 

implemented. Although road access would be unchanged, some long-term disturbance may occur on sites 

where harvest creates conditions that facilitate foot access. Harvest is proposed on 12 percent and 9 

percent of the project area under alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. Most of the proposed harvest (80 

percent) occurs close to roads and or private lands, reducing the likelihood that a bear would be affected.

Also untreated habitat to accommodate any displaced bears would be widely available within both subunits. As a result disturbance related effects would be largely limited to short-term avoidance of the sites 

during treatment. 

Roads, Access and Core 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

A total of 2.6 miles and 0.4 mile of roads would be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal under alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. These roads would be closed to public access during 

implementation and permanently closed and obliterated following harvest. Road maintenance would be 

completed to meet best management practices (BMP) on approximately 46 or 44 miles of roads under 

alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. The majority of road work would occur on existing open roads in the 

summer or fall. Table 96 displays road densities and security core areas that currently exist, as well as 

what would occur during and after project implementation for each of the action alternatives. 

Table 96. Alternative grizzly bear access/core habitat summary

IGBC Desired 

Condition

Open Road Density Total Road Density Security Core Habitat

<= 19 <=19 > = 68%

Arrastra Sub-unit

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3

Existing Condition 17 17 21 21 73 73

During Project 1 1 1 1 73 73

Post Project 17 17 21 21 73 73

Red Mountain Sub-unit
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

400

IGBC Desired 

Condition

Open Road Density Total Road Density Security Core Habitat

<= 19 <=19 > = 68%

Existing Condition 25 25 24 24 56 56

During Project 25 25 24 24 56 56

Post Project 25 25 24 24 56 56

1 – total and open road density would increase slightly during project implementation (for up to 5 years) due to roads built then 

obliterated immediately following timber removal.

Because of the small amount of roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, 

and considering that these routes occur in areas that are already roaded, there would be no effect to 

security core habitat. While there would be a temporary increase in total and open road density due to 

project implementation within the Arrastra sub unit, open road densities would continue to remain below 

established guidelines. There would be no changes in core habitat or road density in the Red Mountain 

subunit under either alternative. 

Denning Habitat 

Alternative 2

Modeled den habitat proposed for treatment is displayed in table 95 and treatments proposed under 

alternative 2 would affect 980 acres or 24 percent of the existing den habitat within the project area 

including 18 and 40 percent of the den habitat within the Arrastra and Red Mountain sub-units 

respectively. Of this 16 acres would be regenerated within the Arrastra sub-unit and den habitat would be 

reduced on this acreage. Also mixed severity burning would create openings and reduce den habitat on 

approximately 112 acres and 122 acres within the Arrastra and Red Mountain sub-units respectively. 

Overall modeled den habitat would be reduced by 250 acres. 

Suitable den habitat would be retained on 75 percent of the acreage affected by treatment (low severity 

and unburned portions of burn units) and overall, 94 percent of the existing modeled den habitat would be 

retained. 

Alternative 3

Treatments within lands that are currently at moderate fire risk were dropped under alternative 3, as a 

result only 2 acres of potential den habitat would be harvested, and total den habitat affected would be 

reduced to 937 acres. Openings created by proposed mixed severity burning would reduce den habitat by 

116 and 114 acres of the Arrastra and Red Mountain sub-units respectively. Like alternative 2, proposed 

burning would retain suitable den habitat on 75 percent of the acreage affected and 94 percent of the 

existing modeled den habitat would be retained under this alternative. Overall modeled den habitat would 

be reduced by 232 acres. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

In order to reduce potential impacts to denning bears, the following PDF would be implemented. 

No mechanical treatment activities and hauling or prescribed burning would occur above 6,000 ft. 

in elevation during the denning season (December 1 through March 31). 

With implementation of this PDF, it is not expected that denning bears would be adversely affected by 

treatment under either alternative. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

401

Food Storage and Sanitation 

Alternatives 2 and 3

People working in the woods provide opportunities for grizzly bears to be attracted to food and garbage 

and to become food conditioned. The Lincoln Ranger District has been covered under Forest Order H-05-

01 for food storage since 2005, which addresses food and garbage storage. A clause is included in all 

contracts that require the contractor adhere to this order. As a result, it is unlikely that effects associated 

with inadequate food storage and increased risks to bear or people would occur under either action 

alternative. 

Cover and Forage

Effects of individual treatments are discussed under section 4.3. The following is a discussion of effects to 

cover and forage conditions related to grizzly bear habitat. Anticipated effects are based on 

implementation of PDFs including riparian or INFISH buffers. Riparian buffers which include 150 feet on 

either side of perennial streams and 50 feet on either side of intermittent streams occur on over 500 acres 

proposed for treatment. Of this 300 acres are in prescribed burn units, 170 acres are in intermediate 

treatment units and 50 acres are within regeneration harvest units. Because few trees are harvested in 

these areas and burning is minimized or does not occur, cover in these buffers would be largely 

unchanged. As a result these areas would continue to provide both cover and travel corridors that would

help facilitate bear use within many of the treatments sites. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Changes in grizzly cover and foraging habitat resulting from the proposed treatments are summarized by 

alternative in table 97 including changes within and outside the recovery area. Effects to cover and forage 

are discussed by treatment below. 

Table 97. Grizzly bear habitat changes

Treatment/Habitat Change

Arrastra Mountain Red Mountain Outside Recovery Area

Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Alternative 2

Long-term Reduction of Forest Cover1 1,431 8 756 13 95 17

Timber Harvest 764 4 108 2 95 17

Burning 667 4 656 11 0 0 

Reduction in Denning Habitat1 128 56 122 96 0 0 

Reduced Cover2 3,509 20 1,457 25 219 40

Timber Harvest 1,832 10 197 3 102 19

Burning3 1,677 10 1,260 22 117 21

Increase in Forage 4,940 28 2,214 38 314 57

Remote Habitat 3,4 2,568 15 1,221 21 0 0 

Habitat Close to Human Activity3,5 2,372 13 993 17 314 57

Alternative 3

Long-term Reduction of Forest Cover1 1,085 6 460 8 96 18

Timber Harvest 612 3 108 2 96 18

Burning 473 3 352 6 0 0 

Reduction in Denning Habitat1 116 46 114 96 0 0 

Reduced Cover2 3,092 18 1,584 28 217 39

Timber Harvest 1,191 7 197 3 94 17
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

402

Treatment/Habitat Change

Arrastra Mountain Red Mountain Outside Recovery Area

Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Burning3 1,901 11 1,387 24 123 22

Increase in Forage 4,177 24 2,044 35 313 56

Remote Habitat 3,4 2,063 12 1,113 19 0 0 

Habitat Close to Human Activity3,5 2,114 12 931 16 313 56

1 –loss of overhead cover due to regeneration harvest and openings created by mixed severity burning

2 – reduction in cover due to intermediate timber harvest and low severity burning

3 – only includes 80 percent of each burn unit

4 – includes treatment units beyond 0.25 mile from an open road

5 – includes treatment units within 0.25 mile of an open road

6 – percent of modeled den habitat

Timber Harvest

Under alternative 2, proposed timber harvest would affect 14 percent and 5 percent of the Arrastra and 

Red Mountain sub-units respectively, whereas 36 percent of the lands outside the recovery area would be 

affected. Under alternative 3, the same amount of harvest would occur within Red Mountain (5 percent), 

although proposed harvest would be reduced to 10 percent of the Arrastra sub-unit. 

Grizzly bear response to logging and logged areas is mixed and complex (Zager et al. 1983, Waller and 

Mace 1997a). Bear use can be affected by changes in the quality and quantity of forage and cover and by 

changes in human use patterns. Some studies documented reduced bear use while others found no 

evidence that logging impacted grizzly bears (MDNRC 2010). Areas most likely to be used are those that 

produce crops of preferred foods (typically soft mast) and/or those that are relatively free from human 

disturbance (MDNRC 2010). As a result treatments were evaluated in terms of changes in cover and 

forage, as well as their proximity to human activity (table 97). 

All harvest would result in a reduction in cover on the site, with regeneration harvest resulting in a longterm loss of overhead forested cover. As a result bear use of regenerated sites would be reduced and most 

use within the next 10 years would be expected to occur largely near edges of treatment areas or riparian 

buffers. Cover would also be reduced on partial or intermediate harvest units, although residual overstory 

cover (25 to 60 percent canopy closure) would be maintained on sites treated. Riparian buffers would be 

maintained and interspersed throughout many units, further limiting sight distances. Intermediate harvest 

prescriptions are expected to provide adequate cover to provide for bear security. The likelihood that a 

harvest site would be utilized would also be determined by the amount of human activity and access. 

While there would be no change in public access, approximately 80 percent of all timber harvest occurs 

within 0.25 mile of an open road and close to private land with more concentrated human activity. As a 

result, existing as well as future use of these areas would be expected to be reduced somewhat and 

benefits to grizzly in terms of increased forage would be greatest in areas greater than 0.25 mile from an 

open road (table 97). 

Overall treatment would result in a long-term reduction in forested cover on the acreage affected (6 

percent of the recovery area), including up to a 16 acre reduction in modeled den habitat. Conversely 

available forage would increase. For example Nielson et al. (2004) found the occurrence of critical grizzly 

bear foods, including roots and tubers, herbaceous vegetation and ants were more common in clearcuts 

than the surrounding forest. Also shrubs including huckleberry and buffalo berry were found to increase, 

although this varied by site (Martin 1980, Zager et al. 1983). 

Bear use also varies over time. Some research indicates that grizzly don’t utilize harvest units until 10

years after treatment (MDNRC 2010), whereas other research found that grizzly utilized recent clearcuts 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

403

(Nielson et al. 2004, Wielgus and Vernier 2003). Also intermediate aged clearcuts (approximately 30 

years of age) were selected throughout the year, whereas recent and old clearcuts were utilized largely 

early in the year and again between early August and denning (Nielson et al. 2004). While grasses and 

forbs would be expected to increase on all sites, increases in shrubs (e.g., huckleberries) were found to be 

greatest on moist sites with northern and easterly aspects (Martin 1980). Consequently cover and forage 

availability as well as bear use would vary over time and by site. 

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning proposed under alternative 2 would affect 17 percent and 41 percent of the Arrastra 

Mountain and Red Mountain sub-units respectively, whereas burning under alternative 3 would affect 10 

and 30 percent of these sub-units. Most of the mixed severity burning includes high intensity burning that 

would create openings and result in a long-term loss of forest cover on 25 to 30 percent of the site. These 

openings would vary in size, would be widely scattered and , interspersed with riparian buffers, untreated 

areas and low severity burn areas. Consequently some bear cover would be retained on all sites. As a 

result, it is expected that bears would continue to utilize these fire created openings for forging following 

treatment. While there would be little change in overstory on areas affected by low severity burning (50 to 

55 percent of the site), understory cover would be reduced. Riparian buffers and untreated areas (at least 

20 percent of the unit) would also provide intact cover interspersed throughout the burn unit. 

Proposed burning would result in a flush of herbaceous vegetation (grasses and forbs) and it is expected 

that spring forage would increase within a year of the burn and would be maintained at levels above 

current conditions well into the future (greater than 20 years). Similarly, production of shrubs such as 

huckleberry and buffalo berry would increase both in the short (5 years) and long-term (greater than 50 

years) (Martin 1980). Finally burning in combination with thinning would maintain whitebark pine on 

over 900 acres under both alternatives. As a result it is expected that proposed burning would maintain 

security cover, while increasing the diversity and distribution of grizzly bear foraging habitat across the 

landscape. Like timber harvest, use of burn areas where forage is created would be greatest in more 

remote areas. 

Landscape Considerations 

Landscape conditions have been shown to influence bear use of managed forests. For example in areas 

where natural openings or disturbed areas (e.g. fire) were available, bears have been found to avoid 

clearcuts. However, where fire suppression and succession has led to little if any forest openings, grizzly 

have adapted to utilizing closely related anthropogenic sites such as clearcuts. Also decades of fires 

suppression have resulted in conifer encroachment that has further reduced natural openings and 

meadows (Nielson et al. 2004). This is a consideration for the Stonewall project area because less than 4 

percent of the project area occurs in meadow/shrub habitat.

Proposed mixed severity burning would help restore fire to the landscape as well as increase the 

availability of openings/meadows in remote areas preferred by grizzly. As a result both alternatives are 

expected to create landscape level conditions preferred by grizzly (Nielson et al. 2004, Herrero 1972) 

while promoting the sustainability of whitebark pine and maintaining existing core/remote habitat. 

Alternative 3

In an effort to reduce short-term impacts to cover, alternative 3 reduces proposed harvest and burning. 

Within Arrastra Mountain, regeneration and intermediate harvest are reduced by 31 percent and 35 

percent respectively, whereas total and mixed severity burning within this sub-unit is reduced by 19 

percent and 27 percent. Although timber harvest within the Red Mountain unit is the same as that of 

alternative 2, total burning is reduced by 27 percent and mixed severity burning by 52 percent. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

404

Collectively, the reduction in treatments would maintain more cover over the short term than alternative 

2, although short- and long-term increases in forage would be reduced. While whitebark pine restoration 

would be similar and landscape diversity improved, fire risk would be somewhat higher under this 

alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, activities proposed under the action 

alternatives that could result in a long-term reduction in forested cover or increase human access include 

timber harvest on up to 2,901 acres, prescribed burning on up to 5,316 and road construction on up to 2.6 

miles. Table 98 displays ongoing and future activities and recent wildfire, as well as the maximum 

amount of future activities anticipated (alternative 2). 

Table 98. Action area cumulative effects

Activity

Area Affected1 Reduction in Cover 

Acres % Acres % 

Timber Harvest 3,088 4 872 1 

Prescribed Burning 5,573 6 1,315 2 

Hazard Tree Removal 481 <1 481 <1

Wildfire 408 <1 245 <1

Total 9,550 11 2,913 3

1 - There are approximately 2,500 acres within the analysis area where R1-Vmap cover data is unavailable and the percent of area 

affected is based on lands where data is available.

Ongoing and future activities under the action alternatives would affect up to 11 percent of the analysis 

area. Effects include a reduction in overstory cover on approximately 2,900 acres or 3 percent of the 

analysis area. Proposed treatments would also reduce den habitat on up to 250 acres or 6 percent of the 

modeled den habitat. While roads to be constructed and obliterated following treatment have the potential 

to increase access, as described under direct and indirect effects, these occur in areas that are already well 

roaded. As a result there would be no change in security habitat and potential impacts to be bears would 

be reduced. 

While anticipated activities would affect 11 percent of the action area and 24 percent of the modeled den 

habitat, 70 percent of the anticipated activities would maintain forest cover on the site. Also with 

implementation of project design features, there are no impacts to denning bears anticipated. Additionally, 

proposed actions would maintain bear security habitat, while promoting stand and landscape level forage.

Although forest cover would be reduced due to proposed regeneration harvest and openings created by 

mixed severity burning, as described under direct and indirect effect, 80 percent of the harvest would 

occur close to roads/human activity reducing potential impacts to bears. Also openings created by mixed 

severity burning are widely scattered and would be expected to promote forage conditions preferred by 

grizzly, including maintenance of white bark pine. Finally, the action area has recently been affected by 

past wildfire and the proposed treatments are designed to reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a 

further reduction in grizzly bear cover. Collectively, for these reasons, and considering remote den habitat 

would remain largely intact and that bear habitat and use outside the Copper Creek (i.e., lands affected by 

the Snow Talon fire) drainage would be maintained, it is not anticipated that implementation of the 

treatments under either alternative 2 or 3 would result in significant long-term adverse cumulative effects 

to the grizzly bear. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

405

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments to grizzly anticipated. While proposed activities would reduce 

cover, they would also improve habitat diversity, promote whitebark pine restoration and reduce the likely 

hood that stand-replacing wildfire may occur. As a result, habitat within sites affected would be restored. 

Action Alternatives Determination and Conclusions

Both alternatives 2 and 3 would improve landscape level foraging habitat, maintain whitebark pine, result 

in short and long-term reductions in cover and increase the risk of bear/human interaction. However, 

based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may 

affect, but not likely to adversely affect grizzly bear.

While TMRD within the Arrastra sub-unit would increase during implementation (up to five years), 

OMRD would stay below IGBC guidelines. There would be no change in TMRD or OMRD within 

the Red Mountain sub-unit and there would be no change in Security Core habitat within either subunit. 

While up to 2.6 miles of roads would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, 

these segments would be closed to public access during implementation. There would be no change in 

public motorized access during or post implementation. 

Over 94 percent of modeled den habitat would be maintained. With implementation of Project Design 

Features that restrict activities within suitable habitat during the denning season, no impacts to 

denning bears are anticipated. 

Eighty percent of proposed timber harvest is in close proximity to open roads and concentrated 

human activity, reducing the likelihood that bears would be affected. Only short-term disturbance is 

anticipated during implementation and no long-term adverse direct effects to bears are anticipated. 

Existing forested cover would be maintained on a minimum of 92 and 87 percent of the Arrastra and 

Red Mountain sub-units respectively. 

Proposed treatments would promote the long-term sustainability of whitebark pine, increase stand and 

landscape level forage, and restore fire to the landscape while reducing the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire. 

All treatments are consistent with Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards and comply with 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Recommendations. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Grizzly habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. Action alternatives would reduce grizzly 

bear habitat; however, all but 81 acres would occur within Management Situation 2 lands. Guidelines for 

TMRD, OMRD and core would be met or unchanged, and treatments would promote the sustainability of 

whitebark pine, promote landscape conditions preferred by grizzly and reduce the risk of stand replacing 

wildfire. As a result, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to maintain or enhance 

sufficient grizzly bear habitat to meet the population goals established in the Grizzly Bear Recover Plan 

for the Helena National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. II/1), and apply grizzly bear guidelines to 

essential and occupied habitat and to minimize man-caused mortality by not exceeding designated open 

road densities (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. II/19). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

406

Wolverine

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative, there would be no direct impacts or 

mortality to wolverine. In the absence of a disturbance event such as large-scale blowdown or stand 

replacing wildfire, stands would continue to mature and late successional conditions, including increasing 

levels of downed wood would develop. While fuel loading and the risk of wildfire would be greatest 

under this alternative, den and dispersal habitat would be largely unchanged. Similarly, big game forage 

and cover, deer and elk populations and wolverine foraging habitat would be maintained. 

The existing road system would be unchanged under this alternative and human access is not expected to 

increase. As a result, remote and natal den habitat would be maintained and there would be no changes in 

trapping pressure or increased disturbance to denning habitat anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. The most farreaching effect of past management activities has been the development of road systems, recreational 

trails, and sites that improved access and promoted human use in remote areas. Management activities 

such as timber harvest and reforestation treatments have altered vegetation and use of the area by big 

game, reduced overstory snow interception and further increased human access and potential disturbance. 

Natural disturbances such as the 2003 Snow Talon fire have affected over 23,500 acres within the analysis 

area, including 3,500 acres of natal den habitat. 

Past, on-going and future activities that are most likely to affect wolverine or its habitat during the 

analysis period are summarized in table 46, which includes activities within the analysis area as a whole, 

as well as those activities that would occur in natal denning habitat. 

Table 99. Past, ongoing and future activities within the wolverine cumulative effect area

Activity Analysis Area Natal Denning Habitat

Hazard tree Removal 568 acres None

NNIS treatment 4,000 acres None

Firewood Collection Within 100 ft. of Open Roads None

Past Wildfire 23,000 acres 3,203 acres

Recent Wildfire 755 acres 301 acres

Trail Maintenance 446 acres (within 100 ft. of trails 35 acres (8 miles of trail)

Prescribed Fire 410 acres 210 acres

While there would be some modification of the understory and removal of downed wood, activities such 

as trail maintenance, firewood collection and NNIS treatment would primarily result in short-term 

disturbance. Also there would be little habitat changes from these activities. Hazard tree removal would 

modify foraging habitat along open roads but there are no long-term adverse effects to habitat or 

disturbance related effects anticipated. Trail maintenance, including trails through natal denning habitat 

would continue. While trail use is not expected to change, disturbance along the trail corridors would 

continue. Also some dispersed recreation activities occur in areas with persistent snowpack. However 

because wolverines coexist with some level of human disturbance and habitat modification, and 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

407

considering use is not expected to change, continued recreational use of the analysis is not expected to 

adversely affect wolverine. Low intensity prescribed fire would occur on approximately 400 acres and 

effects would be similar to those described under alternative effects including disturbance during 

treatment and a short-term reduction in understory vegetation and structure, although both natal denning 

and foraging habitat would be maintained following treatment. 

Approximately 23 percent of the cumulative effect area and 28 percent of the natal denning habitat have 

been recently (since 2003) affected by wildfire. While wildfire can create conditions preferred by big 

game and other prey species, fire temporarily displaces wolverines, which depend on late successional 

conditions (Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee 1988 in USDA Forest Service 2012e) and 

generally post-fire habitat is less suitable than unburned habitats (Hayes, 1970 in USDA Forest Service 

2012e). As a result, both foraging and den habitat have been reduced. However post-fire conditions can 

improve habitat for big game (USDA Forest Service 2012e), so effects on foraging habitat would be short 

term. For example the 2011 wolverine documentation occurred on lands affected by the 2003 Snow Talon 

fire, indicating that foraging on these lands is occurring. 

Remote lands within the analysis area and adjacent wilderness would continue to provide abundant, high 

quality habitat for wolverines in the short term. Climate change would continue to be a threat to wolverine 

populations in the long-term and is likely to shrink the size of their high quality habitat islands in the 

future. Although the northern Rocky Mountains would continue to provide some of the largest, most 

contiguous areas of wolverine habitat in the lower 48 states, serving as a population source area. As a 

result, and considering the small amount of natal denning or foraging habitat affected by on-going/future 

activities, and the continued availability of remote habitat within the analysis area, there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated.

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Although recent fires have reduced wolverine foraging and den habitat, suitable habitat would continue to 

be available. While the risk of future wildlife is greatest under this alternative, there is no way to predict if 

or when wildfire would occur. As a result and based on the above analysis and the following rationale, 

implementation of alternative 1 would Not Jeopardize the wolverine.

Human access and the availability of remote habitat would be maintained and no increase in 

trapping pressure is anticipated. 

Existing natal den habitat would be maintained. 

Big game numbers and use, and wolverine foraging habitat would be largely unchanged. 

Late successional forest conditions would be maintained. 

The available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that other potential 

stressors such as land management, recreation, infrastructure development and transportation 

corridors pose a threat to the DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

The proposed rule to list the wolverine as threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) 

states; “Little scientific or commercial information exists regarding effects to wolverines from 

development or human disturbances associated with them. What little information does exist 

suggests that wolverines can adjust to moderate habitat modification and human disturbance. In 

addition, large amounts of wolverine habitat are protected from human disturbances and 

developments, either legally through wilderness and National Park designation, or by being 

located at remote and high elevation sites. Therefore, wolverines are afforded a relatively high 

degree of protection from effects of human activities by the nature of their habitat”.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

408

Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 would affect 8,562 acres and 6,562 acres of the analysis area under 

alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. Of this both alternatives propose 829 acres of mixed severity burning in 

natal denning habitat. However because burning would not occur during the denning period, there are no 

effects to wolverine denning or increased mortality anticipated. 

Of the natal habitat affected by burning, 207 would be affected by high severity burning, 456 acres would 

receive a low intensity burn and approximately 166 acres would be unburned. Changes in habitat include 

a reduction in suitable den habitat on 207 acres and reduced understory structure, including a reduction in 

down wood on 456 acres. Openings created by fire would be 30 acres in size or less, widely scattered and 

interspersed with un-burned or lightly burned lands. So while habitat on some of the unit would be 

reduced, suitable den habitat would be maintained on the site. As a result and considering that 

approximately 93 percent of the existing natal den habitat would be unaffected, the availability of den 

habitat would be maintained across the landscape. 

While proposed treatments have the potential to affect wolverines during dispersal, Schwartz found that 

wolverines are 20 times more likely to stay in the area of persistent snow cover during dispersal 

(Schwartz et al. 2009). As a result and considering that timber harvest is proposed in areas of low 

elevation and that burning would occur after spring snow is gone, it is unlikely that dispersing animals 

would be affected by treatment. Rather, they are likely to travel high elevation ridges east and north of 

treatment areas where there is contiguous remote habitat associated with the Scapegoat Wilderness. 

Timber harvest and burning would affect approximately 8,562 acres of suitable foraging habitat under 

alternative 2 and 6,562 acres under alternative 3. Effects of these activities on vegetation structure and 

composition are discussed in detail in section 4.3 and include a reduction in mature forest on 2,221 acres 

under alternative 2 and 1,641 acres under alternative 3 due to regeneration harvest and openings created 

during mixed severity burning. Effects also include changes in understory structure and diversity due to 

intermediate harvest and low intensity burning, which would occur on 5,248 acres under alternative 2 and 

on 4,618 acres under alternative 3. Also as described in section 4.3, most treatments (intermediate harvest 

and 75 percent of the burning) would result in short-term changes in vegetation. While these changes in 

cover and forage would be expected to alter big game use of the project area, considering; that 92 percent 

or more of the analysis area would be unaffected, that big game security habitat would be maintained, and 

that the amount and quality of forage would be improved, adequate habitat would continue to be available 

both in the short and long term to support desired levels of elk. As a result wolverine foraging habitat 

would be maintained under both alternatives. 

There would be no changes in road management or public access under either alternative. New roads to 

be obliterated immediately following harvest are proposed on 2.6 miles under alternative 1 and 0.4 miles 

under alternative 4. Because these roads occur in areas that are already roaded, they would not further 

fragment intact forest or reduce connectivity. Also there would be no reduction in remote forest habitat 

under either alternative. Similarly, because regeneration treatments occur in areas with concentrated MPB 

mortality, canopy conditions have already been reduced in these areas. These areas are also at low 

elevation without persistent snow cover. As a result and considering that 92 percent or more of the 

analysis area would be unaffected by treatment, remote forest habitat, habitat connectivity and wolverine 

dispersal habitat would be maintained under both alternatives. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

409

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects described under alternative 1, up to 3,099 acres of timber harvest and 5,463 acres of 

burning would occur (under alternative 2). Cumulatively during the analysis period, approximately 

37,741 acres would be affected by anticipated activities. However most of this occurs at low elevations 

without persistent snow cover and treatments are not expected to alter dispersal. Also while ongoing/future activities would affect 829 acres of modeled den habitat, treatment would occur outside the 

denning period and there are no effects to denning animals anticipated. On-going and future activities 

would reduce mature forest on up to 2,221 acres, although activities would maintain wolverine foraging 

habitat in the short-term and improve big game and wolverine foraging habitat in the long term (see 

analysis of commonly hunted species). As a result and considering that over 93 percent of the modeled 

den habitat would be unaffected by ongoing/future activities, potential impacts to wolverine would be 

reduced and wolverine den, dispersal and foraging habitat would be maintained across the landscape. 

In the past, wolverines were subject to overharvest. However more restrictive trapping seasons, restricted 

public access, and the continued availability of secure habitat would provide protection for wolverine 

populations under both alternatives. Like alternative 1 dispersed recreation would continue to occur, 

although use is not expected to change and there is no evidence that activities such as hiking, camping or 

hunting affect wolverines. As a result and considering that wolverines can coexist with some level of 

human disturbance and habitat modification (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013), continued 

recreational use of the analysis is not expected to adversely affect wolverine.

Climate change would continue to be a threat to wolverine populations in the long-term and is likely to 

shrink the size of their high quality habitat islands, although the northern Rocky Mountains would 

continue to provide some of the largest, most contiguous areas of wolverine habitat in the lower 48 states, 

serving as a population source area. Also like alternative 1, remote lands within the analysis area and 

adjacent wilderness would continue to provide abundant, high quality habitat for wolverines. As a result, 

and considering the large amount of unaffected habitat and the continued availability of natal den and 

foraging habitat, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated under either alternative. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments to wolverine. While there would be a reduction in 

suitable habitat due to proposed burning and harvest, conditions on all sites would be restored. 

Determination of Effects and Conclusions

The Stonewall project was analyzed for effects to wolverines based on vegetation changes, movements 

across the landscape, and the distribution from human activities associated with the project. Based on the 

analysis provided and the following rationale, it is determined that implementation of the Stonewall 

Vegetation Management Project would Not Jeopardize the wolverine. 

Mature forest conditions would be maintained on 75 percent of the acreage treated and over 90 

percent of the analysis area would be unaffected by any proposed action. 

There are no effects to wolverine denning or dispersal anticipated and 93 percent of the modeled den 

habitat would be unaffected. 

There would be no increase in human access and remote habitat would be maintained. Trapping 

pressure would remain unchanged. 

Big game populations and wolverine foraging habitat would be maintained. 

Proposed treatments would reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

410

The available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that other potential stressors 

such as land management, recreation, infrastructure development and transportation corridors pose a 

threat to the DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). 

The proposed rule to list the wolverine as threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) states; 

“Little scientific or commercial information exists regarding effects to wolverines from development 

or human disturbances associated with them. What little information does exist suggests that 

wolverines can adjust to moderate habitat modification and human disturbance. In addition, large 

amounts of wolverine habitat are protected from human disturbances and developments, either legally 

through wilderness and National Park designation, or by being located at remote and high elevation 

sites. Therefore, wolverines are afforded a relatively high degree of protection from effects of human 

activities by the nature of their habitat”.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Wolverine habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While there would be a small 

reduction in modeled den habitat under the action alternatives, no effects to wolverine denning or 

dispersal are anticipated and suitable den, foraging and dispersal habitat would be continue to be 

available. Also landscape connectivity and remote habitat would be maintained under all alternatives. 

Consequently all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to 

ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17); 

to maintain and improve wildlife habitat over time; to support big game and other wildlife species (p. 

II/1); provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4); and to develop and 

implement a road management program with road use and travel restrictions that are responsive to 

resource protection needs (p. II/2). All alternatives are also consistent with National Forest Management 

Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 

CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Sensitive and Federal Candidate Species

Gray Wolf

To ensure the conservation of wolf populations, the Forest Service uses three limiting factors identified in 

the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987) to evaluate impacts from forest 

management including; (1) potential for wolf/human interaction, (2) effects on the wolf prey base, and (3) 

impacts to the integrity of key wolf habitat (i.e., rendezvous and den sites). The following is a discussion 

of these factors by alternative.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects anticipated to the gray 

wolf. Landscape-level habitat is displayed in table 67 and alternative treatment effects discussed in the 

Alternative Effects section. As described, there would be little change in forest structure and diversity 

under alternative 1, although increased levels of DWD would occur. Mature forest conditions would 

continue to predominate across the project area. While forage for big game may continue to decline in 

some areas, due to MPB mortality, it is expected that localized increases in big game forage would occur 

and cover would continue to be available within all drainages. There are no anticipated increases in 

human activity or access and livestock grazing would be unchanged. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

411

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and anticipated future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Anticipated effects 

are summarized in table 85 and include hazard tree removal, NNIS treatment, road and trail maintenance, 

trail reconstruction, campground use and improvement, firewood collection, livestock grazing, wildfire, 

off-forest harvest, ongoing dispersed use and approved prescribed burning. 

As described in the Cumulative Effect for All Alternatives section, very little change in existing uses, 

including livestock grazing and dispersed recreational use, are expected. Also much of this activity would 

continue to occur along roads or in areas that already receive more concentrated human use (e.g., trails 

and campground) where wolves are less likely to occur. Wildfire, hazard tree removal, timber harvest and 

prescribed burning are the anticipated treatments that would result in possible long-term changes in wolf 

cover and forage conditions and cumulatively, approximately 1,500 acres (2 percent) of the analysis area 

would be affected. Additionally MPB mortality would continue with some areas of concentrated 

mortality. However, considering that human access would not increase, that big game populations and use 

within the analysis area would remain relatively unchanged and that landscape level cover and forage 

would continue to be available, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated to gray wolf or its 

habitat anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

Habitat for wolves would remain largely unchanged under this alternative and there are no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments to wolves. 

Determination and Conclusions

Suitable wolf habitat, including remote areas for denning and big game populations would remain largely 

unchanged. As a result, and considering that human use and access is not expected to increase, 

implementation of alternative 1 would have No Impact on wolves. 

Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

While wolves are in the area, there are no known wolf den or rendezvous sites that would be affected. As 

a result, no mortality or effects to reproduction are anticipated. While both action alternatives would result 

in some increase in human activity, based on information described under treatment effects, activities

would be short term and localized. Also all roads to be built then obliterated immediately following 

timber removal occur in areas that are already roaded and approximately 70 percent of the proposed 

harvest areas occur within approximately 0.25 mile of an open road. Consequently proposed treatments 

largely occur in areas where human access already exists and where wolves are less likely to occur. As a 

result and considering approximately 65 percent of the area would be untreated, the likelihood of direct 

effects (disturbance or mortality) is low. 

While there is no long-term increase in human access anticipated, implementation of proposed treatments 

would increase human access. Also because much of the proposed burning occurs in more remote areas, it 

is likely that wolves would be affected. However because burning would be completed within 

approximately a 2 week period, any disturbance related effects would be short term. Also timber harvest 

is restricted to a single drainage at a time over a 10-year period. As a result, unaffected habitat would be 

available to accommodate any displaced animals. 

Based on the treatment effects discussion in the Alternative 1-No Action section and the analysis 

presented under deer and elk, habitat for big game species would be maintained in the short term and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

412

increased over the long term. As a result, and due to the widespread availability of unaffected habitat (65 

percent of the analysis area), big game populations and wolf foraging habitat would be maintained. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects described under alternative 1, up to 3,099 acres of timber harvest and 5,463 acres of 

burning would occur (under alternative 2). Specific activities and their effects to wildlife habitat are 

discussed in the Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives section and in appendix C, and as described, 

treatment related disturbance would be short term. Also, access into remote areas would not be changed, 

and treatments are expected to maintain big game and wolf foraging habitat within affected drainages and 

across the landscape. As a result and considering that over 70 percent of the analysis area would not be 

affected, and that there are no known den or rendezvous sites affected, there are no significant cumulative 

effects to wolves anticipated.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

While there would be a short-term decrease in cover, this would be restored and foraging habitat would be 

maintained or improved. There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments to wolves. 

Action Alternative Determination and Conclusions

Alternatives 2 and 3 have potential for short-term impacts to foraging or dispersing wolves. However, 

based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may 

impact individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing for the gray wolf. 

No den or rendezvous sites are known to occur. 

Any increases in human activity would be short term and the availability of unaffected foraging 

habitat is available within all drainages. 

There are no anticipated increases in livestock use and any increased human activity would be 

associated primarily with existing trails and use areas. 

Big game populations are expected to be maintained over the short term and increased in the 

future.

Treatments would reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

There are no den or rendezvous sites affected under any alternative. Foraging habitat would be largely 

unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives would affect suitable foraging habitat, big 

game populations would be maintained or improved. Long-term human access would not be increased 

and remote habitat would be maintained, no new system roads would be constructed and all roads built 

would be obliterated immediately following timber removal and would be closed to public access during 

implementation. Risks of large-scale wildfire would be reduced. As a result, all alternatives comply with 

Forest Plan direction to maintain or improve wildlife habitat over time to support big game and other 

wildlife species and to maintain, enhance gray wolf habitat to facilitate recovery (USDA Forest Service 

1986 p. II/1) and to develop and implement a road management program with road use and travel 

restrictions that are responsive to resource protection needs (p. II/2). All alternatives are also consistent 

with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 

USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

413

Fisher

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct impacts to fisher. 

Also, in the absence of large-scale blowdown or stand-replacing wildfire, over the short term (less than10 

years), habitat conditions would be largely unchanged. However as described under affected environment, 

ongoing and anticipated future MPB mortality is expected to further reduce suitable habitat due to a 

continued reduction in canopy closure. This reduction is expected to be greatest in lower elevation stands 

that currently have concentrated mortality and in high density stands that are at greater risk from 

competition and insect and disease. Conversely, the availability of large diameter snags and DWD would

increase in the next 15 to 20 years. The overall effect on fisher habitat would be that while den, rest and 

foraging habitat would be available, it would continue to be widely scattered across the project area. Also 

due to elevated fuel conditions, the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a long-term loss of habitat are 

greatest under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and future cumulative effects evaluated are in volume 2, appendix C. Cumulative effects are 

evaluated across the 101,977-acre-combined boundary described previously and ongoing and future 

activities likely to affect fisher are displayed in table 100. 

Table 100. Fisher cumulative effect summary

Activity Foraging Habitat Den Rest Habitat

Grazing 819 acres 2,108 acres

NNIS 64 acres 442 acres

Trail Work (within 100 ft. of trail) 14 acres 22 acres

Prescribed Fire 8 acres 40 acres

Hazard Tree Removal 27 acres 118 acres

Stream Improvement 4 acres 3 acres

Recent (since 2011) Wildfire 2 acres 39 acres

Firewood collection Within 100 ft. of open roads Within 100 ft. of open roads

While all of the activities could result in short-term disturbance to fisher, of the treatments identified in 

table 100, activities that could result in habitat changes include prescribed fire, hazard tree removal, 

firewood collection and wildfire. Suitable fisher habitat currently occurs on approximately 9,500 acres or 

9 percent of the analysis area. Of this, approximately 6,500 acres occur as den/rest habitat and 3,000 acres 

as foraging habitat. While these activities would reduce snags and downed woody debris and result in 

some reduction mature forest, considering that over 97 percent of the suitable foraging and den/rest 

habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated for fisher. While implementation of alternative 1 may 

increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire, there are no predictable irretrievable commitments. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

414

Determination and Conclusions

Because there are no direct effects anticipated and considering suitable fisher habitat would remain 

relatively unchanged, implementation of alternative 1 would have no impact on fisher. 

Action Alternatives

Table 101 displays fisher den/rest and foraging habitat proposed for treatment. 

Table 101. Fisher habitat proposed for treatment

Treatment

Den/Rest-Acres

(3,042 acres total)

Foraging Acres

(4,412 acres total)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Intermediate Harvest 620 (20) 3 396 (13) 3 767 (17) 3 487 (11) 3

Regeneration Harvest 229 (8) 3 197 (6) 3 277 (6) 3 243 (6) 3

Jackpot Burning1 0 99 (3) 3 0 179 (4) 3

Low Severity Burning1 79 (3) 3 182 (6) 3 121 (3) 3 252 (6) 3

Mixed Severity Burning1 610 (20) 3 183 (6) 3 1,006 (23) 298 (7) 3

Total Acres Treated 1,538 (50) 4 1,057 (35) 4 2,171 (49) 4 1,459 (33) 4

Suitable Habitat Reduced2 367 (12) 4 290 (10) 4 502 (11) 4 389 (9) 4

Habitat Structure Reduced5 1,171 (38) 4 767 (25) 4 1,669 (38) 4 1,070 (24) 4

1 – Does not include 20 percent of the site that remains unburned

2 – Due to regeneration harvest and 20 percent of burn units

3 – Numbers in parenthesis are percent of category

4 – Percent of total

5 – Partial harvest and 60 percent of burn units

Direct and Indirect Effects

Changes in Suitable Habitat

As described previously, project area fisher habitat has been recently reduced due to MPB mortality and 

occurs on approximately 4,400 acres or 48 percent of the project area. Alternative 2 would treat 

approximately 50 percent of the project area den/rest and foraging habitat, whereas alternative 3 would

affect 33 to 35 percent. Of this 50 to 60 percent is proposed for timber harvest in stands that have 

concentrated MPB mortality. While these stands met the 40 percent canopy closure requirement at the 

time the model was developed, most of these sites currently only provide marginal habitat conditions. As 

a result, even though the model identifies some of these lands as den/rest, it is unlikely they would be 

utilized for denning and direct impacts are expected to consist primarily avoidance of foraging individuals 

during treatment. However because regeneration harvest would reduce canopy closure below 40 percent, 

existing den/rest habitat would be reduced by 8 percent under alternative 2 and 6 percent under alternative 

3, whereas foraging habitat would be reduced by approximately 6 percent under both alternatives. 

While sites proposed for burning have experienced some mortality, many of these areas have experienced 

less mortality and are expected to continue to provide both den/rest and foraging habitat. As a result, 

direct impacts in the form of harassment, mortality or displacement could occur. However because the 

project area landscape currently provides marginal habitat conditions due to past and ongoing MPB 

mortality, the likelihood that an active den would be affected is reduced and considered low. As a result 

direct effects are expected to consist largely of short-term (1 year) behavioral avoidance of the treatment 

areas. Also all affected watersheds would continue to contain suitable habitat to accommodate any 

displaced foraging individuals. Burning under alternatives 2 would affect 1,127 acres of existing forging 

habitat (26 percent), and 689 acres (23 percent) of the available den/rest habitat. While burning is reduced 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

415

under alternative 3, mixed severity burning proposed under both alternatives would result in a long-term 

reduction in suitable habitat due to openings created in portions of the units. As a result, it is estimated 

that mixed severity burning would reduce existing habitat on approximately 20 percent of the entire

suitable habitat treated. The total amount of habitat reduced from regeneration harvest and mixed severity 

burning is displayed in table 101. 

The remainder of the acres treated which include partial harvest activities and portions of burn units that 

receive a low intensity underburn are expected to largely maintain canopy closure on the site. 

Additionally implementation of PDFs that maintain downed woody debris and other structural 

components (e.g., large snags, shrubs and pockets with understory structure) preferred by fisher would be 

retained on site. So while habitat structure would be reduced on this acreage, these areas would continue 

to provide suitable fisher habitat. 

Riparian Habitat

As described under affected environment, riparian areas are preferred by fisher for foraging and den rest 

habitat, as well as for travel corridors. Approximately 5 percent of the proposed treatments or up to 155 

acres occur within 300 ft. of a stream. However these areas are protected through implementation of 

INFISH buffers, which have restrictions on both burning and harvest. As a result riparian habitat would

essentially be unchanged and maintained under both alternatives. 

Access

While some roads would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal under both 

alternatives, these would be closed to the public and there is no change in public access anticipated. As a 

result existing remote habitat and lands that afford fisher security would be maintained. Also trapping 

pressure is not expected to change. 

Landscape Conditions

As described under affected environment, MPB mortality has altered landscape conditions across the 

project area, reducing canopy closure and creating scattered patches of fisher habitat. While regeneration 

harvest would create an early seral habitat component (3 and 4 percent under alternatives 2 and 3 

respectively), this is restricted to the southern portion of the project area in close proximity to private land 

and occurs in areas where there had been concentrated MPB mortality Also while mixed severity burning 

would create openings of variable size, these are widely scattered and occur as inclusions within the 

larger forested stand. As a result existing connectivity would be largely maintained under both 

alternatives. Additionally early seral stands or habitat patches created by logging or prescribed burning 

provide habitat for some fisher prey species, and research indicates that fisher home ranges include or are 

positively associated with younger successional stages (Lofroth et al. 2010). As a result proposed 

treatments would create a greater diversity of stand conditions and a more heterogeneous landscape than 

currently exists. 

While dead wood would be reduced, with implementation of PDFs all treatment units would maintain a 

snag and DWD component. As a result and considering the elevated levels of dead wood (See section 

3.18) that would occur across the landscape, which include large snag component, standing and downed 

woody debris would continue to be widely available across the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, the action alternatives would result in the 

following (alternative 2)

Prescribed burning on 534 acres of foraging habitat and 847 acres of den/rest habitat 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

416

Regeneration harvest on 42 acres and 142 acres of foraging and den/rest habitat respectively.

Partial harvest on up to 128 acres and 542 acres of foraging and den/rest habitat respectively. 

Cumulatively during the analysis period, up to 711 acres or 24 percent of the available foraging habitat 

would be affected and up to 1,728 acres or 26 percent of the available den/rest habitat would be affected. 

However, the existing overstory would be maintained on 75 percent of the burning and almost 80 percent 

of the proposed harvest. Also downed woody debris would be retained on all units. As a result suitable 

foraging and den/rest habitat would only be reduced on approximately 700 acres due to regeneration 

harvest, openings created by mixed severity burning, wildfire and hazard tree removal. Additionally, 76 

percent of the foraging habitat and 74 percent of the den/rest habitat would be unaffected. As a result and 

considering that preferred riparian habitat would be maintained under both alternatives there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. . 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated for fisher. While both action alternatives would reduce 

suitable habitat on areas affected by regeneration harvest and alter structural diversity on fisher habitat, 

suitable habitat conditions would be restored on all sites. 

Determination and Conclusions

The action alternatives would reduce fisher habitat by 9 to 12 percent and alter the structural conditions 

on approximately 25 to 38 percent of the existing fisher habitat. Based on the above analysis and the 

following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals, but are not likely 

to cause a trend toward federal listing for fisher. 

Due to widespread mountain pine beetle mortality, available fisher habitat has been reduced, and 

much of the project area does not provide the overstory or landscape conditions preferred by fisher. 

As a result, the likelihood that an active den would be affected is low and direct effects are expected 

to consist largely of short-term avoidance of the treatment sites by foraging or dispersing individuals.

While suitable habitat would be reduced under both alternatives, 88 percent or more of the exiting 

suitable habitat would be maintained. As a result and considering that preferred riparian habitat would 

be largely unchanged and that designated old growth habitat would be maintained, suitable fisher 

habitat would continue to be available. 

There would be no increase in open roads and fisher security habitat would be unchanged. Also there 

is no anticipated increase in trapping pressure. 

Proposed treatments are designed to reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a possible longterm loss of fisher habitat. 

Fisher habitat is well distributed across the Forest and the Northern Region (Samson 2006b). 

Distances between areas of suitable habitat are within dispersal distance characteristic of this species. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Fisher habitat would be maintained under alternative 1. While both action alternatives would reduce 

suitable fisher habitat by up to 12 percent, and alter structural conditions, there is no mortality anticipated. 

In addition, any disturbance would be short term, preferred riparian habitat would be protected, roads 

built then obliterated immediately following timber removal would be closed to public access; therefore, 

no increase in trapping pressure is anticipated. As a result, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17), to provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other 

wildlife species (p. II/4), to manage riparian areas to be compatible with dependent wildlife species (II-
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

417

35) and to develop and implement a road management program with road use and travel restrictions that 

are responsive to resource protection needs (p. II/2). All alternatives are also consistent with National 

Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12 

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects, and Determination

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative and suitable foraging habitat would remain largely 

unchanged. As a result, there are no direct or indirect effects. Project area cumulative effects are identified 

in volume 2, appendix C. Activities that are most likely to alter foraging habitat are displayed below. 

Campground rehabilitation – 5 acres

Grazing – 5,977 acres 

NNIS treatment – 312 acres 

Hazard tree removal – 318 acres

Stream rehabilitation – 15 acres 

Trail work – 5 acres

Recent wildfire – 10 acres 

Firewood collection within 100 feet of open roads 

Continued MPB mortality

While these activities may alter habitat conditions on a localized basis, landscape-level foraging habitat 

would be largely unchanged and there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. As a result, 

implementation of alternative 1 would have no impact on the Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

Action Alternatives

Direct Effects 

The project area does not provide suitable hibernacula or roost sites and only foraging bats would be 

affected. Because bat activity occurs at night or at dawn/dusk, it is unlikely timber harvest would result in 

direct effects (harm or harassment). While it is possible that smoke from prescribed burning could occur 

on a site when bats are actively foraging, all burning must adhere to state air quality standards and prior to 

implementation a prescribed burn plan would be developed. Smoke management is an important part of 

the burn plan and adherence to atmospheric guidelines helps to ensure that smoke is quickly dispersed. As 

a result, any smoke related impacts would be short term. 

Indirect Effects

Proposed treatments would affect 8,562 and 6,562 acres of forested habitat under alternatives 2 and 3 

respectively. Increased structural diversity would result from burning and bat prey diversity and foraging 

habitat would be maintained or improved on sites burned. The remaining treatments would involve partial 

or intermediate harvest (1,079-2,131 acres) and regeneration harvest (816-968 acres) activities. Because 

this species typically does not use regenerating forest (Gruver and Keinath 2006), suitable foraging 

habitat would be reduced on 4 and 3 percent of the project area under alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. 

Because partial harvest would maintain a mature overstory while increasing understory development, 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

418

treatments would likely improve habitat by increasing prey diversity and reducing forest “clutter” which 

would improve maneuverability. Due to the variety of treatments proposed, considering over 60 percent 

of the project area would not be treated, and that foraging habitat would be improved on most of the acres 

affected by treatment, the project area would continue to provide a structurally diverse forest to support a 

diversity of prey for foraging.

Cumulative Effects

As described under methodology, cumulative effects are evaluated across the project area. A complete list 

of activities found within the project area can be found in volume 2, appendix C. In addition to 

cumulative effects described under alternative 1, foraging habitat would be affected on up to 5,463 acres 

of prescribed fire, 968 acres of regeneration harvest and 2,131 acres of partial harvest.

Of these activities, only regeneration harvest would likely modify the overstory to a level that would 

affect bat foraging habitat. Also, because treatments would increase landscape diversity, it is likely that 

invertebrate diversity or bat foraging habitat would be maintained or improved. As a result, and due to the 

widespread availability of suitable foraging habitat, there are no significant cumulative effects under 

either alternative anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments anticipated for Townsend’s big-eared bat. The 

action alternatives would reduce suitable habitat on areas affected by regeneration harvest and alter 

structural diversity on sites proposed for partial harvest or burning; however, suitable habitat conditions 

would be maintained or restored on all sites. 

Determination 

The action alternatives would affect suitable habitat on 27 to 35 percent of the project area. Based on the 

above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may impact 

individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing for the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat.:

The project area does not provide suitable hibernacula or roost sites and the closest known 

hibernacula is over 30 miles from the project area, minimizing use of the area by foraging bats. 

Over sixty percent of the project area would not be treated. Also a diversity of habitat conditions 

would occur and suitable foraging habitat would continue to be available under both alternatives. 

While suitable foraging habitat would be affected on up to 4 percent due to proposed regeneration 

harvest, proposed burning and partial harvest activities would be expected to improve foraging 

habitat. 

Proposed treatments would reduce risk of wildfire and insect- and disease-related mortality and 

increase the likelihood that habitat would be sustained over the long term. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

The action alternatives would reduce suitable Townsend’s big-eared bat foraging habitat. No hibernacula 

or roost sites would be affected and suitable foraging habitat would be maintained or improved. As a 

result all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to; provide 

habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife and fish species (p. II/4) and to ensure that viable 

populations of existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17). Also all alternatives 

are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal 

communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

419

Bald Eagle

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Determination

There are no treatments proposed, so there are no direct or indirect effects anticipated. Cumulative effects 

are summarized in volume 2, appendix C. Cumulative effects likely to affect eagle during the analysis 

period include off-forest timber harvest and private land development, continued use along the Blackfoot 

River and a possible loss of future nest trees due to MPB mortality. However available nest, foraging and 

roost habitat would remain largely unchanged and there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated 

for the bald eagle. As a result, implementation of alternative 1 would have no impact on the bald eagle. 

Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The nearest known existing eagle nest is approximately 1.5 miles from proposed treatment. With 

implementation of PDFs to restrict aircraft during the breeding season and which require dispersal of 

smoke away from the nest, there are no direct effects to nesting birds or reproduction anticipated. 

Disturbance and disruption of roosting/foraging birds can adversely interfere with feeding and affect 

productivity or survival of young (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). Disturbance to foraging birds 

could occur because some burning and timber harvest is proposed within approximately 350 feet of 

suitable foraging habitat along the Blackfoot River. However, there are no communal roost sites or 

established foraging areas affected. As a result, and considering the small portion of the river affected (1.5 

miles within 0.25 mile of a treatment) and widespread availability of unaffected foraging/roosting habitat, 

any adverse effects associated with smoke or disturbance are expected to be short term.

Proposed regeneration harvest would remove approximately 100 acres of potential bald eagle nest habitat 

within 1 mile of the Blackfoot River. These lands are immediately adjacent to Highway 200 and existing 

private land development. As a result they do not provide preferred bald eagle nest habitat. Further, 

unaffected nest habitat would continue to be widely available 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects discussed under alternative 1, implementation of treatments under the 

action would reduce potential nest trees on lands adjacent to the Blackfoot River. Also, birds foraging 

along the river may be disturbed during treatment. However, any disturbance effects would be short term. 

Bald eagle nest, foraging and roost habitat would remain largely unchanged and implementation of 

project design features would protect existing and future nests. As a result, and considering future uses are 

not expected to change and that eagles have successfully nested in this area with ongoing uses, there no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

There are no irretrievable or irreversible commitments anticipated for the bald eagle under this 

alternative. 

Determination and Conclusions

Proposed activities have the potential to result in short-term disturbance to foraging eagles, although with 

implementation of project design features, there would be no impacts to nesting birds. Existing habitat in 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

420

the project area habitat would be largely unaffected. As a result alternatives 2 and 3 may impact 

individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing for the bald eagle. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

There would be no effects to eagles under alternative 1, while alternatives 2 and 3 propose treatment 

within suitable eagle nesting and foraging habitat, with implementation of PDFs the likelihood of impacts 

to nesting birds is low. As a result and because of the small amount of habitat treated and availability of 

unaffected nesting and foraging habitat along the Blackfoot River corridor, both alternatives are consistent 

with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to; provide habitat for small game, furbearers and 

other wildlife species (p. II/4) and to ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17). Also all alternatives are consistent with National Forest 

Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. Additionally, both alternatives comply 

with the Bald and Golden Eagle Management Act and are consistent with direction provided in the 2007 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 

4.6.8 Black-backed Woodpecker

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects and Determination

Suitable post-fire black-backed woodpecker (BBW) habitat currently occurs on over 200,000 acres of the 

HNF. Of this, almost 23,000 acres occur within or immediately adjacent to the Stonewall project area. 

Consequently suitable BBW habitat across the Forest and in the vicinity of the project area is widely 

available on areas that have recently burned. As a result and considering the availability of burned habitat 

region-wide, adequate habitat exists across the landscape to maintain viable BBW populations (Samson 

2006a).

There are no treatments proposed, so there would be no direct effects and the existing vegetation 

condition and BBW habitat would remain largely unchanged. Insect-infested trees would likely continue 

to provide limited foraging opportunities and suitable post-fire habitat would continue to be available 

northeast of the project area. The likelihood of stand replacing wildfire would remain high and this 

alternative is most likely to result in development of high quality BBW habitat in the future. 

Anticipated cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Activities that have affected BBW habitat 

has included past and recent wildfire, as well as harvest and hazard tree removal activities that have 

removed dead trees and suitable habitat. However, most lands affected by wildfire would not harvested 

and these lands contain high densities of dead trees. Additionally, MPB mortality has created low quality 

habitat across much of the lower elevation lands within the analysis area. While habitat quality associated 

with the Snow Talon fire has declined, suitable habitat from these activities would continue to be 

available and there are no significant cumulative effects to the BBW anticipated. Additionally, the risks of 

future wildfire, which would create future BBW habitat is greatest under this alternative, although there is 

no way to predict when or if this would occur. As a result implementation of alternative 1 would have no 

impact on the black-backed woodpecker. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

421

Action Alternatives

Direct Effects 

Recently burned lands within the project area that provide preferred BBW habitat would not be treated. 

As a result, and considering that insect-infested areas affected by treatment only provide low-quality 

habitat, the likelihood that direct effects in the form of mortality or disturbance would occur is low. 

Indirect Effects

Because black-backed woodpeckers are strongly tied to burned forests, and considering both alternatives 

reduce the risk of wildfire, the likelihood that high-quality woodpecker habitat would be created in the 

future is reduced.

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects

As described under the section on snags and dead wood, effects of treatment include a reduction in snags 

and potential BBW habitat, and treatments proposed under alternative 2 would reduce BBW habitat on 

approximately 3,100 acres receiving a timber harvest treatment. Conversely, because proposed mixed 

severity burning would result in recruitment of new snags including some large patches with higher snag 

density, BBW foraging habitat would be improved on approximately 1,200 acres affected by high 

intensity burning. Lands proposed for low intensity burning would remain largely unchanged. 

Alternative 3 

Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would reduce snags and low quality BBW foraging habitat on 1,895 acres proposed for 

timber harvest, whereas lands proposed for low intensity burning would remain relatively unchanged. 

Like alternative 2, proposed mixed severity burning would increase snags and potential high quality BBW 

foraging habitat on approximately 800 acres. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects include extensive MPB mortality that has created low quality BBW foraging habitat 

across the analysis area, as well as recent wildfires that have created over 23,000 acres of high quality 

habitat since 2003. In addition to cumulative effects under alternative 1, there would be a reduction in 

snags and low-quality habitat on up to approximately 3,100 acres (alternative 2), whereas high-quality 

habitat would be increased in high intensity burned areas. However, suitable habitat within lands affected 

by MPB mortality, as well as recent wildfire would continue to be available. As a result, and considering 

the widespread availability of BBW habitat across the Forest and Region (Samson 2006a), there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

There are no irretrievable or irreversible commitments. Both alternatives would result in a decrease in 

low-quality habitat and an increase in high-quality habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. 

Action Alternatives Determination

Although proposed activities would reduce suitable habitat for this species and increase the risk of 

disturbance or mortality, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

422

alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a 

trend in federal listing for the black-backed woodpecker. 

Implementation of project design features would retain some snags within all treatment sites. 

Proposed mixed-severity burning would be expected to create high quality habitat on over 800 acres. 

Because only low-quality habitat is affected, and considering existing high-quality habitat would not 

be treated, the likelihood of direct mortality or disturbance from treatment is low. 

Evidence suggests that the black-backed woodpecker is increasing in the United States (Dixon and 

Saab 2000). No demographic information exists to suggest a decline in BBW numbers. 

Black-backed woodpecker habitat is abundant and well distributed across the Forest and the Northern 

Region. Distances between areas of suitable habitat are within dispersal distance characteristic of this 

species. 

Habitat for the black-backed woodpecker has recently increased, and amounts are expected to 

increase as fires and bark beetle outbreaks continue to increase in size (Samson 2006b). 

A comparison of habitat required for a minimum viable population to that available indicates welldistributed habitat greatly exceeds that needed, given the natural distribution of species and their 

habitats as mapped and according to available scientific literature (Samson 2006b). 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Black-backed woodpecker habitat would be unchanged under alternative 1. Because high- quality BBW 

habitat would not be treated under the action alternatives, and considering that all sites proposed for 

treatment would meet or exceed levels of snags and downed woody debris recommended in the Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. II/20-21), all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction to 

provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4) and to ensure that viable 

populations of existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17). Also all alternatives 

are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal 

communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Flammulated Owl

Effects to flammulated owls are evaluated by looking at the amount of available Dry Forest habitat by 

alternative and by looking at the amount and distribution of large-diameter snags. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

No treatments are proposed under this alternative, so there are no direct effects to the flammulated owl 

anticipated. As described under the biophysical setting discussion (section 3.1), in the absence of fire and 

restoration treatments, the open-canopy dry forest and ponderosa pine component, as well as suitable 

flammulated owl habitat would continue to decline. 

Although MPB post-kill stands would be more open within the next 10 to 20 years and may provide 

suitable foraging habitat, most large-diameter ponderosa pine snags are anticipated to fall to the ground 

and nest habitat availability would decrease. There may be a long-term reduction of suitable flammulated 

owl habitat under this alternative as preferred open-canopy habitat and ponderosa pine continue to 

decline. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

423

Cumulative Effects

As described under methodology, cumulative effects are evaluated across the combined boundary. 

Anticipated cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Of these activities, the following occur in 

suitable flammulated owl habitat and have the potential to affect the owl or its habitat.

Off-forest timber harvest – 27 acres 

Hazard tree removal – 13 acres 

Recent wildfire – 20 acres 

Prescribed fire – 8 acres

While there would be some reduction in suitable nest trees and a likely continued decline in open canopy 

habitat, existing flammulated owl habitat within the analysis area would remain largely unchanged and no 

significant cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Due to the continued decline in open canopy dry 

forest habitat and large diameter ponderosa pine, implementation of alternative 1 is expected to result in a 

long-term irretrievable reduction in habitat for the flammulated owl. 

Alternative 1 Determination

While there are no direct effects and existing habitat would remain largely unchanged, fire suppression 

would continue to reduce suitable flammulated owl habitat over the long term. As a result implementation 

of alternative 1 may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute towards a trend in federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability.

Action Alternatives

A total of 1,456 acres of existing flammulated owl habitat currently exists within the project area. Table 

102 displays treatments within suitable habitat proposed under the two action alternatives. Data displayed 

includes existing habitat treated, as well as the amount of currently unsuitable dry forest habitat where 

preferred habitat conditions are restored or created. 

Table 102. Alternative Treatment of Flammulated Owl Habitat

Treatment

Alt 2 Alt 3

Acres % Acres %1

Existing Habitat

Intermediate Harvest 162 111 13 11

Regeneration Harvest 15 11 14 11

Low Severity Fire 37 31 180 121

Mixed Severity Fire 445 311 228 161

Unsuitable Dry Forest Habitat (Habitat Created)

Intermediate Harvest 1,874 142 998 72

Low Severity Fire 324 22 825 62

Mixed Severity Fire 1,982 152 964 72

Total 4,180 312 2,787 212

1-percent of suitable habitat
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

424

2-percent of project area Dry forest habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects

While proposed treatments have the potential to result in direct mortality, as well as short-term 

disturbance, because this species has not been documented within the project area, the likelihood of 

mortality is low. Flammulated owls appear tolerant of some human disturbances, as this species has been 

known to nest in campgrounds and other areas of human activity with no apparent adverse effects 

(Hayward and Verner 1994). Consequently there is no direct mortality anticipated and disturbance related 

effects are expected to be short term (less than1 year) during treatment.

Regeneration treatments within existing habitat would reduce flammulated owl habitat on the acres 

treated because mature forest would be lost, although within a few years regeneration would provide 

roosting habitat. Owl foraging habitat would be reduced on early seral openings created during mixedseverity fire treatments, whereas open-canopy foraging habitat would be improved on much of the 

acreage affected by proposed mixed-severity burning. As a result, and when viewed across the landscape, 

the mix of treatments would be expected to improve flammulated owl nesting, roosting and foraging 

habitat. 

While proposed thinning would improve habitat for some predators such as the great-horned owl, 

preferred habitat for other predators such as the northern goshawk would be reduced (Hayward and 

Verner 1994). Treatments would create protective roosting cover in close proximity to nesting and 

foraging habitat and risks from predation are expected to remain unchanged. 

Proposed intermediate harvest and prescribed fire are designed to create the open-stand structure 

characteristic of flammulated owl habitat (Hayward and Verner 1994). The action alternatives would 

retain large diameter snags in treated areas and improve the quality of existing flammulated owl habitat, 

as well as create suitable habitat within dry forest stands that are currently considered unsuitable. 

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects

Existing flammulated owl habitat would be reduced by approximately 1 percent because regeneration 

harvest would create early seral conditions within suitable habitat. Proposed intermediate harvest and low 

to and mixed-severity burning would improve the open-canopy conditions preferred for foraging on 45 

percent of the existing habitat. Intermediate harvest and burning treatments within dry forest stands that 

are not currently considered suitable would create or restore flammulated owl habitat on almost 4,200 

acres, or 31 percent of the dry forest habitat within the project area. 

Alternative 3

Indirect Effects

Like alternative 2, existing flammulated owl habitat would be reduced by approximately 1 percent due to 

proposed regeneration harvest, whereas the quality of open-canopy foraging habitat would be improved 

on 29 percent of existing habitat (sites receiving intermediate harvest and prescribed burning). Proposed 

burning and intermediate harvest would restore or create new flammulated owl habitat on almost 2,800 

acres or 21 percent of the dry forest habitat within the project area. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

425

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, flammulated owl habitat would be affected 

by the following activities proposed under the action alternatives. The acres displayed would be the 

maximum treatment proposed (alternative 2).

Partial Harvest – 162 acres 

Regeneration Harvest – 151 acres

Prescribed Burning – 482 acres 

While a live overstory would be reduced on up to 151 acres due to regeneration harvest and openings 

created by mixed severity burning and wildfire, habitat would be improved on lands affected by partial 

harvest and most of the prescribed burning. Also all sites treated would retain large diameter snags. As a 

result and due to the small amount of habitat affected (5 percent of available habitat) and considering 

proposed treatments would create open understory conditions preferred by this species on over 4,000 

acres that are currently not considered suitable, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

There are no irretrievable commitments anticipated. While there may be some reduction in nest habitat 

through cutting of hazard large-diameter snags and a small reduction in foraging habitat, proposed 

treatments would promote restoration of dry forest community that is required by the flammulated owl. 

Action Alternative Determination

While both action alternatives would reduce suitable owl habitat and result in possible short-term 

disturbance, long-term habitat conditions would be improved. Based on the above analysis, and the 

following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a trend in federal listing for the flammulated owl. 

With implementation of PDFs that retain large diameter snags during treatment, the likelihood of 

direct mortality is greatly reduced. 

While there would be a small reduction of suitable habitat, both alternatives would improve existing 

habitat as well as create new habitat on over 20 percent of the ponderosa pine/dry Douglas-fir 

biophysical setting. 

The level of timber harvest in the Northern Region is in-significant in relation to this species’ habitat 

needs, and suitable habitat is well distributed across the Region (Samson 2006b). 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Suitable owl habitat would be maintained in the short term under alternative 1. While the action 

alternatives would reduce suitable habitat, the likelihood of mortality or disturbance is low. Also, the 

action alternatives would meet or exceed Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) and regional snag 

guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2000a, 2008b) and ensure that large-diameter snags and nest trees are 

available in the future. Treatments would also increase available habitat over the long term and reduce the 

risk of catastrophic fire and a possible long-term loss of habitat. As a result, all alternatives are consistent 

with Forest Plan (p. II/20-21), and regional guidelines related to snags, direction to provide habitat for 

small game, furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4) and to ensure that viable populations of existing 

native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17). Also all alternatives are consistent with 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

426

National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

4.6.10 Western Boreal Toad

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there are no direct effects anticipated for the 

western boreal toad. With continued fire suppression and high levels of fuel loading, the likelihood that 

suitable upland and riparian habitat would be reduced through severe wildfire would increase under this 

alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Anticipated cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. As described under methodology, cumulative 

effects are evaluated across the project area and anticipated activities are the same as those described 

under the Townsend’s big eared bat. All activities have potential for disturbance during treatment and 

activities that would be more likely to affect this species or its habitat include; stream rehabilitation on 15 

acres, NNIS treatment on 312 acres, recent wildfire on 10 acres, firewood collection along open roads and 

cattle grazing on 5,977 acres. 

A biological evaluation has (in the case of hazard tree removal) or would be completed to assess any 

future in-stream work or NNIS treatment; thereby, potential impacts to this species would be reduced 

through that process. Because of potential impacts to riparian vegetation and breeding habitat, grazing has 

the potential to directly affect this species or its habitat. However, range monitoring is in place to identify 

and mitigate riparian concerns so that long-term effects from grazing on riparian habitat are not 

anticipated. As a result and considering the likelihood that a toad would be affected by activities during 

dispersal is low, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Alternative 1 Determination

There are no treatments proposed and considering it is not possible to predict when wildfire would occur, 

implementation of alternative 1 would have no impact on the western boreal toad. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct Effects

Direct effects include possible mortality because this species can be found in riparian areas as well as 

uplands. While mortality from burning, harvest and mechanical treatments could occur to individuals 

dispersing or foraging on upland sites, potential mortality to breeding individuals and reproduction would 

be reduced through implementation of PDFs and INFISH buffers both of which reduce harvest and 

burning effects within riparian areas. Some direct mortality to individuals is possible; however, based on 

the information provided under the treatment effect section, the likelihood of mortality is low. 

Indirect Effects

Potential indirect effects to breeding habitat are greatly reduced with implementation of PDFs and 

streamside management zones that protect these areas and also reduced the level of burning would occur 

in these areas. While overstory and understory conditions on over 8,000 acres of upland habitat would be 

affected, suitable mid- to late-seral forested habitat would be maintained on most of this acreage and 

would be interspersed with unaffected habitat (over 60 percent of the project area). Boreal toads appear to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

427

be attracted to recently disturbed areas and may benefit from fuel reduction treatments (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b). For example, toads colonized and bred in dozens of shallow ponds in burned lodgepole 

pine forests in Glacier National Park but not in adjacent unburned areas. Similarly, diet samples from 

boreal toads in burned subalpine fir and lodgepole pine forests contained higher numbers of prey items 

than samples from unburned forests (USDA Forest Service 2006b). 

While approximately 33 percent (alternative 2) to 25 percent (alternative 3) of the project area habitat 

would be affected, potential effects are expected to be short term. Proposed treatment under both 

alternatives is likely to result in both short-term benefits in terms of increased foraging, as well as longterm benefits associated with improved structural and species diversity and a reduction in wildfire risk. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects discussed under alternative 1, up to 8,562 acres of project area habitat 

would be affected under alternative 2. However with implementation of INFISH buffers, suitable 

breeding habitat would be maintained. As a result, and considering that proposed fuel treatment activities 

are likely to improve boreal toad habitat in upland areas (USDA Forest Service 2006b), and that most of 

the project area would be unaffected and that landscape connectivity would be maintained, there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated under either action alternative.

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

Although there would be short-term structural changes to upland foraging and dispersal habitat, breeding 

habitat would remain largely unchanged and there are no irretrievable or irreversible commitments 

anticipated for the boreal toad. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination

Implementation would likely result in some localized mortality and short-term effects to habitat. Western 

boreal toad habitat would be maintained or improved over the long term. Based on the above analysis and 

the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a trend in federal listing for the western boreal toad. 

Potential impacts to breeding habitat would be greatly reduced through implementation of PDFs, 

INFISH buffers and reduced burning intensity within riparian areas and potential breeding habitat. 

Anticipated effects are expected to be short term, and habitat would be maintained or improved on 

over 85 percent of the sites proposed for treatment (i.e. intermediate harvest and burning treatments). 

Over 60 percent of the project area would be unaffected. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Western boreal toad habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives 

may result in short-term structural changes to upland foraging and dispersal habitat, the likelihood of 

mortality is low; breeding habitat would not be maintained, and treatments are expected to improve 

upland foraging habitat. As a result, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1986) direction to provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4), to ensure 

that viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17) and to 

manage riparian areas to be compatible with dependent wildlife species (II-35). Also all alternatives are 

consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal 

communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

428

Management Indicator Species

4.6.11 Northern Goshawk

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct impacts to the 

northern goshawk. Designated old-growth habitat would remain largely unchanged including; structural 

conditions such as large-diameter trees and increased levels of snags and DWD would continue to occur 

both in the short and long term. Mountain pine beetle mortality has and would continue to affect canopy 

gaps and understory development. Continued fire suppression may affect species composition from what 

occurred historically due to a decline in ponderosa pine and western larch. This change in species 

composition may occur during stand development in designated old growth as well as affect the 

composition of potential old- growth stands across the project area. 

Over the long term (greater than 20 years) stands would continue to mature, late-successional habitat 

would develop and stand density and goshawk nest habitat would likely increase. While the quality of 

goshawk foraging habitat may decrease somewhat due to the more closed stand conditions, because they 

utilize a wide range of habitat conditions for foraging (Squires and Ruggiero 1996) suitable goshawk 

habitat would continue to be widely available under this alternative. 

The current trends in species composition would continue, with a decrease in ponderosa pine, early seral 

and fire-tolerant species and a continued increase in climax and fire-intolerant species. Insect and diseaserelated mortality may increase. Fuel loading and stand structure (i.e. ladder fuels) would not be modified. 

The risk of wildfire and a possible long-term reduction in goshawk nest habitat is greatest under this 

alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Anticipated cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Work such as trail maintenance and 

reconstruction, stream restoration, NNIS treatment and campground work would result in small localized 

changes to habitat or occur in areas less likely to be used (e.g., along open roads and areas of concentrated 

human use). As a result any effects would be short term. Activities under alternative 1 that could result in 

possible long-term cumulative effects to nesting or foraging habitat include firewood cutting, hazard tree 

removal, wildfire and prescribed burning. The following is a summary of these effects on goshawk. 

Prescribed Burning 

Effects for prescribed burning would be similar to those described under low intensity burning in section 

4.3 and consist primarily of changes to understory vegetation, although some individual tree mortality 

may occur. Nesting habitat affected would be maintained and although there would be a short-term 

reduction in understory prey diversity, over the long-term understory structure and prey diversity would 

increase. A total of 46 and 11 acres of nesting and foraging habitat respectively would be affected. 

Hazard Tree Removal

Approximately 167 acres of goshawk nest habitat and 21 acres of goshawk foraging habitat would be 

affected by hazard tree removal. Effects include short-term displacement during treatment and a longterm reduction in nest habitat. Understory vegetation would increase and prey availability would be 

maintained. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

429

Recent Wildfire (since 2011)

These wildfires have affected 153 and 116 acres of nesting and foraging habitat respectively. Effects vary 

depending on the intensity of burning. In areas with low to moderate intensity burning (40 percent of the 

area burned), understory diversity would be reduced in the short term and increase over the long term. 

More intensively burned areas (60 percent of the area burned) would result in overstory mortality and a 

reduction in nesting and foraging habitat. While suitable habitat would be reduced on some acres, because 

the fires burned in a mosaic and considering understory diversity would increase, the area affected would 

continue to provide foraging and PFA habitat both in the short and long term. Effects of past wildfire were 

included in the modeled habitat for this species. 

Personal use Firewood Cutting

Firewood collection would reduce snags and downed woody debris along open roads. Goshawk nesting 

and foraging habitat would be largely unchanged because of the widespread availability of downed wood. 

Conclusion

Human access and use of the area would be largely unchanged under this alternative, and there are no 

long-term disturbance related effects anticipated. While ongoing and future activities would reduce 

goshawk nesting and foraging habitat on approximately 350 acres, nesting and foraging habitat would 

continue to be available across the landscape. Also existing nests and PFA habitat would be maintained 

and adequate nest habitat would continue to be available to support goshawk. As a result there are no 

significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

While there may be changes to vegetation structure and composition, there are no irretrievable or 

irreversible commitments to the northern goshawk anticipated. 

Alternative 1 Determination and Conclusions

Although mountain pine beetle mortality would continue to reduce nest habitat, suitable goshawk habitat 

would be largely maintained under this alternative. While alternative 1 would not result in direct impacts 

to the northern goshawk, it may result in an increased risk of catastrophic wildfire and a possible longterm loss of nest habitat for this species. There is no way to accurately predict when such an event would 

occur. As a result, implementation of alternative 1 is not likely to cause a local or regional change in 

habitat quality or population status. 

Action Alternatives 

Since no designated old growth would be treated, there would be no effects to existing designated old 

growth habitat. However, because fire would be restored on the landscape, species composition of future 

old growth would be more diverse (i.e., contain ponderosa pine and western larch) and better mimic 

historic old- growth conditions on lower elevation sites that had more frequent fire intervals. 

Treatments within existing goshawk habitat are displayed in table 103 and effects of individual treatments 

on stand structure, species composition and fire risk are discussed in section 4.3. The following is a 

discussion of direct and indirect effects of proposed actions on goshawk habitat. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

430

Table 103. Goshawk habitat proposed for treatment

Treatment

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Nest Habitat Foraging Habitat Nest Habitat Foraging Habitat

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Intermediate Harvest 910 14 346 8 331 5 93 2 

Regeneration Harvest 142 2 82 2 132 2 79 2 

Low Severity/Jackpot Fire 143 2 156 4 651 15 532 12

Mixed Severity Fire 1,207 19 1,033 23 571 9 361 8 

Total 2,402 38 1,617 36 1,685 27 1,065 24

Construction of roads that 

would be used and then 

obliterated after timber 

removal

1.4 mi. 1.0 mi. 0.1 mi 0.1 mi.

Regeneration Harvest – Sites proposed for treatment would no longer provide goshawk nesting and 

foraging habitat and alternative 2 would reduce nesting and foraging habitat by 142 acres and 132 acres 

respectively. Under alternative 3, nest habitat would be reduced by 132 acres and foraging habitat would 

be reduced by 79 acres. While there would be a stand level reduction in habitat, because an early 

successional and young forest component would be maintained within affected watersheds, landscape 

diversity characteristic of documented use by goshawk (Reynolds et al 1992, Clough 2000) would 

continue. 

Intermediate Harvest Treatments – Stands proposed for harvest would retain adequate canopy closure 

and would continue to provide key structural components important to goshawk nesting (e.g. large 

diameter trees and snags). As a result stands proposed for intermediate treatment would continue to 

provide nest habitat both in the short and long-term. Suitable foraging habitat requires a minimum of 40 

percent canopy closure. While greater than 40 percent canopy closure would be maintained on most of the 

foraging habitat, both alternatives would reduce suitable goshawk foraging habitat by 90 acres, or 2 

percent of the foraging habitat available.

While suitable canopy cover would be maintained on all of the nest habitat and 98 percent of the foraging 

habitat treated, in the short term all intermediate harvest treatments would result in more open understory 

conditions due to a reduction in small or co-dominant trees. While the reduced canopy and open 

understory conditions that result from treatment would improve maneuverability for goshawks on these 

sites, prey availability would likely change. For example, the abundance of some small mammals such as 

red squirrels and snowshoe hare have been shown to decline following partial harvest and there would be 

a short-term reduction for these prey species on sites treated (USDA Forest Service 2009b). However, 

some goshawk prey species have been shown to increase in abundance following partial harvest (USDA 

Forest Service 2009b). Also implementation of PDFs that retain snags and DWD ensures suitable habitat 

for goshawk prey would continue to be provided on treated sites. While canopy closure would be reduced 

below 40 percent on some sites, research suggests that despite preferences for high canopy closure, basal 

area, and open understories in which to hunt, goshawks tolerate a broad range of forest structures (Boal et 

al. 2002 in Kennedy 2003), suggesting that the diversity of conditions provided by treatment would 

continue to provide suitable foraging habitat on much of the acreage treated. 

Over the long term, stand diameter would increase due to the reduction in inter-tree completion and 

increased height and growth of remaining trees. Similarly, due to the increased crown diameter, canopy 

closure would continue to increase. Some layering would also develop over time as conifer seedlings, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

431

shrubs and hardwood sprouts become established in the canopy openings. Collectively, over the long-term 

(greater than 10 years) the increased canopy closure, increase in stand diameter, and improved understory 

and overstory diversity would result in improved northern goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. 

Finally, the combination of reducing tree densities by thinning from below before prescribed fire is 

applied, would reduce forest fuels, while simultaneously creating stand conditions that are favorable for 

goshawk nesting and foraging (Reynolds et al. 1992; Squires and Kennedy 2006). 

Prescribed Burning – Effects on stand structure of both low intensity and mixed severity fire are 

described under treatment effects in section 4.3.2. Because low-severity fire would result in open 

understory conditions, like partial harvest activities, there would be a shift in prey species abundance and 

diversity following fire. Generally, small mammal habitat specialists such as red-backed vole, flying 

squirrels and shrews decrease, whereas increases occur in habitat generalists such as mice and chipmunks 

(Zwolak and Foresman 2007). A mature overstory would be maintained, as well as snags, large diameter 

wood and a mosaic of understory conditions. Consequently all sites would continue to provide suitable 

nesting and foraging habitat. 

There would be a reduction in nest and foraging habitat on a portion of the mixed severity sites treated 

where more intense burning creates canopy openings. Under alternative 2 openings created by mixed 

severity burning would reduce nesting and foraging habitat by 302 and 258 acres respectively, whereas 

alternative 3 would reduce nesting and foraging habitat by 143 and 90 acres respectively. These canopy 

openings would be widely dispersed with areas affected by low-severity burning, and unburned areas 

resulting in a mosaic of age classes and structural diversity characteristic of landscape-level goshawk 

habitat. As a result 75 percent of the total acres affected by mixed severity burning would continue to 

provide suitable nest habitat, as well as abundant prey diversity and suitable foraging habitat. Finally, 

because many western conifer forests were historically affected by frequent, low- to mixed-severity 

burning and native species are adapted to historical fire regimes and resulting habitats (Saab and Powell 

2005), goshawk use would continue over the long term. 

Landscape Considerations

Landscape conditions in terms of age and size-class diversity are displayed by alternative in table 104. 

Anticipated changes occur largely due to the amount of regeneration harvest proposed under each 

alternative. Both action alternatives would result in a 3 percent increase in seeding forest, a 2 percent 

decrease in young forest, and a 1 percent decrease in mature and closed canopy mature forest. 

While the amount of seedling habitat and closed canopy mature forest would continue to be outside 

recommended amounts (Clough 2000; Reynolds et al. 2006) under all alternatives (including no action), 

diversity would be largely unchanged and all alternatives would result in landscape conditions consistent 

with goshawk use within the project area. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

432

Table 104. Project area foraging diversity by alternative

Size Class/Habitat 

Condition

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

21 Alternative 

31

Reynolds

(et al 1992)

Clough

(2000)

Acres % Acres % Acres % % %

Seedling 0-4.9 inches d.b.h. 3,960 16 4,597 19 4,476 19 10 (0-5 

inches d.b.h.) 9 

Young Forest 5.9-9 inches 

d.b.h. 10,610 44 10,048 42 10,14

1 42 20 (5-12 

inches d.b.h.) 66

Mature Forest >10 inches 

d.b.h. 8,433 35 8,241 34 8,270 34 60 (>12 

inches d.b.h.) 11

Mature Forest >50% CC and 

>5 inches d.b.h. 4,338 18 4,173 17 4,174 17 60 (>12 

inches d.b.h.) 69

Grass/Forb/Shrub 911 4 911 4 911 4 10 7 

1

Does not include openings created by mixed severity fire because they would be variable in size, distribution and canopy changes.

The mixture of treatments proposed under the action alternatives would provide habitat for many 

goshawk prey species by creating a mosaic of interspersed vegetative structural stages in large landscape 

units. Over time as the various structural stages mature, a constant redistribution of habitats for goshawk 

and their prey may occur, which would help provide a long-term, sustainable mix of forest age classes and 

help ensure that goshawk habitat is maintained (Reynolds et al. 1992). Additionally, the mix of treatments 

proposed is anticipated to reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a possible long-term reduction in 

northern goshawk nest habitat. 

Post-fledgling Habitat

Post-fledgling habitat is analyzed for the Stonewall east and Stonewall west post-fledging areas (PFA)

according to the guidelines identified in the Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview: Key findings 

and project Considerations (USDA Forest Service 2009c). Table 105 displays treatments proposed under 

each of the action alternatives in the Stonewall East and Stonewall West PFA, whereas table 106 and table 

107 display habitat conditions within the respective PFAs. For comparison, habitat conditions for 

alternative 1 are displayed also. 

Table 105. Active nest PFA habitat treated

Size Class/Habitat Condition

Stonewall East Stonewall West 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Prescribed Fire 126 30 126 30 0 0 0 0 

Intermediate Harvest 0 0 0 0 8 2 8 2 

Regeneration Harvest 12 3 12 3 20 5 20 5 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

433

Table 106. Stonewall east PFA conditions by alternative 

Size Class/Habitat Condition

Alternative 1 Alternative 21 Alternative 

31

Reynolds

(et al. 1992)

Clough

(2000)

Ac % Ac % Ac % % % 

Seedling 0-4.9 inches d.b.h. 78 19 106 25 106 25 10 (0-5 inches 

d.b.h.) 9 

Young Forest 5.9-9 inches 

d.b.h. 223 53 202 49 202 49 20 (5-12 inches 

d.b.h.) 66

Mature Forest >10 inches 

d.b.h. 118 28 111 26 111 26 60 (>12 inches 

d.b.h.) 11

Mature Forest >50% CC and 

>5 inches d.b.h. 99 24 80 19 80 19 60 (>12 inches 

d.b.h.) 69

Grass/Forb/Shrub 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 

Table 107. Stonewall west PFA conditions by alternative

Size Class/Habitat Condition

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

3 

Reynolds

(et al 1992)

Clough

(2000)

Ac % Ac % Ac % % %

Seedling 0-4.9 inches d.b.h. 52 12 66 16 66 16 10 (0-5 inches 

d.b.h.) 9 

Young Forest 5.9-9 inches 

d.b.h. 156 37 201 48 201 48 20 (5-12 inches 

d.b.h.) 66

Mature Forest >10 inches d.b.h. 212 51 153 36 153 36 60 (>12 inches 

d.b.h.) 11

Mature Forest >50% CC and >5 

inches d.b.h. 132 31 130 31 130 31 60 (>12 inches d.b.h.) 69

Grass/Forb/Shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 

Currently, neither of the existing PFAs meet the recommended amount of habitat within any category and 

the relatively small amount of closed canopy forest within both PFA’s is due to recent MPB mortality. 

Effects under the action alternatives include reduction in mature and young forest due to proposed 

regeneration harvest and openings created by mixed severity burning. There would also be a five percent 

reduction in closed canopy forest in the Stonewall East PFA. While the action alternatives would reduce 

young and mature forest by 28 acres and 14 acres in the Stonewall East and West PFAs respectively, 

treatments would accelerate tree growth and increase understory diversity and composition. Also both 

alternatives would reduce risks associated with future wildfire and insect and disease related mortality. 

Consequently, over the long-term the action alternatives would result in a diverse mix of forest age 

classes and structure that would provide both cover and prey for immature and adult birds. 

Direct Effects

Direct effects include possible mortality or a loss of reproduction associated with proposed harvest, 

burning or project road construction. Under alternative 2 a total of 1.4 miles and 1.0 miles of roads to be 

constructed then obliterated following implementation would traverse goshawk nesting and foraging 

habitat respectively, whereas less than 0.1 miles would be affected under alternative 3. However all road 

construction is over 1 mile from an active nest and it is unlikely a bird would be affected. As a result, and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

434

considering roads would be closed to public access during implementation, and permanently closed when 

treatments are completed, potential direct impacts from project road construction would be limited to 

short-term avoidance (5 years) of foraging birds. 

Samson (2006a) summarized recent research related to effects of vegetation treatments on goshawk, 

which indicates the following: (1) the majority of goshawk pairs move from nest stands when the stand 

structure is modified by more than 30 percent; (2) human disturbance is not a factor if 70 percent of the 

nest stand structure is maintained and timber management operations are restricted during the nesting 

period (April 15th to August 15th) at the nest site and within the PFA; (3) treatments have no effect on 

goshawk breeding occupancy, nest success, or productivity 1 to 2 years after treatment; and (4) there is no 

difference in productivity of northern goshawks in logged versus unlogged areas. 

The result of this research was considered while designing the project and the project design features 

(PDFs) (see section 4.2), including a minimum 40-acre no-activity buffer around active nests, a seasonal 

restriction on all ground activities within the PFA of active nests, and establishment of buffers and 

seasonal restrictions should a new nest be identified. Considering these PDFs, and based on information 

provided in Samson (2006b), potential impacts to nesting birds and fledglings would be greatly reduced. 

As a result there would be no direct mortality to breeding birds or a loss of reproduction anticipated under 

either action alternative. 

While mortality to nesting birds is not expected to occur, activities would result in avoidance of the areas 

treated by foraging birds. Disturbance-related effects would be short term considering burning would be 

completed within 2 weeks, and harvest treatments within any affected drainage would likely be completed 

in a single season. 

The extent to which species co-exist with goshawks and likelihood of competition with other raptors 

depend on the openness of the habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Natural and man-made 

changes that result in reduced forest canopy may favor the habitat needs of more open-forested 

competitors, such as red-tailed hawks, thereby decreasing the amount of habitat available to goshawks 

(ibid). However the nest site selected by these two species varies, with goshawk selecting continuous 

mature forest with open understories, whereas red-tail nesting territories are often comprised of large 

open patches with dense understories and scattered trees (La Sorte et al. 2004 in USDA Forest Service 

2009c). Whether some threshold level of fragmentation exists, beyond which red-tailed hawks completely 

replace goshawks is unknown and to date no scientific studies have conclusively documented such a 

replacement. Reynolds et al. (1992) recommend vegetation management treatments that maintain habitat 

at a home range scale to sustain goshawks across landscapes.

While proposed regeneration harvest would reduce mature forest on approximately 4 percent of the 

project area, treatment would occur in stands that have already experienced concentrated MPB mortality. 

Consequently the mature forest conditions that characterize the project area would be maintained under 

both alternatives and the likelihood that management actions would create conditions that would promote 

use of the area by red-tailed hawks or other competitors and increase the competition with goshawks is 

low.

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects

Nest and Foraging Habitat - Under alternative 2, 66 percent of existing nest habitat and 63 percent of 

existing foraging habitat would not be treated, and effects would be the same as those described under 

alternative 1. Proposed regeneration harvest and some intermediate harvest treatments that reduce canopy 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

435

closure below 40 percent, would reduce existing goshawk nesting habitat by 438 acres and foraging 

habitat by 172 acres. Of this, patches of nest habitat that are greater than 40 acres would be reduced on up 

to 312 acres (depending on the residual overstory in intermediate treatments). Effects on remaining 

habitat would be the same as described under effects common to both alternatives. 

Alternative 3

Indirect Effects

Nest and Foraging Habitat – Under alternative 3, 75 percent of the existing nest habitat and 80 percent 

of existing foraging habitat would not be treated, and effects would be the same as those described under 

alternative 1. Due to proposed regeneration harvest and intermediate harvest treatments, this alternative 

would reduce existing goshawk nesting habitat by 413 acres and foraging habitat by 171 acres. Of this, 

patches of nest habitat that are greater than 40 acres would be reduced on up to 274 acres. Effects on 

remaining habitat would be the same as described under effects common to both alternatives. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

Effects of past, ongoing and future activities would be similar to those described under alternative 1. 

While most activities would result in short-term effects with little change in goshawk habitat, anticipated 

activities would reduce goshawk nesting and foraging habitat on 259 and 91 acres respectively due to 

hazard tree removal and wildfire. In addition to these effects, future activities would affect another 2,402 

acres of nest habitat and 1,617 acres of foraging habitat, including a 438 acre reduction in nest habitat and 

a 172 acres reduction in foraging habitat. 

Cumulatively during the analysis period, up to 2,768 acres (15 Percent) of the nest habitat and 1,765 acres 

(18 Percent) of foraging habitat would be affected. However considering that suitable foraging and nest 

habitat would be maintained on 85 percent of the acres treated, that over 80 percent of the existing nesting 

and foraging habitat would be unaffected, and that adequate habitat would continue to exist to support 

four nesting pairs of goshawk, there are no significant cumulative effects to the northern goshawk 

anticipated under either of the action alternatives.

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in nest 

habitat, and altered structure and quality of foraging habitat (described above), although habitat 

conditions would be restored on all sites treated. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination

Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce existing nesting and foraging habitat and may 

result in possible disturbance to northern goshawk. Based on the above analysis and the following 

rationale, particularly the continued availability of suitable nest and foraging habitat, implementation of 

alternatives 2 and 3 is not likely to cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population 

status. 

Implementation of PDFs that protect existing nests and minimize disturbance to post-fledgling 

habitat, greatly reduce the potential for mortality and impacts to nest production. 

While up to 438 acres of nest habitat would be reduced, including up to 312 acres in patches of 40 

acres or more, approximately 80 percent of the project area nest habitat in patches of greater than 

40 acres would be unaffected. Also, habitat would continue to be well distributed and occur 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

436

within all drainages where it currently exists. As a result adequate habitat exists to continue to 

support up to four nesting pairs of goshawks. 

Implementation of treatments may reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a possible longterm loss of goshawk habitat.

A Regionwide assessment (Samson 2006b, USDA Forest Service 2009c) of goshawk habitat has indicated 

the following:

Goshawk habitat in Region 1 (R1) is abundant and well distributed where it occurs naturally; 

more forest and therefore nesting habitat exists on today’s landscape than occurred historically.

There have been substantial increases in connectivity for forested habitat since Euro-American 

settlement.

The level of timber harvest of the forested landscape in R1 is insignificant in regard to altering 

goshawk habitat at the population scale. 

Not a single known nest in R1 is isolated from other known nests by more than the goshawk’s 

estimated dispersal distance. 

A comparison of habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations indicates that given the 

natural distribution of habitat, each Forest in R1 has an excess of available goshawk habitat. 

Below (and not above) a threshold of 20 to 30 percent of historical habitat amounts, the effects of 

fragmentation (i.e. patch size and isolation) are suggested to have a negative impact on species 

persistence. No indication exists that forested ecosystems in Region 1 have reached the 20 to 30 

percent threshold. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Goshawk habitat would be largely unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives would 

reduce suitable habitat, there are no impacts to nesting birds or reproduction anticipated. Over 80 percent 

of the existing nesting and foraging habitat would be maintained, post-fledgling habitat associated with 

existing nests would be maintained, long-term human access would not be increased, designated old 

growth would not be treated, and treatments would reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire and a 

possible long-term reduction in nest habitat. As a result, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife 

species (p. II/4), to develop and implement a road management program with road use and travel 

restrictions that are responsive to resource protection needs (p. II/2), to ensure that viable populations of 

existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17) and to manage 5 percent of each 3rd

order drainage for old growth (p. II/20). Also all alternatives are consistent with National Forest 

Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12 and Forest Plan standards related to snags 

and downed woody debris. 

Pileated Woodpecker

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct effects to the pileated 

woodpecker. Effects on old-growth structure and composition would be the same as described under 

northern goshawk. Although not an old growth obligate (Samson 2006a), because old growth stands are 

characterized by a greater density of large-diameter trees and downed woody debris, the pileated 

woodpecker has the potential to occur in greatest density (smaller home range) within old growth. As a 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

437

result, it is likely that greater densities of woodpeckers would occur on the 2-3 percent of the project area 

that is currently considered old growth. 

As described under the affected environment, due to decades of overstocking and widespread MPB 

mortality, snags and coarse woody debris have increased in the last 10 years (table 75). Also mortality to 

large diameter ponderosa pine snags has been high and the availability of snags and DWD would continue 

to increase for the next 10 to 20 years as trees die and fall to the ground. Due to the mortality of existing 

large diameter ponderosa pine trees, the availability of future large diameter ponderosa pine trees (and 

snags) would be reduced over the long-term. Additionally due to decades of fire suppression, project area 

stands have become overstocked with small diameter trees. This would be expected to further reduce the 

availability of large diameter trees over the long-term. Also continued MPB mortality would further 

reduce canopy cover in stands with concentrated mortality. So while pileated woodpecker habitat would 

be maintained under this alternative for the next 10 to 20 years, over the long term habitat would be 

reduced. 

In the absence of fire, late-successional forest conditions, including elevated levels of small- diameter 

snags and DWD would continue to develop across the project area, and pileated woodpecker habitat 

would increase both in the short and long term. However, because of continued fire suppression and 

increases in fuel loading, the risk of large-scale wildfire and therefore a long-term reduction in suitable 

pileated woodpecker habitat is highest under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to the pileated woodpecker are evaluated across the combined boundary, as this area is 

large enough to evaluate landscape level effects and includes lands recently affected by wildfire. Past, 

ongoing and future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. Of the anticipated activities, trail 

construction (58 acres of suitable habitat affected), stream restoration work (8 acres of affected habitat) 

and campground use (2 acres of habitat) would result in small localized changes in habitat and short-term 

disturbance during treatment. However because of the small changes the overstory and future snag 

recruitment, overall nesting and foraging habitat would be maintained. Ongoing and future activities that 

could affect the availability of suitable habitat include prescribed burning, hazard tree removal, wildfire, 

off-forest harvest and firewood collection. The following is a summary of effects to the pileated 

woodpecker. 

Prescribed burns

Prescribed burning would occur on 103 acres. Effects would consist primarily of changes to understory 

vegetation, although some individual tree mortality may occur. There would be localized reductions in 

canopy cover and an increase in primarily small diameter snags. While stands would continue to provide 

suitable habitat, because treatment would reduce downed wood and substrate for ants, on which pileated 

woodpeckers primarily forage, the quality of foraging habitat would be reduced on the acreage burned 

(Bull et al. 2005). Considering that all burned lands are interspersed with un-burned lands, unaffected 

foraging habitat would continue to be available in all treatment units. 

Hazard tree removal

Approximately 250 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat would be affected by hazard tree removal. 

Effects include a long-term reduction in large diameter snags and DWD on the acreage treated. Because 

forest-plan levels of snags are being retained, impacts to this species would be reduced. 

Recent wildfire

These wildfires have affected 219 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat. Effects vary depending 

on the intensity of burning. In areas with low to moderate intensity burning (approximately 40 percent of 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

438

the acres burned), understory diversity would be reduced in the short term and increase over the long 

term. More intensively burned areas (60 percent of the acres burned) would result in overstory mortality 

and a reduction in nesting and foraging habitat on approximately 130 acres. Areas that burned with 

moderate intensity would result in pockets of reduced canopy cover, as well as an increase in snags 

(including large diameter), although suitable habitat would be maintained on 89 acres. Effects of past 

wildfire are included in the modeled habitat for this species. 

Off-forest timber harvest

Off-forest timber harvest would occur on 75 acres of existing habitat. While the type of harvest may vary, 

it is assumed that pileated woodpecker habitat would be reduced on this acreage. 

Personal use firewood cutting

Firewood collection would reduce snags and downed woody debris along roads, reducing snag 

availability for this species. 

Conclusions

Cumulatively a total of approximately 715 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat would be affected, 

including a reduction in habitat on 455 acres. Also there would be a reduction in downed wood along 

open road corridors. However snag recruitment would increase due to future MPB mortality. As a result 

and considering that over 95 percent of the available habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. While habitat would continue to be widespread, the 

long-term reduction in large-diameter ponderosa pine snags that would occur under this alternative is 

considered an irretrievable commitment. 

Alternative 1 Determination

Under alternative 1 suitable pileated woodpecker habitat would be maintained and snag availability would 

increase for the next 10 to 20 years. While the availability of future large diameter snags would be 

reduced in the future, implementation of alternative 1 is not likely to cause a local or regional change in 

habitat quality or population status for the pileated woodpecker. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

There are no treatments proposed in Forest Plan designated old-growth habitat under the action 

alternatives and potential old growth would be maintained. As a result effects to old growth would be 

similar to those described under northern goshawk. Table 108 displays the treatments proposed under 

each alternative. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

439

Table 108. Alternative treatments within pileated and hairy woodpecker habitat1

Treatments

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Acres Percent Acres Percent

Intermediate Harvest 1,077 14 427 6 

Regeneration Harvest 189 2 162 2 

Low Severity Fire 182 2 611 8 

Mixed Severity Fire 1,407 18 758 10

Jackpot Burn 0 0 124 2 

Total 2,855 36 2,082 26

1-because there is only a 17 acres difference in pileated and hairy woodpecker habitat and this acreage is outside any treatment 

area, the affected habitat for these two species is discussed collectively. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects include disturbance during timber harvest and road construction that occurs during the 

breeding season. However, 84 percent of the suitable habitat would not receive harvest treatments, 

reducing the likelihood of disturbance. Additionally, this species is usually tolerant of human activity near 

the nest, and although some birds that are roosting or foraging on a site may move out of the area (Birds 

of North America 2011), unaffected suitable habitat is well dispersed adjacent to treatment units. 

Consequently any disturbance would be short term and habitat exists to accommodate any displaced 

birds.

Effects of the individual treatments on species structure and composition are discussed under the 

treatment effects in section 4.3.2, and proposed harvest would remove snags and DWD on the acreage 

treated. Although the pileated woodpecker forages and nests in a variety of canopy conditions, the 

Northern Region habitat model assumes that suitable habitat must have a minimum of 10 percent forested 

cover (Samson 2006b). Both action alternatives would reduce existing pileated woodpecker habitat by 2 

percent through proposed regeneration harvest. The pileated woodpecker is not normally associated with 

moderately to severely burned forests (Wightman and Saab 2008), therefore openings created by mixedseverity fire would no longer provide suitable pileated woodpecker habitat. However existing habitat 

within proposed mixed- severity burn units is variable and widely scattered and suitable nest habitat 

would be interspersed between openings. It is not possible to identify exactly how many acres of suitable 

habitat would occur in openings created by more intensive fire; therefore, for the purpose of this analysis 

it is assumed all created openings would occur within suitable pileated woodpecker habitat. 

Proposed intermediate harvest would reduce small diameter snags, DWD, and pileated woodpecker prey 

(carpenter ants) (Bull et al. 2005). Short-term effects would occur and the quality of foraging habitat 

would be reduced on acres treated. With implementation of PDFs a component of existing snags and snag 

replacements would be retained. Also, all snags greater than 20 inches d.b.h. would be retained unless 

they pose a safety hazard or operability concern, and snags would be distributed throughout all units. 

Because low severity burning would reduce downed wood and substrate for ants, on which pileated 

woodpeckers primarily forage, the quality of foraging habitat would be reduced on the acreage burned 

(Bull et al. 2005). However, considering that all burned lands are interspersed with un-burned lands, 

unaffected foraging habitat would continue to be available in all treatment units. Consequently, effects to 

foraging habitat would be reduced. Sites containing 12 to 30 tons of DWD are typically utilized by the 

pileated woodpecker (Bull and Holthausen 1993). Because DWD would be retained to meet wildlife, soil 

and fishery objectives, treated areas would continue to levels of DWD consistent with use. Also, some 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

440

increase in tree mortality and snags would occur on sites proposed for burning. Consequently treated sites 

would continue to provide suitable nest and foraging habitat. 

In upland habitats in the Northern Rockies, pileated woodpeckers nest almost exclusively in largediameter ponderosa pine and western larch snags (Hills et al. 2001; McClellan and McClellan 1999). 

Treatments proposed under the action alternatives promote the long-term sustainability of both species 

across the landscape while maintaining diversity of structural conditions including large-diameter snags, 

DWD and open grown ponderosa pine communities. Consequently over the long term suitable pileated 

woodpecker habitat is expected to be maintained or improved under the action alternatives. 

Finally, late-seral forest conditions are needed to produce large-diameter ponderosa pine snags. For snags 

to be durable (i.e., capable of standing for long periods following death) they need to be large, old, slowgrowing, and exposed to repeated nonlethal fires that scarred substantial portions of the butt log. In 

considering these factors, USDA Forest Service (2000a) concluded that large snags suitable for pileated 

woodpecker nesting occurred at the highest sustainable numbers in old ponderosa pine forests that are 

relatively open as a result of repeated, nonlethal wildfires. Because proposed actions are designed to 

restore low-severity fire to the landscape, as well as reduce the likelihood of severe wildfire, and promote 

the development of open grown ponderosa pine habitat preferred by the pileated woodpecker, treatments 

proposed under both alternatives would help to ensure that pileated woodpecker habitat is sustained over 

the long term. 

Alternative 2

Sixty-four percent of the project area would not be treated; effects on untreated areas would be the same 

as alternative 1. Sites proposed for intermediate harvest or prescribed burn (2,666 acres) would have 

short-term effects including lower quality foraging habitat and reduced availability of nest sites. There 

may be a long-term reduction in nesting and foraging habitat, on up to approximately 350 acres, due to 

openings created by mixed-severity burning in suitable habitat and on 189 acres proposed for regeneration 

harvest. 

Approximately 5,700 acres that currently don’t provide suitable pileated woodpecker habitat are proposed 

for treatment. Activities are designed to restore open-grown ponderosa pine habitat and promote 

sustainability of large-diameter ponderosa pine and western larch. As a result it is expected that pileated 

woodpecker habitat would be improved over the long-term on this acreage. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes less harvest and mixed severity fire treatments, so there are fewer short-term 

effects than those of alternative 2. As a result, 72 percent of the existing habitat within the project area 

would not be treated, and effects on untreated areas would be the same as those described under 

alternative 1. Short-term effects to nest and foraging habitat would occur on 1,920 acres or 25 percent of 

the existing habitat, whereas long-term reduction in suitable habitat due to the openings created by mixedseverity fire would be reduced to less than 200 acres. 

Like alternative 2, because treatments are designed to restore open, grown ponderosa pine habitat and 

promote sustainability of large diameter ponderosa pine and western larch, it is expected that pileated 

woodpecker habitat would be improved on approximately 4,500 acres of currently unsuitable habitat. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

441

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and future activities are discussed under alternative 1 and a total 715 acres of suitable 

habitat would be affected, including a reduction in suitable habitat on 455 acres. In addition to effects 

described under alternative 1, future activities would affect up to another 2,855 acres of pileated 

woodpecker habitat (alternative 2). Of this foraging and nest habitat would be maintained on 2,314 acres 

proposed for intermediate harvest and low severity burning, although there would be a short-term 

reduction in downed woody debris. Also nesting and foraging habitat would be reduced on 541 acres due 

to regeneration harvest and opening created by mixed severity fire. 

Cumulatively during the analysis period, up to 3,570 acres of the existing pileated woodpecker habitat 

would be affected by some activity. Of this, there would be some short-term effects (less than 10 years) to 

foraging and nest habitat on 2,574 acres affected by low-severity burning and wildfire, intermediate 

harvest and campground/trail work/stream restoration treatments. Also nesting and foraging habitat would 

be reduced on 996 acres due to regeneration harvest, openings created by mixed severity burning, hazard 

tree removal, high intensity wildfire and off-forest harvest. 

While pileated woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat would be affected on up to 3,570 acres, 

considering that existing foraging and nest habitat would only be reduced by 4 percent, that MPB 

mortality would continue to increase the availability of large diameter snags, and that over 85 percent of 

the existing habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant cumulative effects to the pileated 

woodpecker anticipated under either alternative. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in nest 

habitat and altered structure and quality of foraging habitat, although habitat conditions would be restored 

on all sites treated. Like alternative 1, future reduction in large ponderosa pine snags would occur on 

untreated lands. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination

The action alternatives would affect up to 2,855 acres of existing pileated woodpecker habitat including 

up to a 7 percent reduction in habitat. Suitable habitat would continue to be available within all affected 

watersheds, and proposed treatments would maintain or improve pileated woodpecker habitat over the 

long term. Based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 

are not likely to cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status for the 

pileated woodpecker. 

While habitat would be reduced on up to 540 acres, 93 percent of the existing pileated woodpecker 

habitat would be maintained. Also because treatments would promote the development of large 

diameter trees, preferred habitat conditions would be created over the long-term

Both alternatives would maintain suitable pileated woodpecker habitat across the landscape, while 

providing for the long-term sustainability of preferred nesting and foraging habitat. 

No designated old-growth habitat would be affected. 

The risk of large stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Suitable habitat would be maintained in the short term under alternative 1 and reduced under alternatives 

2 and 3. The likelihood of mortality is low and reproduction is not expected to be affected. Suitable 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

442

habitat would continue to be available across the landscape in the short term under all alternatives and 

improved under the action alternatives. No designated old growth would be affected, and the risk of 

stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced. As a result, all alternatives meet Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1986) direction to provide habitat for small game, furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4), 

to ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17) 

and to manage 5 percent of each 3rd order drainage for old growth (p. II/20). All alternatives are also 

consistent with Forest Plan (p. II/20 to II-21) and regional snag management guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service 2000a) and with National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of 

animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Hairy Woodpecker

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct effects to the hairy 

woodpecker. Indirect effects would be similar to the pileated woodpecker and both large- and smalldiameter snags as well as DWD would increase in the short term, whereas small-diameter snags would 

increase over the long term. As a result, suitable hairy woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat would 

continue to increase under this alternative. Due to continued fire suppression and increases in fuel 

loading, the risk of large scale wildfire is highest under this alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Anticipated cumulative effects are the same as those described under alternative 1 for the pileated 

woodpecker. As described, cumulatively during the analysis period a total of approximately 715 acres of 

hairy woodpecker habitat would be affected, including a reduction in habitat on 455 acres. Also there 

would be a reduction in downed wood along open road corridors. However snag recruitment would 

increase due to ongoing and future MPB mortality. As a result and considering that over 90 percent of the 

available habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Action Alternatives

Treatments proposed under each of the alternatives within suitable hairy woodpecker habitat are displayed 

in Table 108, under the pileated woodpecker analysis. 

Direct Effects

Because both woodpecker species utilize snags and DWD, anticipated direct effects would be similar to 

those described for the pileated woodpecker. As a result, the likelihood of mortality is considered low and 

effects associated with disturbance would be short term. 

Indirect Effects

Suitable habitat would be reduced under both action alternatives on the acreage proposed for harvest and 

prescribed burning because treatments due to removal of snags and DWD on the sites treated. The 

availability of suitable habitat varies by treatment; for example, Bunnell et al. (2002) found that partial 

harvest activities did not affect the abundance of primary cavity nesters in most cases, and in some cases 

the abundance increased due to small openings and creation of edges. In a study of dry forests in 

Washington, Lyon et al. (2008) found thinning and low-severity burning may enhance foraging habitat for 

bark gleaning species as a whole. Implementation of PDFs, for intermediate treatments and prescribed 

burning would be expected to retain the stand structure and prey availability consistent with suitable hairy 

woodpecker foraging habitat. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

443

Regeneration treatments and openings created by mixed-severity burning would reduce suitable hairy 

woodpecker habitat by approximately 7 percent. 

Covert (2003) looked at the effect of mixed-severity wildfire on hairy woodpecker foraging in ponderosa 

pine in northern Arizona. His results indicate that hairy woodpecker relative abundance was greatest in 

high-severity burns relative to moderate-severity burns and unburned areas, although this preference 

decreased as burns age. Hairy woodpeckers selected trees and patches with greater tree bole scorch when 

available. Further, a number of authors suggest that major declines in forest dwelling birds, especially 

woodpeckers, results from fire suppression (Hutto 1995; Hobson and Sheik 1999, Brawn et al. 2001 in

Covert 2003). Covert (2003) also suggests that high-severity burns may be important for resident barkforaging birds as they provide high concentrations of over-winter prey resources. While short-term effects 

may occur and pockets of treated areas may become unsuitable, over the long term, it is expected that 

restoration of historic levels of fire using both mixed- and low-intensity burning would result in the longterm improvement of hairy woodpecker habitat. 

Alternative 2

Sixty-four percent of the project area would not be treated, and effects on untreated areas would be the 

same as alternative 1. Short-term effects from intermediate harvest and prescribed burning include a 

reduction in snags and DWD on 2,668 acres. Regeneration harvest and openings created by mixedseverity burns may result in long-term reductions in nesting and foraging habitat on up to 540 acres. 

Treatments would improve structural diversity on treated sites, promote development of large-diameter 

snags and create a mosaic of habitat conditions preferred by the hairy woodpecker. Proposed actions 

would be expected to improve habitat on approximately 5,700 acres of currently unsuitable habitat, as 

well as improve landscape-level habitat for the hairy woodpecker. 

Alternative 3

Sixty-four percent of the project area would not be treated, and effects on untreated areas would be the 

same as alternative 1. Short-term effects from intermediate harvest and prescribed burning include a 

reduction in snags and DWD on 1,920 acres. Additionally, there may be a long-term reduction in nesting 

and foraging habitat on up to 380 acres from regeneration harvest and openings created by mixed-severity 

burns. 

Treatments would improve structural diversity on treated sites, promote development of large-diameter 

snags and create a mosaic of habitat conditions preferred by the hairy woodpecker. Proposed actions 

would be expected to improve habitat on approximately 4,500 acres of currently unsuitable habitat, as 

well as improve landscape-level habitat for the hairy woodpecker. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and future activities are discussed under alternative 1 for the pileated woodpecker and 

cumulatively during the analysis period, up to 3,570 acres (alternative 2) of the existing hairy woodpecker 

habitat would be affected by some activity. Of this, there would be some short-term effects (less than 10 

years) to foraging and nest habitat on 2,574 acres affected by low-severity burning and wildfire, 

intermediate harvest and campground/trail work/stream restoration treatments. Also nesting and foraging 

habitat would be reduced on 996 acres due to regeneration harvest, openings created by mixed severity 

burning, recent hazard tree removal, high intensity wildfire and off-forest harvest. 

While hairy woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat would be affected on up to 3,570 acres, considering 

that existing foraging and nest habitat would only be reduced by approximately 4 percent, that MPB 

mortality would continue to increase the availability of snags, and that over 85 percent of the existing 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

444

habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant cumulative effects to the hairy woodpecker 

anticipated under either alternative.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in 

nesting habitat, and altered structure and quality of foraging habitat, although habitat conditions would be 

restored on all sites treated.

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination

The action alternatives would affect up to 2,855 acres of existing hairy woodpecker habitat including up 

to a 7 percent reduction in habitat. Suitable habitat would continue to be available within all affected 

watersheds, and proposed treatments would maintain or improve hairy woodpecker habitat over the long 

term. Based on the above analysis and the following rationale, implementation of alternatives 2 or 3 are 

not likely to cause a local or regional change in habitat quality or population status for the hairy 

woodpecker. 

While habitat would be reduced on up to 540 acres, 93 percent of the existing habitat would be 

maintained. 

Both alternatives would maintain suitable hairy woodpecker habitat across the landscape, while 

providing for the long-term sustainability of preferred nesting and foraging habitat. 

The risk of large stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Suitable habitat would be maintained in the short term under alternative 1 and reduced under alternatives 

2 and 3. The likelihood of mortality is low and reproduction is not expected to be affected. Abundant 

suitable habitat would continue to be available, and under the action alternatives currently unsuitable 

habitat would be improved and the risk of stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced. As a result, all 

alternatives meet Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) direction to provide habitat for small game, 

furbearers and other wildlife species (p. II/4), and to ensure that viable populations of existing native and 

desired nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17) . All alternatives are also consistent with Forest Plan 

(p. II/20 to II-21) and regional snag management guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008b) and with 

National Forest Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

American Marten

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no treatments proposed under this alternative, so there would be no direct effects to the 

American marten. Marten utilize closed-canopy forests with large amounts of snags and DWD and largediameter trees, all of which have been modified by recent MPB infestation. While the project area may 

continue to develop late-successional forest conditions and have an abundance of DWD, canopy mortality 

has greatly reduced suitable marten habitat. Some stands may continue to contain predominantly closed 

forest conditions with large amounts of DWD and provide suitable marten habitat, whereas stands with 

more open-canopy conditions would continue to provide marginal or unsuitable habitat. Research 

indicates that marten abandon, or fail to colonize home range size landscapes with less than 60 percent

mature forest (Powell et al. 2003). Due to MPB mortality more open stand conditions predominate across 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

445

much of the project area, which does not provide landscape conditions preferred by marten. As a result, 

use of the project area is more likely to occur by foraging and dispersing individuals. 

Due to continued fire suppression and increased fuel loading, the risk of large scale wildfire and the 

associated long-term reduction in marten habitat is anticipated to be greatest under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and future cumulative effects are in volume 2, appendix C. While all activities could result 

in short-term disturbance during treatment, grazing, and NNIS treatment would not affect marten habitat. 

Also, while stream restoration and trail work would affect 50 acres, suitable marten habitat would largely 

unchanged. Ongoing and future activities that could affect marten habitat that could result in long-term 

changes in habitat include: 

Prescribed fire

A total of 62 acres of low-intensity prescribed fire would occur within suitable marten habitat. Effects 

would be similar to those described in section 4.3 for low-intensity burning and include a reduction of 

smaller diameter downed wood and some individual tree mortality. Overall effects to habitat would be 

short term (less than10 years) and suitable habitat would be maintained. 

Off-forest harvest

A total of 69 acres of off-forest harvest would occur between the project area boundary and Highway 200. 

While the type of harvest is not known, it is assumed that treatment would reduce marten habitat over the 

long-term. 

Hazard tree removal

While some snags would be retained, due to the reduction in snags and future downed wood, it is 

assumed that marten habitat would be reduced on 169 acres of suitable marten habitat affected by hazard 

tree removal treatment. 

Recent wildfire

Since 2011, a total 183 acres of suitable marten habitat have been affected by wildfire. Effects vary 

depending on the intensity of burning. Intensively burned areas (60 percent of the acres burned) would 

result in mortality on much of the overstory, which would reduce marten habitat on approximately 110 

acres. Areas that burned with low to moderate intensity would result in pockets of reduced canopy cover, 

as well as an increase in snags (including large diameter. 

Firewood collection

Firewood collection would generally occur within 100 ft. of open roads and would result in a long-term 

reduction in large-diameter downed wood along these road corridors, although overstory conditions 

would be unchanged. 

Conclusions

Collectively, approximately 500 acres of suitable marten habitat would be affected. Effects include a 

reduction quality on all of the affected acres, as well as along open road corridors affected by firewood 

collection and a long-term reduction in habitat on approximately 350 acres. However considering that 95 

percent of the existing habitat would be unaffected, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

446

Alternative 1 Determination

While alternative 1 may increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, American marten habitat would be 

largely unchanged in the short and long term, therefore, implementation is not likely to cause a local or 

regional change in habitat quality or population status for this species.

Action Alternatives

Table 109 displays existing American marten habitat proposed for treatment under the action alternatives. 

Based on the stand structure effects anticipated (see section 4.3.1), effects of the individual treatments on 

marten habitat would vary. Following is a description of proposed changes to marten habitat. Effects of 

these treatments by alternative are summarized in table 110. 

Table 109. Alternative treatments in American marten habitat

Treatments

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres Percent1 Acres Percent1

Intermediate Harvest 914 13 335 5 

Regeneration Harvest 143 2 133 2 

Low Severity Fire 152 2 531 8 

Mixed Severity Fire 1,265 19 598 9 

Total 2,474 36 1,597 24

1

-Percent of available habitat

Intermediate Harvest and Low Severity Fire – Because sites would maintain adequate canopy 

closure as well as snags and DWD on the site, they would continue to provide suitable marten habitat. 

There would be short-term (5-10 years) reductions in snags and DWD, and some increased canopy 

gaps. As a result, the quality of marten habitat would be reduced.

Mixed Severity Fire – Due to the reduction of snags and DWD, a short-term reduction in habitat 

quality would occur on portions of those sites that receive a low severity burn. Portions of sites where 

openings in the overstory are created would no longer be considered suitable habitat; there would be a 

long-term reduction in suitable habitat on the acres where openings are created. 

Regeneration Harvest – Due to the reduction in canopy, there would be a long-term reduction in 

suitable marten habitat on the acreage treated. 

The following table summarizes effects to American marten habitat by alternative.

Table 110. Post-treatment effects to marten habitat by alternative

Treatments

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres Percent1 Acres Percent1

Acres Treated 2,474 36 1,716 25

Habitat Reduced2 459 7 283 4 

Suitable Habitat with short-term 

reduction in habitat quality3 1,731 26 1,088 16

Habitat not Treated 4,313 64 5,071 75

1-Percent of available habitat

2-includes regeneration harvest and acreage of openings created by mixed severity fire

3-includes underburning, intermediate harvest, and lands affected by low severity burning. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

447

Direct Effects

As described in the Affected Environment section under alternative 1, due to the widespread reduction in 

canopy closure, more marginal habitat conditions predominate and the project area is utilized primarily 

for foraging and dispersal habitat. Because marten are largely restricted to higher elevations with deep 

snow (Ruggiero et al. 1994), and since most of the treatment sites occur at lower elevations with less 

snowpack, the likelihood of direct effects are reduced. Also because the project area does not provide 

landscape conditions preferred by marten, and considering 64 to 75 percent of the suitable habitat would 

not be affected, there is no mortality anticipated. Consequently, potential direct effects would consist 

largely of short-term (1 year) behavioral avoidance of the treatment areas during implementation under 

both action alternatives. 

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects

Under alternative 2, suitable marten habitat would be reduced by 7 percent due to proposed regeneration 

harvest and openings created by mixed-severity burning. Habitat quality would be reduced on 

approximately 26 percent of the available marten habitat from proposed low-severity burning and 

intermediate treatments. Currently 85 percent of proposed treatment sites have less than 60 percent 

canopy closure and provides less desirable marten habitat. As a result proposed treatments would reduce 

preferred closed-canopy marten habitat by approximately 15 percent. 

Because proposed treatments are designed to restore historic levels of fire and promote increased structure 

and diversity on sites treated (see section 4.3.1) over the long term, marten habitat would be maintained or 

improved across the project area. Due to the reduction in fuels short and long term effects include 

anticipated reduced risk of stand replacing wildfire. 

Alternative 3

Indirect Effects

Under alternative 3, suitable marten habitat would be reduced by 4 percent due to proposed regeneration 

harvest and openings created by mixed-severity burning. Habitat quality would be reduced on 

approximately 16 percent of the available marten habitat from proposed low-severity burning and 

intermediate treatments. Like alternative 2, most of the acreage proposed for treatment (87 percent) 

currently has reduced canopy closure conditions (i.e. below 60 percent) and provides less desirable 

marten habitat. Proposed treatments would reduce preferred marten habitat conditions by approximately 

13 percent. 

Like alternative 2, proposed treatments are designed to restore fire to the landscape and improve stand 

structure and diversity, as well as reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire, but at a somewhat reduced 

level from that of alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing and future activities are discussed under alternative 1 and a total 500 acres of suitable 

marten habitat would be affected, including a reduction in suitable habitat on 350 acres. In addition to 

this, alternative 2 would affect up to another 2,474 acres. Of this there would be a short-term reduction in 

habitat quality on 1,731 acres and a long-term reduction in habitat on 459 acres. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

448

Cumulatively during the analysis period, a total of 2,974 acres or 31 percent of the available habitat 

would be affected. Of this, habitat quality would be reduced for approximately 10 years on up to 

approximately 1,800 acres and there would be a long-term reduction in habitat on 809 acres. Additionally, 

due to ongoing MPB mortality, landscape level canopy cover and suitable marten habitat would continue 

to be reduced in portions of the project area. However considering that approximately 70 percent of the 

existing habitat would be unaffected, and considering proposed treatments are designed to restore 

historical conditions and reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire, there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in the 

amount and quality of suitable habitat (as described above). Habitat conditions would be restored on all 

sites treated in the long term.

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination

The action alternatives would reduce existing marten habitat within the project area. Suitable habitat 

would continue to be available within all affected watersheds and proposed treatments would maintain or 

improve marten habitat over the long term. Based on the above analysis and the following rationale, 

implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 are not likely to cause a local or regional change in habitat 

quality or population status for the American marten. 

Due to MPB mortality, suitable marten habitat has been greatly reduced. Most proposed treatments 

occur at lower elevations, which are less likely to be utilized. As a result, the potential for direct 

effects are reduced. 

Sixty-four percent of the existing suitable habitat would not be treated. Snags and DWD would 

continue to be available across the landscape and in all sites treated.

Over the short term, suitable habitat would be maintained on over 80 percent of the existing habitat 

treated, whereas habitat structure and diversity would be improved over the long term. 

Treatments are designed to reduce the risk of wildfire and maintain marten habitat across the 

landscape. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Marten habitat would be relatively unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives would 

reduce suitable marten habitat, there is no mortality anticipated. Roads built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal would be used for administrative purposes and remain closed to general use. 

Habitat would continue to be available within all affected watersheds. As a result, all alternatives are 

consistent with Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 1986) to provide habitat for small game, furbearers 

and other wildlife species (p. II/4), to ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17), to develop and implement a road management program with 

road use and travel restrictions that are responsive to resource protection needs (p. II/2) and to manage 5 

percent of each 3rd order drainage for old growth (p. II/20). Also all alternatives are consistent with Forest 

Plan (p. II/20 to II-21) snag and dead wood management guidelines and with National Forest 

Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

449

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk

Elk are evaluated using the following criteria:

Summer Range Hiding Cover and compliance with Plan standard 3. This requires maintaining 50 

percent or more of each elk herd unit as hiding cover (described in section 3.5). 

Winter Range Thermal Cover and compliance with Plan standard 3. This requires maintaining 25 

percent or more thermal cover (described in section 3.5) on each elk herd unit winter range 

Big Game Security and compliance with Plan standard 4a. This requires that that the ratio of hiding 

cover to open road density be within guidelines identified by the Forest Plan (described in section 

3.5). 

Habitat Effectiveness and consistency with guidelines in the Montana Elk Logging Study. 

Specifically this includes maintaining a minimum of 50 percent habitat effectiveness on elk summer 

range. 

Elk Security and consistency with recommendations in Hillis et al. (1991). This includes providing 30 

percent of each elk herd unit in patches 250 acres or larger in size that are more than 0.50 mile from 

an open road. 

Elk Forage – this involves a qualitative assessment of changes in elk forage on summer, transition and 

winter ranges. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Untreated portions of the project area would continue to progress through succession. Disturbance 

processes including climate change, insect and disease and fire would continue to influence the project 

area. Insect infestations would continue to create snags. Large areas of untreated stands would remain 

across the landscape where natural snag creation and attrition processes would proceed unabated and 

would continue to shape elk habitat. 

Summer Range and Calving Areas

Summer range habitat effectiveness measures how much of a given area elk are likely to use during the 

non-hunting season. It is a function of suitable habitat components (cover, forage, wet sites, and travel 

routes) and reduced human disturbance (generally measured in terms of open roads and motorized trails) 

(Christensen et. al. 1993). Timber harvest and burning in all action alternatives would reduce cover while 

improving forage capability. Because elk numbers have been reduced due to the large amount of 

wilderness and decades of fire suppression, (MDFWP 2004), the increase in foraging habitat is expected 

to improve habitat effectiveness to a greater degree than the anticipated cover loss would diminish it. 

Alternative Evaluation Summary

Alternative effects for the criteria evaluated (identified above) are displayed in table 111 and Table 112. 

Table 111 displays values for hiding cover, thermal cover and big game security and whether the herd unit 

conditions comply with the Forest Plan. Table 112 displays habitat effectiveness and elk security and 

whether the herd unit conditions are consistent with recommendations in the Montana Elk Logging 

Guidelines and those by Hillis et al. (1991). 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

450

Table 111. Alternative Elk herd unit summary and Forest Plan compliance

Habitat/Plan 

Compliance

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Elk Hiding Cover

Elk Hiding 

Cover acres 

(%) 

17,701 (55) 15,725 (35) 14,826 (46) 14,994 (34) 16,034 (49) 15,237(34)

Meets Plan 

Standard 3 Yes No No No No No

Elk Winter Range Thermal Cover

Winter Range 

Thermal Cover 

acres (%)

938 (5.3) 527 (3.8) 754 (4.2) 501 (3.6) 754 (4.2) 508 (3.7) 

Meet Plan 

Standard 3 No No No No No No

Big Game Security

Open Road 

Density mi/mi2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3

Percent Hiding 

Cover 55 35 40 30 43 32

Meets Plan 

Standard 4a No No No No No No

Table 112. Alternative elk herd unit summary of habitat effectiveness and elk security

Condition/Compliance 

with recommendation

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Beaver 

Creek

Keep Cool 

Creek

Habitat Effectiveness

Road Miles 85.4 120.2 881 120.2 85.81 120.2

Square Miles 50.6 69.3 50.6 69.3 50.6 69.3

Road Density in mi/mi2 1.69 1.74 1.73 1.74 1.70 1.74 

Habitat Effectiveness 50 51 50 51 50 51

Meets 50 percent 

Recommendation

(Elk Logging Study)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Elk Security

Elk Security Habitat acres 

(%) 8,463 (26) 11,828 (26) 8,463 (26) 11,828 (26) 8,463 (26) 11,828 (26)

Meets 30 percent 

recommendation (Hillis et 

al. 1991)

No No No No No No

1-road miles would increase for up to 5 years, after which they would be reduced to 85.4 miles. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

451

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Summer Range

Hiding Cover – Hiding cover exists on approximately 55 percent of the Beaver Creek unit, which is in 

compliance with Plan standard 3. Within the Keep Cool unit hiding cover would remain at 35 percent, 

which would not comply with Plan standard 3. While hiding cover continues to occur in areas with 

concentrated MPB mortality, it is expected that existing hiding cover would be reduced within the next 10 

to 15 years as dead and dying trees fall to the ground. This would largely occur on low-elevation lands 

with a large lodgepole component.

Habitat Effectiveness – Because there would be no change in road access, habitat effectiveness would be 

unchanged and both herd units would continue to meet the Montana Logging Study recommendation of 

50 percent. 

Elk Security during Hunting Season

Hiding Cover/Open Road Densities – There are no direct effects to hiding cover or open road densities 

under alternative 1. Neither the Beaver Creek nor Keep Cool herd units currently meet Plan standard 4a. 

Development of future hiding cover would vary. In stands less affected by MPB mortality, understory and 

overstory cover would increase over time, whereas cover would decrease as trees fall to the ground. 

Because MPB mortality is ongoing, overall elk hiding cover would likely decrease over the next 10 to 20 

years. 

Hunting Season Elk Security – Security habitat for elk is important during the hunting season relative to 

elk vulnerability, population structure, and hunter success. Under alternative 1, elk security would remain 

at its present level with security areas comprising approximately 26 percent of both the Beaver Creek and 

Keep Cool herd units. Hillis et al. (1991) recommend that at least 30 percent of a herd unit provide 

security. Also there are approximately 6,669 acres and 4,755 acres of hiding cover within security blocks 

in the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool elk herd units respectively.

Winter Range Thermal Cover

Currently neither herd unit meets Forest Plan standard 3. It is expected that MPB mortality would 

continue to occur for the next 10 to 15 years, further reducing overstory cover within forested stands, 

particularly at lower elevations. Consequently, winter range thermal cover would be reduced. Conifer 

encroachment into grasslands and shrub dominated stands would continue to occur, decreasing forage 

availability. While understory conifer would develop over time, it would take decades to provide Forest 

Plan thermal cover and available winter thermal cover would continue to decline under this alternative. 

Forage Availability

Canopy gaps resulting from recent MPB mortality may result in some short-term (a few years) increases 

in forage. Conifer encroachment would continue into grasslands and shrublands, and forested understories 

would continue to be dominated by dense seedlings and saplings. Available forage would continue to 

decline under this alternative and over the long term this is expected to continue to reduce the health of 

the herd (MFWP 2004 p. 113). 

Cumulative Effects

The combined boundaries of the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek herd units make up the cumulative 

effects boundary. This area was selected because it includes all areas affected by treatment as well as 

lands affected by recent wildfires and MPB mortality. As a result both stand and landscape level habitat 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

452

can be assessed. Past, ongoing and future activities are in volume 2, appendix C. Activities that affect elk 

include grazing, wildfire, timber harvest, firewood collection and hazard tree removal, as well as 

recreational activities associated with mining, hunting and other dispersed use. Because there is no change 

in public access, dispersed recreational use is expected to remain relatively unchanged. Potential ongoing 

and future long-term effects that could occur during the analysis period and affect elk habitat include 

grazing, hazard tree removal, firewood collection, NNIS treatment, recent wildfire, prescribed burning

and timber harvest, which are summarized by herd unit in table 113 and discussed below. 

Table 113. Alternative 1 elk cumulative effects

Activity

Beaver Creek Keep Cool 

Total 

Acres 

Affected 

Hiding Cover 

Affected 

(acres)

Thermal 

Cover1

Affected 

(acres)

Total Acres 

Affected 

Hiding 

Cover 

Affected 

(acres)

Thermal 

Cover

1

Affected 

(acres)

Grazing 5,945 2,730 294 8,694 5,663 103

Hazard Tree 

Removal 251 184 82 169 1122 0 

NNIS 

Treatment 2,564 872 4 475 186 3 

Timber 

Harvest 126 962 182 60 432 0 

Prescribed 

Fire 0 0 0 17 13 0 

Recent 

Wildfire 3 33 0 145 213 0 

1 – Winter range thermal cover

2 – Results in a reduction in Plan hiding and thermal cover on the acres affected

3 – Reduction in Plan hiding cover on 60 percent of the acres affected.

Grazing

Grazing occurs on approximately 5,945 acres of the Beaver Creek unit and 8,694 acres of the Keep Cool 

unit. Effects depend on whether or not the managed grazing system is effective. For example overgrazing 

can reduce available elk forage, as well as increase the spread of invasive species. Conversely, managed 

grazing by livestock can increase the productivity, diversity and nutritive quality of forage. 

Ongoing and continued future effects of grazing are discussed under section 4.4. While some existing 

impacts to riparian habitat in the Beaver Creek drainage are occurring, this would be corrected with 

approved fencing in the Pine Grove campground. Also past and continued use is expected to be moderate 

to light and treatments are expected to improve the amount and distribution of grasses within the 

Stonewall and Keep Cool allotments. As a result, existing impacts from conifer encroachment that have 

affected livestock use on transitory range would likely be reduced. Finally, with implementation of PDFs 

including grazing modifications if necessary to ensure aspen and natural regeneration following burning 

is maintained, future impacts to elk from grazing would be reduced and there are no significant 

cumulative effects to elk or big game anticipated. 

Hazard Tree Removal

Roadside salvage would remove 184 acres and 112 acres of hiding cover in the Beaver Creek and Keep 

Cool herd units respectively, whereas 8 acres of thermal cover in the Beaver Creek herd unit would be 

affected. While habitat would be reduced along road corridors, the analysis for the hazard tree removal 

project concluded that even though both herd units were below Forest Plan Standards for hiding and 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

453

thermal cover, and a site specific amendment was developed, that elk numbers should not be altered. This 

was disclosed in a site specific Forest Plan amendment for that project. 

Invasive Weed Treatment

Approximately 2,563acres of NNIS treatment are anticipated to occur within Beaver Creek unit and 474 

acres in Keep Cool Creek unit. Effects include short-term disturbance during treatment as well as control 

or containment of invasive plants. As a result over the long term, elk forage would be maintained on sites 

treated. 

Timber Harvest

A total of 126 acres of off-Forest harvest would occur on the Beaver Creek herd unit and 60 acres would 

occur on the Keep Cool Unit. A total of 96 acres and 43 acres of elk hiding cover would be affected in the 

Beaver Creek and Keep Cool herd units respectively, whereas 18 acres of winter range thermal cover 

would be affected in the Beaver Creek herd unit. Effects include a reduction in cover and increased forage 

on the acres affected. 

Cumulatively, approximately 27 percent of the Beaver Creek unit and 21 percent of the Keep Cool unit 

would be affected by ongoing or future activities. While 435 acres of hiding cover and 18 acres of thermal 

cover would be removed, landscape level forage and cover conditions would remain largely unchanged. 

As a result and considering ongoing and future uses are not expected to change, there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated. 

Prescribed Fire

This includes 17 acres of pre-approved prescribed fire within the Keep Cool unit. Effects would be 

similar to those described under treatment effects. While there would be a reduction in downed wood and 

understory vegetation, the overstory would remain largely intact and affected stands would continue to 

meet the Forest Plan definition of hiding and thermal cover. There would also be an increase in future 

forage on the affected acres. 

Recent Wildfire

This includes 148 acres of wildfire that occurred within the herd units in 2011. It is estimated that high 

intensity fire with mortality on most of the canopy occurred on approximately 60 percent of the acreage, 

whereas low severity fire occurred on approximately 40 percent. Effects of low severity fire include a 

reduction in downed wood and understory vegetation similar to that described under treatment effects. 

Areas affected by high severity fire would have a reduction in hiding cover due to the loss of overstory, as 

well as an increase in future forage.

Summay

Cumulatively, approximately 27 percent of the Beaver Creek unit and 21 percent of the Keep Cool unit 

would be affected by ongoing or future activities. Approximately 450 acres of hiding cover and 26 acres 

of thermal cover would be removed. There would be localized reductions in cover due to MPB mortality; 

although, landscape-level forage and cover conditions would remain largely unchanged. Ongoing and 

future uses are not expected to change, many activities would result in short-term effects, and human 

access and elk security would be maintained, therefore, no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a continued 

reduction in elk forage. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

454

Alternative 1 Determination and Conclusions

Under alternative 1, Forest Plan hiding cover in the Beaver Creek unit would be maintained, while the 

Keep Cool unit would continue to fall below Forest Plan direction. Also due to continued MPB mortality, 

hiding and thermal cover within both units would continue to decline. While forage availability may 

increase in some areas, due to continued fire suppression and overstocked stand conditions, overall forage 

availability would continue to be low. Due to the reduced cover conditions, neither herd unit meets Forest 

Plan direction for big game security. However both units would continue to meet the 50 percent habitat 

effectiveness rating recommended in the Montana Elk Logging Study. Cover would continue to decline, 

however, it is expected that available habitat would continue to support desired levels of elk. Finally, due 

to increased fuel loading, the risk of a long-term loss of cover from stand replacing wildfire is greatest 

under this alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to wildlife, including elk and other ungulates are discussed under treatment effects in 

section 4.3.2. Elk are highly mobile, therefore, direct mortality from burning or harvest is unlikely. Effects 

include largely behavioral avoidance of the site and some elk would be displaced during treatment, 

although effects would be reduced with implementation of PDFs that limit disturbance to one drainage at 

a time. Additionally, considering that 20 percent of burned areas would remain un-treated and due to 

remaining cover adjacent to and within treatment areas, habitat would be available to accommodate any 

displaced animals. 

Table 114 displays the type and amount of activity proposed within elk hiding cover in the Beaver Creek

and Keep Cool creek herd units under alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative changes in hiding cover, thermal 

cover, security and habitat effectiveness are displayed in table 111 and table 112, whereas a discussion of 

the effects of individual treatments is provided below. 

Table 114. Proposed treatments within project elk hiding cover

Treatment

Beaver Creek Keep Cool Creek

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Intermediate Harvest1 1,545 9 640 4 166 1 166 1 

Regeneration Harvest1 775 4 651 4 72 <1 72 <1

Low Severity Burning 393 2 917 5 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Severity Burning2 2,219 13 1,498 8 1,970 13 1,001 6 

Jackpot Burning 0 0 0 0 0 0 322 2 

Total 4,932 28 3,706 20 2,208 14 1,561 9

1 – forest plan hiding and thermal cover reduced on acreage treated

2 – forest plan hiding and thermal cover reduced on lands affected by high severity fire or 25 percent of the acres treated

Intermediate Harvest

Harvest in combination with burning would remove live trees, dead and dying trees and smaller diameter 

downed wood. Treated stands would not meet the definition of Forest Plan hiding or thermal cover. An 

exception to this would be lands within the INFISH buffer due to the greater levels of DWD retained, and 

because few overstory trees would be removed in these areas. While hiding cover would be reduced on 

the acres treated, because both treatments would stimulate understory herbaceous and woody vegetation, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

455

forage availability would increase within 1 to 2 years of treatment (Canon et al. 1987 in USDA Forest 

Service 2006b). 

Regeneration Harvest

Sites treated would no longer meet the definition of forest plan hiding or thermal cover because most live 

trees, as well as some of the DWD and snags would be removed. This reduction in cover would occur 

over the long term (greater than 15 years) until understory woody vegetation develops. Like intermediate 

harvest, the reduction in canopy cover combined with site preparation would result in increased 

herbaceous and woody vegetation and elk forage, although the amount of available forage would be much 

greater than in stands receiving an intermediate treatment.

Low-Severity Burning and Underburning

While few live trees would be removed, low- severity burning would reduce small diameter DWD and 

some tree seedlings/saplings. However, implementation of PDFs would ensure that a DWD component 

including large diameter logs and pockets of understory vegetation are retained on all sites. While there is 

likely to be some overstory mortality, this would be widely scattered and the existing live overstory would 

remain largely intact. As a result, although understory cover would be reduced where it currently exists, 

stands would continue to meet the Forest Plan definition of hiding and thermal cover. Additionally, 20 

percent of the site would remain unburned and unaffected hiding and thermal cover would be interspersed 

throughout the site. 

Prescribed fire is routinely used to create or enhance elk habitat and has been shown to rejuvenate aspen 

stands, encourage early spring green-up, reduce conifer encroachment, increase palatability, reduce the 

height of browse species and stimulate regeneration through sprouting of seeds (Leege 1979; Weaver 

1987 in USDA Forest Service 2011b; Sachro et al. 2005; Van Dyke and Darragh 2007). Fires have also 

been found to increase carrying capacity by creating a mosaic of cover and foraging areas (Martinka 1976 

in USDA Forest Service 2011b). Burning in coniferous forest stands has been shown to increase 

herbaceous forage five-fold in high elevation conifer habitat. In this same study, summer elk carrying 

capacity increased from 8 to 28 elk per 38 square miles, whereas spring grazing potential increased from 

13 to 45 elk per 38 square miles (Sachro et al. 2005). Similarly, burning in shrub and grasslands (up to 

815 acres under alternatives 2 and 3) also increases both production and nutritional quality that benefit 

elk. Van Dyke and Darragh (2006) found that changes in plant community structure, composition and 

diversity, nutritional quality and seasonal availability, all contributed to increased elk use. Finally, because 

both the amount and the nutritional value of forage created would be increased, prescribed fire would 

improve spring forage habitat (Long et al. 2008a, Long et al. 2008b) on transition range and benefit elk 

during calving and nursing periods. 

Mixed Severity Burning

Sites proposed for mixed-severity burning that experience a low- severity burn would be similar to that 

described previously, and result in a reduction in understory cover, and an increase in forage. Those 

portions of the site that experience more intense burning, would have a long-term reduction in hiding and 

thermal cover, due to the overstory mortality and reduction in understory vegetation. Conversely, the 

amount and quality of elk forage that results would be increased. While there would be a stand level 

reduction in cover in fire created openings, the interspersion of forage and hiding cover that would 

develop would enhance landscape level habitat by providing a mosaic of forage and hiding cover 

(Martinka 1976 in USDA Forest Service 2011b). For summer ranges, Thomas (1979) suggests openings 

from 10 to 40 acres are used by elk. It is difficult to predict the interspersion of openings created by 

burning with remaining hiding cover, because 20 percent of each burn unit would remain unburned and 

the size of the openings created would be variable. However, hiding cover would continue to exist within 

lands affected by low severity fire and unburned areas. Consequently, it is expected that many of the 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

456

openings created by mixed-severity burning would be within 500 feet of hiding cover and provide 

increased forage for elk within a few years of treatment. 

Summer Range

Hiding Cover

Table 111 summarizes the effects to elk hiding cover on summer range. Alternative 2 would result in 

removal of 2,875 acres and 1,667 acres of hiding cover on the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool herd units 

respectively, whereas alternative 3 would reduce hiding cover by 731acres in the Beaver Creek unit and 

on 488 acres in the Keep Cool herd unit. Upon implementation neither herd unit would meet Plan 

standard 3 under either alternative. Elk use of the landscape would change as elk seek out places where 

hiding cover remains post-treatment. Elk may be temporarily displaced during harvest and burning 

activities, however PDFs such as limiting harvest to a single drainage at a time are in place that would 

reduce disturbances and displacements. 

Habitat Effectiveness

Changes in habitat effectiveness are displayed in table 112. While alternative 2 would result in a 

temporary ( less than 5 years) increase in new roads on 2.6 miles and alternative 3 on 0.4 miles, both 

alternatives would continue to meet the 50 percent habitat effectiveness score recommended in the 

Montana Elk Logging Study. 

Project operations are likely to re-distribute elk on summer range, although PDFs that limit activity to one 

drainage at a time and maintain all new roads closed to the public would help to reduce impacts. 

Elk Security During Hunting Season

Hiding Cover/Open Road Densities

Table 111 summarizes post-implementation effects to elk security during the hunting season as measured 

by Plan standard 4a. Alternative 2 would result in removal of 2,875 acres and 1,667 acres of elk hiding 

cover within the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool herd units respectively, whereas alternative 3 would reduce 

hiding cover on 731acres of the Beaver Creek unit and 488 acres of the Keep Cool unit. Post 

implementation within the Beaver Creek herd unit, road densities would increase to 1.74 mi/mi2

 under 

alternative 2 and increase to 1.70 mi/mi2

under alternative 3 for up to 5 years. Following implementation 

(up to 5 years), open road densities (including roads open to administration) would go back to the preproject density of 1.69. Also effects to displacement would be reduced because all roads to be constructed 

then obliterated following use would be closed to the public. Open road densities within the Keep Cool 

Unit would be unchanged under both alternatives. 

Elk would be expected to move away from project activities to areas that provide security during the 

hunting season. These are generally large areas that are greater than 0.50 mile from an open road and 

provide some level of cover. Both the amount of hiding cover removed and the spatial arrangement of 

treatment units would result in some displacement of elk. However because treatments would be confined 

to a single drainage at a time, impacts and the time that elk would be displaced would be reduced. 

Hunting Season Elk Security

Because there is no new road construction in existing elk security areas or changes in road management, 

existing security habitat would continue to exist on 26 percent of each herd unit under both alternatives 

(table 112). This is below the 30 percent habitat security recommendation provided by Hillis et al. (1991). 

Harvest and burning would reduce elk hiding cover within security habitat by 1,879 acres (16 percent) 

under alternative 2 and 1,169 acres (10 percent) under alternative 3. Elk would be displaced from areas of 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

457

management activity to more secure areas. However over 86 percent of the hiding cover within security 

habitat would be maintained and effects would be reduced by restricting activities to a single drainage at a 

time. 

Winter Range and Thermal Cover 

Under alternative 2 winter range thermal cover would be reduced on approximately 184 acres of the 

Beaver Creek unit under both alternatives. Within the Keep Cool unit, cover would be reduced by 26 

acres under alternative 2 and by 19 acres under alternative 3. Like the no-action alternative, neither 

alternative would comply with Plan Standard 3. 

Because much of the harvest in the Beaver Creek herd unit occurs in areas with concentrated MPB 

mortality, thermal cover would likely be reduced on much of this acreage in the future under no action. As 

a result, the availability of winter range thermal cover would be similar under all alternatives.

Overall elk thermal cover would be reduced and like alternative 1, both herd units would fall well below 

the 30 percent Forest Plan threshold. Conversely, treatments would improve available forage on lowelevation transition and winter range. As a result, and considering that elk that winter in dryer sites similar 

to the project area have been documented utilizing more open habitats where forage is available (Cook et 

al. 1998; MFWP 2011), it is expected that winter range conditions including both forage and thermal 

cover would be maintained at a level that would sustain elk over the short and long term. 

Forage Availability 

As described above under treatment effects, both burning and harvest are expected to increase available 

forage. Under alternative 2 this would include an increase on over 5,800 acres of the Beaver Creek unit 

(18 percent of the unit) and on 2,700 acres of the Keep Cool herd unit (6 percent of herd unit). Under 

alternative 3, forage would increase on over 4,500 acres (14 percent of the herd unit) of the Beaver Creek 

unit and on approximately 2,000 acres of the Keep Cool unit (5 percent of herd unit). Additionally, both 

alternatives would increase forage on elk summer, transition and winter ranges.

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, treatments proposed under alternative 2 

would affect up to another 15 percent and 5 percent of the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek units 

respectively. Cumulatively, this would affect a total of 43 percent of the Beaver Creek unit and 26 percent 

of the Keep Cool herd unit. Collectively, cumulative effects would reduce hiding cover on up to 

approximately 3,500 acres (5 percent of the existing hiding cover) and reduce winter range thermal cover 

on 235 acres (16 percent) of the total winter range thermal cover within the combined herd units. 

Conversely forage availability would increase on elk summer, winter and transition ranges and both 

alternatives would reduce the risk of stand replacing wildfire.

Changes in cover and forage would affect elk distribution and use of the analysis area, however, 78 

percent of the existing hiding and thermal cover would be unaffected and maintained within all units 

affected by burning. Public access would not increase, habitat effectiveness and elk security would be 

maintained, and year-round forage would be increased. Therefore, it is expected that elk habitat and 

desired elk numbers would be maintained, and there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in 

hiding and thermal cover, as well as reduced forage in areas greater than 500 feet from cover. Forage 

would be improved both in the short and long term, and hiding and thermal cover would be restored on all 

sites treated.
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

458

Alternatives 2 and 3 Conclusions and Determination

Alternative 2

Treatments proposed under alternative 2 would reduce elk hiding and thermal cover in both herd units, 

whereas the amount and distribution of forage would increase. Neither unit would meet Forest Plan 

standard 3 or 4a. Hunting opportunities would be maintained and based on the analysis presented above 

and the following rationale, adequate elk habitat would continue to be available within both units to 

support desired levels of elk.

Implementation would result in both short- and long-term increases in available forage on 

approximately eleven percent of the combined herd units, including increases on summer, transition 

and winter range. The increase in forage is expected to maintain or improve herd health. 

There would be no increase in public access or changes to elk security habitat.

Within the combined herd units approximately 89 percent of the existing hiding cover and 86 percent 

of the existing thermal cover would be maintained. Cover would continue to be available within and 

adjacent to treatment units and across the landscape. 

Past wildfires have greatly reduced project area elk habitat and much of the remaining habitat is at 

risk. Implementation of alternative 2 would reduce future wildfire risk. 

It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity and insect 

and disease concerns. Due to the predominance of mature forest, limited disturbance and reduced 

forage, some management is necessary to maintain herd health and increase elk populations within 

the elk management unit (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative 

are designed to address these concerns and the long-term benefits associated with the increased forage 

availability and reduced wildfire risk, are believed to outweigh the risks associated with the 

anticipated reduction in cover. 

Alternative 3

Treatments proposed under alternative 3 would reduce elk hiding and thermal cover in both herd units, 

whereas the amount and distribution of forage would increase. Neither unit would meet Forest Plan 

standard 3 or 4a. Hunting opportunities would be maintained and based on the analysis presented above 

and the following rationale, adequate elk habitat would continue to be available within both units to 

support desired levels of elk. 

Implementation would result in both short and long-term increases in available forage on 

approximately eleven percent of the combined herd units, including increases on summer, transition 

and winter range. The increase in forage is expected to maintain or improve herd health. 

There would be no increase in public access or changes to elk security habitat.

Within the combined herd units, approximately 93 percent of the existing hiding cover and 86 percent 

of the existing winter range thermal cover would be maintained. Cover would continue to be available 

within and adjacent to treatment units and across the landscape. 

Past wildfires have greatly reduced project area elk habitat and much of the remaining habitat is at 

risk. Implementation of alternative 3 would reduce future wildfire risk. 

It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity and insect 

and disease concerns. Due to the predominance of mature forest, limited disturbance and reduced 

forage, some management is necessary to maintain herd health and increase elk populations within 

the elk management unit (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative 

are designed to address these concerns and the long-term benefits associated with the increased forage 

availability and reduced wildfire risk, are believed to outweigh the risks associated with the 

anticipated reduction in cover. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

459

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Elk are a management indicator for commonly hunted species; as such they are intended to be a 

bellwether of the effects of management activities on representative wildlife habitats with the objective of 

ensuring that viable populations of existing native and desirable nonnative animal species are maintained. 

Federal laws and direction applicable to management indicator species include the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service Manual, and the Helena National Forest Plan. The NFMA 

requires the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the 

suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives” [16 

USC 1604(g)(3)(B)]. All alternatives are consistent with this requirement. Elk habitat would continue to 

be abundant and well-distributed and species’ viability would be maintained across the Forest. 

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 3: Using the MFWP definition, Forest Plan Standard 3 (Forest 

Plan II/17) requires that elk summer range will be maintained at 50 percent or greater hiding cover. Under 

alternative 1, the Beaver Creek unit would meet plan standard 3 and the Keep Cool Unit would continue 

to fall below plan thresholds. Both action alternatives would remove additional hiding cover and the 

Beaver Creek unit would not meet standard 3 under either alternative, whereas and Keep Cool herd units 

would continue to fall below 50 percent cover. This situation would be addressed in a separate sitespecific Forest Plan amendment. 

Plan standard 3 requires that elk thermal cover be provided on 25 percent of the winter range within each 

herd unit. Both the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek herd units would continue to fall below this 

threshold under all alternatives and thermal cover would be removed under alternatives 2 and 3. This 

situation will be addressed in a separate site-specific Forest Plan amendment.

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 4(a): Forest Plan Standard 4(a) (Forest Plan II/17-18) requires 

that an aggressive road management program be implemented to maintain or improve big game security. 

Specifically, road management will be implemented to at least maintain big game habitat capability and 

hunting opportunity, which is measured by the relationship between hiding cover and open road densities. 

Due to existing high open road densities and reduced levels of hiding cover, alternative 1 would not meet 

Standard 4(a). While open road densities would be unchanged, due to reductions in hiding cover, both 

action alternatives would move further away from the plan threshold. This situation would be addressed 

in a separate site-specific Forest Plan amendment. 

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 4(b): Forest Plan standard 4(b) requires that elk calving 

grounds and nursery areas be closed to motorized vehicles during peak use by elk. This is usually from 

late May through July. If elk calving and nursery areas are identified prior to or during project 

implementation, these areas would be protected under all alternatives.

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 4(c): Forest Plan standard 4(c) (Forest Plan II/18) requires that 

all winter ranges be closed to vehicles between December 1 and May 15. Logging activities would be 

scheduled outside of the winter to address this standard and all alternatives comply with Standard 4(c). 

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 6: Forest Plan standard 6 (Forest Plan II/19 and C/1 - 11) 

requires the recommendations embodied in the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging study (appendix C of 

the Forest Plan) be followed during timber sale and road construction projects. There are a total of eleven 

recommendations some of which have been incorporated as project design features. The following 

describes the project’s consistency with each of the eleven recommendations. 

1. Security during logging operations – All action alternatives are consistent with this 

recommendation. Design elements have been incorporated that confine logging to a single 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

460

drainage at a time to minimize disturbance to elk. Also, logging activities would be

completed in the shortest time frame possible. Use of firearms would be prohibited for 

anyone working within an area closed to the general public. 

2. Redistribution of elk – All action alternatives are consistent with this recommendation which 

requires that timber sales be planned in a manner that does not redistribute elk onto adjacent 

or nearby property. 

3. Traditional home range use by elk – This recommendation is intended to ensure that timber 

harvest and road construction are planned to minimize impacts to elk and elk hunting. All 

action alternatives are consistent with this recommendation since all constructed roads would

be closed to the public during logging operations and decommissioned post-implementation. 

4. Road construction and design – This recommendation is intended to maintain the integrity of 

elk movement patterns and provide security for unimpeded movement. All action alternatives 

are consistent with this recommendation as existing security habitat would be maintained 

under all alternatives. All constructed roads would be closed to the public during 

implementation and decommissioned afterwards. There may be some temporary disruption to 

traditional movement patterns; however, ample blocks of un-roaded areas exist that provide 

alternative travel ways. 

5. Road management – This recommendation is also intended to maintain elk security through 

management of road densities. Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a 

short-term (5 years or less) increase in road density due to construction of roads to be 

obliterated following use. However new roads would not be opened to the public and elk 

security would not change in either herd unit. 

6. Area closures during the hunting season – This recommendation is intended to ensure that 

travel restrictions are carefully considered relative to elk management objectives so that

hunting opportunities aren’t unnecessarily impacted. This recommendation does not apply to 

the Stonewall project. 

7. Clearcuts – This recommendation is intended to ensure that forage produced through clearcutting is available to elk. The action alternatives are consistent with these considerations 

since slash clean up inside clearcuts would be reduced to less than 1.5 feet and all new roads 

would be closed to the public. Also, with implementation of buffers and project design 

features, openings would be less than 100 acres. 

8. Cover type – This recommendation is intended to ensure that cover types, important to elk, 

are considered during planning and implementation of silvicultural practices. The action 

alternatives are consistent with this recommendation since cover type data is available 

Forestwide (via R1-VMap) and was used to identify and assess cover and forage. 

9. Moist sites – This recommendation is intended to ensure that the integrity of moist sites is 

maintained since these areas comprise important components of elk habitat. All action 

alternatives are consistent with this recommendation and wetlands, riparian areas, and elk 

wallows would be buffered and protected during implementation. 

10. Elk/cattle relationships – This recommendation is intended to ensure that forage may be 

created as a result of timber harvest remain available to elk. All action alternatives are 

consistent with this as grazing patterns or use would be modified if necessary to protect 

highly preferred forage species. 

11. Winter range – This recommendation states that timbered areas adjacent to primary winter 

foraging areas should be managed to maintain the integrity of cover, and timber harvest 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

461

should be scheduled outside of the winter period. All action alternatives are consistent with 

this recommendation since there would be no winter logging in elk winter range and forested 

areas would remain adjacent to forage areas following treatment (figure 79). 

Figure 79. Elk cover and forage within elk winter range and associated treatment areas
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

462

Management Areas. There are six Management Areas within the project area; of those, the Stonewall 

project contains five Management Areas that have direction relevant to elk habitat:

Management Area T-1 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat - All 

roads to be constructed would be closed to public use and obliterated following implementation. 

Prescribed fire goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas – Elk hiding cover is 

provided on 2,151 acres or 80 percent of MA T-1 whereas elk thermal cover occurs on 315 acres or 11 

percent of the management area. Within this management area, elk hiding and thermal cover would be 

reduced by up to 426 acres and 86 acres respectively, whereas forage would be increased on up to 752 

acres. Considering that cover would be maintained in all units affected by burning, that INFISH buffers 

and PDF’s would maintain a cover component within all units, and that unaffected cover would be 

maintained adjacent to treatment units, both alternatives would increase forage, while maintaining 

adequate cover adjacent to foraging areas. As a result it is expected that forage and cover would be 

maintained at a level that would sustain elk over the short and long term (figure 80).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

463

Figure 80. Elk thermal and hiding cover and proposed treatments in management area T-1 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

464

Management Area T-2 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

roads to be constructed would be closed to public use and obliterated following implementation. 

Prescribed fire goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas. Generally this means 

providing 25 percent thermal cover on identified winter range – Elk hiding cover is provided on 1,441 

acres or 87 percent of MA T-2, whereas winter range thermal cover occurs on 251 acres or 14 percent of 

the winter range. Elk hiding and winter range thermal cover would be reduced by up to 821 acres and 

138 acres respectively, whereas forage would be increased on up to 972 acres. Due to the natural 

fragmentation and open stand conditions that characterize the project area, management area T-2 winter 

range does not currently provide 25 percent thermal cover. Both action alternatives would increase forage 

availability, but would also move further away from Forest Plan thermal cover thresholds. This situation 

will be addressed in a separate site-specific Forest Plan amendment. 

Openings created by timber harvest should meet hiding cover requirements of big game before 

adjacent areas can be harvested – There are treatment units next to existing plantations that currently do 

not provide hiding cover. Prior to implementation, these plantations would be evaluated in order to 

determine their current contribution to hiding cover. If they do not meet hiding cover definitions, then 

buffers would be retained between those areas in order to provide some level of cover between past and 

proposed treatment units. Buffers would be at least 200 feet wide, although they may be wider if field 

data indicates that this is necessary.

Management Area T-3 

Maintain 50 percent hiding cover (MFWP definition)for big game – There are currently 4,840 acres of 

big game hiding cover. While the action alternatives would reduce existing hiding cover by up to 854 

acres, hiding cover would be retained on over 82 percent of the lands within management area T-3 under 

both alternatives. 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

new roads would be closed to public use and decommissioned following implementation. Prescribed fire 

goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage area – Elk hiding cover is 

provided on 4,840 acres or 86 percent of MA T-3, whereas elk thermal cover occurs on 957 acres or 17 

percent. Within this management area, elk hiding and thermal cover would be reduced by up to 854 acres 

and 67 acres respectively, whereas forage would be increased on approximately 1,621 acres. Cover would 

be maintained in all units affected by burning, INFISH buffers and PDFs would maintain a cover 

component within all units, and unaffected cover would be maintained adjacent to treatment units;

therefore, both action alternatives would increase forage while maintaining adequate cover adjacent to 

foraging areas. As a result, it is expected that forage and cover would be maintained at a level that would 

sustain elk over the short and long term (figure 81).

Openings created by timber harvest should meet hiding cover requirements of big game before 

adjacent areas can be harvested – There are treatment units next to existing plantations that currently do 

not provide hiding cover. Prior to implementation, these plantations would be surveyed in order to 

determine their current contribution to hiding cover. If they do not meet hiding cover definitions (i.e. 

ability to hide 90 percent of an elk at 200 feet), then buffers would be retained between those areas in 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

465

order to provide some level of cover between past and proposed treatment units. Buffers would be at least 

200 feet wide (based on the hiding cover definition), although they may be wider if field data indicate that 

this is necessary.

Figure 81. Elk thermal cover, hiding cover and proposed treatments in MA T-3 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

466

Management Area T-4 

Where elk habitat exists, project design will incorporate management practices to maintain or 

enhance summer and winter habitat – Proposed actions under both alternatives are designed to improve 

forage on summer and winter habitat. Also there would be no new roads open to public access and project 

design features are in place that restrict harvest during the winter season and calving season, as well as 

retain cover within regeneration units if necessary. 

Management Area W-1 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

roads to be constructed would be closed to public use and obliterated following implementation. 

Prescribed fire goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas – Elk hiding cover is 

provided on 3,452 acres or 74 percent of MA W-1, whereas elk thermal cover occurs on 493 acres or 11 

percent. Within this management area, elk hiding and thermal cover would be reduced by up to 193 acres 

and 23 acres respectively, whereas forage would be increased on approximately 1,219 acres. Cover would 

be maintained in all units affected by burning, INFISH buffers and PDF’s would maintain a cover 

component within all units, and unaffected cover would be maintained adjacent to treatment units. Both 

action alternatives would increase forage, while maintaining adequate cover adjacent to foraging areas. As 

a result, it is expected that forage and cover would be maintained at a level that would sustain elk over the 

short and long term (figure 82
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

467

Figure 82. Elk cover and proposed treatments in management area W-1
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

468

Mule Deer

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Untreated portions of the project area would continue to progress through succession regardless of the 

alternative. Disturbance processes including climate change, insect infestations, disease, and fire would 

continue to influence the project area. At any given time, the project area would comprise a variety of 

successional stages. Hiding and thermal cover would continue to be reduced by mountain pine beetlerelated mortality. 

No designated old growth would be affected under any action alternative. Old-growth stands provide both 

thermal benefits and snow interception because of their structure and canopy cover (Kirchhoff and 

Schoen 1987). As a result, deer expend less energy travelling through shallower snow in these stands and 

they find more rooted forage that remains snow free (Parker et al. 1984) 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no activities proposed under this alternative, so there are no direct effects anticipated to mule 

deer. Indirect effects to habitat are similar to those described for elk. Decades of fire suppression have 

resulted in increased stocking and closed canopied mature forest with reduced levels of forage and 

increased cover (Hayden et al. 2008). However more recently MPB mortality has opened up the forest 

canopy across the project area, reducing cover on summer, transition and winter range. While forage has 

increased due to understory development, use of many areas would be expected to be reduced in the 

future due to the large amount of downed woody debris (Hayden et al. 2008) and understory conifer. In 

areas unaffected by mortality, deer cover and forage availability would be unchanged. 

Deer benefit most when there is a mosaic of conditions across the landscape including areas of forage, 

escape and hiding cover and travel corridors away from roads and trails (Hayden et al. 2008). Forage 

availability and species diversity would continue to decline or remain low because the landscape would 

continue to be dominated by homogeneous mature forest conditions, including encroachment of conifer 

into aspen and mountain shrub communities. 

As described under elk, hiding cover has been reduced in some areas due to MPB mortality, and this trend 

is expected to continue for the next 10 to 20 years. While hiding cover is fairly well distributed across the 

project area (figure 75), thermal cover is low due to both MPB mortality and the open stand conditions 

that are characteristic of lower elevation ponderosa pine. Human access would be unchanged, and there 

are no anticipated changes in hunting-related mortality or nonhunting disturbance. 

Should future wildfire occur, there would be a decrease in cover and a corresponding increase in forage, 

although benefits to deer would vary. For example, forage created on larger wildfires (such as the Snow 

Talon fire) would be less available, due to the large reduction in cover. Consequently smaller fires that 

have a better interspersion of cover and forage would provide more immediate benefit to both elk and 

deer. Due to continued fire suppression and elevated levels of fuels, the risk of larger, high intensity 

wildfire would be greatest under this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to mule deer are evaluated across the project area. Anticipated cumulative effects are 

in volume 2, appendix C. Effects include continued grazing on approximately 5,100 acres, campground 

rehabilitation, almost 300 acres of NNIS treatment, 309 acres of hazard tree removal, fire wood 

collection, stream habitat improvement, and approximately 5 miles of trail maintenance/reconstruction. In 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

469

total, approximately 4,100 acres or 17 percent of the analysis area would be affected. Streamside 

improvement, campground rehabilitation and trail work is expected to result in short-term disturbance 

during treatment and localized changes in habitat, although overall mule deer habitat would remain 

largely unchanged. Treatments that might result in long-term changes in habitat include NNIS treatment, 

hazard tree removal, firewood collection and wildfire (since 2011), which are displayed in the following 

table. 

Table 115. Alternative 1 mule deer cumulative effects

Activity Total Acres 

Affected 

Hiding Cover 

Affected (acres)

Thermal Cover 

Affected (acres)

Grazing 5,172 4,204 805

Hazard Tree Removal 309 232 8 

NNIS Treatment 292 189 20

Wildfire 10 9 0 

Effects on grazing and NNIS treatment are expected to be similar to those described under elk, and while 

there would be localized reductions in forage, existing cover and forage would be maintained. As a result, 

and based on past use, effects from grazing would remain largely unchanged. Also, over the long term, 

NNIS treatment would be expected to help maintain native mule deer forage.

Mule deer hiding and thermal cover would be reduced on 241 acres and 8 acres, respectively, due to 

hazard tree removal and wildfire and there would also be a localized reduction in cover in areas with 

concentrated MPB mortality. Firewood collection along open roads would continue, although there would 

be little changes in cover and forage. So while there would be localized changes in available habitat, mule 

deer cover and forage would be largely unchanged and continue to be available across the landscape. As a 

result there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a continued 

reduction in deer forage. 

Alternative 1 Determination and Conclusions

Deer cover on winter, transition and summer ranges would be altered due to continued MPB mortality. 

Forage availability would increase somewhat but would continue to remain low, and over the long-term, 

herd health would not be expected to improve. Adequate forage and cover would continue to be available 

to support existing populations and maintain hunting opportunities. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

As described under affected environment, the entire project area is considered deer habitat. Hiding cover 

occurs on approximately 19,000 acres or 79 percent of the project area, whereas winter range thermal 

cover occurs on approximately 500 acres. Treatments proposed under the action alternatives within deer 

hiding and thermal cover are displayed in table 116. Effects of the different treatments on cover are 

similar to those described previously for elk. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

470

Table 116. Treatments within deer hiding cover by alternative

Deer Hiding Cover Treated Deer Winter Range Thermal Cover 

Treated

Treatment

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres %1 Acres %1 Acres %1 Acres %1

Intermediate Harvest3 1,711 9 806 4 56 11 59 12

Regeneration Harvest3 847 4 723 3 0 0 0 0 

Low Intensity Burn2 314 3 734 5 20 4 20 4 

Jackpot Burn 0 0 321 2 0 0 0 0 

Mixed Severity Burn2,4 3,351 22 1,999 13 144 29 75 15

Total 6,223 33 4,583 24 220 44 154 31

Reduction in Cover 3,395 18 2,029 11 92 19 78 16

1 – percent of available cover. 2

 – Assumes 20 percent of the site would be unburned 3

 – Cover would be reduced on the acres affected 4

 – Cover would be reduced on lands affected by high intensity fire or 25 percent of acres affected

Direct and Indirect Effects

Anticipated direct effects of proposed treatments are discussed in section 4.3.2. Effects are expected to be 

similar to those described for elk, although deer are evaluated across the project area. Deer are highly 

mobile and there is no mortality anticipated. Effects are expected to largely involve short-term behavioral 

avoidance during treatment. However it may take 5 to 10 years to complete all proposed burning. Also 

due to the interspersion of unburned areas, INFISH buffers, and with implementation of PDFs that retain 

cover near treatment areas, adequate cover and forage would continue to exist to accommodate any 

displaced animals. 

Cover

Indirect effects are discussed under section 4.3.2 and changes in habitat conditions mimic those discussed 

for elk. Deer hiding cover would be reduced by 3,395 acres under alternative 2 and 2,029 acres under 

alternative 3, whereas winter range thermal cover would be reduced by 92 acres and 78 acres under 

alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. Effects would vary by treatment type. The reduction in overstory cover 

on lands affected by regeneration harvest and intermediate harvest would reduce cover on the lands 

affected, whereas openings created by mixed-severity fire would also reduce cover. There would some 

overstory mortality associated with low severity burning and most of the mixed severity fire; however, 

this would be widely scattered and the overstory would remain intact. Low severity burning would also 

reduce understory cover; however, considering that 20 percent of all burn units would be untreated, 

project design features include retention of downed wood and shrubs, and riparian buffers would be left 

largely unchanged, some cover would be retained in all units. As a result, treatment areas are interspersed 

with un-treated lands, and cover would continue to be available within and adjacent to treatment sites and 

adjacent to forage areas. 

Forage

As described under treatment effects, proposed regeneration harvest, intermediate treatments and burning 

are expected to increase available deer forage, including increases on summer, transition and winter 

ranges. For example, in ponderosa pine stands that typically occur at lower elevations on winter ranges, 

vegetation and forage can increase from near zero on closed-canopy stands to greater than 678 pounds per 

acre in stands with open canopies (Regelin and Wallmo 1978). Research noted forage production more 

than doubled in subalpine fir stands that were regenerated, and deer spent 72 percent of their foraging 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

471

time in clearcut areas (Regelin and Wallmo 1978). These benefits continued over the long term and forage 

availability within regenerated stands was still 13 to 36 percent greater 18 to 20 years after harvest. 

(Wallmo et al. 1972; Collins and Urness 1983 in Hayden et al. 2008). Like elk, forage availability for deer 

depends on the proximity of the created forage to cover, and Hayden et al. (2008) suggests that deer 

forage should be within 600 feet of cover. As a result, changes in forage would be expected to be similar 

to those discussed under elk. Forage would be immediately available in many units due to the cover 

retained in unburned portions of all burn units, INFISH buffers and adjacent untreated stands, whereas 

over the long-term, forage would increase within all treatment acres. In addition to increasing the amount 

of forage available, proposed burning would also increase palatability and use. For example, while 

preferences vary seasonally, deer often prefer to forage in burned vs. unburned areas, which indicates that 

an increase in plant nutrients and/or preference usually occurs following fire. Gruell (1986 in USDA 

Forest Service 2011b) found that surface fires of moderate intensity following thinning and selection cuts 

can improve Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine forests for mule deer by promoting regeneration of crownsprouting shrubs and preparing the seedbed for herbs and shrubs. Hobbs and Spoward (1984) found that 

prescribed burning elevated the concentration of protein and digestible matter in winter diets of mule deer 

feeding in grassland and mountain shrub communities. They also found that effects of fire on diet quality 

resulted from changes in the increased availability of species and diet selection rather than improvement 

in individual species. Differences in the amount of green grass accounted for much of the enhancement in 

diet quality and they concluded that prescribed fire can improve winter habitat for mule deer. 

The size of openings created by burning is also a consideration. Hayden et al. (2008) recommend 

maintaining or improving a matrix of forage conditions across the landscape with emphasis on increasing 

the variety of forage plants available and a mixture of shrub age classes. They also recommend that small 

openings— preferably less than 50 acres on summer range and less than 10 acres of winter range—be 

encouraged or maintained. Because most of the burning within deer winter range would be low-severity 

burning or mixed-severity burning that creates openings less than 10 acres in size, these winter range 

recommendations would be largely achieved under both action alternatives. Similarly, while there may be 

an occasional opening that reaches 75 acres in size in summer range, most mixed severity openings are 

expected to be at or below 50 acres. Finally, because proposed treatments would maintain or promote 

aspen, as well as increase herbaceous vegetation and shrubs, both alternatives would increase forage 

diversity across the landscape. 

While both alternatives propose roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, 

because these roads would be closed to public use during implementation and restored following 

treatments, any road-related impacts would be short term (see section 4.3.2). All roads to be built then 

obliterated immediately following timber removal occur in areas that are already roaded and open to the 

public, therefore, human access would be largely unchanged and there are no anticipated increases in 

hunting-related mortality, road related disturbance or long-term human access. 

In summary, while there would be changes in deer cover and forage, when viewed across the landscape, 

both action alternatives would create a mosaic of cover and forage conditions that are preferred by deer. 

Additionally, both alternatives would improve forage conditions on summer, winter and transition ranges 

while maintaining cover over the short and long-term. Collectively, treatments proposed under either 

action alternative would be expected to maintain deer numbers over the short term and increase herd 

health over the long term. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to cumulative effects described under alternative 1, treatments proposed would affect up to 

(alternative 2) another 6,223 acres of hiding cover and 220 acres of winter range thermal cover. While 

hiding and winter range thermal cover would be reduced, cover would continue to be available within and 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

472

adjacent to treatment units, as well as adjacent to available forage. There would also be a reduction in 

future cover in areas of concentrated MPB mortality as dead and dying trees fall to the ground. Proposed 

treatments would increase forage availability on over 7,000 acres of deer summer, winter and transition 

ranges (alternative 2). 

The changes in cover and forage would affect deer distribution and use. However, considering that 

existing uses are not expected to change; many ongoing and future activities would result in short-term 

disturbance (See alternative 1); treatment would be restricted to a single drainage at a time and unaffected 

lands would continue to be available to accommodate any displaced animals; and deer cover and forage 

would continue to be available within affected drainages and across the landscape, there are no significant 

cumulative effects anticipated. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible commitments anticipated. Irretrievable commitments include a reduction in 

hiding and thermal cover, as well as reduced forage greater than 500 feet from cover; however, forage 

would be improved both in the short and long term, and hiding and thermal cover would be restored on all 

sites treated.

Determination and Conclusions

Treatments proposed under alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce deer hiding and thermal cover and increase 

deer forage. Based on the analysis presented previously and the following rationale, adequate cover would 

continue to be available to support existing populations, whereas foraging availability would increase 

over the short and long term. Hunting opportunities would be maintained. 

Implementation would result in both short- and long-term increases in the availability and diversity of 

forage on summer, transition and winter range, which are expected to result in a long-term increase in 

herd health. 

Over 82 percent of existing hiding cover and 95 percent of existing winter range thermal cover would 

be maintained and cover would continue to be available across the landscape and adjacent to forage 

areas.

Existing hunter access would be unchanged. 

Implementation would reduce wildfire risk and restore fire to the landscape. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Mule deer habitat would remain relatively unchanged under alternative 1. While the action alternatives 

would reduce deer cover, short- and long-term forage would be improved. Suitable deer cover would 

continue to be available. All alternatives are in compliance with Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) 

direction to maintain and improve habitat over time to support big game and other wildlife (II-1), develop 

and implement a road management program with road use and travel restrictions that are responsive to 

resource protection needs (p. II/2), and ensure that viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative species are maintained (p. II/17). All alternatives are consistent with National Forest 

Management Act requirements to provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 

1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR 219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. 

Compliance with Forest Plan Standard 8 

Forest Plan standard 8 (Forest Plan II/19) requires that any proposed sagebrush reduction programs will 

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for possible impacts on big game winter range. The action 

alternatives have been analyzed to determine the impacts of prescribed burning in sagebrush (See section 

4.55). The analysis has indicated that although some sagebrush would be removed through burning, a 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

473

sagebrush component would be retained on all sites. Also over the long-term sagebrush vigor and forage 

quality would be improved and, as such, beneficial to mule deer. 

Management Areas 

There are six Management Areas within the project area; of those, three Management Areas contain 

direction relevant to mule deer habitat:

Management Area T-1 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat - All 

roads to be constructed would be closed to public use and obliterated following implementation. 

Prescribed fire goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas – Deer hiding cover and 

thermal cover is provided in 2,141 acres and 314 acres of the T-3 management area respectively. Hiding 

cover would be reduced on up to 608 acres and thermal cover reduced on up to 87 acres; however cover 

would be maintained in all units affected by burning, INFISH buffers and PDF’s would maintain a cover 

component within all units, unaffected cover would be maintained adjacent to treatment units, and forage 

would increase on all treatment units. Therefore, both alternatives maintain adequate cover adjacent to 

foraging areas.

Management Area T-2 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

new roads would be closed to public use and decommissioned following implementation. Prescribed fire 

goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges.

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas. Generally this means 

providing 25 percent thermal cover on identified winter range – Winter range thermal cover is 

provided on 78 acres of 12 percent of the management area winter range. Due to the natural fragmentation 

and open stand conditions that characterize the project area, management area T-2 winter range does not 

currently provide 25 percent thermal cover. Both action alternatives would reduce winter range thermal 

cover by up to 56 acres and move further away from Forest Plan thresholds. This situation will be 

addressed in a separate site-specific Forest Plan amendment.

Openings created by timber harvest should meet hiding cover requirements of big game before

adjacent areas can be harvested – There are treatment units next to existing plantations that currently do 

not provide hiding cover. Prior to implementation, these plantations would be evaluated in order to 

determine their current contribution to hiding cover. If they do not meet hiding cover definitions, then 

buffers would be retained between those areas in order to provide some level of cover between past and 

proposed treatment units. Buffers would be at least 200 feet wide (based on the hiding cover definition), 

although they may be wider if field data indicates that this is necessary.

Management Area T-3 

Maintain 50 percent hiding cover (MFWP definition) for big game – There are currently 4,840 acres 

(74 percent of the management area) of big game hiding cover. While the action alternatives would 

reduce existing hiding cover by up to 853acres, hiding cover would be retained on over 82 percent of the 

lands within management area T-3. 
Wildlife – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

474

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

new roads would be closed to public use and decommissioned following implementation. Prescribed fire 

goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas – Deer hiding cover and 

thermal cover is provided on 4,840 acres and 903 acres of the T-3 management area respectively. Hiding 

cover would be reduced on up to 853 acres and thermal cover reduced on up to 67 acres. Considering that 

cover would be maintained in all units affected by burning, INFISH buffers and PDF’s would maintain a 

cover component within all units, unaffected cover would be maintained adjacent to treatment units, and 

forage would increase on all treatment units, both alternatives maintain adequate cover adjacent to 

foraging areas.

Openings created by timber harvest should meet hiding cover requirements of big game before 

adjacent areas can be harvested – There are treatment units next to existing plantations that currently do 

not provide hiding cover. Prior to implementation, these plantations would be evaluated in order to 

determine their current contribution to hiding cover. If they do not meet hiding cover definitions, then 

buffers would be retained between those areas in order to provide some level of cover between past and 

proposed treatment units. Buffers would be at least 200 feet wide, although they may be wider if field 

data indicate that this is necessary.

Management Area W-1 

Wildlife habitat improvement practices, including road management, prescribed fire and other 

techniques, may be used to maintain and/or enhance the quality of big game winter habitat – All 

new roads would be closed to public use and decommissioned following implementation. Prescribed fire 

goals include improving forage diversity and production in big game winter ranges. 

Maintain adequate thermal cover and hiding cover adjacent to forage areas – Deer hiding cover and 

thermal cover is provided on 3,452 acres and 494 acres of the W-1 management area respectively. Hiding 

and thermal cover would be reduced by burning on up to 193 acres and 23 acres respectively. However, 

considering that at least 20 percent of all burn units would be unaffected, INFISH buffers and PDF’s 

would maintain a cover component within burned areas, unaffected cover would be maintained adjacent 

to treatment units, and forage would increase on lands treated, both alternatives maintain adequate cover 

adjacent to foraging areas.

Migratory Birds

As described under methodology, effects to migratory birds are addressed in the species and habitat 

sections of this analysis, in combination with analysis of threatened, endangered, sensitive birds and bird 

species of conservation concern. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act identifies key principles and directs the Forest Service 

to (1) focus on bird populations; (2) focus on habitat restoration and enhancement where actions can 

benefit specific ecosystems and migratory birds dependent on them; (3) recognize that actions taken to 

benefit some migratory bird populations may adversely affect other migratory bird populations; and (4) 

recognize that actions that may provide long-term benefits to migratory birds may have short-term 

impacts on individual birds. The parties agreed that through the NEPA process, the Forest Service would 

evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management 

concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. 

Migratory birds and their habitats including species with viability concern (TES) and priority species are 

evaluated in the habitat and species-specific sections. Alternative 1 would maintain habitat over the short 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Wildlife

475

term, whereas alternatives 2 and 3 would help to restore declining habitats while maintaining diverse 

habitat conditions across the landscape. As a result, habitat for migratory birds would be maintained or 

improved under all alternatives. Also, local populations of all species that currently utilize the project area 

are expected to be maintained. The action alternatives focus on habitat restoration, and include project 

design features that are expected to reduce impacts to migratory birds, therefore, all alternatives are in 

compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Plants 

Introduction

There are no threatened, endangered or proposed plant species known to occur on the Helena National 

Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b). Therefore, this section is limited to analyzing Region 

1(R1) sensitive species and their habitats. 

Sensitive species are species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is 

currently of concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population 

numbers or density, or by significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that 

would reduce a species’ existing distribution (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Forest Service has 

established direction in Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Management (FSM 2600, USDA Forest Service 2005)) to guide habitat management for proposed, 

endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species. This direction establishes the process, objectives, and 

standards for conducting a biological evaluation, and ensures that these species receive full consideration 

in the decision making process. The Botany Report and Biological Evaluation (Englebert 2012) 

incorporated all the information required for a biological evaluation. 

Nine sensitive plant species are known to occur on or very near the Helena National Forest. An additional 

12 species are suspected to occur on the Forest. Those 21 species are identified in table 117, along with 

the likelihood of occurrence. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is the only sensitive species found in the 

project area. The species listed as ‘possible’ in the project area may have habitat within the project area.

Only those listed as ‘known to occur’ or ‘possible occurrence’ are carried forward in this analysis. The 

remaining species do not have habitat in the project area and therefore no impacts to those species from 

this project are expected. 

Table 117. Region 1 sensitive plant species that occur or may occur on the Helena National Forest

SPECIES 

(FAMILY) 

COMMON NAME

KNOWN TO 

OCCUR ON 

HELENA 

NATIONAL 

FOREST 

KNOWN TO 

OCCUR IN 

STONEWALL 

PROJECT 

AREA

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN 

STONEWALL PROJECT AREA 

Amerorchis rotundifolia (Orchidaceae)

Roundleaf orchid No No

Possible – Known from the 

Rocky Mtn. Front and the NW 

corner of Montana in spruce 

forests along seeps and streams

Aquilegia brevistyla (Ranunculaceae)

Smallflower columbine No No

Unlikely – In Montana, it is known 

only from the Little Belt Mts in

open woods and stream banks at 

mid-elevations in the montane 

zone.

Astragalus lackschewitzii (Fabaceae)

Lackschewitz’s milkvetch No No

Unlikely – Restricted to high 

elevation gravelly and rocky 

slopes and ridges, this species’