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’ 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

476

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 

habitat is not generally subject to 

human disturbance

Botrychium crenulatum

(Ophioglossaceae)

Scalloped moonwort

No No

Possible – Known from the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest and in western Montana, it 

generally occurs in wet habitats 

with high cover. 

Botrychium paradoxum 

(Ophioglossaceae)

Peculiar moonwort

Yes No

Possible – This diminutive 

species is known from the 

Occidental Plateau, and near 

Irish Mine Hill. On the Helena NF 

populations are in 

sagebrush/rough fescue and 

rough fescue, however other 

populations have been 

documented from mesic 

meadows associated with spruce 

and lodgepole pine forests in 

montane and subalpine (MNHP 

2007)

Cypripedium parviflorum (Orchidaceae)

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper Yes No

Possible -- Known from Divide 

landscape in fens, damp mossy 

woods, seepage area, and moist 

forest-meadow ecotone, in 

valleys & lower montane. 

Cypripedium passerinum (Orchidaceae)

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper No No

Possible – This orchid is found 

in mossy, moist, or seepy places 

in coniferous forest; in 

northwestern Montana including 

Glacier NP.

Drosera anglica

(Droseraceae)

English sundew

Yes No

Unlikely – Known from Indian 

Meadows, this species occurs 

with sphagnum moss in wet, 

organic soils of fens. Habitat is 

specialized.

Drosera linearis

(Droseraceae)

Slenderleaf sundew

Yes No

Unlikely – Known from Indian 

Meadows, in wet, organic soil of 

nutrient-poor fens

Epipactis gigantea

(Orchidaceae)

Stream orchid

No No

Unlikely – This species is 

associated with seeps and 

springs, often thermal.

Goodyera repens

(Orchidaceae)

Lesser rattlesnake plantain

No No

Unlikely –In Montana, it is known 

from the Little Belt and Big 

Snowy Mts. in moist, montane 

forests with mossy understory.

Grindelia howellii 

(Asteraceae) 

Howell’s gumweed

No No

Possible –This species is an 

endemic known only from a 

cluster of sites northeast of 

Missoula, and a single county in 

Idaho.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

477

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 

Juncus hallii 

(Juncaceae)

Hall’s rush

Yes No

Possible—Several populations 

occur on the Forest in the Big 

Belts and the Divide area. Moist 

to wet meadows,

Oxytropis podocarpa

(Fabaceae)

Stalkpod locoweed

No No Unlikely – Habitat for this species 

is in the alpine zone.

Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis (Phlox 

missoulensis )

(Polemoniaceae)

Missoula phlox

Yes No

Possible – It is known from east 

of the analysis area; habitat is 

rough fescue meadow, exposed, 

limestone-derived slopes in 

foothills and montane. 

Pinus albicaulis

(Pinaceae) 

Whitebark pine

Yes Yes

Known to occur- This species is 

known to occur in almost all 

major mountain ranges of 

western and central Montana. In 

the project area it is known to be 

a component of several of the 

treatment units.

Polygonum douglasii ssp. austinae 

(Polygonaceae)

Austin knotweed

Yes No

Unlikely—This taxon is known 

from the Big Belts in open 

gravelly shale-derived soil of 

eroding slopes/banks or usually 

moist, barren shale slopes.

Saxifraga tempestiva (Saxifragaceae)

Storm saxifrage No No

Unlikely – This species is a 

Montana endemic known only 

from vernally moist open sites 

and rock ledges at high 

elevations, west of Continental 

Divide.

Schoenoplectus subterminalis

(Cyperaceae)

Swaying bulrush

Yes No

Unlikely – This species is known

from Indian Meadows, and sites 

in the NW primarily west of 

Continental Divide in open water 

and boggy margins of ponds, 

lakes, and sloughs.

Thalictrum alpinum

(Ranunculaceae)

Alpine meadow-rue 

No No

Unlikely – In Montana, this 

species is known from sites in the 

SW corner, in moist alkaline 

meadows.

Veratrum californicum

(Liliaceae)

California false hellebore

No No Unlikely – In Montana it is known 

from 4 sites in Bitterroot Valley 

Methodology

The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) (2010) maintains a statewide database for sensitive 

species. Data from the MTNHP was applied to known sensitive plant populations in the project area. 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

478

Ground reconnaissance was conducted by Forest Service personnel in representative habitats within the 

project area. Field reconnaissance was conducted throughout the project area, with focus on moist and 

wetland habitats associated with timber harvest proposals. Those habitats support several sensitive species 

(USDA Forest Service 1998) and have the highest potential for sensitive plant populations. Wetlands 

throughout the project area were delineated and no sensitive plant populations were found. Field notes 

and GPS locations to represent specific field locations can be found in the project record. 

Past surveys by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, botanical surveys from the Indian Meadows 

Research Natural Area as well as past surveys by Forest Service personnel were the focus for the current 

survey work (Olsen 2010). 

In 2005, Cooper and others conducted inventories searching for sensitive vascular plants as well as 

riparian and wetland associated plant communities in the area of the Snow Talon fire and areas to the west 

of the fire, which included the Stonewall Project area. No sensitive plant populations were found in this 

survey. Those survey records can be found in the project record. Barton and Crispin (2002) completed 

surveys across the Helena National Forest in 2002. The purpose of the surveys was to locate sensitive 

plant populations in association with noxious weed populations, primarily along roadsides. Some of the 

roads in the project area were surveyed. No sensitive plant populations were found in this area during 

those surveys. 

Whitebark pine was added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List in 2011(Weldon 2011a), so 

was not included as a sensitive species in the previous surveys. Stand exam data for the project area 

indicate that it is present in several of the prescribed fire treatment units and it is also present in other 

units as an “occasional” component (Amell 2012, Milburn et al. 2009). 

The methodology used in this analysis includes the best available science gathered from inventory data as 

well as several geospatial layers using known sensitive plant populations to predict sensitive plant habitat. 

The specific layers used include the Montana Natural Heritage Program data on sensitive species, the 

Helena National Forest Soil Survey, digital elevation models, information and experiences from past 

surveys, personal ground reconnaissance of the project area by Forest Service personnel along with field 

crew surveys in areas identified as potential habitat. 

Assumptions

The following assumptions were used: 

Species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List that occur on, or are suspected to occur 

on the Helena National Forest have been identified. 

Geospatial systems combined with habitat information, on-the-ground experience and past 

surveys is useful to screen areas of low probability of species occurrence. 

Reconnaissance of representative habitats is appropriate to determine the presence of sensitive 

plant populations. 

Known habitats need to be specifically identified and surveyed in the field. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Direct effects are those that occur at the same time and place of the proposed actions. Indirect effects are 

those effects that may occur along roads and stands adjacent to proposed treatments. The cumulative 

effects analysis area for sensitive plant species is the Stonewall Project area. For the herbaceous sensitive 

species this analysis is bounded in time by 10 years past and 10 years into the future, which allows for an 

adequate length of time to record vegetative changes. The analysis for whitebark pine however requires a 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

479

much greater temporal bounding; please see the Vegetation Section for details of the whitebark pine 

analysis.

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 

The following indicators were used to measure the differences between alternatives:

For whitebark pine we looked at the total acres proposed for treatment in units in which 

whitebark pine has been identified. 

Because sensitive species habitat can be degraded by noxious weed infestations, we looked at the 

estimated acres of potential noxious weed infestation due to proposed activities. 

In addition, effects that cannot be easily quantified are described qualitatively. Impacts to 

sensitive plant species may be direct impacts, such as trampling, defoliation, and mechanical 

damage; or the impacts may be more indirect such as a change in the microclimate or a change in 

species composition, both of which may result in a loss of habitat. In general, direct impacts are 

short-term impacts, occurring immediately, while indirect impacts such as changes to the habitat 

occur over a longer timeframe.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Whitebark pine is the only sensitive species known to occur in the project area, and is carried forward in 

this analysis. None of the eight species identified as possibly occurring in the project area were located 

during survey work to date. Additional rationale for carrying these species forward in this analysis 

includes (Olsen 2010): 

Roundleaf orchid has not been found on the Helena National Forest, but is known from the Rocky 

Mountain Front, north of the Blackfoot landscape area. Habitat may exist in the wetter parts of 

the project area.

Scalloped moonwort is known from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, immediately 

adjacent to the Helena National Forest adjacent to the Divide landscape area. This species has not 

been found to date on the Helena National Forest. Habitat may exist in the project area for this 

species along stream bottoms, around seeps, on the edges of marshes, and in wet roadside swales.

Peculiar moonwort is known from two populations on the Helena National Forest, both in the 

Divide landscape area. Habitat may occur in the project area in mesic meadows.

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper was found at one location within the Helena National Forest 

boundary and at another location just outside the boundary. Neither population has been recently 

documented in additional sensitive plant surveys. The population occurs in the Divide landscape 

area. Habitat may occur in the project area in moist coniferous forests, seepage areas and moist 

ecotones between peatlands and upland forest. 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

480

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper has not been found on the Helena National Forest but is known from 

Glacier Park and northwest Montana. Habitat for this species is the same as that for lesser yellow 

lady’s slipper. 

Howell’s gumweed has not been found on the Helena Forest but is known from an area west of 

the Blackfoot landscape. It may have habitat in the project area in vernally moist, lightly 

disturbed soil adjacent to ponds and marshes, as well as similar human-created habitats such as 

roadsides. 

Hall’s rush has 15 populations Forest-wide. The Montana Heritage database identifies eight 

populations on the Helena National Forest (three of the Heritage Program populations were again 

documented by Helena National Forest survey crews in 2009). Seven new populations were 

found by Helena National Forest survey crews in 2009. The populations occur in the Divide and 

Big Belts landscape areas. This plant may have habitat in the project area in wet to moist 

meadows.

Missoula phlox has been found in each of the four landscape areas of the Forest. The Montana 

Heritage database identifies eight populations on the Helena National Forest. Three new 

populations were located in 2008 and three additional populations were found in 2009 while the 

Forest was validating a model which predicts sensitive plant habitat. Details for field survey areas 

and protocols are available in the project record. There may be habitat for this taxon in the project 

area along wind-swept ridges and forb-dominated meadows. 

Species Unlikely to be Present

All species, except whitebark pine, were included during field surveys, but it was determined that 12 of 

those species are unlikely to occur in the project area (as indicated in table 117). Those 12 species are not 

carried forward in this analysis. The following is additional rationale for the elimination of those species 

(Olsen 2010): 

English sundew, slenderleaf sundew and swaying bulrush are known from the Indian Meadows 

Research Natural Area, which is in the combination boundary but would not be affected by the 

proposed treatments. These species are found in fens, which are very rare and specialized 

habitats. No other fens are known within the project area.

Lackschewitz’s milkvetch, stream orchid, stalkpod locoweed, storm saxifrage, and California 

false hellebore all have very specialized habitat that does not occur in the project area. 

Smallflower columbine, lesser rattlesnake plantain, and alpine meadow-rue are not likely to occur 

in the project area as the known populations are not from this area. These species have not been 

found on the Helena National Forest to date, but the species are searched for in any survey work. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Effects to herbaceous sensitive species from large, stand-replacing fire 

If current management continues (alternative 1), a large stand-replacing fire is a potential reality (Kurtz 

2009). The action alternatives cannot eliminate the potential for a large-scale fire; however, the activities 

proposed are designed to modify fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions 

that allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape, thereby reducing the risk to 

resources in the project area. Thus, while the potential for wildfires is common to all three alternatives, 

there is less risk of effects to herbaceous sensitive species from wildfire under both the action alternatives.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

481

The potential exists for wildfire to have short-term detrimental effects on herbaceous sensitive plant 

habitats, but long-term effects are not anticipated in most cases. However, there has been a dramatic 

increase of severe wildfires in the ponderosa pine type in recent decades where fuels have built up due to 

fire suppression (Agee and Skinner 2005). In these habitats there is potential for long-term damage to 

sensitive plant habitats (Menges and Dolan 1998, Pendergrass et al. 1999). Plant response to fire is a 

result of the interaction between severity of the fire and the individual plant species’ inherent resistance to 

injury and ability to recover (Brown and Kapler Smith 2000). Mortality of herbaceous species is more 

dependent on the length of time plants are exposed to high heat, determined by the amount of duff and 

woody fuel consumed by the fire, than flame length and fire line intensity (Armour et al. 1984). The effect 

of wildfire on herbaceous sensitive plant habitats therefore would depend on the surface fuel conditions. 

The longer fuels build up on the forest floor, the greater the potential damage to herbaceous sensitive 

plant habitats. 

After habitat loss, the spread of invasive species is considered the greatest threat to imperiled species in 

the United States (Sieg et al. 2003). Large stand-replacing fires are known to increase the risk of 

infestation by noxious weeds (D’Antonio 2000). Thus included with the potential for large-scale fire is 

the risk of noxious weed infestation. Of course, fires are not the only cause of weed infestations; any time 

the ground is disturbed (such as with the activities proposed under the action alternatives) there is the 

potential for infestation. Noxious weeds cause habitat degradation because they can out-compete desired 

plant species for water and nutrients. Drift from herbicides sprayed to help control weeds can also have 

detrimental effects to herbaceous sensitive plants. This risk is reduced by adhering to label instructions for 

applying specific herbicides, and by application of project design feature NOX-9 that requires a 100-foot 

buffer around sensitive plant species when applying herbicides. Within this buffer, only hand-pulling of 

weeds would be allowed (USDA Forest Service 2006c, d). 

Effects specific to whitebark pine

Whitebark pine in the Northern Rocky Mountains depends on fire to maintain its dominance or presence 

on sites where it is a successional species (see the Vegetation section). Therefore if a large, standreplacing fire occurs, whitebark pine may benefit because sites suitable for regeneration would be created. 

If, however, no seed source is nearby to facilitate the regeneration, such a fire could largely eliminate this 

sensitive species from the area. As is noted in the Vegetation section, the increases in fuel loads threaten 

the survival of even the largest and most fire-resistant whitebark pine trees. 

Whitebark pine has been declining throughout major portions of its range for the last 50 years due to the 

effects of diseases, insects, and succession (Amell 2012). Although the action alternatives may reduce the 

effects from these threats they cannot eliminate the threats, therefore effects from diseases, insects and 

succession are common to all alternatives. Please see appendix B for a detailed discussion of these threats.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

The effects of ground disturbance on herbaceous sensitive plant populations would be similar in all action 

alternatives. There are no known occurrences of herbaceous sensitive species in the project area; however, 

if unknown occurrences are present those plants may be directly impacted by ground-disturbing activities.

Effects from ground disturbance include the risk of noxious weed infestation as discussed earlier in the 

section Effects Common to All Alternatives, as well as direct impacts such as trampling, defoliation, soil 

and vegetation compaction and mechanical damage. These effects may be detrimental to individual plants 

as well as to the habitat for the sensitive plants. There is a project design feature in place that would 

reduce the risk of impacts by requiring appropriate mitigation if a population is located within the project 

area: 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

482

If sensitive plant populations are located within the project area appropriate mitigation (e.g., site 

avoidance, avoid concentration of fuels on sites to be burned) would be followed upon 

consultation with a Forest Service botanist.

There are known occurrences of whitebark pine in the proposed treatment areas of both action 

alternatives. Those occurrences would be protected by the project design feature SILV-2 which is 

designed to protect whitebark pine individuals and enhance habitat for the species. Thus while there is the 

potential for individuals to be charred or physically damaged during the treatment, beneficial effects (in 

the form of habitat enhancement due to the removal of shade-tolerant species and creation of caching sites 

for Clark’s nutcrackers) are expected in the long-term. The Vegetation section states that whitebark pine 

would increase in the short term with the increase extending into the long term under both action 

alternatives.

Alternative 1– No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to any of the sensitive species under alternative 1, since none of the 

proposed treatments would occur. Current management would continue. Alternative 1 does not propose 

activities to modify fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions that allow 

the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape. Current management activities would not 

reduce potential for stand replacing wildfire events in the treated stands or help to break up the structure 

in the project area. Consequently, there is potential for indirect effects from wildfire as discussed earlier 

under Effects Common to All Alternatives. 

Amell (2012) states in the Silviculture section that whitebark pine are expected to decline with the 

continuation of current management. Rather than reiterate that information, it is incorporated here by 

reference.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments that would affect sensitive plants under this 

alternative.

Cumulative Effects

There are policies in place that reduce or eliminate impacts from management activities on sensitive 

species (USDA Forest Service 2005). Therefore, the effects expected from this alternative when combined 

with the effects from the other management activities past and future, are not expected to contribute to 

change in status or viability of sensitive plants. In addition, cumulative effects are not expected to 

contribute to an increase in current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or habitat 

capability that would reduce the existing distribution of any of the R1 sensitive plant species discussed in 

this analysis, under this alternative. This conclusion applies the analysis indicators for direct and indirect 

effects (i.e. potential for direct physical impacts of trampling and defoliation, and potential for habitat 

degradation due to infestation of invasive species) from the proposed activities and adds them to expected 

effects from other management activities. 

Cumulative effects from the following activities across the planning area are not anticipated: 

There is a roadside hazard tree removal project occurring on the main roads in this project area. The 

ground disturbance associated with that activity may increase the potential for habitat degradation 

from infestation of noxious weeds; however infestations would be monitored and treated per the 

Helena National Forest Noxious Weed Record of Decision (2006d). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

483

Livestock grazing within the analysis area would continue as identified in the Allotment Management 

Plans for the Stonewall, Keep Cool and Arrastra allotments. There are no known occurrences of 

sensitive species within these allotments. Known sensitive plant populations on the forest, outside the 

project area, have not shown adverse effects from grazing and would not be affected by fuel treatment 

activities from this project.

Timber harvest and thinning (fuels reduction) has led to changes in forest composition, structure and 

fire frequency. There are no known sensitive plant species in the project area that occur in areas that 

have been harvested or thinned. There are areas outside the project area where known sensitive plant 

species occur within past harvest treatment areas, however, those occurrences would not be affected 

by treatment activities from this project.

Motorized and nonmotorized recreational use has led to the development of nonsystem roads and 

trails, development of dispersed campsites, erosion, and vectoring of noxious weeds into areas not 

previously infested. These activities can lead to physical damage to plants and their habitats (biomass 

removal, vegetation compaction and ground disturbance). Vehicles and people help to spread noxious 

weeds by carrying weed seeds into new areas. These impacts are controllable through area closures 

and travel management. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance causes soil disturbance and erosion, fragmentation and 

destruction of habitat, and noxious weed invasion. It also increases the impacts from recreational 

activities by allowing improved access for those activities. Known sensitive plant locations outside 

the project area would not be affected by activities associated with proposed roadwork from this 

project. If any populations are discovered associated with ground disturbing activities, they would be 

protected. Populations would also be protected from herbicide application. 

Fire suppression has led to increased fuel loading, canopy closure, and higher intensity wildfire. Fire 

is a natural disturbance in the ecosystem. In some areas, habitat succession and fire could possibly 

create or improve habitat for select plant species by opening up meadows or reducing the litter 

accumulation and competition from other plants. In other areas, wildfires or controlled fires would 

create high ground temperatures that could sterilize the soil and eliminate fungal species that are 

necessary for the survival of others. Whitebark pine is dependent on fire to maintain its presence in 

the project area (Amell 2012). Fire exclusion has allowed an increase in competition from shadetolerant species. Fire also tends to favor post-fire germination of nonnative species in environments 

where nonnatives are abundant and/or native species are stressed. 

Trends in climate change indicate the future precipitation levels will be lower and temperatures will 

be higher than the current long-term averages. Drier conditions are expected to be detrimental to 

riparian species that depend on moist habitats. Warmer temperatures are expected to result in a change 

in the distribution of plants as the elevation at which plants are found shifts upward. This shift 

appears to be greater for species found in mountain habitats (Lenoir et al. 2008). Modeling predicts a 

decline in whitebark pine due to global increase in temperature and more frequent summer droughts. 

However it’s also predicted that there will be an expansion of whitebark pine due to more frequent 

fire return intervals resulting from global warming (Fryer 2002). 

Noxious weeds would continue to be treated as specified in the Helena National Forest Noxious Weed 

FEIS and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2006d). While herbicides used in treating 

noxious weeds may be inherently harmful to herbaceous plants, the existing Forest program as many 

safeguards in place to prevent detrimental impacts to sensitive species.

The actions and effects described in this section can be both additive and interactive to each other and to 

the direct and indirect effects described above. As stated earlier, because current management direction is 

designed to eliminate or reduce negative cumulative impacts by protecting sensitive plants from direct 

and indirect impacts, the cumulative effects to all species discussed in this analysis are expected to be 

minimal. 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

484

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Project Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives

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 plants and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2.

The specific design feature in table 9 pertaining to plants is BOT-1 that addresses all alternatives, all units

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both 

action alternatives. Design features that are applicable to sensitive plant species include not only those 

listed above, designed specifically to protect sensitive plant species but also those designed to protect 

other resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Because no herbaceous sensitive species are known to occur in the proposed treatment areas, direct 

effects to the herbaceous sensitive species are not expected. 

Whitebark pine is known to occur in five units as shown in table 118. Please note the “Acres in Unit” 

does not reflect total acres of whitebark pine, but rather the total acres of the unit of which whitebark pine 

is a component. And while it is known that whitebark pine occurs in these units, it may also occur (as 

scattered individuals) in other units. These acres are used as a basis for comparing alternatives. Under 

Alternative 2, prescribed fire treatment is proposed on 2,557 acres, in which whitebark pine is a 

component of the species composition. As discussed under Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, 

those occurrences of whitebark pine would be protected by the project design feature SILV-2 (table 9, 

chapter 2). Under this alternative whitebark pine is expected to increase in the short term, with the 

increase extending into the long term (Amell 2012). Please see appendix B for details of effects to 

whitebark pine.

Table 118 Treatment units with whitebark pine present – Alternative 2

UNIT ID ACRES IN UNIT PROPOSED TREATMENT

76 123 prescribed fire

79 337 prescribed fire

82 776 prescribed fire

83 457 prescribed fire

88 864 prescribed fire

Total acres 2,557

There is a potential for indirect effects from wildfire as discussed under Effects Common to All 

Alternatives. The risk of effects from wildfire (including the connected noxious weed infestation) is less 

under alternative 2 than under alternative 1, as the proposed actions are designed to meet the purpose and 

need by modifying fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions that allow 

the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape. The proposed actions are meant to 

reduce potential for stand replacing wildfire events in the treated stands, as well as break up the structure 

in the project area. Reducing potential for stand-replacing events may reduce wildfire impacts to sensitive 

plants. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

485

Potential habitat degradation due to noxious weed infestation as a result of ground disturbance is greater 

under alternative 2 than alternative 1. The Invasive Plants section identifies the potential for an additional 

311 acres of potential weed infestation due to the proposed activities. This does not mean 311 acres of 

sensitive species habitat would be infested, but rather the risk of infestation of sensitive species habitat is 

greater under alternative 2 because of the potential increase of weeds in the area.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments that would affect sensitive plants under this 

alternative when project design features are applied.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative actions and resulting cumulative effects as discussed under alternative 1 also apply to 

alternative 2. There would be no cumulative effects for this alternative as no known herbaceous plant 

populations would be affected, and there is a project design feature in place to protect whitebark pine. See 

also the discussion of cumulative effects due to indirect effects under alternative 1.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects to sensitive species and their habitats under alternative 3 are expected to be the 

same as under alternative 2 except as follows:

The risk of indirect effects from wildfire (including the connected effect of noxious weed 

infestation because of such fires) is greater under alternative 3 than alternative 2, because fewer 

acres are proposed for treatment, leaving a slightly greater potential for a large stand-replacing 

fire.

Conversely, the risk of habitat degradation due to noxious weed infestation is less under 

alternative 3 than alternative 2 because ground disturbing activities would occur on fewer acres. 

Please see the Invasive Plants section for details of potential weed infestation due to proposed 

activities. Table 119 shows the comparison of potential weed infestation for all alternatives: 

Table 119 Comparison of potential weed infestation due to proposed activities

ALTERNATIVE ACRES OF POTENTIAL WEED INFESTATION DUE TO 

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 

1 0 

2 311 

3 233

Four of the five units which have whitebark pine as a component would be treated with 

prescribed fire under alternative 3. There is no treatment proposed for Unit 76, so 123 fewer acres 

would be treated.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments that would affect sensitive plants under this 

alternative when project design features are applied.
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

486

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative actions and resulting cumulative effects as discussed under alternative 1 also apply to this 

alternative. There would be no cumulative effects for this alternative as no known herbaceous plant 

populations would be affected, and there is a project design feature in place to protect whitebark pine. 

Please see the discussion of cumulative effects earlier under alternative 1.

Summary of Effects 

Alternative 1 would have no new soil disturbing activities that would disturb sensitive plant populations. 

However, alternative 1 does not propose activities that modify fire behavior to enhance community 

protection while creating conditions that allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the 

landscape. Consequently, there remains a higher risk of a large, stand-replacing fire that could result in 

effects to herbaceous sensitive species habitat. The Vegetation section notes that under alternative 1 

whitebark pine would not increase in the short term and would decline from present levels in the long 

term.

Alternative 2 has the highest level of soil disturbing activities with the highest level of potential to affect

any unknown herbaceous sensitive plant populations. Nevertheless, alternative 2 addresses the purpose 

and need by proposing the greatest amount of acres of activities that modify fire behavior to enhance 

community protection while creating conditions that allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process 

on the landscape. The proposed actions are meant to reduce potential for stand-replacing wildfire events 

in the treated stands, as well as break up the structure in the project area. Reducing potential for stand 

replacing events may reduce wildfire impacts to specific resources. The Vegetation section states that 

proposed activities under alternative 2 are consistent with recommendations for restoration of whitebark 

pine ecosystems, and that in the treated areas whitebark pine would increase in the short term with the 

increase extending into the long term.

Alternative 3 also proposes treatment activities that may disturb unknown occurrences of herbaceous 

sensitive plants (see description for alternative 2), however on fewer acres than alternative 2. The 

Vegetation section states that proposed activities under alternative 3 are consistent with recommendations 

for restoration of whitebark pine ecosystems and that in the treated areas whitebark pine would increase in 

the short term with the increase extending into the long term.

There are no known occurrences of herbaceous sensitive plants in the project area and there is a project 

design feature in place to protect whitebark pine; therefore, direct and indirect effects are limited. 

Cumulative effects are not expected to contribute to change in status or viability of sensitive plants, under 

any of the alternatives. No downward trend in population numbers or density, or downward trend in 

habitat capability that would reduce the existing distribution of any of the sensitive plant species 

discussed in this analysis, is expected under any of the alternatives.

Species-Specific Effects including Determination of Effects

Roundleaf orchid 

This species is known from the Rocky Mountain Front and the northwest corner of Montana. Field 

surveys of potential wetlands within the analysis area did not locate any populations of this species. No 

other past surveys have located this species on the Helena National Forest. The habitat for this species is 

spruce forests along moist seeps and springs. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

487

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Wetlands, seeps and springs would be protected from ground disturbance in the design features for this 

project (page 9); therefore, direct effects are not expected. However, when habitat is present for a species 

it is possible that unknown individuals are present, therefore, there is the remote chance, albeit very slight, 

that individuals could be directly affected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects Common 

to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section for alternative 1, and appendix C for specific 

cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3, detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of roundleaf orchid but would not contribute toward a trend for federal 

listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of roundleaf orchid are within the project area and none would be 

impacted by this project.

There may be habitat for roundleaf orchid in the project area and as a result there is a slight 

possibility that unknown individuals could be impacted 

There are project design features in place to protect this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat under all three alternatives. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large, stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Scalloped moonwort

This species is known from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, immediately adjacent to the 

Helena National Forest. This species has not been found to date in the project area through numerous 

surveys. This species is associated with wetland habitats.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Wetlands, seeps and springs would be protected from ground disturbance in the design features for this 

project; therefore, direct effects are not expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for the three alternatives detailed earlier in this document, I determine that the 

activities proposed may impact individuals of scalloped moonwort but would not contribute toward a 

trend for federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of scalloped moonwort are within the project area and none 

would be impacted by this project. 

There may be habitat for scalloped moonwort in the project area and therefore. there is a slight 

possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are project design features in place to protect this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat under all three alternatives. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large, stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

488

Peculiar moonwort 

Peculiar moonwort is known from two populations on the Helena National Forest, both in the Divide 

landscape area. The habitat for this species on the Helena National Forest is open grassland and open 

grassland and sagebrush. This habitat does not occur in treatment areas; no populations are known to 

occur in the project area.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

No treatments are proposed in potential habitat, and there are no known occurrences of this species in the 

project area, therefore, no direct effects are expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for the three alternatives detailed earlier in this document, I determine that the 

activities proposed may impact individuals of peculiar moonwort but would not contribute toward a trend 

for federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of peculiar moonwort are within the project area and none would 

be impacted by this project. 

There may be habitat for peculiar moonwort in the project area and therefore there is a slight 

possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are no activities proposed in this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat from surrounding activities. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper

Montana Natural Heritage Program has records showing an occurrence of this species just inside the 

Helena National Forest boundary, and an occurrence just outside the boundary. Neither population has 

been seen recently. Field surveys in 2009 of potential wetlands did not locate any populations of this 

species. No other past surveys have located this species on the Helena National Forest. No populations are 

known to occur in the analysis area. The habitat for this species is fens, damp mossy woods, seepage 

areas, and moist forest-meadow ecotone, in the valley and lower montane zones. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Wetlands, seeps and springs would be protected from ground disturbance in the design features for this 

project; therefore, direct effects are not expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of lesser yellow lady’s slipper but would not contribute toward a trend 

for federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of lesser yellow lady’s slipper are within the project area and 

none would be impacted by this project. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

489

There may be habitat for lesser yellow lady’s slipper in the project area and therefore there is a 

slight possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are project design features in place to protect this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat under all three alternatives. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper has not been found on the Helena National Forest but is known from Glacier 

National Park and northwest Montana. Field surveys in 2009 of potential wetlands did not locate any 

populations of this species. No other past surveys have located this species on the Helena National Forest. 

No populations are known to occur in the analysis area. The habitat for this species is mossy, moist or 

seepy places in coniferous forests.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Wetlands, seeps and springs would be protected from ground disturbance in the design features for this 

project; therefore, direct effects are not expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of sparrow egg lady’s slipper but would not contribute toward a trend 

for federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of sparrow egg lady’s slipper are within the project area and none 

would be impacted by this project. 

There may be habitat for sparrow egg lady’s slipper in the project area and therefore there is a 

slight possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are project design features in place to protect this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat under all three alternatives. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Howell’s gumweed 

This species has not been found in the Helena National Forest to date. It is known from open roadsides in 

the western Blackfoot area. The Montana Natural Heritage Program was contracted by the Forest Service 

to survey known noxious weed populations across the Forest (Barton and Crispin 2002). They specifically 

searched for this species. It was not found during those surveys as well as in 2009 field surveys. Habitat is 

described as vernally moist, lightly disturbed soils adjacent to ponds and marshes, as well as roadsides 

and other disturbed areas. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

It is unlikely that this species would occur in heavily forested areas where management activities are 

proposed; therefore, direct effects are not expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

490

Common to All Alternatives. See Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of Howell’s gumweed but would not contribute toward a trend for 

federal listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

None of the known occurrences of Howell’s gumweed are within the project area and none would 

be impacted by this project. 

There may be habitat for Howell’s gumweed in the project area and therefore there is a slight 

possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

It is unlikely this species would occur in areas where management activities are proposed. 

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat from surrounding activities. There are no activities 

associated with alternative; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to the 

risk of large stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Hall’s rush

This species has 15 populations Forestwide. The Montana Heritage database identifies eight populations 

on the Helena National Forest (three of the Heritage Program populations were located again by HNF 

crews). Seven new populations were found by Helena National Forest survey crews in 2009 (Bicker field 

surveys 2009). Habitat is wet to moist meadows.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No treatments are proposed in potential habitat, and there are no known occurrences of this species in the 

project area; therefore, no direct effects are expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See the Cumulative Effects section for alternative 1, and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of Hall’s rush but would not contribute toward a trend for federal listing 

or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of Hall’s rush are within the project area and none would be 

impacted by this project.

There may be habitat for Hall’s rush in the project area; therefore, there is a slight possibility of 

unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are no activities proposed in this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat from surrounding activities. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large, stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

491

Missoula phlox

This species is located in each of the four landscape areas of the Forest. The Montana Heritage database 

identifies eight populations on the Helena National Forest. The habitat for this species is open, exposed 

limestone-derived slopes in the foothills, to exposed ridges in the subalpine zone. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No treatments are proposed in potential habitat, and there are no known occurrences of this species in the 

project area, therefore, no direct effects are expected. Indirect effects would be as described under Effects 

Common to All Alternatives. See the Cumulative Effects section under alternative 1, and appendix C for 

specific cumulative effects.

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of Missoula phlox but would not contribute toward a trend for federal 

listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale: 

None of the known occurrences of Missoula phlox are within the project area and none would be 

impacted by this project.

There may be habitat for Missoula phlox in the project area; as a result, there is a slight 

possibility of unknown individuals that could be impacted 

There are no activities proposed in this species’ habitat.

There is potential for indirect effects to habitat from surrounding activities. There are no activities 

associated with alternative 1; nevertheless, there is the possibility of habitat degradation due to 

the risk of large stand-replacing fires and the associated habitat degradation from noxious weed 

infestation. 

Whitebark pine

This species is a hardy conifer that tolerates poor soils, steep slopes, and windy exposures and is found at 

alpine tree line and subalpine elevations throughout its range (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). It 

is known to occur in almost all major mountain ranges of western and central Montana. In the project area 

it is known to be a minor component in several of the treatment units. The Vegetation section contains 

additional information regarding this species; that information is incorporated here by reference,

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

This species is known to occur as a minor component in treatment units 76, 79, 82, 83 and 88 (please see 

the Silviculture section for details). Those occurrences would be promoted by the project design feature 

SILV-2 which is designed to protect whitebark pine individuals and enhance habitat for the species. Thus, 

while there is the potential for individuals to be charred or physically damaged during the treatment, 

beneficial effects (in the form of habitat enhancement due to the removal of shade-tolerant species and 

creation of caching sites for Clark’s nutcrackers) are expected in the long-term. Indirect effects would be 

as described under Effects Common to All Alternatives. The Vegetation section states that whitebark pine

would not increase in the short term and would decline from present levels in the long term under 

alternative 1, and would increase in the short term, with the increase extending into the long term under 

alternatives 2 and 3. The proposed actions under both alternatives are consistent with recommendations 

for whitebark pine restoration (see appendix B). See Cumulative Effects sections for alternative 1, and 

appendix C for specific cumulative effects.
Plants – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

492

Determination 

Based on the analysis for alternatives 1, 2, and 3, detailed in this document, I determine that the activities 

proposed may impact individuals of whitebark pine but would not contribute toward a trend for federal 

listing or loss of viability. This determination is supported by the following rationale:

Whitebark pine is expected to decline within the project area under alternative 1 (Amell 2012). 

However, this project area makes up a very small portion of the range of the species, and a 

decline of the individuals in this project area cannot be determined to result in a trend towards 

federal listing or a loss of viability. 

Whitebark pine occurs as a minor component within some units that are proposed for prescribed 

burning under both action alternatives. Project design feature SILV-2 was designed to protect the 

species while incorporating activities to enhance the habitat. While some individuals may be 

impacted by these activities, overall a beneficial effect is expected in the long term.

Amell (2012) states that the activities proposed by the action alternatives are consistent with 

recommendations for restoration of whitebark pine ecosystems and that in the treated areas 

whitebark pine would increase in the short term with the increase extending into the long term. 

Summary of Determinations of Effects

Table 120. Summary of determination of effects

SPECIES 

COMMON NAME

(FAMILY) 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

ALTERNATIVE 

1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Amerorchis rotundifolia

Roundleaf orchid

(Orchidaceae)

MII22 MII MII

Botrychium crenulatum 

Scalloped moonwort

(Ophioglossaceae)

MII MII MII

Botrychium paradoxum 

Peculiar moonwort

(Ophioglossaceae)

MII MII MII

Cypripedium parviflorum 

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper

(Orchidaceae)

MII MII MII

Cypripedium passerinum

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper

(Orchidaceae)

MII MII MII

Grindelia howellii

Howell’s gumweed 

(Asteraceae) 

MII MII MII

Juncus hallii

Hall’s rush 

(Juncaceae)

MII MII MII

Phlox kelseyi var. missoulensis 

Missoula phlox MII MII MII

 

22 May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Plants

493

SPECIES 

COMMON NAME

(FAMILY) 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

ALTERNATIVE 

1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

(Polemoniaceae)

Pinus albicaulis

Whitebark pine

(Pinaceae)

MII MII MII

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Whitebark pine is the only sensitive plant species that has been found to date in the project area. All 

alternatives are consistent with Regional direction, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and the 

Endangered Species Act. If any additional species of special concern were verified in the project area, 

appropriate measures would be taken.

Noxious Weeds 

Introduction

This section addresses the effects of the proposed activities on noxious weeds within the Stonewall 

Project area. Noxious weed infestations are detrimental to native fauna and flora and present the greatest 

large-scale threat to native ecosystems that exist in the Nation’s wild lands today (DiTomaso 2000; Lodge 

and Shrader-Frechette 2003; Lonsdale 1999; Mack et al. 2000; Pauchard et al. 2003). At high infestation 

levels, these effects are adverse due to the loss of native plant diversity, reduction of wildlife habitat and 

forage, increase in erosion and depletion of soil moisture and nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). There are 

approximately 564 acres of weeds mapped on National Forest System land within the Stonewall Project 

boundary. Figure 82 shows the general distribution of noxious weeds. These infestations are expected to 

spread, with the amount of spread increasing proportionally with the amount of ground disturbance.
Noxious Weeds – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

494

Figure 82. General location of noxious weeds in the Stonewall Vegetation Project area

Methodology 

The methodology used in this analysis includes the best available data from the Helena National Forest 

Weeds Database and Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets. In addition, this analysis 

incorporates data collected by local Forest Service personnel during ground reconnaissance of the project 

area, and during vegetation monitoring of past vegetation treatments. Geographic Information Systems 

combine various datasets to help us understand relationships and the effects of travel routes on weeds and 

other flora, as well as influences from landform and landtypes.

Information Used

A GIS geodatabase (StonewallNEPA.gdb) contains numerous geospatial layers that provide the base data 

used in this analysis. This geodatabase is available in the project file located at the Helena National Forest 

or Lincoln Ranger District in Lincoln, Montana. Those layers include the known locations of weed 

infestations, watershed and stream information, and habitat types for risk assessment.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Noxious Weeds

495

Assumptions

The following assumptions apply to this analysis: 

The analysis and decisions made in the record of decision for the Noxious Weed Treatment 

Project EIS are incorporated in noxious weed analysis and implementation on the Helena 

National Forest.

Any soil disturbing activity with mechanized equipment has the potential to increase noxious 

weed invasion or spread. 

The expected rate of spread of noxious weeds is 14% per year, (Asher and Spurrier1998) without 

disturbance. The rate of spread could be even higher in areas affected by ground disturbing 

activities. 

Herbicide use in accordance with the requirements specified in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement: Helena National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Project and accompanying Record of 

Decision (USDA Forest Service 2006d) is appropriate for noxious weed management on infested 

lands. 

The Forest treats approximately one-third of its mapped weeds on an annual basis under its 

normal weed treatment program; therefore for this analysis it is assumed that one-third of the

acres of weeds, would treated annually.

The paragraphs below define mapped weed acres and weed treatment acres as used in this 

analysis. 

○ Mapped Weed Acres: Mapped acres are reflected by polygons containing at least 

1percent noxious weed cover. There are weeds outside those polygons that are too 

scattered to map, or are infestations that have not been discovered yet. The mapped acres 

are from the weeds layer in the Forest GIS database. 

○ Weed Treatment Acres: Weed treatment acres for the purposes of this analysis are 

assumed to be the total polygon acres described above, to assess if any thresholds are 

being approached. Actual chemical application is reported to the State of Montana 

annually, as a requirement of a chemical applicator's/operator's license. Pesticide 

application is also recorded in the National Forest System FACTS database.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Cumulative Effects Analysis 

The cumulative effects analysis area is the project area (figure 82). This geographic bounding was 

determined because activities beyond this boundary would have diminished effects. There are proposed 

haul routes identified that extend beyond this boundary, but expanding the analysis area to include those 

routes beyond the project area would result in an analysis of effects that is so subjective and conjectural 

that it would not contribute useful information. The analysis is bound in time by 10 years into the future, 

which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative changes. Effects associated with various 

actions are based on literature, known weed infestations and personal experience. Indicators, assumptions 

and method of analysis are the same as those described earlier.

Overview of Issues

The effects of project activities on noxious weeds were identified from public scoping as significant. 

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. 
Noxious Weeds – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

496

Weed Spread/Infestation: Proposed actions, including harvest disturbance and use of haul routes in 

areas with weeds present, may disturb landscapes allowing existing weed populations to expand or 

allowing additional species to become established.

Treatment of existing weed infestations would occur under the guidance of the Forestwide effort and 

treatments to prevent the spread of weeds is included in design features to reduce potential spread.

Issue Indicators 

Indicators used to disclose the differences between the alternatives are:

Predicted acres of invasive plants infestation due to the proposed treatments; 

Associated management cost for weed control activities. 

Affected Environment 

Existing Condition 

Weeds have been expanding on the Helena National Forest for many years. A variety of factors 

contributed to the spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds are invasive by definition, and are able to 

spread without natural enemies, pathogens or ungulate grazing to keep them in check. Weeds favor

disturbance caused by wildfire and ground disturbance of any kind. Increased public use across the Forest 

in the past few years due in part to off-road vehicle use and recreation displacement from wildfire, as well 

as travel plan closure areas, places more pressure on the remaining open areas. 

Various methods of weed control are used on known weed infestations across the Helena National Forest 

(please see Appendix A in the Noxious Weeds Report (Englebert 2012a) for an estimate of costs for 

various control treatments). Herbicide application is the most common form of control used across the 

Forest. The Forest generally treats approximately 3,900 acres of weeds annually (averaging 2007 through 

2009 as typical years). Although herbicide application has been the primary noxious weed treatment 

method, the Forest has also conducted a number of biological control agent releases and has established 

numerous insectaries across the Forest. 

Partners and volunteers such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Horsemen, ATV 

groups, and Powell County and Lewis and Clark County participate with the Forest in weed treatment 

annually. The budget allocated for noxious weed treatment in 2009 was $335,000 with a target to treat 

approximately 3,000 acres. In addition, numerous grants and volunteer contributions assist the budget to 

help the Helena National Forest treat weeds.

Species information

Montana currently has 24 species on the statewide noxious weed list (Grubb et al. 2003). Five of those 

species are known to occur within the analysis areas: butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris), Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) and 

spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus)is listed as a noxious 

weed by Lewis and Clark County. In addition to the known (mapped) infestations, 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. The State of Montana lists 

oxeye daisy as a noxious weed and cheatgrass as a regulated species. Noxious weed infestations 

throughout the project area range from areas of 5 to 10 individual weed plants to linear patches along 

roads and trails to large patches of greater than 20 acres. Infestation levels range from light (1 percent
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Noxious Weeds

497

canopy cover) to high (greater than 50% canopy cover). Table 121 shows the acres of weeds that are 

mapped in the project area. Infestation acres are rounded to the nearest acre.

Table 121. Mapped noxious weed infestation in the analysis areas

Noxious Weed Species

(Scientific Name) Project Area Infested Acres by Species

Butter and eggs – also known as yellow toadflax

(Linaria vulgaris) 156 

Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense) 118

Common mullein

(Verbascum thapsus) 148

Houndstongue – also known as gypsyweed

(Cynoglossum officinale) 126

St. Johnswort

(Hypericum perforatum) 8 

Spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea maculosa) 554

Total infested acres* 564

*Total infested acres do not equal the sum of all acres infested by a particular species. When a polygon is mapped and it contains 

multiple species, acres are recorded for each species. 

Butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris) is also known as yellow toadflax. It has been shown to readily 

establish on open and disturbed sites where competition from other plants is reduced (Zouhar 2003). 

Butter and eggs seeds may be dispersed by water, ants, birds, and rodents, but existing infestations appear 

to expand mainly by vegetative reproduction rather than by seed (Pauchard et al. 2003). 

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) spreads primarily by adventitious root buds that may form new 

adventitious shoots that can develop along the root at any location (Zouhar 2001a). Canada thistle is 

present in much of the project area, generally associated with roadside disturbance or harvest disturbance. 

Its habitat is restricted to open areas of less than 10 percent canopy closure. 

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is a serious weed that competes with native vegetation and fuels wildfire 

(Young et al. 1987). Cheatgrass has not been mapped on the Forest but is established along numerous 

roadsides and other areas of disturbance. Cheatgrass spread rapidly through sagebrush ranges following 

World War II and has been expanding its range ever since (Menalled et al. 2008). Cheatgrass is highly 

adaptable and has increased around the Helena National Forest over the past 30 years as evidenced by 

data collection (Olsen, personal observation). It is listed in Montana as a regulated plant. 

Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) is listed as a noxious weed in Lewis and Clark County. It has 

recently been mapped along roads in the project area. Gucker (2008) considers common mullein a shortlived member of disturbed communities whose abundance decreases with increased time since 

disturbance. Common mullein reproduces entirely by seed and has no means of vegetative regeneration. 

Its seed bank is very persistent, with seeds germinating after 100 years or more in the soil (Gucker 2008).

Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) is also known as gypsyflower. This species is common along 

roads and in logged areas. Houndstongue is spread by large seeds that attach to animals or humans, as 

well as dispersed by wind (Zouhar 2002). A biennial or short-lived perennial, houndstongue reproduces 
Noxious Weeds – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

498

only by seed. It is relatively shade tolerant, although it thrives in full sunlight. This species is difficult to 

map as it may occur in small, scattered patches. 

Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare also known as Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) is not mapped in 

the project area, but quite likely occurs in small infestations, especially near areas of past disturbance. 

Besides reproducing vegetatively along a rhizome, oxeye daisy is a prolific seed producer. This plant is 

capable of taking over and modifying natural areas, pasture and rangeland and may increase soil erosion 

compared to native plant communities (Olson and Wallander 1999). 

St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) is quite limited in the project area. St. Johnswort is often treated 

as a grassland plant, but it is also common in many forested areas in North America. It may occur in open 

forests, natural clearings, or within forests where canopy cover has been reduced or removed by 

disturbances. In forested areas St. Johnswort is commonly associated with disturbances such as roads, 

logging, grazing and fire. St. Johnswort reproduces by seed and by sprouting from lateral roots and root 

crowns. Seeds can remain viable in the soils for several years (Zouhar 2004).

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa also known as Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos and Centaurea 

biebersteinii) has the largest extent of infestation within both the project area and the cumulative effects 

boundary. The species occurs along roadsides and throughout south-facing areas of past harvest, as well 

as in the natural grasslands. Spotted knapweed thrives in open areas with forest canopies of less than 20 

percent. Spotted knapweed reproduces almost entirely from seed. Plants are also able to extend lateral 

shoots below the soil surface that form rosettes adjacent to the parent plant. This species has also been 

shown to have allelopathic properties, secreting toxins that suppress the growth of other plants, although 

resource competition is just as effective in its ability to dominate areas (Zouhar 2001). 

Environmental Consequences 

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 noxious weeds and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The specific design features in table 9 pertaining to noxious weeds are NOX-1, NOX-2, NOX -3, NOX-4 

NOX-5, NOX-6 and NOX-7. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both 

action alternatives. Design features that are applicable to noxious weeds include not only those listed 

above, designed specifically to prevent noxious weed spread, but also those designed to protect other 

resources such as water and soil. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

The Forest treats approximately one-third of its mapped weeds on an annual basis under its normal weed 

treatment program (per the Helena National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Project, USDA Forest 

Service1996). Therefore for this analysis it is assumed that one-third, or 188 acres of the 564 acres of 

weeds, would be treated annually. Herbicide treatment of these acres would have an average cost of about 

$30 per acre for easily accessible sites (up to 200 feet from a road and on slopes less than 40 percent) and 

$62 per acre for areas with more difficult terrain (farther than 200 feet from a road and on slopes greater 

than 40 percent). The cost of bio-control is included in these prices. An average cost of $50 per acre is 

used to calculate costs. Table 122 displays treatment type and cost to treat one-third of the acres in the 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Noxious Weeds

499

project area. This table does not include the cost of monitoring. This cost is not included in further 

analysis of the alternatives as it is assumed to be a baseline, independent of management actions, and 

common to all alternatives.

Table 122. Treatment type and cost to treat one-third of the currently infested acres - all alternatives

Treatment Type Cost/Acre Acres Total Cost

Herbicide/Bio-control $50.00 188 $9,400

Noxious weed infestations adversely affect native fauna and flora and present the greatest large-scale 

threat to native ecosystems that exist in the nation’s wild lands today (DiTomaso 2000; Lodge and 

Shrader-Frechette 2003; Lonsdale 1999; Mack et al. 2000; Pauchard et al. 2003). At high infestation 

levels (canopy cover greater than or equal to 25 percent), noxious weeds cause a loss of native plant 

diversity, reduction of wildlife habitat and forage, increase in erosion, and depletion of soil moisture and 

nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). These effects are common to all alternatives and would vary depending 

on the level of infestation. 

Weeds could potentially spread at a rate of 14 percent per year into dry forest areas as conifer species die 

and sunlight, nutrients, and moisture are more available to herbaceous plant species (Asher and Spurrier 

1998). This is most important in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests, and lodgepole pine (Pinus 

contorta)/Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)/ponderosa pine mixed forests. The most susceptible forest 

habitat types would be dry habitat types that have existing infestations of noxious weeds because of the 

natural openness of such forest types. 

Spotted knapweed, cheatgrass, Canada thistle, common mullein and houndstongue may spread rapidly 

with ground disturbance and may spread at a slower rate without disturbance (Young et al. 1987; Zouhar 

2001, 2001a, 2002). Butter and eggs spreads readily without ground disturbance and very rapidly with 

disturbance (Zouhar 2003). The butter and eggs and oxeye daisy are of primary concern because they are 

difficult to control. Spotted knapweed is of primary concern across the analysis area because of the 

amount of infestation. New weed infestations, and spread of current infestations would occur under all 

alternatives, particularly along roadsides and areas of disturbance (Lonsdale 1999). The HNF Weed 

Treatment Project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006c) provides guidance and environmental requirements 

for weed control activities that would be applied to this area under any alternative. The Forest currently 

uses herbicides to treat approximately 30 percent of infestations annually. Roadsides would be treated 

annually, as they are a major vector for weed invasion. In addition to herbicide treatment, the noxious 

weed control program on the Forest has been successful in establishing insectaries. Biological control 

would be used in areas where the biological agents had optimal conditions for survival and expansion. In 

riparian areas, biological control would be emphasized where conditions for insect establishment are met. 

A stand-replacing fire is a current risk in the Stonewall project area because of current fuels conditions 

(Kurtz 2009). Given the current conditions within the project area, and the dynamics associated with 

lodgepole and ponderosa pine mortality, untreated areas can be expected to experience 

uncharacteristically higher intensity fires that consume a considerable portion of duff and litter because of 

current density, stand structure, red-needled litter, and stand composition (Agee and Skinner 2005; 

Graham et al. 2004). This disturbance caused by wildfires would result in areas that are highly susceptible 

to weed invasions. For example, the Snowtalon fire occurred in an adjacent area in 2003. Much of that 

fire was stand-replacing. Yellow toadflax and spotted knapweed spread rapidly following the fire.
Noxious Weeds – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

500

Herbicides and biocontrol were applied aggressively in the three years following the fire, with follow-up 

treatments since that time.

The data on response of weeds and changes in weed ecology because of climate change are limited. 

Weeds are genetically diverse and if resources such as light, water, nutrients, or carbon dioxide change 

within the environment, it is more likely there may be an expansion of weeds. However, very little is 

known regarding the impact of climate change on the reproductive success of invasive weeds and the 

potential consequences for their management (Ziska 2006).

Native plant diversity would be impacted by infestations of nonnative plants, especially noxious weeds. 

Noxious weeds dominate plant communities and tend to form monocultures that negatively influence 

native biological diversity. This weed competition to individual plants and plant communities can result in 

loss of species diversity and sensitive native plants. Native grasses used for domestic livestock and wild 

ungulates have been particularly susceptible to impacts from weeds (Beck 2001). 

A review of the mechanisms underlying exotic plant invasions by Levine and others (2003) revealed that 

although numerous studies have been done examining the effects of invasive plants on community 

structure and diversity, few studies have examined the underlying processes (e.g. competition, allelopathy, 

production of flammable biomass, nutrient cycling) that cause the impact. It is well understood that 

community biodiversity decreases with exotic plant invasion, but the results of changes to soil community 

diversity, resource allocation, and soil water availability for example have not been examined (Levine et 

al. 2003). 

Some studies have investigated effects on nutrient cycling on invaders that are nitrogen fixers for 

example, as available nitrogen in that case might be predictable (Vitousek and Walker 1989). Evans et al. 

(2001) found that cheatgrass invasion can significantly alter nutrient cycling through differences in litter 

quality and quantity. However, the consequences of altered nitrogen availability for community structure 

are poorly demonstrated and highly variable (Levine et al. 2003). 

Studies of impacts to natural fire processes strongly support the expectation that invader impacts on 

disturbance regimes (ecosystem process) can strongly and possibly irreversibly affect community 

structure (Levine et al. 2003). Dramatic alterations of fire frequency in historic shrublands that are now

dominated by cheatgrass have been demonstrated (D’Antonio 2000, Ehrenfeld et al. 2001). Other cases of 

exotic grass and shrub impacts include increasing fuel resulting in greater flame lengths, higher 

temperatures and greater heat release. In each case, the mechanism through which impact develops 

depends on whether the invader can out-compete the natives for resources. In most cases, the specific 

ecophysiological reasons for greater biomass production have not been identified. The effects of 

cheatgrass strongly support the prediction that invaders affecting disturbance processes have the greatest 

potential to create large impacts on ecosystems (Vitousek 1990). 

Allelopathy is a biological phenomenon by which one organism produces biochemicals that influence the 

growth, survival and reproduction of other plants. Ridenour and Calloway (2001) showed that spotted 

knapweed reduced the root growth of Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) by 50 percent, showing an 

adverse allelopathic effect. Additional studies on the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizae on interactions of 

spotted knapweed—Idaho fescue roots showed an enhancement of the competitive ability of spotted 

knapweed but direct effects of mycorrhizae were weak (Marler et al. 1999). Unanswered questions in the 

ecosystem-impacts literature include the degree to which the documented impacts result simply from the 

addition of new functional traits brought in by the invader, or alternatively the reduction or elimination of 

native species (e.g. Mack et al. 2001).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Noxious Weeds

501

The use of herbicides may have positive or negative impacts on native plant diversity. Rice and others 

(1997) found in a detailed comparison of plant community composition over an eight-year period that 

plots treated with Tordon®, Transline®, and Curtail® were more similar to the potential natural 

communities than the no-spray controls (Mueggler and Stewart 1980). On the other hand, the side effects 

of weed management can vary as a function of local site conditions (Shea et al. 2005). Side effects of 

management actions include reducing vigor or abundance of native or desirable species, inhibiting overall 

productivity or diversity, shifting community structure and function, and altering physical conditions 

(D'Antonio et al. 2004, Hulme 2006, Louda et al. 1997). Therefore, effective weed management requires 

weighing the success of control measures (e.g., impacts on target weeds and recovery of native species) 

against the side effects of management actions. This necessitates a thorough understanding of how 

management tools interact with non-target system components as well as the target weed (Shea et al. 

2005). 

The Helena National Forest Weed Treatment Project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006c) provides 

guidance and environmental requirements for weed control and treatment activities that would apply to 

this area in any alternative. All personnel using herbicides are appropriately certified by the State of 

Montana and knowledgeable about the environmental guidelines and requirements of the Noxious Weed 

EIS.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

While the spread of noxious weeds would continue under all alternatives, the rate of spread could 

potentially be faster in areas proposed for treatments, particularly areas to be thinned and burned. Weed 

management would continue as in the past, however, activities proposed for the Stonewall Project add a 

layer of ground disturbance and therefore requires additional management for weeds. Areas of ground 

disturbance would be monitored for weed infestations and treated as appropriate, in accordance with the 

Helena National Forest Weed Treatment Project FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006c) and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in FSM 2080 (USDA Forest Service 2001), and the Forest 

Plan. Chemical weed treatment would be the primary treatment method in areas that are accessible by 

spray equipment. Biological control would apply in areas where the biological agents have optimal 

conditions for survival and expansion. In riparian areas, biological control would be emphasized where 

conditions for insect establishment are met. The effect of all treatment methods would be to control and 

contain existing and new infestations related to vegetation treatments.

The most susceptible habitat types within the project area are the dry habitat types that have existing 

infestation of noxious weeds. Included are habitat types dominated by Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine. 

Thinning and burning have been shown to increase the abundance of invasive species in a similar dry 

(ponderosa pine) forest type in western Montana. Removing the overstory can increase the availability of 

limiting resources and allow weeds to thrive (Dodson et al. 2008). Metlen and others (2006) found that 

understory diversity increased following burning, and the increase was in both native and non-native 

species. Slash burning can also create localized areas that are conducive to the propagation of noxious 

weeds. Within these dry forest habitat types there are proposed thinning and burning treatment units with 

existing populations of weeds. These weed populations would likely expand with disturbance, but there 

are project design features in place to help minimize the likelihood of expansion. 

Harvest units in moist forest, subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) habitat types that would have closed 

canopies have a lower probability of weed infestation, particularly spotted knapweed. This species does 

not tolerate shading (Zouhar 2001). Canada thistle and houndstongue tolerate more shade than spotted 

knapweed, but the spread of these species is closely associated with ground disturbing activities (Zouhar 

2001a, 2002). The probability of weed expansion in these areas would be the lowest of the proposed 

treatment areas. 
Noxious Weeds – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

502

Ground disturbance increases susceptibility to weed invasion. The tractor-based treatments would create 

moderate ground disturbance on unfrozen ground. It is estimated that 10 percent of acres treated with 

tractor-based treatments on unfrozen ground in alternatives 2 and 3 may be susceptible to new weed 

infestation. This estimate is supported by a study in four Washington Douglas-fir forests, in which exotic 

species percent cover averaged 10 percent in the first year following overstory thinning treatments 

(Thysell and Carey 2001). Areas most susceptible are the regeneration and intermediate treatments in the 

open canopy cover where ground disturbance would occur. Specific effects are described in the sections 

for alternatives 2 and 3. 

Ground-based logging operations over snow and on frozen ground would help minimize ground 

disturbance and noxious weed spread. Limiting logging activity to the dormant season on a frozen surface 

would greatly decrease the chance for weed spread from actively growing plants within the logged or haul 

area, or from soil containing weed seeds transported to the area on machinery. For this analysis, it is 

estimated that approximately 1 percent –5 percent (mid-point of 3 percent) of the treated acres may 

become infested with noxious weeds as a result of ground-based harvesting activities that occur during 

winter conditions. Past studies have shown a substantial decrease in soil surface disturbance resulting 

from logging when the activity occurs on frozen ground (McIver and Starr 2000). Limited ground 

disturbance would result in lower risk of increased weed infestations. 

The prescribed fire treatment, which is mixed or low severity, as opposed to high severity associated with 

wildfires, would not require the use of heavy equipment, and therefore would not result in removal of top 

soil. It is estimated that as a result of the prescribed fire treatment, approximately 1 percent –5 percent 

(mid-point of 3 percent) of the treated acres may become infested with noxious weeds. Understory burn 

treatments have been shown to result in a much smaller increase in exotic species infestation than 

combined thinning and burning (Dodson et al. 2008). 

The 2006 EIS for treating weeds on the Helena National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2006c) identified 

several 6th code HUCs in which herbicide application would be limited based on the amount of herbicide 

applied, the location of the application, the stream flow, and HUC area. These estimates are shown by 

HUC, and the rationale for that determination is from the coarse filter calculation to estimate possible 

concentrations of herbicide in stream waters, shown in in appendix B and appendix C respectfully of the 

Noxious Weed Report (Englebert 2012a)

Soil 

Introduction 

This section evaluates the soil conditions and discloses the potential direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects of the alternatives for the Stonewall Vegetation Project. 

The Stonewall Project would comply with Region 1 Soil Quality Standards (R1 SQS (1999)) and the 

Helena National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) (Forest Plan) for long-term soil 

quality. The proposed silvicultural and fuel treatments proposed for each action alternative are not 

expected to adversely affect soil resources with the implementation of project design features as part of 

each alternative.

Methodology 

We surveyed the majority of the proposed treatment units (58) during November of 2010 using the Forest 

Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). All units were traversed along 

randomly chosen transects to cover as much of the units as possible. Paced transects were used to measure 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

503

ground cover, coarse woody debris, slopes, detrimental soil conditions, and any other pertinent soil 

observations. Additionally, we took measures for soil texture, percent coarse fragments, and depth of 

organic material. Coarse woody debris transects were established using a modified Brown’s line intercept 

method (Brown 1974). 

For this analysis, we used the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) (Elliot et al. 2000) model to 

predict sediment movement in proposed burning and harvest units, and to assess erosion potential. WEPP 

models are accurate to within plus or minus 50 percent (ibid). We relied on literature reviews, field notes, 

geographic information system (GIS) data, Helena National Forest soil surveys (2001) and professional 

judgment to support reported conclusions. 

In determining significant change in productivity, a 15 percent reduction in soil quality potential was the 

basis for setting threshold values. This 15 percent is the rationale for the R1 SQS and equates to the 

detrimental soil disturbance measured in the field. Monitoring on the Helena National Forest shows for 

traditional summer-based harvest activities in dry conditions, there is a 11.5 percent increase in DSD (9

percent from skid trails, 2.5 percent from landings); for winter-based harvest, there is a 5 percent increase 

in DSD (3 percent from skid trails, 2 percent from landings); for skyline harvest there is a 4-5 percent

increase in DSD, and for pile burning, there is a 5 percent increase in DSD. These assumptions of 

increased DSD are incorporated into the project design features. 

Data Assumption and Limitations

The existing and estimated values for detrimental soil disturbance are not absolute and best used to 

compare differences between alternatives. The calculation of ‘percent of additional detrimental 

disturbance from a given activity’ is an estimate, because detrimental disturbance is a combination of 

such factors as existing groundcover, soil texture, timing of operations and equipment used, as well as

skill of the equipment operator, the amount of wood to be removed, and sale administration. The DSD 

estimates assume that Best Management Practices would be applied and that soil recovery occurs over 

time.

Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy

In order to manage forest vegetation, some level of soil disturbance inevitably occurs. Much of the public 

concern regarding soil disturbance is based on generalizations. Defining the threshold at which soil 

disturbance decreases site productivity has been the subject of much discussion and controversy. Powers 

(1990) cites that the rationale for the 15 percent limit of change in soil bulk density was largely based on 

the collective judgment of soil researchers, academics, and field practitioners, as well as the ability to 

detect change in productivity through then-current monitoring methods. Thus, the soil quality guidelines 

are set to detect a potential decline in soil quality. The 15 percent guideline was meant to serve as an 

indicator of potential soil quality issues in a unit, not a threshold that cannot be exceeded. 

Ares and others (2005) state, “generalizations about negative effects of harvest-related soil disturbance 

on tree growth may be in error because these impacts depend on their type and severity and on soil 

properties and climatic conditions.” The authors go on to point out that “Many studies in the Pacific 

Northwest and elsewhere have addressed tree growth and soil response in logged sites using the ‘afterthe-effect’ retrospective approach as described by Powers (1989), which may not allow to ascertain the 

original type, degree, and extent of disturbance. In addition tree growth may have been unknowingly and 

differentially affected by plant competition, disease, herbivory, and other factors. Tree growth impacts are 

often measured for short periods of time and this data is then incorrectly used to project long-term 

effects” (Ares et al. 2005). 
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

504

The North American Long-Term-Soil Quality Research Program (LTSP) is studying soil quality 

standards. The 5-year results were recently published (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006; Flemming et al. 2006; 

and Sanchez et al. 2006). The LTSP study is ongoing and provides the best available science to resource 

professionals. To date there has been no reduction in tree growth noted because of compaction or organic 

removal in plots with soils typical of the analysis area.

Analysis Area Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

Harvest or fuel treatment units are the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on soil 

quality (R1 Supplement 2500-99-1). Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal, skid roads, and landings within unit boundaries are included in the disturbance 

analysis. Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal outside of 

units were included in analysis of the unit they accessed. National Forest System roads and long-term 

specified roads are part of the Forest Transportation System and not considered for disturbance analysis.

Soil cumulative effects analysis is limited to the “land area affected by a management activity” (USDA 

Forest Service 1999). 

For the purpose of this analysis, short-term effects last from 1-50 years while long-term effects last from 

50-100 years. 

Overview of Issues

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on soils 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. Some comments indicated concern that roads built then 

obliterated immediately following timber removal, road reconstruction, and use of existing roads would 

adversely impact soils through compaction. See the Transportation section for information about roads 

and soil compaction.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Weather

Weather data for the project area is displayed in table 123 in this section. This data is from the Rock: 

Clime (Rocky Mountain Research Station Climate Generator). Most precipitation falls in the form of 

snow from November through March and as rain in May and June. Weather patterns are strongly 

influenced by the surrounding mountains as isolated summer thunderstorms are common. The reported 

climate is modeled for 4,976 feet in elevation, in the middle of the project area. We used the reported 

weather data for WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction Project) modeling. 

Table 123. Annual weather data for the project area

MONTH AVERAGE MAXIMUM 

TEMPERATURE (°F)

AVERAGE MINIMUM 

TEMPERATURE (°F) PRECIPITATION (IN) NUMBER OF WET DAYS

January 26 7 2.2 15

February 35 12 1.6 11

March 40 16 1.5 12

April 51 24 1.6 9 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

505

MONTH AVERAGE MAXIMUM 

TEMPERATURE (°F)

AVERAGE MINIMUM 

TEMPERATURE (°F) PRECIPITATION (IN) NUMBER OF WET DAYS

May 60 32 2.5 10

June 68 38 2 11

July 78 40 1.2 7 

August 78 39 1.5 8 

September 67 33 1.4 8 

October 54 27 1.3 8 

November 37 19 1.6 13

December 28 11 2.2 15

Annual 20.6 127

Soil Characteristics

The project area is within moraine-influenced footslopes and headwater areas of the Upper Blackfoot 

River Watershed. The overall topography of the project area is heavily influenced by glacial activity 

including scouring of residual bedrock and deposition of till material in valley bottoms and gentle 

hillslopes. Table 124displays the characteristics for soils in the project units. These soil characteristics are 

defined by the Helena National Forest Soil Survey (USDA Forest Service and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service 2001). Approximately 21 percent of the soils are from glacial till, while the 

remaining 79 percent are from metasedimentary rock. 

The glacial till material is coarse and unconsolidated, forming isolated wet areas that pose operational 

restrictions. The metasedimentary parent material does not have inherent management restrictions. Most 

of the soils in the project area are also skeletal in nature,

23 and several of the mapped units have a 

channery texture.24 This suggested that the soils are resistant to compaction and resilient due to their 

coarse texture. However, approximately 44 percent of the area is mapped with a volcanic ashcap, which 

poses operational limitations due to the compaction potential in these areas. The ashcap soils have a 

compactable silt-loam texture over the skeletal subsoil. The ashcap soils have a higher water-holding 

capacity, which tends to extend the wet and productive period for soils into the dry season (GarrisonJohnston et al. 2007). In the project area, the ashcap layer is variable, mainly occurring in protected 

concavities. 

 

23 meaning that they consist of greater than 35 percent coarse fragments 24 meaning they are dominated by flat fragments up to 6 inches in diameter.
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

506

Table 124. Soil characteristics and limitations for the Stonewall Vegetation project units

Soil Classification Mus* Parent Material Surface 

Texture

Slope 

Range Limitations Acres

Typic Cryoboralfs 12A Glacial Till Stony Loam 10-25% Wet Soils 1,103

Typic Cryoboralfs 13A

Glacial Till from 

Basalt and 

Metasedimentary 

rock 

Cobbly Loam 10-25% Wet Soils 477

Typic and Mollic 

Cryoboralfs 49 Metasedimentary Cobbly Loam 25-50% None 2,353

Argic Cryoborolls 49A Metasedimentary Loam 10-40% None 11

Typic 

Cryoboralfs/Typic 

Cryochrepts Complex

49B Metasedimentary Channery 

Loam 40-60% Volcanic 

Ashcap 2,371

Typic Cryochrepts 59 Metasedimentary Channery Silt 

Loam 10-40% Volcanic 

Ashcap 517

Andic Cryochrepts 59A Metasedimentary Loam 10-40% Volcanic 

Ashcap 124

Typic Cryumbrepts 69 Metasedimentary, 

Granitics, and Basalt Sandy Loam 10-40% None 60

Typic Cryochrepts 79 Metasedimentary Channery 

Loam 40-60% Volcanic 

Ashcap 119

Cirqueland 80 Metasedimentary Bedrock 40-60%+ None 236

Typic Ustochrepts 87 Metasedimentary and 

Basalt

Channery 

Loam 60-90% None 512

Andic Cryochrepts 90 Metasedimentary and 

Basalt Mixed Loess 60-90% Volcanic Ashcap 458

Typic 

Cryochrepts/Typic 

Cryoboralfs Complex

790

Glacial Till and 

Metasedimentary 

Rock

Loam 25-40% Volcanic 

Ashcap 172

Andic 

Cryochrepts/Rock 

Outcrop Complex

791

Glacial Till and 

Metasedimentary 

Rock

Loam 25-40% Volcanic 

Ashcap 50

* Map Unit Symbol

The project area for the Stonewall Vegetation Project has a lengthy history of land management. There are 

active mining claims as well as signs of past mining, grazing, and timber harvest. The flatter portions of 

the project area have an existing network of skid trails and roads. The area borders private land on the 

south and southwest, making it easily accessible for dispersed uses such as camping and firewood 

gathering. Effects of past management activities for the project area were determined during field surveys. 

For a complete history of past management activities see appendix B. 

In order to better formulate an existing condition that takes into account past management activities, 

indicators of soil quality were drawn from the North American Long-Term-Soil Quality Research 

Program (LTSP). The LTSP is a Forest Service program developed to meet the objectives of the National 

Forest Management Act (NMFA) to maintain forest productivity. The two main soil quality properties 

most influenced by timber extraction and indicative of soil (and forest) productivity are soil organic 

matter and soil porosity (Powers et al. 1998).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

507

Soil Organic Matter

Soil organic matter (SOM) is one of the most important portions of the soil resource. Soil organic matter 

is crucial for water holding capacity in the soil. Although the project area receives a high amount of 

precipitation relative to other areas in western Montana, well-drained soils tend to dry early in the season 

and limit vegetation growth and soil biological activity. Soil organic matter functions similarly to the 

ashcap soils as it holds water longer and extends the growing season. Other important physical properties 

of SOM include aeration, drainage, and cation exchange (Jurgensen et al. 1997). 

Soil organic matter is where most of the biological activity takes place; hence the “living” portion of the 

soil. This portion of the soil contains most of the essential nutrients and carbon stores. Soil organic matter 

accumulates over decades as plant material (leaf litter and woody debris) falls to the ground and 

decomposes, eventually forming humus and mixing with the mineral portion of the soils (Jurgensen et al. 

1997). Page-Dumroese and Jurgensen (2006) noted that soils in Idaho and Montana have much higher 

percentages of their nutrient capacity in the SOM of the forest floor and topsoil. 

These processes have a direct effect on site productivity, sustainability, and soil quality. Organic matter is 

the one main component of the soil resource that can be effectively managed to enhance soil quality.

Maintaining, and where lacking, increasing SOM levels is critical for sustaining forest health and 

productivity (Jurgensen et al. 1997). Forest floor organic material includes undecomposed litter and more 

decomposed duff as well as woody material in various stages of decomposition. 

Table 125, contains key soil parameters identified for units during field surveys. Total average depth of 

organic material (litter and duff) in the project units is included in table 125. Organic material depth 

ranges from 1 to 7 cm, with the majority of the units (36) having less than 3 cm of organic material. Most 

sites have a thicker layer of litter with little duff accumulation. Duff is the more desirable organic 

component in the complex humic material that supports cation exchange capacity and water holding 

capacity. The thin organic layer in the Stonewall Project area is likely due to the cold nature of the soils 

and slow decomposition rate as well as removal of the litter/duff layer due to people and activities in the 

area. 

Coarse Woody Debris25

Coarse woody debris (CWD) is indicative of soil quality and resiliency. Physically, CWD protects 

exposed mineral soil from erosion and protects seedlings from grazing (Graham et al, 1994). Coarse 

woody debris also provides shade and when CWD decay has advanced, it can hold large amounts of 

water, making it important for dry season vegetation growth (Harvey et al. 1987). 

From a chemical perspective, CWD releases several nutrients when it decays or burns, including sulphur, 

phosphorus, and nitrogen. This is especially true during advanced stages of decay (Graham et al. 1994). 

Coarse woody debris functions as a site for non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the absence of other 

nitrogen fixing plants (Jurgensen et al. 1997). 

The soil biological environment is also enhanced by CWD. During advanced stages of decay, humus and 

woody material act as a site for the formation of ectomycorrhizal root tips. Ectomycorrhizae help woody 

plants take up water and nutrients and their fruiting bodies are crucial in the food chains of small rodents 

and predators (Graham et al. 1994). 

The recommended amount of CWD for the project area is 5 to 20 tons per acre, outlined from Brown et 

al. (2003) and Graham et al. (1994) for maintaining soil quality while minimizing fuel hazards. Coarse 

 

25 generally defined as any woody residue larger than 3 inches in diameter (Graham et al. 1994)
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

508

woody debris amounts vary by unit in the project area (table 125). There are pockets with well over 100 

tons per acre because of fallen trees killed by beetles 

In spite of the benefits of CWD to soil quality, too much can degrade soil quality to an extent. As stated 

earlier, coarse woody debris is a crucial source of soil nutrients and biological activity, particularly in 

advanced stages of decay. Therefore, when CWD begins to accumulate in the absence of fire, nutrients 

begin to accumulate in CWD and are no longer available for plant uptake and soil biological activity 

(Hart et al. 2005). This is likely the case in some of the areas with higher amounts of CWD.

Ground Cover

Ground cover percentages for Stonewall units are in table 125 Soils in the project units should have a very 

small percentage of ground cover in the form of bare soil. The only naturally occurring bare soil should 

be associated with tip-up mounds in windthrow areas or recent wildfire areas. As established above, 

organic ground cover (CWD and litter) is a hotbed for biological activity. Bare soil is generally much less 

productive and in the project area is indicative of impaired soil conditions. As displayed in table 125, 

there are a few units with high percentages of bare soil but most are in the 0-5 percent range. Units 14 and 

15 seem anomalous with the high percentages of bare soil (36 and 32 percent, respectively). However, 

both of these units, along with units 12 and 13 have piles of bare soil from past mining activity. 

The remaining units have mixed distributions of wood, litter, and vegetation. As established previously, 

soil wood and litter are important for soil quality. If, however, the balance of these components as 

compared to the vegetative component begins to shift, there is a condition as described above where the 

majority of the plant-available nutrients are “locked up” in the litter and wood component and not 

available for vegetation uptake and cycling back into the soil system. This is obviously the case in units 

26, 35, 63, and 65 and likely the case in units 1, 17, 19, 22, 32-34, 52-54, and 59. 

Soil Porosity

Soil porosity is another important indicator of soil quality and the other main property addressed in the 

LTSP study. Soil porosity is directly affected by soil compaction and is primarily a physical change in the 

soil that directly affects soil chemical and biological properties.

Soil compaction occurs as a result of applied load, vibration, and pressure from equipment used for 

harvest activities and site preparation. Soil compaction breaks down surface aggregates, which leads to a 

decrease in macropore space with an increase in micropore space and volumetrically more soil as 

compared to air. This creates an increased bulk density (BD) and resistance to penetration in the soil 

(Gomez et al. 2002). This decrease in soil macropores can impede root penetration, water infiltration, and 

gas and nutrient exchange (Quesnel and Curran 2000). All of this in turn has the potential to decrease tree 

regeneration and growth. 

Another effect of increased soil bulk density and decreased water infiltration rates is the potential to alter 

watershed hydrology and increase soil erosion rates. This occurs primarily because decreased water 

infiltration causes soils to become saturated much quicker and leads to increases in overland flow, which 

increases erosion and runoff in a watershed. Primary skid trails and landings show the most extensive and 

longest lasting of these effects. Working on frozen or dry ground helps soils resist increases in bulk 

density. Activities on wet soils are the most damaging, as the soil aggregates are more susceptible to 

compaction. The three primary field measurements taken to assess levels of soil porosity changes and 

resiliency to compaction are detrimental disturbance, texture, and percent coarse fragments. 

The Region 1 technical guide for soil detrimental disturbance analysis (USDA Forest Service 2009) 

states, “...new activities would be designed so that they do not create detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

509

on more than 15% of an activity area (R1 Supplement to FSM 2554.03). In other words, existing DSD 

plus the DSD predicted for proposed activities would not exceed 15% of a given activity area. In areas 

where more than 15% DSD exists from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects should not 

exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil 

quality.” This therefore sets the threshold value for DSD at 15 percent.

Existing detrimental soil disturbance for the field-surveyed units is in table 125 that follows. As can be 

seen, there is a variety of results. Units 12-15 had relatively high DSD results due primarily to the 

presence of previous mining activity in the units. With the exception of those four units, DSD was 

primarily associated with skid trails and landings from previous harvests. 

Soils in the project area are fine-textured with high percentages of clay throughout (table 125). Although 

these soils also have high percentage of coarse textured sand, the clay portion can be highly compactable 

and sensitive to ground-based equipment, especially when wet. The percent coarse fragments column in

table 125 displays a measure of rock content in the top 6 inches of mineral soil. Rock content is another 

indicator of the susceptibility of soil to compaction. Soils with over 35 percent coarse fragments are 

generally more resilient to compaction. Surveyed soils in the project area range from 13 to 70 percent

coarse fragments. Only four units have less than 20 percent coarse fragments, which illustrates that most 

are fairly resilient. Regardless of the physical characteristics, moisture is an equally important factor in 

soil compaction. Dry soils are much less likely to compact than wet soils. Even soils with high rock 

content would compact when wet.

Table 125. Current conditions by unit in the Stonewall Vegetation Project

Unit CWD 

(T/A)

Depth 

of 

Organic 

(cm)

Ground Cover Percentage Current 

Detrimental 

Disturbance

Texture

Percent 

Coarse 

Fragments

Bare 

Soil Rock Wood Litter Vegetation

1 6 6 0 2 13 62 23 19 fi sa cl lo 15

3 0 3 2 0 2 3 94 6 sa cl 13

4 0 3 2 0 2 3 94 6 sa cl 13

5 13 3 3 3 10 13 70 3 cl lo 15

6 2 4 3 3 16 38 41 0 sa cl lo 30

7 2 4 3 3 16 38 41 0 sa cl lo 30

8 14 4 3 0 6 25 66 3 sa cl lo 36

9 12 6 0 0 7 27 67 0 sa cl lo 37

10 7 2 0 0 7 27 67 0 fi sa cl 43

11 4 3 0 0 2 30 68 8 cl lo 21

12* 3 3 7 2 2 53 37 18 sa cl lo 33

13* 9 3 4 0 0 35 61 7 sa cl lo 25

14* 0 1 36 0 0 15 49 30 sa cl 70

15* 4 2 32 13 2 42 12 22 sa cl 61

17 4 4 0 0 0 62 38 0 sa cl lo 33

18 0 2 0 2 0 7 92 5 sa cl 43

19 4 3 0 0 3 73 23 0 sa cl 38

20 12 3 0 0 0 27 73 2 sa cl 40

21 0 2 0 0 0 12 88 3 sa cl 33

22 13 4 3 3 13 49 31 0 sa cl lo 28
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

510

Unit CWD 

(T/A)

Depth 

of 

Organic 

(cm)

Ground Cover Percentage Current 

Detrimental 

Disturbance

Texture

Percent 

Coarse 

Fragments

Bare 

Soil Rock Wood Litter Vegetation

23 5 5 0 0 10 17 73 0 sa cl lo 36

24 7 3 3 3 7 10 77 0 sa cl 35

25 15 5 0 0 20 27 53 0 sa cl lo 33

26 6 5 4 0 9 67 20 0 sa cl lo 33

27 7 3 3 3 10 17 67 0 sa cl lo 30

28 5 5 0 0 20 13 67 0 sa cl lo 25

29 5 4 0 0 7 17 77 10 sa cl lo 34

30 9 3 2 0 4 20 73 0 cl lo 28

31 9 3 2 0 4 20 73 0 cl lo 28

32 6 3 5 5 7 56 28 0 sa cl lo 38

33 10 5 0 0 16 44 39 2 sa cl lo 41

34 13 6 0 0 30 40 30 0 sa cl lo 48

35 7 7 0 0 23 63 13 0 sa cl lo 31

36 18 5 3 0 3 20 73 0 sa cl lo 40

37 16 4 2 0 8 20 70 2 sa cl lo 32

38 16 4 2 0 8 20 70 2 sa cl lo 32

39 9 4 0 0 0 23 77 0 sa cl lo 38

40 18 3 0 0 10 35 55 2 cl sa 39 

41 6 3 0 0 3 38 58 8 sa cl lo 51

42 12 3 2 0 2 37 60 2 sa cl 48

43 7 3 2 0 3 43 52 10 sa cl 45

44 6 1 0 0 0 43 57 0 sa cl lo 45

45 3 2 0 0 0 37 63 0 sa cl lo 48

46 3 3 1 0 1 27 71 13 sa cl lo 45

47 3 2 0 2 3 30 65 12 sa cl 41

48 0 3 2 2 0 22 75 12 sa cl 70

49 0 3 0 0 2 21 77 11 fi sa cl lo 28

51 0 2 2 0 0 15 83 15 sa cl 39

52 18 3 4 0 10 62 24 6 sa cl lo 24

53 17 7 0 0 27 40 33 10 sa cl lo 43

54 10 5 0 0 16 44 39 2 sa cl lo 41

55 25 3 3 0 10 13 73 0 sa cl lo 37

56 25 3 3 0 10 13 73 0 sa cl lo 37

59 1 3 7 0 3 57 33 27 sa cl lo 46

62 2 2 5 2 3 8 82 10 sa cl 33

63 0 2 5 0 0 75 20 10 sa cl 25

65 2 4 5 5 8 75 8 25 sa cl lo 34

72 0 4 0 0 0 15 85 12 sa cl lo 40

74 42 3 6 3 26 11 54 0 sa cl lo 29

*Units with past mining activity.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

511

Summary of Current Conditions

The project area has a long management history that includes mining, grazing, and timber harvesting, 

which contributed to past ground disturbing activities that lead to the current conditions. The amount of 

detrimental soil disturbance in the units is mixed, but primarily is the result of past log landings and skid 

trails with the exception of four units that have residual effects from mining. The soils in the project area 

are generally coarse textured and resilient to compaction and erosion if operations take place during dry 

or frozen conditions. Ground cover is generally high in the project area and trending toward recovery 

where a thin organic layer exists. Coarse woody debris levels also vary across units but are mostly within 

forest standards. There are multiple areas and units where large amounts of CWD signal a build-up of 

“locked-up” nutrients that are not plant or soil available. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No additional impacts to soil quality would occur. Existing areas with reduced soil quality would continue 

to recover through natural means (organic matter accumulation, freeze/thaw cycles, root penetration, etc.). 

There would be a gradual trend toward increased soil quality in units that currently have high detrimental 

disturbance. Coarse woody debris would slowly accumulate as stands age and begin to die. There would 

be no cumulative effects.

Direct Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

For the action alternatives (alternatives 2 and 3), the same types of management activities are proposed 

(table 126). The measurable differences in alternatives are the extent and area of treatment. This section 

describes each of the proposed activities and the effects to the soil resource. The extent and mitigation 

measures specific to each alternative is further explained below. 

Table 126. Acres of treatment and road miles for each action alternative

Treatments And Road Miles

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action) 

Acres

Alternative 3

Acres

Hand Treatments 6,541 5,001

Skyline Vegetation Treatments 663 364

Ground-based Vegetation Treatments 1,359 1,198

Total 8,563 6,564

Broadcast Burn 127 110

Burn Piles 146 94

Jackpot Burn 300 504

Low Severity Fire 449 326

Mixed Severity Fire 5,014 3,302

Site Prep Burn 180 171

Underburn 1,825 1,648

Total 8,040 6,155

Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following 

timber removal (miles) 2.6 0.4

Road Maintenance (miles) 45.6 43.8

Total 48.2 44.2
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

512

Ground-Based Vegetation Treatments

Ground-based harvesting includes conventional log skidders and feller-bunchers. Log skidders follow 

designated skidding routes, while the feller-bunchers operate across the unit area. The force from logloaded machines can compact and displace soil, reducing soil aeration and infiltration capacity. Proper 

layout of the skid trail pattern can concentrate these impacts and keep detrimental disturbance within 

allowable limits (15 percent of each unit). 

The planned ground-based harvest operation in Stonewall would follow old skid trails, resulting in an 

overlap of disturbance. The effects are therefore not necessarily additive. There is little data on the extent 

of overlap between new operations on old disturbance. 

For comparison purposes, past monitoring on the Klamath National Forest showed that 69 percent of new 

skid trails reuse old skid trails (Laurent 2009). It was further assumed that main skid trails disturbed 10 

percent of each unit. The assumption was made that 69 percent of the 10 percent (or 7 percent of each 

unit) would occur on pre-existing skid trails. Therefore, the assumption from this monitoring is that there 

would be 3 percent new detrimental disturbance added to the current amount from primary skid trails for 

units with existing skid trail networks.

The Flathead National Forest had a similar monitoring effort where they measured DSD before and after 

treatments. The results were mixed, with one unit showing less than 1 percent increase in DSD and 

another showing 5 percent increase (Archer 2011, personal communication). The average was 3 percent, 

just as in the Klamath National Forest monitoring. 

The Helena National Forest has monitored and assumes that for summer tractor harvesting, there is 9

percent DSD from skid trails (Marr 2011b, personal communication). There has not been an attempt to 

quantify the additive effects of skid trails versus reuse of old skid trails on the Helena National Forest.

Regardless of the amount, it follows that current DSD is primarily from old skid trails and landings. 

When a unit has a high existing DSD percentage, there is more of an opportunity to reuse existing skid 

trails and therefore reduce the additive soil disturbance from the proposed operations. There is negative 

correlation between existing detrimental disturbance and the amount added to a unit following groundbased treatments. For example, ground-based harvest on an area with no prior mechanical harvest entry 

would result in 9 percent DSD. However, an area with 25 percent existing detrimental disturbance prior to 

ground-based harvest could conceivably result in no additional detrimental disturbance because all of the 

new skid trails are placed on old skid trails. For the current analysis, it was assumed that units with 

greater than 10 percent DSD would result in an additional 3 percent increase from primary skid trails. 

Some compaction would occur in areas outside of main skid trails where machinery makes one or two 

passes but this increased compaction would not exceed threshold values as documented by Powers 

(2002). It is possible that in some of the units the combined current detrimental disturbance and projected 

detrimental disturbance from the activities would exceed 15 percent. These units are disclosed in the 

section that applies to the individual alternative. Rehabilitation of these units would include subsoiling 

and placing slash on areas with detrimental disturbance. If subsoiling is required, it would be done under 

dry soil conditions (dry down to 24 inches) with winged rippers to a depth of at least 18 inches. 

Landings

Landings are central processing zones that are essential for logging operations. Landings are 

approximately 0.25 acre to 0.33 acre in size but are generally larger when accommodating whole-tree 

yarding. Existing landings would be reused where possible. Landings can produce erosion and sediment if 

not properly designed and maintained. Project design features provide for sufficient erosion control. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

513

Monitoring on the Helena National Forest validates these assumptions and has found landings to average 

0.25 acre in size and add 2.5 percent DSD to ground based operations (Marr 2011b, personal 

communication). 

Skyline Vegetation Treatments

Cable harvesting would cause small amounts of soil displacement in the yarding corridors from dragging 

logs. The cable corridor can vary from 6 to 8 feet wide and would have an area in the center of the 

corridor that is down cut 9 to 12 inches. The spatial area in yarding corridors has been measured as 

varying between 3 and 8 percent depending upon the size of trees (Klock 1975). In accordance with 

monitoring on the Helena National Forest (Marr 2011b, personal communication), it is assumed that 5 

percent additional disturbance would occur from cable logging corridors in the Stonewall project area. 

Skyline harvests do not include the addition of landings, as these are located on National Forest System 

roads in these units. 

Hand Vegetation Treatments

Hand thinning and piling slash would maintain sufficient fine soil cover and would not cause additional 

ground disturbance. 

Prescribed Burning

The risk from prescribed burning is that fire has the potential to create erosion possibilities by removing 

soil cover and the forest floor, both critical for soil functions. In low severity fire-treated areas, there 

would be enough forest floor retained to minimize any negative effects. Moderate burn prescriptions 

would be more severe but the mosaic nature of these burns should create a situation where there are 

firebreaks sufficient to reduce the erosion potential.

Burning should have a net positive impact by increasing the availability of nutrients for the soil and 

understory, thereby increasing forest productivity. Revegetation in forest openings would depend upon the 

seed source and remnant plant communities. 

Using low and moderate severity fire would increase the available nutrient base for forest productivity 

based on studies in the Rocky Mountains (Gundale et al. 2005, DeLuca et al. 2006). The mosaic burn 

pattern would also ensure soil cover for moisture retention. Short-term nutrient flushes should occur for 

up to 3 years depending on the burn severity, with long-term nitrate increases up to 50 years (Deluca et al. 

2006). Charcoal as a byproduct of fire, becomes functionally important as a stabilizer for soil chemistry 

against alkaloids that may impair soil nutrient processes, and as a soil conditioner for added water holding 

capacity and cation exchange sites (Deluca and Aplet 2008). Charcoal would also increase Nitrogen

availability (Ball et al. 2010). 

In reference to DSD, it is expected that for low severity prescriptions (including underburning), less than 

2 percent would be severely burned and result in detrimental soil conditions from loss of groundcover. 

For the mixed or moderate burn severity prescriptions (including broadcast burns), it is anticipated there 

would be more severely burned area and hence 10 percent detrimentally disturbed soils (Marr 2011a).

Prescribed Pile Burning

Burning slash piles can have long-lasting negative, soil effects through direct consumption of soil ground 

cover, and removal of seed sources for revegetation. An indirect effect of pile burning is the potential for 

introducing invasive plants once native seed sources are removed. These effects are localized, and limited 

to areas where the slash piles are placed. This includes jackpot burning as these types of burns typically 

have similar effects as pile burning. Monitoring on the Helena National Forest found that these burns 
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

514

affect less than 5 percent of units analyzed (USDA Forest Service 2005). It is assumed that units where 

pile and jackpot burns are prescribed would have 5 percent DSD resulting from these activities.

Coarse Woody Debris 

Across all activities, coarse woody debris levels, as recommended previously, would be retained at 5-20 

tons per acre or additional CWD would be left on site to meet these requirements. The prescribed 

underburning units were not surveyed for CWD. However, these higher elevation areas do not have an 

extensive management history and it is unlikely they are lacking in CWD. The underburning as described 

would create pockets of dead trees and some bare soil. This would provide recruitment for downed CWD 

on these openings in the long term. 

Road Construction

Construction of roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal 

creates detrimental soil disturbance by bulldozing the surface layer aside and exposing non-productive 

subsoil layers. Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal are 

assumed to be 25 feet wide. On flat to gentle slopes, soil disturbance can be minimal to shallow cuts (0.5 

to 2 feet). On steeper slopes where cut and fill techniques are required, cuts can be 4 to 8 feet high. The 

fill material is deposited on top of the existing soil, thereby increasing soil depth, which in turn increases 

soil water holding capacity. Soil organic materials are also incorporated into the soil. Increased water 

holding capacity and organic matter has a positive effect on site productivity. The increased soil quality

does not equal the soil quality lost in the cut portion of the road. 

The road surface is compacted by equipment travel during the construction process as well as from log 

truck travel on the road. Building proposed roads built and then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal results in short-term degradation of soil hydrology and long-term reduction in soil biological 

function. Obliteration and reclamation efforts improve soil hydrologic function over leaving roads in 

place. For the short term, reclamation improves soil infiltration adequately to address erosion potential, 

though reclaimed soil would have infiltration rates lower than natural forest rates (Luce 1997; Foltz and 

Maillard 2003). For the long term, infiltration rates improve over time as freeze/thaw and plant roots 

improve soil porosity, though rates would likely remain lower than adjacent natural forest soil (Switalski 

et al. 2004). Soil biological function restores as forest floor and native plant communities return. 

Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Noxious Weeds

An important indirect effect from harvest operations is the potential to spread and introduce noxious 

weeds. See the Noxious Weed section for a detailed list of weeds found in the area and their current range.

Noxious weeds can have a detrimental effect on soil quality through competition for resources such as 

space, light, water, and nutrients; and through allelopathy.26 Allelopathic weed species exude chemicals 

that can have a negative effect on native plant species. Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, and leafy spurge 

are known to be allelopathic (Foy and Inderjit 2001). 

Though the potential exists for adverse impacts to soil quality because of noxious weeds infestation, the 

actual impact to long-term soil quality is minimal. Project design features would help to reduce the spread 

of noxious weeds. Units treated in the winter would help to reduce the spread of noxious weeds because 

weeds are dormant at this time decreasing the transport of viable seeds. 

 

26 Allelopathy is defined as “chemical interactions among and between plants that do not include positive effects” 

(Foy and Inderjit 2001).
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

515

Soil Erosion

Proposed activities for the action alternatives have the potential to expose mineral soil to overland flow 

and subsequent erosion. Potential erosion because of project implementation was modeled using 

Disturbed WEPP. The accuracy of all Disturbed WEPP predictions is plus or minus 50 percent (Elliot et 

al. 2000). WEPP is most appropriately used to compare alternatives. We selected Units 13, 23, and 84 for 

modeling because their location on soils with a high erosion hazard and long and sustained slopes 

represents each of the treatment types (tractor-13, skyline-23, and burn-84). These three units therefore 

represent the worst-case scenario for erosion potential.

We extrapolated inputs for WEPP modeling from the assumptions in the direct effects above. Specifically, 

it was assumed that conventional tractor harvesting would result in 12 percent decrease in ground cover, 

accounting for the detrimental disturbance percentage, moderate intensity prescribed burning would have 

a 10 percent decrease in ground cover, etc. Other WEPP inputs were gradient, slope length, soil texture, 

and rock percentage. These were estimated from Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data and soil 

mapping. All vegetation inputs were mature forest with the exception of the prescribed burning unit being 

low severity fire. 

Table 127 demonstrates that the probability of erosion in the first year following harvest is 3percent for all 

units across all alternatives. There was no distinction made between alternatives 2 and 3 because they 

have the same prescriptions for the three units analyzed. The soil quality standards state that the tolerable 

soil loss rate is generally less than 1 to 2 tons per acre per year (USDA Forest Service 1999). None of the 

predicted erosion rates here exceeds these soil quality standards. These WEPP results do not take into 

account PDFs intended to reduce erosion potential. Therefore, it is unlikely that erosion would be an issue 

from either action alternative.

Table 127. WEPP modeling results for the Stonewall Project, erosion and sedimentation

ALTERNATI

VE 

UNI

T DRAINAGE

PROBABILI

TY OF 

EROSION‡

PROBABILITY 

OF 

SEDIMENTATIO

N‡

AVERAGE 

EROSION 

RATE 

(TONS/ACR

E)* 

30-YEAR 

EROSION 

RATE 

(TONS/ACRE

)**

No Action 13 Lincoln Gulch 3% 3% 0 0.134

Action 13 Lincoln Gulch 3% 3% 0.09 0.946

No Action 23 Lincoln Gulch 3% 3% 0 0.037

Action 23 Lincoln Gulch 3% 3% 0.03 0.746

No Action 84 Theodore Creek 3% 3% 0.01 0.359

Action 84 Theodore Creek 3% 3% 0.03 0.577

‡The probability of erosion or sedimentation for the no action alternative is the probability of erosion or sedimentation in any given 

year. For the proposed action, it is the probability of erosion or sedimentation the first year following harvest.

*There is an equal probability that the erosion rate could be greater than or less than the average value. 

** The 30-year erosion rate represents the amount of erosion anticipated if there were a 30-year rainfall following implementation.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative effects are activities that overlap spatially and temporally within the activity area. For the 

soils analysis, the unit is the activity area analyzed for cumulative effects (as defined in Forest Service 

Manual 2500, Supplement number 2500-99-1). Therefore, activities analyzed here would take place 

inside of units. 

The cumulative effects for alternative 2 (the proposed action) and alternative 3 are included in appendix C 

and includes the cumulative effects of all the previously discussed direct effects in this section. The 
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

516

detrimental disturbance analysis takes into account all proposed activities within a unit in the same 

fashion as a cumulative effects analysis. In the detrimental disturbance analysis, the spatial distribution of 

proposed activities and current conditions was taken into account. 

Typical road maintenance and upgrading may have cumulative effects. This includes replacing and adding 

drainage structures, blading the road surface, brushing the sides of the roads, and placing additional 

surface material. This generally increases drainage and can decrease erosion off the road surface due to 

decreased overland flow. Road maintenance is ongoing and would extend beyond the life of this project. 

This project does not propose to change any road classifications but would utilize existing stored roads for 

access and vegetation removal. Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following 

timber removal are taken into account with the vegetation treatments. For more detail on the cumulative 

effects of roads, see the Hydrology Report (McNamara 2012). 

There are no proposed changes to recreation management from the current project. There is currently 

motorized use that would continue throughout the project area. There is the potential to increase illegal 

off-road motorized use because forest stands would be opened up following the proposed activities. This 

is covered in more detail in the Recreation Report (Valentine 2012b). 

Other recreational activities such as gathering of forest products, hunting, and hiking are likely to

continue as they currently are. Effects from these activities are taken into account in the current 

conditions.

Recovery Rates

The expected recovery rates for proposed activities in the action alternatives are included in table 128. We 

based these estimates on a combination of published literature, monitoring reports from adjacent forests, 

field observations, and professional judgment. Recovery of roads that would be built and then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal is anticipated to be similar to summer tractor harvesting. Recovery 

depends upon the effectiveness of roots to penetrate compacted soil, leading to a return of porosity and 

drainage. Implementing the restoration project design features (PDF), described in would increase the 

recovery time for affected soils, particularly the placement of slash on heavily disturbed areas. Organic 

material amendments cannot be emphasized enough. In addition, contemporary timber harvest operations 

are less impactful than the historic operations monitored in the studies of table 128. It is therefore likely 

that recovery time from the proposed activities would be quicker than the best available science cited 

here.

Table 128. Expected recovery rates for proposed activities in the action alternatives

ACTIVITY RECOVERY 

(YEARS) REFERENCES

Summer Tractor Harvest 30−50 Froehlich et al. 1985; Bisbing et al. 2010

Winter Tractor Harvest 10−40 Lolo NF Monitoring (Archer 2008); Flathead NF 

Monitoring (Basko 2002)

Prescribed Burning 10 Auggie Soils Specialist Report (Archer 2009); Idaho 

Panhandle NF monitoring (Niehoff 2002)
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

517

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 soil and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2.

The specific design features listed under soil, watersheds and fisheries in table 9 pertaining to soil are 

S/WS/F-1 through S/WS/F-14. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to both 

action alternatives. Design features that are applicable to soil include not only those listed above, 

designed specifically to protect the soil, but also those designed to protect other resources such as water 

and fish. 

Project Design Features and Restoration Effectiveness

Project design features and best management practices are effective at minimizing the amount of soil 

disturbance. For example, Han et al. (2006) found logging during dry months can reduce compaction 

effects in fine textured soils since soil strength is maximized when soil moisture is below field capacity.

Harvesting when soils are dry also appears to limit the machinery impact to the wheel track (Williamson 

and Neilson 2000; Han et al. 2009). 

On the Helena National Forest, soil quality monitoring results have previously demonstrated that 

conservation of soil resources has improved during implementation of forestry activities since adoption of 

BMPs in 1988. This is documented in the Helena National Forest Annual Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 

2004 which reported: “...forestry practices have generally become more effective in limiting the amount 

of area affected by detrimental soil disturbance to comply with the Forest Plan measure of soil variability 

(i.e. 20%) since adoption of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in 1988. Six of the monitoring 

plots assessed areas harvested prior to adoption of BMPs in 1988. The mean value for aerial extent of 

moderate to severe soil disturbance on these 6 plots was 19%, and ranged from 8% to 26%. The 

remaining 4 monitoring plots assessed areas harvested after 1988 and adoption of BMPs. The mean value 

for aerial extent of moderate to severe soil disturbance on these 4 plots was 13%, and ranged from 5% to 

17%” (USDA Forest Service 2007, p. 80). 

Key findings from additional BMP monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2003) for harvest units in the 

Maudlow-Toston sale area include: 

Adequate amounts of coarse woody material were retained in harvest units, as recommended by 

researchers (Graham et al. 1994). 

Region 1 soil quality standards (USDA Forest Service 1999) for limiting detrimental soil disturbance, 

such as compaction and displacement, were met in helicopter, skyline cable (both summer and winter 

logging), and winter tractor logging units. 

Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal and log 

landings have been successfully recontoured, with adequate amounts of woody material scattered 

across reclaimed areas, and then seeded.

The State of Montana and other land managers monitor the implementation and effectiveness of Montana 

Forestry BMPs within recent forest management activities. This effort is known as BMP Auditing. Results 

are provided in an annual report. The Montana State Audit found that “across all ownerships, BMPs were 
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

518

properly applied 93% of the time and overall effectiveness of the implementation was 97%” (Montana 

DNRC 2006). 

The effectiveness of soil rehabilitation treatments may be low, improving soil conditions by 30-50 percent

(Luce 1997; Foltz and Maillard 2003). This implies that erosion control work is effective, and soil 

compaction has been alleviated; but biological and other physical soil processes are not returned to 

background levels. For roads built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal 

rehabilitation, or where slash is left on the skid trail, 50 percent effectiveness has been used. This 

acknowledges that biological and physical properties are improved beyond doing no restoration but not to 

background levels. 

Application of slash and other organic materials on skid trails, burn piles, skyline corridors, and log 

landings helps restore areas denude of vegetation and topsoil to more natural conditions. These additional 

organic inputs aid biological processes and accelerate recovery. Road decommissioning research 

(Switalski et al. 2004; Kolka and Smidt 2004) is cited here for effectiveness of these practices. The added 

slash and other organic materials provide the benefits such as enhanced microbial activity, increased water 

holding capacity, and erosion control. 

British Columbian monitoring of soil restoration showed that standard techniques such as those proposed 

in (decompacting, placing slash and duff, and seeding) can be effective in re-establishing vegetation and 

therefore alleviating negative soil effects (Bulmer 1997). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

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 soil and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2.

The specific design features listed under soil, watersheds and fisheries in table 9 pertaining to soil are 

S/WS/F-1 through S/WS/F-14. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Design features that are applicable to 

soil include not only those listed above, designed specifically to protect the soil, but also those designed 

to protect other resources such as water and fish. 

Project Design Features and Restoration Effectiveness

Project design features and best management practices are effective at minimizing the amount of soil 

disturbance. For example, Han et al. (2006) found logging during dry months can reduce compaction 

effects in fine textured soils since soil strength is maximized when soil moisture is below field capacity.

Harvesting when soils are dry also appears to limit the machinery impact to the wheel track (Williamson 

and Neilson 2000; Han et al. 2009). 

On the Helena National Forest, soil quality monitoring results have previously demonstrated that 

conservation of soil resources has improved during implementation of forestry activities since adoption of 

BMPs in 1988. This is documented in the Helena National Forest Annual Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 

2004 which reported: “...forestry practices have generally become more effective in limiting the amount 

of area affected by detrimental soil disturbance to comply with the Forest Plan measure of soil variability 

(i.e. 20%) since adoption of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in 1988. Six of the monitoring 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

519

plots assessed areas harvested prior to adoption of BMPs in 1988. The mean value for aerial extent of 

moderate to severe soil disturbance on these 6 plots was 19%, and ranged from 8% to 26%. The 

remaining 4 monitoring plots assessed areas harvested after 1988 and adoption of BMPs. The mean value 

for aerial extent of moderate to severe soil disturbance on these 4 plots was 13%, and ranged from 5% to 

17%” (USDA Forest Service 2007, p. 80). 

Key findings from additional BMP monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2003) for harvest units in the 

Maudlow-Toston sale area include: 

Adequate amounts of coarse woody material were retained in harvest units, as recommended by 

researchers (Graham et al. 1994). 

Region 1 soil quality standards (USDA Forest Service 1999) for limiting detrimental soil disturbance, 

such as compaction and displacement, were met in helicopter, skyline cable (both summer and winter 

logging), and winter tractor logging units. 

Roads that would be built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal and log 

landings have been successfully recontoured, with adequate amounts of woody material scattered 

across reclaimed areas, and then seeded.

The State of Montana and other land managers monitor the implementation and effectiveness of Montana 

Forestry BMPs within recent forest management activities. This effort is known as BMP Auditing. Results 

are provided in an annual report. The Montana State Audit found that “across all ownerships, BMPs were 

properly applied 93% of the time and overall effectiveness of the implementation was 97%” (Montana 

DNRC 2006). 

The effectiveness of soil rehabilitation treatments may be low, improving soil conditions by 30-50 percent

(Luce 1997; Foltz and Maillard 2003). This implies that erosion control work is effective, and soil 

compaction has been alleviated; but biological and other physical soil processes are not returned to 

background levels. For roads built and then obliterated immediately following timber removal 

rehabilitation, or where slash is left on the skid trail, 50 percent effectiveness has been used. This 

acknowledges that biological and physical properties are improved beyond doing no restoration but not to 

background levels. 

Application of slash and other organic materials on skid trails, burn piles, skyline corridors, and log 

landings helps restore areas denude of vegetation and topsoil to more natural conditions. These additional 

organic inputs aid biological processes and accelerate recovery. Road decommissioning research 

(Switalski et al. 2004; Kolka and Smidt 2004) is cited here for effectiveness of these practices. The added 

slash and other organic materials provide the benefits such as enhanced microbial activity, increased water 

holding capacity, and erosion control. British Columbian monitoring of soil restoration showed that 

standard techniques such as those proposed in table 129 (decompacting, placing slash and duff, and 

seeding) can be effective in re-establishing vegetation and therefore alleviating negative soil effects 

(Bulmer 1997). 

This document details the primary effects from the proposed treatments. As stated earlier, the effects from 

each of the action alternatives are essentially the same with the exception of the degree of activities in 

each of the alternatives. As can be seen in table 126 alternative 2 proposes more overall treatment acres 

and more road miles utilized than alternative 3. Alternative 2 would have long- and short-term direct and 

indirect negative effects on forest soil quality. However, the project would meet the Region 1 Soil Quality 

Standards by implementing the project design features and restoration measures and help reduce negative 

impacts to soils.Anticipated detrimental disturbance for the proposed action by unit is shown in table 129. 

All units are expected to meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. 
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

520

Table 129. Projected detrimental soil disturbance for the proposed action in the Stonewall Project

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS 

1 96 SWD/SPB 19 8.1 27.1 17.0 Restoration/WL

2 146 LSF/<5ac N/A 2.0 2.0 None

3 37 PCT/HP/BP 6 5.0 11.0 None

4 7 S/S/HP/BP 6 8.0 14.0 WL

5 18 S/S/HP/BP 3 8.0 11.0 WL

6 14 Imp Cut/UB 0 9.0 9.0 None

7 17 Imp Cut/UB 0 9.0 9.0 None

8 62 Imp Cut/UB 3 9.0 12.0 None

9 18 ST/S/HP/BP 0 10.5 10.5 WL

10 18 CLC/UB 0 9.3 9.3 WL

11 23 SWD/UB 8 9.2 17.2 12.6 Restoration/WL

12 80 SWD/UB 18 7.5 25.5 15.8 Restoration/WL

13 41 ST/JB 7 10.5 17.5 12.3 Restoration/WL

14* 11 PCT/HP/BP 30 5.0 35.0 30.0* Restoration

15* 15 Imp Cut/UB 22 6.5 28.5 22.0* Restoration

16 3 PCT/HP/BP N/A 5.0 5.0 None

17 38 CLC/JB 0 10.5 10.5 WL

18 21 PCT/HP/BP 5 5.0 10.0 None

19 15 CLC/JB 0 10.5 10.5 WL

20 32 ST/JB 2 11.4 13.4 WL

21 6 PCT/HP/BP 3 8.9 11.9 None

22 30 SWD/SPB 0 9.0 9.0 None

23 29 Imp Cut/UB 0 9.0 9.0 None

24 5 Imp Cut/UB 0 9.0 9.0 None

25 29 ST/BB 0 9.0 9.0 None
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

521

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS 

26 65 Imp Cut/UB 0 9.0 9.0 None

27 31 CLC/SPB 0 9.0 9.0 None

28 22 Imp Cut/UB 0 10.0 10.0 WL

29 25 SWD/S/HP/B 10 12.0 22.0 10.0 Restoration/WL

30 14 Imp Cut/UB 0 11.1 11.1 None

31 16 Imp Cut/UB 0 11.1 11.1 None

32 45 Imp Cut/UB 0 15.1 15.1 None

33 17 Imp Cut/JB 2 12.0 14.0 None

34 12 SWD/JB 0 12.0 12.0 None

35 24 CLC/BB 0 9.0 9.0 None

36 20 CLC/BB 0 9.0 9.0 None

37 8 CLC/BB 2 9.0 11.0 None

38 7 CLC/BB 2 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

39 42 ST/UB 0 9.9 9.9 None

40 11 ST/UB 2 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

41 12 SWD/UB 7 6.5 13.5 None

42 65 ST/UB 2 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

43 104 ST/UB 10 7.5 17.5 7.8 Restoration/WL

44 97 Imp Cut/UB 0 10.3 10.3 None

45 38 Imp Cut/UB 0 10.8 10.8 WL

46 251 Imp Cut/UB 13 7.5 20.5 10.8 Restoration/WL

47 220 Imp Cut/UB 12 7.5 19.5 9.8 Restoration/WL

48 141 PCT/UB 12 2.0 14.0 Handthin

49 49 PCT/UB/PVT 11 2.0 13.0 Handthin

50 49 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

51 193 PCT/UB/PVT 15 2.0 17.0 16.0 Restoration/Handthin

52 22 CLC/BB 6 9.0 15.0 None
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

522

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS 

53 17 SWD/JB 10 12.0 22.0 16.0 Restoration

54 20 Imp Cut/JB 2 12.0 14.0 None

55 29 Imp Cut/UB 0 12.5 12.5 None

56 17 CLC/BB 0 9.0 9.0 None

57 93 SWD/JB N/A 10.5 10.5 WL

58 15 SWD/JB N/A 10.5 10.5 WL

59 16 PCT 27 0.0 27.0 Handthin

60 25 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

61 34 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

62 37 PCT 10 3.0 13.0 WL

63 17 PCT 10 3.0 13.0 WL

64 30 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

65 25 PCT 25 0.0 25.0 Handthin

66 26 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

67 20 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

68 15 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

69 31 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

70 39 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

71 40 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

72 85 PCT 12 0.0 12.0 Handthin

73 33 PCT N/A 0.0 0.0 None

74 23 CLC/SPB 0 13.5 13.5 None

75 148 PCT/UB N/A 2.0 2.0 None

76 123 LSF/<10ac N/A 2.0 2.0 None

77 709 MSF/<30ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

78 38 LSF/<5ac N/A 2.0 2.0 None

79 337 MSF/<30ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

523

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS 

80 326 MSF/<20ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

81 629 MSF/<30ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

82 776 MSF/<75ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

83 457 MSF/<75ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

84 831 MSF/<30ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

85 143 LSF/<5ac N/A 2.0 2.0 None

86 47 MSF/<10ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

87 36 MSF/<5ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

88 865 MSF/<30ac N/A 10.0 10.0 None

‡This value includes restoration detailed in PDFs S/WS/F 9-13 above with the assumption that they have 50% effectiveness in soil restoration (Luce, 1997). These values also assume 

that units with high existing detrimental disturbance (10%+) have an increase in 3% detrimental disturbance from skid trails due to overlap.

*Final detrimental disturbance values are assuming higher overlap and restoration due to preponderance of mining disturbance.

WL=Winter Logging

CLC/BB=Clearcut with Reserves/Broadcast Burn, CLC/JB=Clearcut with Reserves/Jackpot Burn, CLC/SPB=Clearcut with Reserves/Site Prep Burn, CLC/UB=Clearcut with 

Reserves/Underburn, Imp Cut/JB=Improvement Cut/Jackpot Burn, Imp Cut/UB=Improvement Cut/Underburn, LSF/<5ac=Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres, LSF/<10ac=Low 

Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres, MSF/<5ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings < 5 acres, MSF/<10ac= Moderate Severity Fire, Openings < 10 acres, MSF/<20ac=Moderate 

Severity Fire, Openings <20 acres, MSF/<30ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres, MSF/<75ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres, PCT=Precommercial Thin, 

PCT/HP/BP=Precommercial Thin/Handpiling/Burn Piles, PCT/UB=Precommercial Thin/Underburn, PCT/UB/PVT=Precommercial Thin/Underburn or Slash along Private, 

S/S/HP/BP=Sanitation/Slashing/Handpiles/Burnpiles, ST/BB=Seedtree with Reserves/Broadcast Burn, ST/JB=Seedtree with Reserves/Jackpot burn, ST/S/HP/BP=Seedtree with 

Reserves/Slashing/Handpiles/Burnpiles, ST/UB=Seedtree with Reserves/Underburn, SWD/JB=Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves/Jackpot burn, SWD/S/HP/B=Shelterwood (Group)

with Reserves/Slashing/Handpile/Burn, SWD/SPB=Shelterwood with Reserves/Site Prep Burn, SWD/UB=Shelterwood with Reserves/Underburn
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

524

Units 14 and 15 currently have high detrimental disturbance (30 and 22 percent, respectively). These two 

units showed signs of past mining activities and have some of the highest bare ground percentages (36 

and 32, respectively) as well as low coarse woody debris tonnage (0 and 4). Using the calculations 

described above, these two units have the potential to have a higher detrimental disturbance after 

restoration than they do currently. Region 1 Soil Quality Standards state that, “In areas where more than 

15% DSD exists from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects should not exceed the conditions 

prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality” (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). 

In these two units, there is an ample amount of area previously disturbed. Based on professional 

experience, it is highly likely that the projected disturbance from the proposed action would take place on 

current detrimental disturbance. This disturbed ground would then be restored and there would be a net 

decrease in detrimental disturbance. Also, in terms of net improvement, these units would have CWD 

levels increase to at least 5 tons per acre, many areas with bare soil would be covered with valuable 

organic material in the form of slash, and introduction of fire would help cycle nutrients locked up in 

biomass into the soil. These actions would all show a net improvement in soil quality trends within these 

units and hence meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. 

Units 51 and 53 are also above the 15 percent threshold using the calculations in table 129. Both of these 

units are projected to have 16 percent detrimental disturbance after restoration by the calculations above. 

It should be noted that this is within the accepted range (+/- 5 percent) of accuracy for these measures 

(Page-Dumroese et al. 2009). The main disturbance that would push these units to the threshold is 

prescribed burning. Based on professional experience, it is possible to implement the prescribed burning 

in these units without exceeding thresholds. We would monitor these units for soil conditions following 

harvest and before burning. A soil scientist would be consulted prior to burning to ensure that soil 

moisture is high enough to not create excessive detrimental effects.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The planned actions for the Stonewall Vegetation Project adhere to the Forest Plan for the Helena 

National Forest, and the soil quality guidelines for maintaining soil quality from Region 1 with the 

implementation of design features.

Summary of Alternative 2

Alternative 2 (proposed action) has the most proposed treatment acres. This alternative has the most 

acreage that would potentially be detrimentally disturbed. However, this alternative also has the most 

acreage proposed for prescribed fire. Based on research and professional experience, the positive effects 

of reintroducing fire, as described in the sections previous, far outweigh negative potential from 

disturbing a larger acreage of land. 

Alternative 3 

The primary effects from the proposed treatments are detailed in this document. As stated earlier, the 

effects from each of the action alternatives are essentially the same with the exception of the degree of 

activities in each of the alternatives. As can be seen in table 130, alternative 3 proposes fewer treatment 

acres and less road miles utilized overall.Alternative 3 would have long- and short-term direct and 

indirect negative effects on forest soil quality. However, the project would meet Region 1 Soil Quality 

Standards by implementing the project design features and restoration measures and help reduce negative 

impacts to soils. Anticipated detrimental disturbance for alternative 3 is shown by unit in the following 

table. All units are expected to meet Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

525

Table 130. Projected detrimental soil disturbance for alternative 3 in the Stonewall Project

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS

1 96 SWD/SPB 19.0 8.1 27.1 17.0 Restoration/WL

2 146 LSF/<5ac 2.0 2.0 None

3 37 PCT/HP/BP 6.0 5.0 11.0 None

4 7 S/S/HP/BP 6.0 8.0 14.0 WL

5 18 S/S/HP/BP 3.0 10.5 13.5 WL

6 14 Imp Cut/UB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

7 17 Imp Cut/UB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

8 62 Imp Cut/UB 3.0 6.5 9.5 None

9 18 ST/S/HP/BP 0.0 10.5 10.5 WL

10 18 CLC/UB 0.0 9.3 9.3 WL

11 23 SWD/UB 8.0 9.2 17.2 12.6 Restoration/WL

12 80 SWD/UB 18.0 7.5 25.5 15.8 Restoration/WL

13 41 ST/JB 7.0 10.5 17.5 12.3 Restoration/WL

14* 11 PCT/HP/BP 30.0 5.0 35.0 30.0* Restoration

15* 15 Imp Cut/UB 22.0 6.5 28.5 22.0* Restoration

16 3 PCT/HP/BP 5.0 5.0 None

17a 38 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

19a 15 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

20a 24 UB 2.0 2.0 4.0 None

22a 22 SWD/SPB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

23 29 Imp Cut/UB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

24 5 Imp Cut/UB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

25 29 ST/BB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

27 31 CLC/SPB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

28 22 Imp Cut/UB 0.0 13.5 13.5 None
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

526

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS

29a 25 UB 10.0 2.0 12.0 None

30a 14 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

31a 16 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

32a 45 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

34 12 SWD/JB 2.0 9.5 11.5 None

35 24 CLC/BB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

36 20 CLC/BB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

37 8 CLC/BB 2.0 6.5 8.5 None

38 7 CLC/BB 2.0 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

39 26 ST/UB 0.0 6.5 6.5 None

40 11 ST/UB 2.0 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

41 12 SWD/UB 7.0 6.5 13.5 None

42 65 ST/UB 2.0 13.5 15.5 14.3 Rip Landings

43 104 ST/UB 10.0 7.5 17.5 13.8 Restoration/WL

44a 97 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

45a 38 UB 0.0 2.0 2.0 None

46a 223 UB 13.0 2.0 15.0 None

46b 27 Imp Cut/UB 13.0 7.5 20.5 10.8 Restoration/WL

47a 180 UB 12.0 2.0 14.0 None

47b 9 Imp Cut/UB 12.0 7.5 19.5 9.8 Restoration/WL

47c 31 Imp Cut/UB 12.0 7.5 19.5 9.8 Restoration/WL

48 141 PCT/UB 12.0 2.0 14.0 Handthin

50 49 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

51 193 PCT/UB/PVT 15.0 2.0 17.0 16.0 Restoration/Handthin

52 22 CLC/BB 6.0 6.5 12.5 None

53 17 SWD/JB 10.0 9.5 19.5 14.8 Restoration

57 93 SWD/JB 10.5 10.5 WL
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

527

UNIT ACRES TREATMENT

CURRENT % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE

PROJECTED % 

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE 

FROM 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

TREATMENTS

DETRIMENTAL 

DISTURBANCE % 

AFTER 

RESTORATION‡

ACTIONS TO MEET 

SOIL STANDARDS

58 15 SWD/JB 10.5 10.5 WL

59 16 PCT 27.0 0.0 27.0 Handthin

61a 9 PCT/HP/UB 5.0 5.0 None

62 37 PCT 10.0 3.0 13.0 WL

63 17 PCT 10.0 3.0 13.0 WL

66 26 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

67 20 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

68 15 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

69 31 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

70 39 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

71 40 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

72 85 PCT 12.0 0.0 12.0 Handthin

73 33 PCT 0.0 0.0 None

74 23 CLC/SPB 0.0 13.5 13.5 None

75b 20 PCT/HP/UB 5.0 5.0 None

78 38 LSF/<5ac 2.0 2.0 None

79 337 MSF/<30ac 10.0 10.0 None

80a 326 JB 5.0 5.0 None

82 776 MSF/<75ac 10.0 10.0 None

83 457 MSF/<75ac 10.0 10.0 None

84 831 MSF/<30ac 10.0 10.0 None

85 143 LSF/<5ac 2.0 2.0 None

87 36 MSF/<5ac 10.0 10.0 None

88 865 MSF/<30ac 10.0 10.0 None

‡this value includes restoration detailed in PDFs S/WS/F 9-13 above with the assumption that they have 50% effectiveness in soil restoration (Luce, 1997). These values also 

assume that units with high existing detrimental disturbance (10%+) have an increase in 3% detrimental disturbance from skid trails due to overlap.

* Final detrimental disturbance values are assuming higher overlap and restoration due to preponderance of mining disturbance.
Soil – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

528

CLC/BB=Clearcut with Reserves/Broadcast Burn, CLC/JB=Clearcut with Reserves/Jackpot Burn, CLC/SPB=Clearcut with Reserves/Site Prep Burn, CLC/UB=Clearcut with 

Reserves/Underburn, Imp Cut/JB=Improvement Cut/Jackpot Burn, Imp Cut/UB=Improvement Cut/Underburn, LSF/<5ac=Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres, 

LSF/<10ac=Low Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres, MSF/<5ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings < 5 acres, MSF/<10ac= Moderate Severity Fire, Openings < 10 acres, 

MSF/<20ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings <20 acres, MSF/<30ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres, MSF/<75ac=Moderate Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres, 

PCT=Precommercial Thin, PCT/HP/BP=Precommercial Thin/Handpiling/Burn Piles, PCT/UB=Precommercial Thin/Underburn, PCT/UB/PVT=Precommercial Thin/Underburn 

or Slash along Private, S/S/HP/BP=Sanitation/Slashing/Handpiles/Burnpiles, ST/BB=Seedtree with Reserves/Broadcast Burn, ST/JB=Seedtree with Reserves/Jackpot burn, 

ST/S/HP/BP=Seedtree with Reserves/Slashing/Handpiles/Burnpiles, ST/UB=Seedtree with Reserves/Underburn, SWD/JB=Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves/Jackpot burn, 

SWD/S/HP/B=Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves/Slashing/Handpile/Burn, SWD/SPB=Shelterwood with Reserves/Site Prep Burn, SWD/UB=Shelterwood with 

Reserves/Underburn
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Soil

529 

Alternative 3 is the same for detrimental disturbance in units 14, 15, and 51 as alternative 2 (see table 129

and discussion on pages 23 and 24). Calculations for alternative 3, however, do not include unit 53 (as 

seen in alternative 2) because unit 53 does not come above the 15 percent detrimental disturbance 

threshold in alternative 3 (table 130).

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Alternative 3 for the Stonewall Vegetation Project adheres to the Forest Plan for the Helena National 

Forest and the soil quality guidelines for maintaining soil quality from Region 1 with the implementation 

of design features.

Summary of Alternative 3

Alternative 3 has fewer proposed treatment acres than alternative 2, and therefore, has fewer acres that 

would potentially be detrimentally disturbed by prescribed fire. Based on research and professional 

experience, the positive effects of reintroducing fire, as described in the sections previous, far outweigh 

any negative potential from disturbing a larger acreage of land.

Units 51 and 53 in alternative 2 and unit 51 in alternative 3 would be checked for soil conditions before 

burning to ensure that soil moisture conditions are high enough to not create additional detrimental 

disturbance. 

Hydrology 

Introduction

This section addresses potential project-related and cumulative effects on water resources—specifically, 

water quality and quantity in the streams within and downstream of the project area, as well as riparian 

area and wetland condition and function within the project area. Project streams are tributaries to the 

Blackfoot River.

Existing water quality concerns in the project area are mainly related to sediment delivered from 

roadways. Undersized culverts on roads in the project area, while not affecting current water quality, are 

also a concern in that culvert failure during a large flow event would likely result in the entrainment and 

deposition of large volumes of sediment within stream channels. Sediment is of particular concern in the 

project watersheds because, although the streams flowing through the project area are not listed as waterquality impaired by the State, they flow to the Blackfoot River, which has a total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) developed for sediment (for the section downstream of the forest boundary). In an effort to 

improve watershed and stream water quality conditions in conjunction with the project, extensive road 

maintenance to meet the State Best Management Practices (BMP) is planned for roads used for the 

project. In addition, the action alternatives include about 0.4 to 2.6 miles of road that would be built then 

obliterated immediately following timber removal. Reducing sediment delivery from roads would help 

meet a target set by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the Blackfoot River 

sediment TMDL for sediment reduction in tributary watersheds (Montana DEQ 2004). 

Methodology

Sediment delivery from roads at stream crossings was predicted using an erosion/sedimentation model 

called WEPP Road (Elliot et al.1999). The newly developed W3 version, a physically based erosion 

simulation model built on the fundamentals of hydrology, plant science, hydraulics, and erosion 

mechanics (Laflen et al. 2004), was exclusively designed to evaluate effects of forest projects on stream 

flows in Region 1 of the Forest Service. 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

530

Input data used to run this model were collected in the field in the sediment surveys identified in the next 

section. Sediment source areas were surveyed along all roads in project watersheds. The W3 WEPP model 

estimated an annual average sediment delivery to project streams under existing conditions, and then 

model runs were done assuming surfacing and drainage improvements were implemented at road stream 

crossings. The physical basis and performance of the WEPP models is discussed in the model 

documentation (Elliot et al. 1999, 2000) as well as several peer-reviewed papers (e.g., Larsen and 

MacDonald 2007; Laflen et al. 2004; Elliott 2004). In general, erosion prediction models have difficulty 

predicting sediment output with precision from a road, hillslope, or watershed at time-scales useful to 

land managers. This is due mainly to a high degree of variability in site characteristics and climate. An 

average erosion/sediment delivery rate prediction can encompass this variability to some degree, although 

this value becomes much more useful when combined with a predicted probability that erosion would

occur. The WEPP models incorporate climate data tailored to the individual site using PRISM data (Daly 

et al. 2001) and simulates daily events for a number of years specified by the user (30 years in this 

analysis) to determine the probability of sediment leaving the unit. The model incorporates individual 

precipitation event characteristics and antecedent conditions as well as site characteristics into its 

prediction of average annual runoff, erosion, and sediment yield values. 

The culvert risk analysis was based on field measurements of the culverts within the project area and 

flood frequency regression curves developed for the state of Montana (Parret and Johnson 2004). Many of 

the streams within the project area appear to lose water to the subsurface in the downstream sections; thus 

the predicted flows are probably conservative for culvert flow design.

An equivalent clearcut area (ECA) analysis was completed to evaluate water yield increases due to insect 

mortality, wildfires, and previous forest management actions. Water yield was also evaluated using the 

WEPP W3 model. The model was developed to replace the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and has 

been widely used in the United States and the world. WEPP requires four inputs, climate, topography, 

soil, and management (vegetation), and provides various types of outputs including water balance 

(surface runoff, subsurface flow, and evapotranspiration), soil detachment and deposition at points along 

the slope, sediment delivery, and vegetation growth. 

Water yield increases occur as a result of changes in watershed evapotranspiration, and information used 

in the analysis is derived from a variety of sources including the timber stand data base, which gives us a 

reasonable estimate of the equivalent clearcut acres. Water yield increases presented for alternative 1 

(current conditions) are relative to an undisturbed, fully-forested condition27. The Equivalent Clearcut 

Area analysis was also used to estimate the impact on water yield of project activities as well as past and 

present activities throughout the four 6th-field watersheds in the project area (USDA Forest Service 1978, 

1980). Water quantity can be an issue as excess water yield may result in accelerated stream bank erosion 

resulting in habitat degradation and additional sedimentation. The use of water yield and potential impacts 

on a stream is consistent with EPA guidance for sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). State 

water quality standards also recommend limits on water yield and related increased flow—activities 

increasing mean monthly flows above 15 percent can require an Authorization to Degrade (ARM 

17.30.715). Activities resulting in flow increases of less than 15 percent are considered not significant and 

are not required to undergo review. The indicator used in this analysis is percent annual water yield 

 

27 Water yield analysis in this report uses, as a baseline, a watershed where mature forest exists and no fire or other 

vegetation removal has occurred in the recent past. Under natural conditions (or under conditions during which longterm flow records in the region were recorded), it is unlikely that the forests in watersheds in the study area would 

have been entirely intact over this interval, due to fires or insect infestations. Thus, this method of analysis is 

conservative—a more realistic baseline would likely consider part of a watershed to be deforested and/or recovering 

from disturbance at any given point in time. A natural channel would be adjusted to a marginally higher water yield 

than a conservative analysis would suggest.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

531

increase. In keeping with state regulations and other EPA-approved water quality habitat restoration plans 

and sediment TMDLs, modeled water yield benchmark for non-TMDL streams is 10 percent and for 

TMDL streams 8 percent is used (e.g., Montana DEQ 2004). 

Changes in water yield are difficult to predict at the landscape scale due to the high degree of complexity 

in the movement of water in mountainous forested environments. Even with exhaustive site data (i.e. 

transpiration rates, soil moisture and porosity, precipitation, stream flow, groundwater level and flow) 

available only in experimental settings, water yield estimates are approximate at best. The ECA model has 

been in use for several decades in the northern Rockies, and provides a reasonable estimation of the 

impacts of vegetation removal. 

Numerous studies have been done on water yield and streamflow changes after forest harvest. In a review 

and summary of the short-term effects of forest harvest in the United States and other countries, Hibbert 

(1967) concluded that a “reduction of forest cover increased water yield,” but the “response to treatment 

is highly variable, and for the most part, unpredictable.” He also found that, in general, the increases in 

streamflow and water yield decreased over time as vegetation re-grew. In a later review, Bosch and 

Hewlett (1982) analyzed an additional 55 studies and concluded that increased streamflow is caused by a 

decrease in forest cover, and that the decrease correlated with the amount of the forest overstory canopy 

removed. Further, it was found that cutting conifers produced a greater increase in streamflow than 

cutting deciduous trees. The dense needles and branches of conifers intercept more water than hardwoods, 

and interception of precipitation occurs all year long. Conifers also actively photosynthesize for a longer 

period (Swank et al. 1988). Streamflow increases were highest in areas with greater amounts of mean 

annual precipitation, and were generally short lived as vegetation re-grew.

Physical riparian habitat was assessed as part of the sediment source survey described in the next section, 

using standard proper functioning condition (PFC) guidelines (Prichard 1998). Streams are considered to 

be in proper functioning condition when there is adequate vegetation, land form, or large woody debris 

present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, filter sediment, capture bedload and 

aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and ground water recharge; develop root 

masses that stabilize stream banks; develop channel characteristics to provide habitat for beneficial uses; 

and support greater biodiversity (ibid). Streams rated as functional-at-risk are considered functional (see 

above), but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation. A 

stream is considered nonfunctional when it is clear that there is not adequate vegetation, landform, or 

large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows, thus leaving banks subject to 

accelerated erosion and worsening water quality (ibid). 

Information Used

Data Sources

Sediment/Pollutant Source Survey – A sediment/pollutant source survey was completed for the project 

analysis. This consisted of a detailed, on-the-ground survey of the streams within the project area. 

Sediment and other pollutants were identified, described, photographed, and located using Global 

Positioning System (GPS) units. This information was entered in a database and sediment or other 

pollutant sources were plotted on maps of the drainages within the project area. The survey was done in 

an effort to assess the condition of streams within the project area as well as identify various pollution 

sources and causes.

Roads Sediment and Culvert Survey – A detailed roads sediment and culvert survey was also done for 

the project analysis. Roads within the area were surveyed in detail; sites where sediment was being 

transported to stream channels were evaluated and located with GPS units. Parameters measured at the 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

532

sites were those required by the WEPP-Roads model. Data included road design, dimensions, gradient, 

surface material, buffer dimensions, and overall disturbance width and length. 

Roads Analysis Process – A roads analysis was undertaken for the Helena National Forest in 2004. The 

analysis examined roads in maintenance levels 1 through 5. The analysis includes drainage road densities, 

road mileage within riparian habitat conservation areas, mileage in wet areas, mileage across erosive and 

slide-prone soils, mileage within TMDL watersheds, and the number of road-stream interactions. Risk 

ratings were given to individual roads as well as watersheds on the forest as a result of this analysis

Data Queries from the Timber Stand Database – These queries assess past harvest activities and fire 

acreage by 6th-field watershed in the project area. This information was used in the analysis of water 

yield change.

GIS layers and Queries – Numerous GIS layers were used for spatial analysis including proposed 

harvest units, proposed and existing roads, 6th-field watershed boundaries and streams from the national 

hydrography dataset (NHD), Helena National Forest (HNF) landtypes, stream buffers and various 

intersections of these layers with the HNF soil resource inventory. This information was used in various 

analyses.

Soil Survey, Helena National Forest – The HNF Soil Survey provided data on soil types and 

characteristics for the study area. This information was used in modeling erosion and sedimentation. 

Stonedry NFMA Analysis – The Stonedry NFMA analysis looked at a variety of data including recent 

water quality data, roads analysis, riparian stream characteristics for reference reaches, and past harvest 

and fire activity. 

Information from past and proposed timber harvest on private property within the project area was also 

used in the analysis of water yield change.

Assumptions

Water Quality

The project would meet State water quality standards for streams if all reasonable land, soil, and water 

conservation practices are implemented and those practices “protect present and reasonably anticipate 

beneficial uses.” Of the beneficial uses designated for project area streams, the proposed activities could 

possibly affect salmonid habitat through increased delivery of fine sediment to streams. Other beneficial 

uses for project-area streams are unlikely to be affected by the proposed activities.

In streams with no previously identified water quality impairment, this analysis assumes beneficial uses 

are being fully met and would continue to be met if project activities do not cause an increase in sediment 

delivery, as predicted by modeling. 

The effects of each alternative are based on the following assumptions related to water quality: 

The potential for sediment delivery from forested areas is highest in the first year following 

disturbance, and generally recovers to pre-disturbance conditions within three to five years. 

Road improvements (new drainage features, gravel application) may result in elevated erosion 

shortly after installation, but would remain effective in reducing sediment delivery over a period 

of at least three to five years.

Obliteration of roads may result in elevated erosion during and shortly after work, but would 

become stable and cease to be sediment sources within one to two years following disturbance.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

533

Proposed roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal would not 

develop sediment delivery points because they would be located in upland locations without 

hydrologic connection to any channels. 

Water Quantity

Water yield from a watershed is typically defined as the total volume of water leaving the basin via 

surface flow over a specified length of time. Annual water yield fluctuates based on climatic variability 

and changes in land use patterns. 

Most hydrologic impacts occur during periods of the peak stream flow in a watershed. Stream flow is 

defined as “the channelized flow of water at the earth’s surface”; peak flow is defined as “the maximum 

flow rate that occurs within a specified period of time, usually on an annual or event basis.” In the project 

area, peak flows occur as the snowpack melts in the spring. Occasionally, periods of high stream flow can 

be caused by rainstorms. 

Snow melts from a watershed in a predictable pattern. Melt begins earlier in the season at lower 

elevations and proceeds upslope. Snow has generally disappeared from the lower elevations some time 

before the spring stream flows peak. During peak flow, snow is beginning to disappear from the midelevations and is actively melting at the higher elevations of a watershed. 

After an area has been harvested, both winter snow accumulation and spring melt rates increase. This 

effect is less important at lower elevations, since the snow disappears before peak flow. At midelevations, the additional melt may or may not be important, depending on seasonal variations. 

Harvesting at high elevations would have the greatest impact and is, therefore, of most concern. The 

changes in snow accumulation and melt brought about by forest harvesting are reduced as new forests 

grow. This is commonly referred to as hydrologic recovery. 

Second-growth forests are said to be hydrologically recovered when snowpack conditions approximate 

those prior to logging and, as a result, any impact on stream flow is minimized. The most important 

influence of vegetation on snow accumulation is the interception of snow by the forest canopy and the 

subsequent loss of this snow to the atmosphere. This interception effect is a result of the combination of 

tree height and canopy closure. The rate at which the snowpack melts is affected by the extent to which 

the snowpack is exposed to solar radiation, and like interception, is also controlled by the canopy. 

Consequently, canopy closure is one of the main stand characteristics affecting snow accumulation and 

melt. 

The degree of canopy closure is determined by tree species, height, and stocking density. Since tree height 

data is readily available and is closely correlated with canopy closure, it is the variable used to evaluate 

hydrologic recovery. 

Forest management practices and road construction may increase water yield by removing living trees 

from treated areas, thus reducing the amount of water removed from the watershed by transpiration and 

canopy interception, evaporation, and sublimation. Excess water yield can be of concern because it may 

result in accelerated stream bank erosion resulting in habitat degradation and additional sedimentation. 

Widespread tree mortality from natural causes, such as insects, disease or fire may similarly increase 

water yield. Removal of trees has a greater effect on the water balance than removal of smaller plants 

such as grasses, forbs, and many shrubs, because large trees are generally more deeply rooted and thus 

have access to groundwater for a longer period of time. Trees also transpire much more water per unit 

area of ground coverage than smaller plants. The effects of tree removal on water yield depend on many 

factors, the most important of which is the percent watershed area with tree removal/mortality. A 

statistically significant increase in stream flow is generally not measurable until at least 20 to 30 percent 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

534

of a watershed’s forest cover is removed (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). Additionally, annual 

precipitation must generally exceed 18 to 20 inches in order for a measurable yield increase to occur even 

with greater forest cover removal (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; MacDonald 1987). 

Many of the trees proposed for harvest under alternatives 2 and 3 would be dead or dying from insect 

infestation. Dead trees do not transpire and are thus not a substantial contributor to water loss in project 

sub-watersheds. Thus, removing these trees would have no measurable effect on the water balance in any 

watershed. The area of land proposed for clearing for roads to be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal is negligible at the 6th-HUC basin scale, and the majority of trees that would be 

removed to facilitate these roads are dead. Thus, road construction would have a minimal effect on overall 

water yield. Roads typically are compacted surfaces, however, that can create local flow increases that 

may lead to sedimentation if road drainage is connected to streams. 

Road construction, however, can have a significant effect on sedimentation. The construction and 

maintenance of logging roads and landings exposes soil and increases the susceptibility to erosion and 

transport of sediment to streams (Kochenderfer et al. 1997; Swift 1985, 1988). The greatest input of 

sediment from roads generally occurs during construction and active log haul during timber harvest. 

Stream crossings, wetland crossings, and the approaches of roads to these areas are sources of the 

majority of sediment contribution to streams and wetlands (Swift 1988) especially where BMPs have not 

been properly applied (Stuart and Edwards 2006). 

Physical Riparian Habitat 

Proper functioning condition (PFC) is a qualitative method for assessing the condition of riparian areas 

(Prichard 1998). The term PFC is used to describe both the assessment process and a defined, on-theground condition of a riparian area. The on-the-ground condition termed PFC refers to the functional level 

of physical riparian processes. Proper functioning condition is a state of resiliency that allows a riparian 

area to maintain its integrity during high-flow events. This resiliency allows an area to produce desired 

values over time, such as fish habitat, neotropical bird habitat, forage, and dissipation of flood energy. 

Riparian areas that are not functioning properly cannot sustain these values. Proper functioning condition 

is used as the indicator of riparian area condition in this analysis. 

Spatial and Temporal Scale of Analysis

The spatial scale of analysis of direct and indirect effects is the 6th-field hydrologic unit code (HUC). The 

individual 6th-field HUCs range in size from 7,552 acres for Lincoln Creek and11,617 acres for Beaver 

Creek, to 22,834 acres for Keep Cool Creek. This is an appropriate scale because the types of watershed 

impacts that are associated with forest management practices (increased sediment delivery and water 

yield) are generally discernible at the 6th-field HUC scale. Tools available for analysis of watershed 

impacts were also considered; a smaller scale of analysis would require significantly more data and effort 

without a commensurate increase in accuracy. The cumulative effects analysis covers the three 6th-field 

HUCs combined, and is approximately 42,003 acres in size. Cumulative effects from the project were 

considered along with other management activities and natural fires. Additionally, the mouth of the 

combined drainages is in the TMDL section of the Blackfoot River Headwaters, and thus is an appropriate 

point at which to assess cumulative effects.

The temporal bounding of the analysis for direct and indirect effects ranges from 1 to 5 years, referred to 

as “short-term” effects. Short-term increases in sediment delivery associated with construction activities 

(i.e. road improvements and decommissioning) would last as long as soil is disturbed or exposed in 

locations hydrologically connected to streams. Once the road surfaces have stabilized with aggregate or 

vegetation has re-established after obliteration, construction-related impacts would not be expected to 

persist (temporal scale of a few months to one year). After the completion of management activities on 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

535

treatment units, the potential for sediment delivery is highest in the first year following disturbance and 

generally recovers to pre-disturbance levels within five years. Therefore, discussion of direct and indirect 

effects related to treatment units has a temporal scale of five years. 

As used in this analysis, “long-term” effects would be expected to last greater than 5 years (e.g. physical 

obliteration of closed roads). Beneficial effects of application of BMPS and design features may persist 

longer than the short-term.

Overview of Issues

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on hydrology 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. Comments indicated concern that roads built 

then obliterated immediately following timber removal, road reconstruction, and use of existing roads 

would adversely impact water quality. See the Transportation section for more information about roads. 

Affected Environment

Introduction

This section describes the affected environment for water resources. Much of the information presented in 

this analysis comes directly from field examination of the Stonewall Project area, including a stream-bystream sediment source survey and a road sediment and culvert survey. In addition, project units that have 

the potential to adversely affect water quality were examined in the field. Table 131 displays watershed 

information used in this analysis.

Table 131. Watersheds, stream miles, and acres of watershed area

SIXTH-HUC 

WATERSHED 

NAME

SIXTH-HUC 

WATERSHED 

NUMBER

STREAM MILES AREA (ACRES) PERCENT 

OF 

WATERSHED 

IN PROJECT 

AREA

Watershed Project Area Watershed Project Area

Beaver Creek 170102030303 34 23 11,617 8846 76

Keep Cool 

Creek 170102030304 70 23 22,834 9270 41

Lincoln Creek 170102030305 21 13 7552 5777 77

Total 125 59 42,003 25,898 57

Lincoln Creek (170102030305)

The Lincoln Creek watershed is 7,552 acres in size and flows into the Blackfoot River about a mile 

downstream of the Forest boundary. This is a 1st-order drainage with 13 miles of streams on the Forest. 

Lincoln Creek appears to be a losing stream28 near the Forest boundary. The average annual precipitation 

is 26 inches, with approximately 35-40 inches at upper elevations, and 15-20 inches at lower elevations; 

the wettest months are May and June. Historic land use activities in the drainage are predominantly 

 

28 A losing stream is one that typically loses flow at the edge of the valley because the water in the stream infiltrates 

to ground water
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

536

mining, forestry, and agriculture. Approximately 77 percent of this watershed is within the project 

boundary, and proposed treatment units occupy about 30 percent. There are no water quality listings in the 

Lincoln Creek watershed. Lincoln Creek exhibits a typical snowmelt-dominated hydrograph that can 

occasionally have multiple peaks during the spring due to rain events or warmer periods. The headwaters 

area consists of glaciated mountainous terrain while the lower portions of the watershed are comprised of 

mountain slopes and ridges and valley floor, all underlain by Proterozoic sedimentary rock. The stream 

bottoms run through compact loamy glacial till, moraines and glaciated mountain slopes in the upper 

portion of the watershed, and colluvial and alluvial flood plains and terraces and mountain slopes and 

ridges in the lower portion. 

Beaver Creek (170102020303)

The Beaver Creek watershed is 11,617 acres in size and is a tributary to the Blackfoot River. The stream 

is connected to the Blackfoot River through a series of mostly beaver created ponds and lakes located 

mostly on private lands. This is a 2nd -order drainage with a mixture of 34 miles of intermittent and 

perennial streams. Theodore, Klondike, and Yukon Creek are mostly perennial headwater streams. Annual 

average precipitation for the watershed is about 31 inches from PRISM, with 35-40 inches in the upper 

elevations and about 15-20 inches at lower elevations. May and June are the wettest months. Beaver 

Creek exhibits a typical snowmelt-dominated hydrograph that can occasionally have multiple peaks 

during the spring due to rain events. Proterozoic sedimentary rock and Pleistocene glacial deposits 

underlie the Beaver Creek subwatershed. The predominant landforms are steep mountain slopes and 

ridges and valley floors. Historic land use activities in the drainage are predominantly mining and 

forestry. Approximately 76 percent of this watershed is within the project boundary, and about 17 percent 

is occupied by proposed treatment units. There are no streams in the Beaver Creek watershed with waterquality-limited segments (WQLS) on the Montana 303(d) list (DEQ 2008). 

Keep Cool Creek (170102030304)

The Keep Cool Creek watershed is 22,834 acres in size and is a tributary to the Blackfoot River, which is 

located about half mile below the National Forest boundary. This second-order drainage exhibits a typical 

snowmelt-dominated hydrograph that can occasionally have multiple peaks during the spring due to rain 

events. The average annual precipitation is approximately 35-40 inches at higher elevations and 15-20 

inches at lower; the wettest months are May and June. Annual average precipitation for the watershed is 

about 28 inches from PRISM. The drainage is characterized by steep mountainous terrain. The 

predominant landform is steep mountain slopes and ridges with the lower watershed consisting of alluvial 

flood plains and terraces. Proterozoic sedimentary rock and Pleistocene glacial deposits underlie the 

portion of the Keep Cool Creek 6th-HUC watershed covered by the project area. Historic land use 

activities in the drainage are predominantly forestry and mining. Approximately 41 percent of this 

watershed is within the project boundary, and proposed treatment units occupy about 16 percent. There 

are no water quality listings in the Keep Cool Creek watershed.

Water Quality

Project subwatersheds are in the Upper Blackfoot River Headwaters Total Maximum Daily Load planning 

area. The Blackfoot Headwaters TMDL for sediment was published by the Montana DEQ and 

cooperators in 2004. Attributes for each of the 6th-HUC watersheds covered by the project area are listed 

below. All of the project subwatersheds have large areas of beetle-killed trees.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

537

Table 132. Summary of water quality impairments in project area 303(d)-listed streams

6TH-HUC WATERSHED STREAM SEGMENT LISTED IMPAIRMENTS

Blackfoot River—Little Moose 

Creek Blackfoot River Alteration in streamside vegetation, sedimentation, metals

Sedimentation

Roads Analysis Process

There are roughly 86 miles of National Forest System roads in the project area. This project includes up 

to 2.6 miles of roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal. These proposed 

road segments are generally in upland locations and would likely not pose a risk for sediment delivery to 

streams.

The proposed road segment number 5, accessing units 10 and 11, crosses a small drainage of a headwater 

tributary basin to Lincoln Creek. This apparent crossing was reviewed in the field—there is an old 

abandoned irrigation ditch at this site, but no stream channel or evidence of overland flow. Flow may 

occur in the ditch during snowmelt. If the decision is made to construct this segment, then appropriate 

mitigations must be in place (adequate culvert, proper road drainage, and sediment fencing if appropriate) 

and the segment should be obliterated soon after the project ends, in order to minimize sediment impacts. 

Many of the existing roads used to access the project area are known sources of sediment to streams, and 

were characterized as moderate-to high-risk in the HNF Roads Analysis Process. The use of these roads 

for project-related log hauling and other traffic would exacerbate their current sediment delivery. These 

roads present good opportunities for mitigation of potential sediment delivery from project activities in 

the form of road maintenance and improvements (e.g. gravel surfacing) and replacing undersized culverts. 

Mitigation measures sufficient to offset any project-related sediment delivery (from treatment units and 

haul routes) in the form of road BMPs and project design features have been incorporated into the project 

action alternatives.

Sedimentation from Roads

A detailed road sediment survey was conducted for the project area watersheds. The survey identified 

road segments that were hydrologically linked to stream channels and thus had the potential to deliver 

sediment to channels during runoff events. Road segments identified as such in the survey were modeled 

using the WEPP Roads model. The model’s output consists of predicted annual average sediment yield 

from the road prism, in terms of tons per year, based on site-specific climate data and road characteristics.

The concept of an average annual sediment load is somewhat misleading in that sediment delivery varies 

widely from year to year. In WEPP, the average annual value is equivalent to a two-year-return-interval 

flow event; there is an equal probability that the sedimentation could be greater or less than this value. 

Comprehensive sediment management begins by identifying the existing primary sources of sediment and 

developing a strategy that preferably minimizes or eliminates sources of sediment or the erosive action in 

the first place. This can be accomplished by first reviewing all existing road segments posing sediment 

delivery risk to the stream system, planning preventive measures that reduce or eliminate road-derived 

sediment, and then implementing those measures. Identification of primary sediment delivery sources to 

streams on many roads in the Stonewall Project Area has been accomplished and they are detailed in this 

analysis. 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

538

The next step involves evaluating all proposed road reconstruction and roads to be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal to determine the magnitude of potential risks to the stream system. 

Certainly roads in valley bottoms, roads paralleling streams and within 300 feet of the stream, and roads 

with live stream crossings generally pose the highest risk. Recommended action can vary from 

eliminating the road building to relocating or modifying the road design.

The sediment mitigation for the project area requires close coordination and support from engineering and 

watershed specialists in reducing sediment delivery by applying various BMP standards. Sediment 

mitigation measures have been developed for all alternatives to reach the goal of no net increase or 

preferably, a reduction in sediment delivery from current levels for the proposed project. Costs associated 

with erosion or sediment control measures should be included in the project area plan as well as an 

implementation schedule. Given the magnitude of other cumulative effects that may arise from ongoing 

and foreseeable activities, keeping sediment delivery below existing levels may be very difficult—

especially during the first 1 to 3 years as the magnitude of ground disturbance required to bring roads up 

to standard may in itself result in some short-term sediment delivery.

Reducing sediment delivery below current levels over the long term would likely require that some roads 

be brought up to BMP standards—especially roads rated as high risk to watersheds and fisheries in the 

Helena National Forest Roads Analysis (map locations available in GIS data files), and in the project area 

where sediment source surveys have identified problem areas. BMP maintenance should emphasize 

surfacing of the roads near stream crossings with washed gravel, improved surface drainage of roads, 

improved cross drainage of roads, and providing for 100-year flood flows for culvert crossings. 

Upgrading culverts to ensure they have the capacity to pass 100-year flows reduces risk for culvert failure 

and subsequent loss of road fill material to streams. Culvert crossings of perennial streams in this project 

area may need to be upgraded to provide for 100-year flows as well as provide for fish passage.

Sedimentation from Stream Bank Erosion

Stream bank erosion was noted in the PFC survey. Streams were surveyed in the Beaver Creek and Keep 

Cool Creek watersheds. Areas of accelerated erosion were located on a map, described, and 

photographed. There are no areas with bank alteration over the standard specified in INFISH, which 

requires streambanks to be 80 percent stable.

Table 133. Road information for the project area by 6th-HUC watershed

6TH-HUC 

WATERSHED 

NAME

SYSTEM 

ROADS 

(MI) 

SYSTEM 

ROAD 

DENSITY 

(MI/MI2

) 

RAP*

HIGH-RISK 

ROADS

(MI) 

RAP* 

MODERATERISK 

ROADS (MI)

ROAD 

SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY 

POINTS 

CULVERTS

(#) 

FORDS

(#) 

Beaver Creek 33 1.8 9 16 14 13 0 

Keep Cool Creek 36 1.0 2 9 24 19 2 

Lincoln Creek 24 2.0 11 8 3 3 0 

Total 93 -- 22 33 41 35 2 

*RAP: Helena National Forest Roads Analysis Process Report (USDA Forest Service 2004)
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

539

Sedimentation from Other Sources

In addition to accelerated stream bank erosion, other sources of sediment have been assessed in project 

watersheds. Other than the occasional elk wallow the only other notable sources of sediment are located 

downstream of Helena National Forest lands. Agriculture including cattle grazing, forestry, and mining 

occurs on private and State lands in project watersheds, and these activities may be a source of sediment 

to streams.

Stream Substrate Analysis

Sediment substrate analysis was done to determine cumulative sediment impacts in streams and to 

evaluate existing levels of fine sediment in stream substrates. Cumulatively, the impacts of disturbances 

(both natural and human related) throughout the watershed are reflected in the character of stream 

substrates. The percentage of fine sediment less than 6 mm diameter is used as a measure of condition. 

Use of sediment as a measure of risk to fisheries is appropriate for this project as it is generally accepted 

in watershed practice that the stream channel reflects the sum of land use activities; including natural 

disturbances in a watershed. Fine sediment (less than 0.25 inches diameter) levels for various streams 

within the project area are in table 134. Natural mean sediment levels from Helena National Forest 

reference cores from various drainages combined is about 32 percent with 0.66 percent (one standard 

deviation) of the overall range established near 10 percent each side of the mean). It is likely that 

reference drainages throughout the Helena National Forest may have mean sediment values of 28 to 30 

percent rather than 32 percent. Specifically for streams sampled in roadless areas, sediment levels 

averaged 31.9 percent on the Helena National Forest. Consequently, for fisheries management goals, 32 

percent likely represents a reasonable sediment level to maintain with an objective to reduce further 

toward the 28 to 30 percent range. As shown in table 134, several streams sampled within the project area 

have average sediment levels above the 32 percent level and three streams are above 40 percent.

Table 134. Summary of mean percent fines (less than 0.25 inches diameter) in select streams as an indicator 

of cumulative effects from past and ongoing activities by 6th-field HUC

6th Field HUC

sub-watershed

(name)

Stream(s) Sampled 

for Sediment 

Analysis

Mean Percent Fines

in Spawning Habitat * 

USEPA 

reference

Standard 

(%) **

Roadless Area

reference

(%)

17010203

(Beaver Creek) 

Beaver Creek 30.9

32.5 31.9

Yukon Creek 34.2

Tributary to Yukon 

Creek 35.1

Theodore Creek 32.2

Klondike Creek 32.7

17010203

(Stonewall/Park) 

Stonewall Creek 31.6

32.5 31.9

Park Creek 45.4

17010203

(Lincoln Gulch)

Not sampled as no fishery 

present in most of the 

drainage

32.5 31.9

17010203

(Sucker/Liverpool)

Liverpool sw 1/4

Liverpool nw 1⁄4

Sucker Creek

Keep Cool Creek

42.7

25.4

Not sampled

47.2

32.5

32.5

32.5

32.5

31.9

31.9

31.9

31.9

** Reference standard developed from Helena National Forest Data in the Lake Helena Watershed
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

540

Water Yield

Past effects to the hydrology of forested areas in the project area was estimated using the equivalent 

clearcut area (ECA) methodology on lands managed by the Helena National Forest for existing conditions 

in the Lincoln Creek, Beaver Creek, and Keep Cool Creek watersheds. The current, pre-project existing 

condition water yield from project sub-watersheds is a result of forest clearing, past fires, insect mortality, 

forest roads and other activities. There are no stream gauges in project subwatersheds; as a result preproject baseline stream flows cannot be reliably determined. Equivalent clearcut area can give a general 

estimate, based on the available literature, what the water yield increases from project activities may be. 

This estimate is based on comparable paired watershed studies completed in other parts of the 

intermountain west that investigated water yield effects of timber harvest and other fuels treatments.

Observed changes in the water yield after beetle kill or forest removal in snowmelt-dominated areas in the 

intermountain west are due to both a decrease in winter interception and a reduction in growing season 

soil moisture depletion (Potts 1984;Troendle 1987). In the upper part of project subwatersheds, 

precipitation accumulates over the winter as snow pack, with minimal melt over this accumulation period. 

When the snowpack begins to melt in spring, the meltwater first recharges the soil by replacing the water 

depleted during the previous growing season. Once soil moisture storage is filled, the excess meltwater is 

available to become streamflow. Paired watershed studies have shown that approximately 30 percent of 

the increase in water yield can be attributed to the decrease in interception and resultant increased amount 

of water contained in the snowpack. The reduced evapotranspiration during the previous summer also 

reduces the amount of meltwater needed for soil moisture recharge in the clearcut. This process accounts 

for approximately 50 percent of the increase in water yield. The remaining 20 percent of the observed 

increase in water yield results from the reduction in evapotranspiration losses during April and May 

(Troendle and King 1985). Primary sources of water yield increase for project subwatersheds include past 

timber harvest on Helena National Forest System lands and other land ownerships, as well as beetle-killed 

trees.

Riparian and Wetland Areas

Physical riparian habitat conditions were recorded for streams within the project area as part of the 

pollutant-source survey. For the most part, streams within the project area were rated to be in proper 

functioning condition (PFC) with the exceptions of one reach on Beaver Creek and three sites on Keep 

Cool Creek, which were rated functioning-at-risk. Other wetlands may exist within treatment unit 

boundaries, although none have been identified. 

Table 135. Riparian condition and bank alteration information for the project area, by 6th-HUC watershed

6TH-HUC 

WATERSHED NAME

RIPARIAN CONDITION*

ALLOTMENT(S) 

EXCEED 

PFC FAR NF BANK ALT. 

STANDARDS

(# REACHES) (# REACHES) (# REACHES) (# REACHES)

Beaver Creek 2 1 None Stonewall

Keep Cool Creek 3 None Keep CoolLiverpool
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

541

6TH-HUC 

WATERSHED NAME

RIPARIAN CONDITION*

ALLOTMENT(S) 

EXCEED 

PFC FAR NF BANK ALT. 

STANDARDS

(# REACHES) (# REACHES) (# REACHES) (# REACHES)

Lincoln Creek not assessed

Not every riparian reach was surveyed in 2009—numbers should be considered minimum values.

*PFC: Properly Functioning Condition, FAR: Functioning-At-Risk, NF: Non-Functioning

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Sedimentation from Roads

Road work proposed under the action alternatives would not occur under the no-action alternative. 

Table 136. Estimated average annual sediment delivery from roads to stream channels for existing condition

Watershed Sediment Delivered for Total 

Road Length (Tons)

Lincoln 1

Keep Cool 6

Beaver 4

Total 11

Since there would be no additional disturbance to roads under alternative 1, there would be no direct 

short-term (less than 5 years) or long-term (greater than 5 years) detrimental sediment effects to water 

quality. Roads would remain in their existing conditions. Project-related road maintenance work would 

not occur to existing roads. There would be no sediment or water quality impacts from ground disturbing 

activities such as landings, tractor harvesting, road reconstruction or building, or from increased haul 

traffic.

Indirectly, the existing road system would continue in the short and long term to risk sediment 

contribution to streams, currently modeled as 11 tons per year within the project watersheds (table 136). 

Although old, infrequently used roads would continue to revegetate, reducing the amount of sediment 

produced and possibly contributed to streams; all of these old roads would continue to have varying 

degrees of impact to watershed hydrology and water quality. Stream channel and road fill scour, channel 

aggradations, and risk of sediment contribution from failure of undersized stream crossings would persist 

until otherwise addressed. 

The no-action alternative would likely not contribute to cumulative sediment-related effects to water 

quality. Existing trends in water quality would likely be maintained. 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

542

No mitigation would be required under the no action alternative. 

The no-action alternative is consistent with Regulatory and Forest Plan direction and would maintain 

existing watershed conditions

Sedimentation from Streambank Erosion and Culverts

There would be no direct long-term or short-term effects to stream channels from streambank erosion and 

culverts under the no action alternative. 

Indirectly, the presence of undersized culverts and their continued effects on stream channel stability at 

and near stream crossings would continue to be a resource concern. Undersized culverts are a long-term 

risk for sedimentation due to the possibility of failure. There are no conflicts with plans or policies with 

this alternative and no mitigation would be necessary. This alternative would meet Forest Plan and 

Regulatory guidance related to stream channels.

Sedimentation from Other Sources

There are several documented small sediment sources in the pollutant source survey, but these sites were 

determined to be minor sources of sediment to channels. There are no recent burns or other large-scale 

disturbances identified as sediment sources in the project area.

There is no vegetation manipulation proposed in the Stonewall Project area under alternative 1; 

consequently, there would be no water yield increase over watershed baseline as a result of this 

alternative.

Water Yield

Methods for determining the effects of vegetation removal on water yield have been developed for the 

Helena National Forest (Pfankuch 1973), and reviewed, and refined for USDA Forest Service Region 1. 

The methods developed were for areas with snowmelt-dominated runoff. The equivalent clear-cut area 

(ECA) model is a key component of these methods. The basis of the ECA analysis is that water yield 

increases when vegetation is removed, whether by natural disturbance such as fire, or by human 

disturbance. The project area harvest history was used to determine the existing, baseline ECA and runoff 

values on Forest Service lands in the project area by watershed. The GIS database for the Helena National 

Forest was queried to obtain all records of documented timber harvest. USGS HUC 6 watersheds were 

used to delineate the tributary watersheds. 

The model was then re-run to estimate forest canopy and run-off changes after the proposed treatments 

are completed (see alternatives 2 and 3).

Table 137. Existing condition equivalent clearcut area (ECA) due to past alterations in vegetation cover in the 

project area

WATERSHED EXISTING EQUIVALENT 

CLEARCUT AREA

Lincoln Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 16

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 31

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 7 

Beaver Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 15

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 19
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

543

WATERSHED EXISTING EQUIVALENT 

CLEARCUT AREA

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 4 

Keep Cool Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 13

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 28

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 3 

Peer-reviewed research has suggested that in areas such as the project area, roughly 20 to 30 percent of a 

watershed must be treated in order to begin to attain a statistically significant increase in streamflow 

(MacDonald and Stednick 2003). The percent area in ECA in the Lincoln Creek drainage under current 

conditions is about 7 percent, and Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek watersheds are 4 and 3 percent 

respectively. Minor streamflow increases may have occurred under existing conditions within the project 

area watersheds. However, in drier mountains such as the project area, research has suggested that 

streamflow increases are reduced in that remaining trees after treatment tend to make use of most 

additional water made available through the reduction in transpiration brought about by tree removal 

(MacDonald 1987). This same concept applies to both action alternatives to some degree, especially for 

thinning and salvage harvest of dead trees. Clearcut harvest may have the largest potential water yield 

increases.

Acres of vegetation removal from timber harvest, roads and fire are converted to ECAs to provide a 

common datum to compare activities based on the amount of cleared area. ECAs are calculated by 

summing the appropriate acreage, evaluating the percentage of crown removal then assigning a 

hydrologic recovery value based on stand age. National Forest System roads are not recovered 

hydrologically and therefore are assigned a recovery value of zero. For timber harvest there is a 

continuum of recovery values as the stand ages.

Water yield increase is greatest immediately following vegetation removal. In years subsequent to 

vegetation removal, the ECA (and water yield increase) declines, or “recovers” because of vegetation 

regrowth. The rate of regrowth and thus ECA recovery is based on evapotranspiration, snowfall 

accumulation related to patch dynamics, and the relationship between water yield and changes in 

vegetation interception. This regrowth relationship is expressed as a recovery curve. 

There are limitations of ECA and water yield analysis. Removal of existing vegetation may demonstrate 

increases in water yield over existing conditions, however the ECA method does not account for the fact 

that fire suppression has resulted in overstocked forest conditions that may have actually been reducing 

water yield below “normal” levels. ECA analysis assumes that stands prior to harvest are fully stocked 

when in reality some stands at historic conditions were not fully stocked. In addition, this analysis does 

not accurately account for effects of vegetation removal on other land ownerships, which is a known 

activity, and it does not weight estimates based on elevation and aspect, which are known to influence 

water yield. ECA analysis is a relative index of change that might occur, not an absolute result. It is used 

in combination with other information to determine the effects that the proposed activities may have.

Another method used to estimate flow increases is the W3 module of the Water Erosion Prediction Project 

(WEPP) Model (Laflen 2004). The W3 module is designed to specifically estimate surface water yield 

from a project. It evaluates drainage and precipitation patterns, and the interactions with watershed soils. 

The model does not accurately predict flow increases due to groundwater inputs. It is difficult to predict 

the water yield from water that infiltrates deeply into bedrock layers, which are tied more to groundwater 

yield. As a result, flow and water yield estimates are focused on surface flow increases
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

544

Water yield increase values provided in this analysis are modeled approximations for the increase in 

runoff volume from vegetation removal. These values do not account for the effect the road system has on 

routing water and changes to the hydrograph. Although we did not model water yield impacts from roads, 

research has shown that roads can influence peak flows (Wemple and Jones 2003). 

Riparian and Wetland Areas

The effects on physical riparian condition for the no action alternative would be similar to what is 

depicted in the affected environment. For the most part, streams within the project area were rated to be in 

proper functioning condition (PFC) with the exceptions of one reach on Beaver Creek and three sites on 

Keep Cool Creek, which were rated functioning-at-risk. No wetlands have been identified within the 

project boundaries. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

An irretrievable commitment represents a temporary loss of a resource that can be replaced over time. An 

irreversible commitment represents a total loss of a resource that cannot be replaced. An irretrievable 

commitment under the no action alternative would be continued erosion and sediment delivery from 

project area roads at existing levels, in the absence of road improvement work of the type specified in this 

project.

Cumulative Effects

Several past and present Federal and other ownership activities have affected and would continue to affect 

water quality, water yield, and riparian health and vigor in the cumulative effects analysis area for the 

foreseeable future. Federal and private roads and culverts constructed at road/stream crossings in the 

project area have affected streams and riparian areas. There are several sediment delivery points on 

existing roads as described previously, and culverts represent a permanent grade control in the stream 

channels where they reside. These existing roads also have several road/stream crossings. Culverts at 

road/stream crossings in the project area watersheds were analyzed for this analysis. Undersized culverts 

can affect the stream’s ability to convey water and sediment, and represent an increased risk of failure and 

subsequent erosion and deposition of sediment into stream channels. Culverts directly interact with 

channels and can affect channel morphology and channel migration patterns, and local hydraulics that 

may influence the stream channel. 

There has been past timber harvest activity in the analysis area. Land disturbed by prescribed burn and 

harvest activities with effective BMP application typically recovers within 5 years, based on observations 

of similar projects in the region. Dead trees cover a considerable area in the project area. Younger 

understory trees released by overstory tree mortality would eventually after a couple decades create a 

forest canopy and reduce evapotranspiration.

Continued grazing in riparian areas and cattle trailing along streams within grazing allotments would 

likely continue to contribute elevated sediment levels to streams in the watershed; although, adaptive 

management provisions in allotment management plans should be implemented where necessary to 

reduce livestock impacts. In the absence of other non-project related activities designed to reduce 

sediment delivery in the watershed, streams in several of the watersheds where treatment is planned 

would continue to receive sediment from anthropogenic sources near current rates. 

In the past, mining has contributed sediment to stream channels in the watersheds. Additionally, 

abandoned mines can pose chronic or episodic water quality problems to forest streams. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

545

The Stonewall project-area watersheds may be affected by large-scale tree mortality due to insect 

infestations. Large-scale loss of live trees may affect water yield by reducing the volume of water 

removed from a watershed by transpiration. 

In addition, extensive tree mortality could remove the shade available and increase stream temperature in 

streams that cross the impacted stands. However, understory vegetation, generally unaffected by insect 

mortality, would continue to provide shade. Furthermore, understory and riparian vegetation exposed to 

increased levels of sunlight and moisture (due to overstory mortality or tree removal) can expand and 

provide additional shade (Gravelle and Link 2007). While an increase in incoming short-wave (solar) 

radiation is generally considered to be the dominant driver of stream temperature increase, numerous 

factors influence the extent to which a stream exposed to additional direct sunlight would have an 

increase in water temperature (Johnson 2004). Thus, the extent of water temperature changes resulting 

from overstory mortality is difficult to predict.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 2 treats 8,564 acres within the project area, and alternative 3 treats 6,564 acres. Treatment 

consists of a mixture of regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, and low 

and mixed severity prescribed burns. 

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 hydrology and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The specific design features listed under soil, watersheds and fisheries in table 9 pertaining to hydrology 

are S/WS/F-18 through S/WS/F-26. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all 

action alternatives. Design features that are applicable to hydrology include not only those listed above, 

designed specifically to protect water quality and water quantity, but also those designed to protect other 

resources. 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

546

Figure 83. Sediment source areas and proposed road treatments for alternative 2- project watersheds

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Road maintenance and improvement best management practices (BMPs) would be applied to all roads 

used in the project, including application of aggregate at road/stream crossings and other sediment 

delivery points. 

Sedimentation from Roads

WEPP Road models sediment delivery to streams mainly at road/stream crossings, often located at culvert 

crossings or bridges. Water concentrated on the road surface often flows down the road surface toward the 

low side of stream crossings, flows down the fill slope, and may enter the stream carrying sediment 

eroded from the road surface or fill slope. The model determines the amount of runoff that may occur 

from a road surface adjacent to a channel.

There should be a short-term (up to 5 years) reduction in sediment transport from roads in the project area 

resulting from road improvements planned in both alternatives (table 138). Forty-eight miles of road used 

for alternative 2 and 44 miles of road under alternative 3 would receive BMP maintenance. Project-related 

road improvements include surface grading, re-establishment of drainage features (grade dips and ditchrelief culverts), and application of sorted gravel at stream crossings and other sediment delivery points.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

547

Table 138. Road obliteration and maintenance for project

ACTION ALTERNATIVE

ROADS BUILT FOR PROJECT 

USE THEN OBLITERATED

(MILES)

ROAD MAINTENANCE 

(MILES) 

TOTAL 

(MILES) 

Alternative 2 2.6 45.6 48.2

Alternative 3 0.4 43.8 44.2

Table 139. Estimated average annual sediment delivery from roads to stream channels by sub-drainage for 

existing conditions and alternatives 2 and 3

WATERSHED

SEDIMENT DELIVERED 

FOR TOTAL ROAD 

LENGTH (TONS)

ALTERNATIVE 2&3 

SEDIMENT DELIVERED 

FOR TOTAL ROAD 

LENGTH

PROJECT ROAD 

SEDIMENT AFTER 

BMPS MAINTENANCE

Lincoln 1 2 1 

Keep Cool 6 18 5 

Beaver 4 11 3 

Total 11 31 9 

There are about 2.6 miles of roads that would be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal (new and “new specified”) planned in these alternatives. Most of these road segments are not 

predicted to convey sediment to stream channels, as they would be built in upland locations without 

surface hydrologic connection to any stream channel. The new roads would be obliterated immediately 

following timber removal. See the transportation report for more information regarding roads (Bielecki 

2012). 

The proposed new road number 1 (see project area map) crosses the drainage of a headwater tributary 

basin to Lincoln Creek. This apparent crossing was reviewed in the field—there is a vegetated old 

roadbed at this site, but no stream channel or evidence of overland flow. Channel features were observed 

roughly 60 feet below the roadbed. Sediment that appeared to be from the old roadbed was observed in 

this channel, indicating that in the past, this road probably contributed sediment to the uppermost reach of 

this intermittent stream. If restored, this road represents a potential source of sediment to the stream 

channel, and should be accounted for in estimates of sediment impacts of the project. If the decision is 

made to construct this segment, then appropriate mitigations must be in place (adequate culvert, proper 

road drainage, and sediment fencing if appropriate) and the segment should be obliterated soon after the 

project ends, in order to minimize sediment impacts. 

The proposed new road number 5 crosses an intermittent channel and this road is a source of sediment to 

this stream. Efforts would be made in the construction of this new road to prevent sediment delivery to 

the channel (e.g. raised grade at crossing, sediment filters at drainage runouts) while the road is in place. 

Many of the existing roads used to access the project area are known sources of sediment to streams, and 

were characterized as moderate-to high-risk in the Helena National Forest Roads Analysis Process 

(USDA Forest Service 2004). Project-related log hauling and other traffic would exacerbate sediment 

delivery: therefore, these roads present good opportunities for mitigation of potential sediment delivery 

from project activities, in the form of road improvements (e.g., gravel surfacing) and replacing undersized 

culverts.
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

548

All required State and Federal permits (e.g., SPA 124, CWA 402/404) would be obtained prior to 

construction of this new road. 

The total reduction in average annual sediment transport from using BMPs for project haul roads was 

modeled to be roughly 2 tons less than the existing conditions under this alternative, based on proposed 

BMP maintenance and road improvements. For the road segments to be obliterated, the reduction in 

sediment delivery would be permanent. Without repeated maintenance, conditions on open roads would 

likely trend toward pre-project conditions over the next several years once the project is complete.

Sedimentation from Streambank Erosion and Culverts

Proper functioning condition surveys did not identify any areas of unstable stream banks in project 

watersheds. Unstable stream banks may exist in project watersheds. Where these features exist, 

sedimentation from accelerated stream bank erosion would continue to occur under these alternatives. 

Inadequately sized culverts may have a potential for increasing stream sedimentation. Some stream 

crossing culverts are undersized, and have the potential for removal during large flood events. 

Sedimentation from Other Sources

The probability and volume of sediment delivered to stream channels from treatment units was estimated 

using the Disturbed WEPP model in project alternatives. Sedimentation and delivery of sediment 

probability reflects the variability in slope, soil type, and treatment type among units. The estimated 

sediment yield and probability are for the first year following treatment, and would likely return to preproject (near zero) values within 5 years. See the soils report for more information on sediment sources in 

project units (Walters 2011). 

Water Yield

The project-related and cumulative equivalent clearcut areas and estimated percent water yield increase 

that would result from proposed activities under the action alternatives are listed in table 140, and table 

141. On other drainages within the Helena National Forest the State DEQ has suggested water yield 

thresholds of concern of 8 percent for TMDL streams and 10 percent for non-TMDL streams (Blackfoot 

Headwaters Planning Area: Water Quality and Habitat Restoration Plan and TMDL for Sediment, 2003).

Table 140. Equivalent clearcut area (ECA) by alternative

EQUIVALENT CLEARCUT AREA

HUC 6 WATERSHED EXISTING ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Lincoln Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 16 42 32

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 31 12 16

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 7 14 11

Beaver Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 15 29 25

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 19 10 11

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 4 5 5 

Keep Cool Creek

Percent of Drainage Harvested: 13 20 18

Percent of Past Harvest Recovered: 28 18 21

Percent of Drainage as ECA: 3 4 3 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

549

Table 141. Estimated percent water yield increase by action alternatives

PERCENT WATER YIELD INCREASES

WATERSHED ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Lincoln Creek 4.9 3.85

Beaver Creek 1.75 1.75

Keep Cool Creek 1.40 1.05

Overall for Project Watersheds 2.13 1.75

This equivalent clearcut area analysis considered all past harvest and watershed disturbances, and the 

effects of reduction in forest canopy. Table 140 shows that for the proposed action, alternative 2, ECA 

values range from 4 percent in Keep Cool watershed, to 14 percent in the Lincoln Creek watershed. For 

alternative 2, for all project watersheds 23 percent of the project watersheds are in equivalent clearcut 

condition. For alternative 3, 19 percent of project watersheds would be in equivalent clearcut condition. In 

areas such as the Stonewall Project area, 20 to 30 percent of a watershed must be treated in order to begin 

to realize a statistically significant measureable increase in streamflow (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). 

Furthermore, in drier mountains such as the analysis area, research has suggested that remaining trees 

tend to make use of additional water made available through the reduction in transpiration brought about 

by tree removal (MacDonald and Stednick 2003), reducing the likelihood that predicted yield increases 

would be detectable in any of the study basins. 

Given the number of acres that would be treated in the project watersheds under alternative 2 or 3, it is 

unlikely there would be a cumulative increase in water yield that would be detectable. The estimated 

water yield increase for project watersheds is below the DEQ-recommended threshold of 10 percent, and 

below the 15 percent stipulated in ARM 17.30.715. Streams emanating from project watersheds appear to 

lose flow as they move from steeper areas and encounter deep valley floor sediments. Considering the dry 

(losing stream) nature of the channels in the Stonewall Project area watersheds, the potential increase in 

water yield would be unlikely to cause any negative effects (i.e. accelerated bank erosion). In the event of 

an actual increase in water yield, the trout population could benefit from greater water availability.

Table 142. Percent estimated cumulative water yield increase over baseline conditions (%)

6TH-HUC WATERSHED

PERCENT CUMULATIVE WATER YIELD INCREASE OVER 

BASELINE

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Lincoln Creek 0 4.9 3.8

Beaver Creek 0 1.8 1.8

Keep Cool Creek 0 1.4 1.0

The equivalent clearcut area (ECA) method was used to calculate potential water yield increase given 

cumulative impacts in the Lincoln, Beaver Creek, and Keep Cool Creek watersheds. Table 142 shows that 

results for the action alternatives suggests an increase of 4 to 5 percent in the Lincoln watershed, about 2 

percent in the Beaver Creek watershed, and 1 to 1.5 percent in the Keep Cool Creek watershed, depending 

on alternative. The project, when combined with other recent, past and reasonably foreseeable actions was 

predicted to result in a theoretical combined increase in water yield from project watersheds of 2.1 

percent at the confluence with the Blackfoot River. Given the dry/losing character of the stream channels 

in the project area, any change in water yield as a result of the project would be difficult to detect, 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

550

particularly considering that the majority of the ECA is from past or existing land use activities. Recent 

stream flow records at the nearby Helena National Forest Deep Creek monitoring site have not shown 

clear evidence of higher stream flow under the existing conditions. The small incremental potential 

increase posed by this project would likely not measurably change flow conditions. However, if a water 

yield increase were detectable, it would almost certainly be within acceptable limits for TMDL streams. 

In other drainages within the Helena National Forest, the State DEQ has suggested water yield thresholds 

of 8 percent for TMDL streams and 10 percent for non-TMDL streams (Montana DEQ 2004).

The W3 module of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model was used to estimate unit 

discharges for different treatment types for the project. Results provide a rough estimate of potential flow 

increases. The model evaluates drainage and precipitation patterns, and the interactions with watershed 

soils. The model does not accurately predict flow increases due to groundwater inputs. It is difficult to 

predict the water yield from water that infiltrates deeply into bedrock layers that are tied more to 

groundwater yield. As a result, flow and water yield estimates are focused on surface flow increases. 

These estimates are based on the hydrology of headwater areas in each of the project watersheds, and are 

likely less than what was calculated in the model. None of these results exceeds Forest Plan standards.

Table 143. WEPP W3 module predicted flow increases for the project area

WATERSHED 

RUNOFF (ACRE-FEET/YEAR) 

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

SURFACE 

RUNOFF

PERCENT 

RUNOFF FROM 

PROJECT

Lincoln Creek 1,611 1,255 15,844 8 

Beaver Creek 2,175 569 24,372 2 

Keep Cool Creek 2,191 1,793 47,906 4 

Riparian and Wetland Areas

For both action alternatives, riparian areas would have at least a 50-foot no-ignition buffer around 

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels for slopes less than 35 percent, and a 100-foot buffer for 

slopes more than 35 percent. Additionally, the standard SMZ-law protection prohibits the operation of 

ground-disturbing equipment within riparian areas. Therefore, activities proposed under these alternatives 

would not adversely affect riparian areas. Streams within the project area would generally remain at 

proper functioning condition. The notable exceptions would be the functional-at-risk stream segments. 

These stream segments are expected to remain in that condition under this alternative. 

No wetlands have been identified within the project area boundaries. If wetlands are identified during unit 

marking, they would be avoided by heavy equipment unless during winter conditions. Wetlands over one 

acre connected to stream channels would be protected by a no-harvest SMZ buffer. As noted above there 

would likely be small increases in water yield in project-area streams under this alternative. However, 

these minor changes are not expected to change the PFC ratings for any of the streams within the 

Stonewall Project area.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments

An irretrievable commitment represents a temporary loss of a resource that can be replaced over time. An 

irreversible commitment represents a total loss of a resource that cannot be replaced. Any sediment 

delivery to streams resulting from implementation of this project would be an irretrievable commitment, 

in that the stream would recover from the influx of additional sediment over a period of years to decades. 

However, if all appropriate harvest and road BMPs are carefully and consistently applied, it is unlikely 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Hydrology

551

that any irretrievable commitments would result from project implementation (Montana DNRC 2008). 

Furthermore, reductions in sediment delivery due to project road improvements were estimated to exceed 

the potential sediment delivery related to project activities.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable Federal and other ownership actions within the analysis area are 

described previously in the section for alternative 1, and can be found in volume 2, appendix C. These 

impacts include mining, wildfires, timber harvest, and recreation. The cumulative impact of alternatives 2 

and 3 in concert with other impacts in the analysis area would be a net reduction in short-term and longterm sediment delivery to stream channels. The short-term reductions would come from road surfacing 

and drainage improvements. Long-term reductions would result from road obliteration. These reductions 

in sediment delivery would more than offset the low-probability of the predicted short-term increase from 

treatment unit erosion, as well as any sediment delivery associated with road improvements and 

obliteration. 

Conclusions

The proposed project identifies two action alternatives. Alternative 2 treats 8,564 acres, and alternative 3 

treats 6,564 acres with a range of harvest and burning prescriptions. Primary water resource concerns 

stemming from this project include potential sediment conveyance to streams from project treatment 

units, and potential increased water yield due to removal of vegetation. Field sediment surveys identified 

road segments that were capable of delivering sediment to ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream 

channels. The WEPP:Road model was used to predict the average annual sediment conveyance for each 

road segment, as well as the probability that sediment would be delivered from the road segment in a 

given year. The model was run for existing conditions as well as conditions under each action alternative. 

Under all project alternatives, overall reductions in sediment delivery to stream channels due to 

application of road BMPs and road obliteration are expected. Results suggest that under existing 

conditions, roughly 11 tons of sediment is delivered from roads to Lincoln, Beaver, and Keep Cool 

Creeks in an average year (table 139). With design features proposed in this project, sediment delivery 

from roads would remain one ton per year for Lincoln Creek, reduced by about one ton each for Beaver 

and Keep Cool Creeks. Overall sediment delivery reduction for alternatives 2 and 3 during the project is 

estimated to be about 2 tons. While road improvement and road obliteration activities may temporarily 

increase sediment delivery to stream channels, the design features proposed in this project would reduce 

sediment delivery to project area tributaries of the Blackfoot River over the long term (alternatives 2 and 

3), leading to improved conditions in project watersheds. 

The project has the potential to increase water yield in Lincoln Creek, Beaver Creek, and Keep Cool 

Creek. A water yield increase above 10 to 15 percent may be of concern in that the flow increase could 

accelerate bank erosion. Water yield increase is less likely to be an issue in the project area due in part to 

lower annual precipitation levels, to the dry/losing character of the streams in these watersheds, and to the 

relatively small footprint of the project. The Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) and the WEPP W3 method 

was used to calculate potential water yield increase given cumulative impacts in the Lincoln, Beaver 

Creek, and Keep Cool Creek watersheds. Results suggested an increase of up to 8 percent in the Lincoln 

watershed, 2 percent in the Beaver Creek watershed, and up to 4 percent in the Keep Cool Creek 

watershed, depending on alternative (table 142 and table 143) and analysis method. The project, when 

combined with other recent past and reasonably foreseeable actions was predicted to result in a theoretical 

combined increase in water yield from project watersheds of about 5 percent at the confluence with the 

Blackfoot River. These levels are within State DEQ recommendations for TMDL and non-TMDL streams 

elsewhere on the Helena NF. If predicted water yield increases did occur, the modest additional flow 

would likely improve stream temperature and in-stream physical habitat, rather than cause any 
Hydrology – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

552

degradation. The project is unlikely to significantly affect the condition of riparian areas in the project 

area, given the 50- to 100-foot riparian no-ignition buffers in place for all action alternatives. The project 

is unlikely to affect the condition of any wetlands found in the project area, in that these areas would 

either be avoided entirely, or would be treated only by hand crews or by equipment during winter 

operating conditions. 

In summary, the proposed project would have relatively minor impacts to water resources in the project 

watersheds under the action alternatives. Through implementation of design features and application of 

BMPs, the project alternatives would most likely reduce short- and long-term sediment delivery to stream 

channels, improving or maintaining water quality in the Blackfoot River headwaters watershed. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would also reduce long-term sediment delivery through improving road BMPs at 

stream crossings. Water yield change due to proposed project activities is predicted to be at the margins of 

detectability and is not anticipated to have any deleterious effects on channel stability or water quality

Fisheries 

Introduction

This section documents existing condition and environmental consequences to aquatic resources from the 

proposed Stonewall Vegetation Project, and also discusses the potential effects to Forest Service sensitive, 

management indicator species (MIS), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed aquatic species westslope 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewsi), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and western pearlshell 

mussel (Margaritifera falcata). 

Table 144. Analysis area species 

SPECIES SPECIES STATUS 

PRESENT IN 

PROJECT AREA: 

HABITAT OR 

DETECTIONS 

Fishes

westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewsi) 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

USFS Sensitive 

ESA

Threatened

Yes 

Habitat and 

Detections

Yes

Invertebrates

western pearlshell mussel

(Margaritifera falcata) USFS Sensitive No 

Overview of Issues 

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on fisheries 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. Comments indicated concern that roads built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal, road reconstruction, and use of existing roads would adversely 

impact fisheries. See the Transportation section for more information about roads. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

553

Indicators

Indicators are defined to analyze data regarding the potential for increases to sediment delivery and 

changes to the timing of peak flows from project activities that may affect cutthroat trout habitat.

Change in stream habitat conditions for westslope cutthroat trout (MIS), bull trout and other 

aquatic species 

12. Changes in stream function 

e. Change in sediment delivery to streams

f. Change in fines by depth 

g. Change in the timing or increases in the magnitude of stream flows 

Change in characteristics of riparian areas 

13. Change in miles of motorized routes in RCAs 

14. Acres of riparian treatments 

Affected Environment

Introduction

This section presents existing conditions and trends for aquatic resources within the Stonewall Vegetation 

Project planning area. Information is organized under two major subsections: fish populations and fish 

habitat. The first discusses the status and distribution of fish populations inhabiting the planning area; this 

includes discussions about nonnative and native fish populations. The second subsection provides an 

overview of fish habitat including land-use activities that influence trends in stream habitat conditions.

Analysis Area

The Stonewall Project area encompasses three sub-watersheds (tributaries) of the Blackfoot River 

watershed. Natural processes and land-use activities unique to each sub-watershed influence local fish 

populations and their habitats independently of other watershed units of the same scale. The geographic 

area of preference is the watershed scale delineated at the 6th field hydrologic unit code (HUC), namely 

Lincoln Gulch, Beaver Creek, and Keep Cool Creek. These boundaries are appropriate for addressing 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects upon fish populations occurring within each of these 6th field HUCs 

(sub-watersheds). The cumulative effects area, however, extends to mainstem Blackfoot River because it 

receives waters from the project planning area. 

Existing Condition

Salmonid fishes present within the project area include westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, brown trout, 

brook trout and mountain whitefish. Other fish species present include sculpins and suckers. Historically, 

most project area perennial streams suitable to support a fishery were likely occupied by various native 

fish. The introduction of nonnative salmonids, including brook, brown and rainbow trout, within portions 

of the Blackfoot River drainage, has changed the fish species composition somewhat in the project area. 

The current salmonid fish species composition within the project area is summarized by streams in table 

145 that follows. The upper limits of salmonid fish distribution by species, as determined from sampling 

by Forest Service personnel, is depicted on fish distribution maps included in the project file, and 

reflected in geographic information system (GIS) maps included with this analysis (Fisheries Report Rief 

2012). 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

554

Table 145. Fish species by stream in the Stonewall Project area

Stream 

Salmonid Fish species 

present on forest based 

on sampling *

WCT genetic 

status Comments

Lincoln Gulch

Unnamed tributary NW 1⁄4 

S 20 T14N R9W

Unnamed tributary SW 1⁄4 

S8 T14N R9W

Unnamed tributary SW 1⁄4 

S9 T14N R9W

No fish on forest

No fish, but does have 

perennial flow

No fish; intermittent flows

eb

Intermittent flows and extensive 

mining impacts limit fishery 

throughout much of the Lincoln 

Gulch drainage

Beaver Creek

Theodore Creek

Yukon Creek

Klondike Cr

Unnamed tributary to 

Yukon Creek

Wct, eb, bt, LL

Wct,eb

Wct, eb and bt

Wct

Wct

Genetically 

pure

Assumed pure 

Assumed pure

Assumed pure

Assumed Pure

Bull trout are known to be 

present in Beaver Creek and 

Yukon Creek. The probability of 

bull trout to be present is low in 

other streams, but because 

habitat is suitable to support 

them bull trout are assumed 

present 

Stonewall Cr Wct Genetically 

Pure 

Probability of bull trout to be 

present is low on Forest but 

because habitat is suitable to 

support them bull trout are 

assumed present. Bull trout may 

be present off forest. Brook and 

brown trout present on 

nonfederal lands.

Park Creek Wct Genetically 

Pure 

Probability of bull trout to be 

present is low on Forest but 

because habitat is suitable to 

support them bull trout are 

assumed present. Bull trout may 

be present off forest

Liverpool Creek Wct Genetically 

Pure 

Probability of bull trout to be 

present is low on Forest but 

because habitat is suitable to 

support them, bull trout are 

assumed present. Bull trout may 

be present off forest

Sucker Creek Wct Assumed pure

Probability of bull trout to be 

present is low on Forest but 

because habitat is suitable to 

support them bull trout are 

assumed present. Bull trout may 

be present off forest

Keep Cool Creek Wct and eb Genetically 

pure

Bull trout are known to be 

present on nonfederal lands 

below the Forest.

* Fish Species: wct –westslope cutthroat trout, eb- eastern brook trout, LL-brown trout, bt- bull trout, wf-moutain whitefish
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

555

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Species

Bull Trout

On July 10, 1998 bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), were listed as Threatened within the Columbia River 

Basin by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Section 7(a) (2) of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended requires all federal agencies to review actions 

authorized, funded, or carried out by them to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. 

The distribution of bull trout is limited to drainages west of the continental divide on the Helena National 

Forest with the strongest populations being present in the Blackfoot River drainage. Bull trout are present 

in extremely low numbers within the Little Blackfoot River drainage. Table 145 lists the streams known 

currently to support bull trout in the project area. 

The Inland Native Fish Strategy (USDA 1995), established priority drainages for bull trout, however, 

none are found within the project area. Importantly, special emphasis watersheds for bull trout were later 

designated throughout Region 1 of the Forest Service to supplement the INFISH priority watersheds, but 

none are found within the project area. 

Designated critical habitat for bull trout includes reaches of the Blackfoot River and several tributaries in 

the Blackfoot drainage. All critical habitat for bull trout in the Blackfoot River is located downstream of 

the project area.

Under the Draft Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005), bull trout within various 

drainages are organized by core populations and then by local populations within those core population 

areas. It is important to note that there are no local populations of bull trout located currently within the 

project area, but it is likely that some bull trout from Beaver Creek contribute to the overall Blackfoot 

Core Population. The information on the bull trout core population that follows is based on information 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as knowledge from local fishery biologists from the 

Forest Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

Blackfoot Core Bull Trout Population

Bull Trout in the Blackfoot River are included as a core population in the Draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

(2005). There are several local populations identified within the Blackfoot Core Bull Trout Population; 

including the North Fork of the Blackfoot River, Monture Creek, Landers Fork/Copper Creek, 

Cottonwood Creek, Belmont Creek, and Gold Creeks. 

Based on redd counts and limited electro-fishing efforts, it is likely that there are somewhere between 400 

to 500 adult bull trout between the 5 local populations. Additional adult bull trout are in numerous other 

streams throughout the core population area, and in some of the designated INFISH Priority Watersheds 

and Special Emphasis Watersheds, as well as in undesignated streams. The overall number of bull trout 

adults included in all of the streams throughout the Blackfoot drainage is probably less than 800 when 

combined with the adults in the local populations. Recent redd surveys suggest that four of the five Local 

Populations are declining somewhat while the Copper/Landers population is improving. 

Bull trout may suffer from some competition with brown trout and predation in the main stem Blackfoot 

River, although there is no field documentation of this hypothesis. Both species occupy some of the same 

habitat and eat some of the same foods and both species are highly piscivorous. Consequently, the 

hypothesis seems reasonable. With temperatures in the main stem Blackfoot rising based on information 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

556

collected by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks over the last 10 years (Pierce et al. 

2008, pp. 32 and 33); brown trout may be gaining some competitive edge over bull trout. 

Interactions of bull trout with brook trout occur mostly in tributary streams rather than the main stem 

Blackfoot River. Brook trout are present in some of the local bull trout populations and many of the other 

streams in the Blackfoot River drainage, so there is some additional threat of decreased bull trout 

production due to hybridization. Additional discussion on aspects of bull trout biology and interactions 

with other species as a function of proposed project activities are addressed further in the biological 

assessment. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) are a designated sensitive fish species by the Forest Service and are 

included as a management indicator species in the Helena Forest Plan. Westslope cutthroat trout are found 

within all the streams in the project area known to support a fishery with the exception of the tributary to 

Lincoln Gulch, which is known to support only brook trout. There is a strong WCT fluvial population 

functioning in the Blackfoot River drainage. Fluvial WCT may also be using the reaches of other streams 

in the project area below the Forest Service boundary. Several publications from the Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks between the mid-1990s and 2007 provide extensive discussions of WCT 

movements and life history in the Blackfoot drainage. 

It is important to maintain viability of the westslope cutthroat trout conservation populations to reduce the 

risk of the species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Currently, the WCT in the 

Blackfoot River are a conservation population, and with the exception of those above Nevada Creek 

Reservoir, function as a single meta-population. The population consists of both fluvial and resident 

components (Pierce et al. 1997, p. 73). Radio tracking of WCT indicates wide-ranging movements and 

use of various tributaries for spawning (Pierce et al. 2004, pp. 63-78). 

The potential for loss of viability for the Blackfoot River WCT conservation population is presumed to be 

low due to the extensive distribution of WCT throughout the drainage, and the presence of a functioning 

fluvial population. However, nonnative fish especially brook trout and to some degree brown trout, are 

likely competing with and sometimes preying on WCT in portions of the Blackfoot River and selected 

tributaries. 

Western pearlshell mussels

Western pearlshell mussels (Margaritifera falcate) may be one of the longest living freshwater 

invertebrates and animals. Specimens have been aged at greater than 90 years (Vannote and Minshall 

1982). The western pearlshell mussel has an elongate shell, typically 2.5-4 inches long with a concave 

ventral edge. The interior shell has a purple to pink hue as the outside shell is dark brown to black. These 

mussels are found in cool, stable running, generally low to moderate gradient streams and rivers. Swift 

stream velocities can limit where mussels can occur in streams. They are most commonly found in stable 

gravel and pebble benthic substrate, but can occur in sand or gravel among cobble and boulders in 

moderate to higher gradient larger rivers. They usually occupy reaches of stream where the riparian zone 

is dominated by willows or alders. 

The larval stage of this mussel (glochidia) briefly parasitizes a host fish, westslope cutthroat trout, by 

attaching to the gills. They fall off the host as a juvenile mussel. The larval parasitism on fish enables 

upstream transport to habitats otherwise difficult to reach by relatively immobile adult mussels. Western 

pearlshell glochidia are considered highly host specific (Bauer 1987) as they are typically restricted to 

salmonid fishes. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

557

The western pearlshell mussel continues to experience significant range reductions over the last 100 

years. The primary cause of stream habitat deterioration in Montana is high fine sediment load, related to 

agricultural practices, which is one of the most serious pollutants of streams systems. Excess fine 

sediment can degrade mussel habitats by decreasing substrate permeability. This has a smothering effect 

on juvenile mussels and limits successful recruitment (Stagliano 2010). 

The Montana Natural Heritage database contains no records for this species in the project area, although 

they have been found in the Blackfoot River downstream of the project area. Habitats suitable for mussels 

are present in the project area where Westslope cutthroat trout are present. Based on this information, we 

believe pearlshell mussels may be present in the analysis area. 

Aquatic Habitat

Streams currently known to support fisheries located within this analysis area include Beaver Creek, and 

tributaries to Beaver Creek which include Yukon Creek, Theodore Creek and Klondike Creek. Stonewall 

Creek also supports a fishery. The lower reaches of Beaver Creek and Stonewall Creek are located on 

private and State land. Both flow into the Keep Cool drainage within 3 miles above the confluence with 

the Blackfoot River.

Lincoln Gulch

Lincoln Gulch is a second-order tributary that enters the Blackfoot River at river mile (rm) 103.6. The 

upper 4.4 miles of Lincoln Gulch watershed is located on the Forest. Lincoln Gulch drains the eastern 

slopes of Black Mountain. The lower 2.6 miles flows through private agricultural land and a residential 

housing area. Lincoln Gulch shows impacts from mining, grazing and agricultural activities. In the 

headwater areas mining impacts and channelization are extensive. Fish surveys found brown trout and 

sculpin at mile 0.1. Surveys conducted higher in the watershed found no fish (Pierce and Podner 2006). 

Beaver Creek

This stream forms near Reservoir Lake and is a third-order tributary to Keep Cool Creek, entering 0.7 

miles upstream of the Keep Cool Creek confluence with the Blackfoot River (rm 105.2). Beaver Creek

has a total of 20.1 stream miles of which 14.3 miles are perennial. In the Beaver Creek drainage on NFS 

land, past and present road construction, timber harvest and livestock grazing have influenced habitat 

conditions by increasing the sediment delivered to the stream. The lower reaches of Beaver Creek are 

located on private and State lands that support agricultural uses. There are some reaches where livestock 

grazing has negatively influenced bank stability (Peters 1990) and some isolated bank damage occurs 

from livestock grazing on the Forest. Bank trampling from livestock is limited in the higher reaches due 

to the inherent resistance of the stream channel type and the vegetation adjacent to the streambank. A 

water diversion is present just below the Forest boundary which partially dewaters the stream. This 

diversion was recently upgraded to provide fish passage. Beaver Creek maintains a moderate gradient 

originating at Reservoir Lake.

Fish habitat is in relatively good condition with good quality cover for fish present throughout the reaches 

evaluated. The amount of cover present is somewhat low on some of the reaches with quality pools 

estimated to be present at around 15 to 20 percent. Past beaver activity has been very important in the 

formation of habitat on selected reaches of stream downstream of Yukon Creek. Spawning gravels contain 

an average of 30.5 percent fines. Recreational fishing does occur on this stream within the Forest, but the 

intensity of fishing and the amount of harvest is unknown. Downstream of NFS lands, Beaver Creek is at 

least partially dewatered for irrigation and the stream gradient drops to near 1 percent in the vicinity of 

beaver activity (USDA 1995b). 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

558

Discharge was 10.7 cfs 0.50 mile above the mouth on August 31, 1989. Fine sediment levels in spawning 

gravels were found to average 33 percent in Beaver Creek with a range of 17 to 55 percent. In 

comparison, an unmanaged drainage of similar geology that had undergone high sediment delivery from 

fire averaged 27 percent with a range of 19 to 32 percent (Peters 1990). 

Theodore Creek

The Theodore drainage shows past timber activity in the lower reaches. The lower reaches are located in 

the Stonewall allotment. This stream is a tributary to Beaver Creek that originates south of the Scapegoat 

Wilderness. The entire drainage lies within the Forest. Electro-fishing evaluations have shown that the 

lower reaches are dominated by cutthroat trout with a few brook trout also present. The upper reaches 

were found to support cutthroat trout exclusively. Fish distribution extends upstream into section 21 

(T15N R9W). Abundance of salmonids over 6 inches in length was estimated at 160 per mile of stream 

while the maximum size obtained was around seven inches. It is likely that some of the cutthroat trout 

from Theodore Creek recruit downstream to Beaver Creek.

Habitat conditions on the reaches evaluated were very good in Theodore Creek. Much of the pool habitat 

in the stream is formed by large rubble cascades and woody debris. Spawning gravels were found to 

average 32.1 percent fines. Theodore Creek is too small to support much if any recreational fishing and 

no evidence of use by anglers was noted during survey evaluations (USDA Forest Service1995b). 

Yukon Creek

This drainage is entirely within the Forest and is a tributary to Beaver Creek. The lower reaches show 

evidence of some timber harvest activity. The lowest reaches are within the Stonewall allotment. Yukon 

Creek is dominated by cutthroat with some brook trout present in the lower reaches. Abundance was 

estimated at 220 fish per mile of stream over 6 inches in length. Fish distribution extends upstream into 

section 17 with the headwater reaches likely supporting only cutthroat trout. This stream is important for 

providing recruitment of cutthroat trout to Beaver Creek. Walk-through evaluations indicate that habitat is 

in good condition. Some sediment delivery to the stream is still occurring at the upper culvert site which 

was constructed several years ago, however seeding the site has helped to mitigate the delivery.

Spawning substrates contain 34.2 percent fine sediment on the average. Yukon Creek is large enough to 

support some recreational fishing, but no evidence of fishing use was observed. In 1992, two instream 

pool structures were constructed to increase fish habitat capability (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

Unnamed Tributary to Yukon Creek

This stream is a tributary to Yukon Creek and is located entirely on the Forest. This drainage shows 

evidence of past timber harvest activity. Only the lowest reach containing the confluence with Yukon 

Creek is located in the Stonewall allotment. This is a very small stream that was found to support only 

cutthroat trout. Abundance of fish over 6 inches in length is 70 per mile of stream. The distribution of fish 

extends upstream in section 19 (T15N R9W). This stream probably provides for recruitment of cutthroat 

trout to Yukon and Beaver Creeks. Walk-through evaluations indicate that habitat is in relatively good 

condition. Spawning gravels measure 35.1 percent fines (USDA Forest Service1995b). 

Klondike Creek

This drainage shows evidence of past timber harvest activity. The lower reaches are located within the 

Stonewall allotment. This stream is a tributary to Beaver Creek and is entirely located on the Forest. The 

stream is dominated by cutthroat trout with an occasional brook trout. Fish distribution likely extends 

upstream into section 20. The maximum size of fish obtained during sampling was just less than 7 inches 

in length. Abundance of fish over 6 inches in length was estimated at 120 per mile of stream. This stream 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

559

also provides recruitment of cutthroat to Beaver Creek. Walk-through evaluations indicate that habitat 

conditions are relatively good with numerous small pools formed by large rubble and woody debris. 

Spawning gravels averaged 32.7 percent fines. Klondike Creek is too small to support recreational 

fishing, but in an attempt to increase habitat capability eight instream pool structures were constructed in 

1992 (USDA Forest Service 1995b). 

Stonewall Creek

Stonewall Creek has a total stream length of 9.0 miles of which 3.8 miles are perennial. The Stonewall 

drainage shows evidence of past timber harvest in the middle reaches. A portion of the lower reaches is 

located in the Stonewall allotment. A small active patented mine is still under operation in the upper 

reaches. The lowest reaches are located on private ranch land and are likely to be dewatered before 

reaching the Blackfoot. In Stonewall Creek, fine sediment levels were found to average 31 percent with a 

range of 21 to 50 percent as compared to an undisturbed stream of similar geology having an average of 

20 percent with a range of 11 to 26 percent. Other habitat parameters have not been measured. Cutthroat 

trout are common in the drainage (USDA Forest Service 1995b). On private land, Stonewall Creek shows 

effects from agricultural uses. Stonewall Creek flows through a large wetland on private land before its 

confluence with Keep Cool Creek. 

Park Creek

Park Creek is a second-order tributary to Stonewall Creek. Park Creek has a total stream length of 6.1 

miles, of which 2.9 miles are perennial. The headwaters and upper reaches of Park Creek are located on 

the Forest; the lower reaches are located on private land. The creek may be dewatered in the lower 

reaches. Spawning gravel quality has not been measured. Cutthroat trout have been determined to be 

genetically pure but are uncommon in Park Creek. 

Liverpool Creek

The headwaters and upper reaches of Liverpool Creek are located on the Forest, and the lower reaches are 

located on private land. This drainage is located within the Keep Cool Liverpool allotment. The stream 

has been channelized by mining on the Forest. Eight drop-log structures have been built in the creek to 

provide much needed pool habitat. One downed tree was placed in the creek to provide for rearing 

habitat. A portion of the area mined has been reclaimed, but occasional suction dredging continues in the 

channel. Spawning gravels are common in the stream. Below the area mined spawning gravel quality 

measured 42.7 percent fines. Above the mined area spawning gravels measured 25.4 percent fines. 

Obviously, mining has had negative effects on the quality of spawning habitat in Liverpool Creek. 

Cutthroat trout are common both above and below the mined area (USDA Forest Service 1995b). 

Sucker Creek 

Sucker Creek has a total length of 3.0 miles, of which 2.5 miles are perennial. Only the headwaters of 

Sucker Creek are located on the Forest. The middle and lower reaches are located on private land. Timber 

harvest and road construction has taken place in the drainage. Sucker Creek drainage is located in the

Keep Cool Liverpool allotment. Spawning gravel quality has not been measured. Cutthroat are rare, but 

presumed genetically pure in Sucker Creek (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

Keep Cool Creek

Keep Cool Creek is the largest spring creek in the Lincoln Valley. It forms north of Lincoln from both an 

alluvial groundwater aquifer and small basin-fed streams in its headwaters. It is joined at the mouth by 

Beaver Creek (mile 0.7) and Lincoln Spring Creek (mile 0.5) before entering the Blackfoot River at mile 

105.2. The combined flow of this stream system provides a significant percentage of the upper Blackfoot 

River flow during low flow periods. Excessive livestock access to riparian areas has degraded portions of 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

560

Keep Cool Creek and its tributaries. Other mainstem fisheries-related impairments include channel 

alterations and irrigation practices.

Keep Cool Creek has a total length of 10.7 miles, of which 2.0 are perennial. The upper and middle 

reaches of Keep Cool Creek are located in the Helena Forest. The lower reaches are located in private 

land. The upper elevations of the drainage show evidence of timber sale activity and are heavily and 

roaded. The drainage is within the Keep Cool Liverpool allotment. Spawning gravels just above the 

Forest boundary measure 47.2 percent fines. Spawning gravels are common in this area; however, the 

flows become very low early in the season. Cutthroat trout are common in Keep Cool Creek (USDA 

Forest Service 1995b). 

Recently, radio telemetry confirmed bull trout from the Blackfoot River use the lower portion of Keep 

Cool Creek (Pierce et al. 2004). Water temperature monitoring at two locations found maximum summer 

temperatures of 75.2 o

F in upper Keep Cool (at the Sucker Creek road) compared to a high of 62 oF at the 

Beaver Creek Road. This cooling results from large inflows of groundwater between these two sites 

(Pierce et al. 2004). 

Table 146 that follows, lists streams that support resident fish populations in the project area that have 

been sampled for sediment (less than 6.4 mm) by depth using McNeil core sampling methods to 

quantitatively establish estimates of fines in fish reproductive habitat. 

Table 146. Summary of mean percent fines (<1/4 inch dia.) in spawning habitat of select streams as an 

indicator of cumulative effects from past and ongoing cumulative effects by 6th-field HUC

6th-Field HUC

sub-watershed

(name)

Stream(s) sampled 

for sediment analysis

Mean % fines

in spawning 

habitat * 

USEPA reference

Standard 

(%) **

Roadless Area

reference

(%)

17010203

(Beaver Creek)

Beaver Creek 30.9

32.5 31.9

Yukon Cr 34.2

Tributary to Yukon Cr 35.1

Theodore Cr 32.2

Klondike Cr 32.7

17010203

(Stonewall/Park)

Stonewall Cr 31.6

32.5 31.9

Park Cr 45.4

17010203

(Lincoln Gulch)

Not sampled as 

no fishery present 

in most of the 

drainage

32.5 31.9

17010203

(Sucker/Liverpool)

Liverpool sw 1/4 42.7

32.5 31.9 Liverpool nw 1/4 25.4

Sucker Cr Not sampled

Keep Cool Cr 47.2

*Averages for individual years are detailed in Fish Information for Stone Dry Watershed Analysis (Burns 2006).

** Reference standard developed from Helena National Forest Data in the Lake Helena Watershed

Summary of Fish Habitat

Fish habitat in the planning area is basically the product of interactions among underlying geologies, 

soils, topography, vegetation, climate and hydrology unique to the watershed (Meehan 1991, p. 5; 

Swanston 1991, p. 139). These drainage characteristics and processes remain fairly constant, setting up 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

561

conditions for optimum productivity of aquatic life forms (Meehan 1991, p. 5). When natural disturbance 

reshapes stream channels, the actual effects of such changes on aquatic organisms are often short term. In 

their natural context, accessory processes like fire, flood flows, insect infestations, and animal activities 

(e.g. beaver) operate on the stream system to produce improved habitat quality and productivity in the 

long term (Swanston 1991, p. 139-142). 

Human land-use activities can disrupt the balance of these interactions producing persistent changes in 

habitat that can reduce natural fish production and population viability (Meehan 1991, pp. 1-6; Waters 

1995, pp. 1, 17). The Stonewall Project area has historically implemented projects such as timber harvest, 

livestock grazing, mining, recreation and transportation. Cumulatively, these activities impair stream 

structure and function to varying degrees by increasing erosion and sedimentation, impacting water 

quality, altering flows, reducing vegetation cover, and destabilizing or degrading channels. Past and 

ongoing actions, including the transportation system that has been assessed for hydrologically connected 

sediment delivery sites and culvert crossings, cumulatively set the stage for existing conditions of 

sediment in fish reproductive habitat. Without mitigation or other corrective actions to protect and recover 

habitat, these factors suppress the natural fish production capabilities (carrying capacity) of streams 

(Hicks et al. 1991, pp. 484-485). 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1 there would be no new road or ground based timber harvest to change the level of 

sediment delivered to streams. Sedimentation levels may change due to ongoing management. Taking “no 

action” to address motorized roads and trails in managed watersheds (like those in the project area) almost 

always results in the same or increased levels of sedimentation over time. Hydrologically linked roads, a 

significant unnatural source of chronic sedimentation, would remain untreated contributing 11 tons of 

sediment in excess annually within project watersheds. Although old, infrequently used roads would 

continue to revegetate, reducing the amount of sediment produced and possibly contributed to streams; all 

of these old roads would continue to have varying degrees of impact to watershed hydrology and water 

quality. Stream channel and road fill scour, channel aggradations, and risk of sediment contribution from 

failure of undersized stream crossings would persist until otherwise addressed. 

No timber harvest is proposed under the no-action alternative, and therefore no change in the timing or 

magnitude of peak flows is expected. Alternatively, there would be no measures taken to promote change 

in function for any stream within the project area that is not currently at desired conditions. 

Alternative 1 would fail to promote improvement in stream habitat conditions for Westslope cutthroat 

trout (MIS), bull trout or for other aquatic populations that exist in streams. Thus, certain aquatic 

populations would remain at lower densities than those in streams that are functioning properly and where 

habitat quality and quantity are nearer potential. Average fine sediments in trout spawning habitat would 

remain elevated in some of the project area streams (table 146) in contrast to approximately 33 percent 

average fine-sediment levels determined for reference streams across the Helena National Forest. 

Alternative 1 would fail to promote improvement in riparian habitat conditions in the project area. 

Because there would be “no action” there would be no measures taken to change the function for any 

riparian area within the project area. 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

562

Alternatives 2 and 3 

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 fisheries and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2.

The specific design features listed under soil, watersheds and fisheries in table 9 pertaining to hydrology 

are S/WS/F-15, S/WS/F-16, and S/WS/F-17. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all 

action alternatives. Design features that are applicable to fisheries include not only those listed above, 

designed specifically to protect fish and fish habitat, but also those designed to protect other resources 

such as soils and water quality/quantity. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Roads 

Road maintenance and improvement best management practices (BMPs) would be applied to all roads 

used in the project, including application of aggregate at road/stream crossings and other sediment 

delivery points. Project design features apply to all action alternatives (table 9). 

There would be a short-term (5-7 years) reduction in sediment transport from roads in the project area 

resulting from road improvements planned in this alternative. Forty-eight miles of road proposed for 

hauling in alternative 2 and 44 miles of road proposed for hauling under alternative 3 would receive BMP 

maintenance (table 138 in the Hydrology Section). Project-related road improvements include surface 

grading, re-establishment of drainage features (grade dips and ditch-relief culverts), and application of 

gravel at stream crossings and other sediment delivery points. Sediment levels would increase during the 

project as a result of ground disturbance during maintenance and when culverts are installed (table 139 in 

the Hydrology Section). There are about 2.6 miles of road that would be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal (new and “new specified”) planned in these alternatives. Most of 

these road segments are not predicted to convey sediment to stream channels, as they would be built in 

upland locations without surface hydrologic connection to any stream channel. After the project there 

would be an overall decrease in sediment sources from roads (table 139 in the Hydrology Section). 

The proposed new road to be built then obliterated number 4, which would provide access to units 20 and 

21, crosses the drainage of a headwater tributary basin to Lincoln Creek (chapter 2). This crossing was 

reviewed in the field—there is a vegetated old roadbed at this site, but no stream channel or evidence of 

overland flow. Channel features were observed roughly 60 feet below the roadbed. Sediment that 

appeared to be from the old roadbed was observed in this channel, indicating that in the past, this road 

probably contributed sediment to the uppermost reach of this intermittent stream. If restored, this road 

represents a potential source of sediment to the stream channel, and should be accounted for in estimates 

of sediment impacts of the project. If the decision is made to construct this segment, then appropriate 

mitigations must be in place (adequate culvert, proper road drainage, and sediment fencing if appropriate) 

and the segment should be obliterated soon after the project ends, in order to minimize sediment impacts. 

The proposed new road to be built then obliterated number 5, which is between units 10 and 11, crosses 

an intermittent channel and is a source of sediment to this stream (chapter 2). Efforts would be made in 

the construction of this new road (e.g. raised grade at crossing, sediment filters at drainage runouts) to 

prevent sediment delivery to the channel while the road is in place. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

563

The total reduction in average annual sediment transport from using BMPs for project haul roads was 

modeled to be roughly 2 tons less than the existing conditions under this alternative, based on proposed 

BMP upgrades and road improvements. The long-term benefits from decreased annual sediment loads 

would outweigh the short-term increases during road maintenance activities. For the road segments to be 

obliterated, the reduction in sediment delivery would be permanent. 

BMPS

INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) standards would need to be met. A key component of INFISH for 

this project includes measures to address roads that have high risk for sediment delivery to surface waters, 

see the Transportation Report (Bielecki 2012) and Hydrology Report (McNamara 2012) in the project file

for specific roads and BMP details. 

Riparian Areas

Additional measures to reduce risk for negative effects to native fisheries entail restrictions on removal of 

trees from riparian habitat conservation areas to ensure the potential for woody debris recruitment, pool 

formation and floodplain function is maintained (table 9)

As provided for with INFISH standard RA-2, trees to be removed as part of salvage, that are not needed 

for woody debris recruitment or floodplain needs, can be removed. “Green commercial trees within the 

RHCA that have not been attacked by beetles and are not otherwise at risk of dying in the immediate 

future cannot be removed unless site-specific rationale discussing why it would be beneficial to fish and 

watershed is developed for each specific unit. Log landings should not be located in RHCAs.” 

Category 1 - Fish bearing streams: The RHCA width is 300 feet on either side of the stream or the 

100-year floodplain whichever is greater. 

Category 2 - Perennial streams not supporting fish: The RHCA is 150 feet on either side of the 

stream. 

Category 3 - Lakes or wetlands greater than one acre: The RHCA is a minimum of 150 feet but can 

be larger and extend to the outer limits of riparian vegetation, the extent of seasonally saturated 

soil, the extent of highly unstable areas, or the distance equal to the height of one site-potential 

tree.

Category 4 - The project area is not within INFISH priority drainage: For seasonally flowing or 

intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides and landslide prone areas, the RHCA 

boundary is one-half site potential tree from the edges of the stream channel, wetland or 

landslide, landslide prone area or a 50-foot slope distance, whichever is greatest. 

For both action alternatives, riparian areas would have at least a 50-foot no ignition buffer around 

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial channels for slopes less than 35 percent, and a 100-foot buffer for 

slopes more than 35 percent. Fire would be allowed to back into INFISH buffers. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would allow for dead trees to be removed from RHCAs. These trees are not providing shade to the stream 

and not in a position (across the road) to become woody debris. Removal of dead trees and allowing fire 

to back into RHCAs would allow riparian shrubs and trees to reestablish. Roads to be built and then 

obliterated are short segments that would be temporary in nature and not likely to change the character or 

function or the RHCAs. Therefore, activities proposed under these alternatives would not adversely affect 

riparian areas. Streams within the project area would generally remain at proper functioning condition. 

Fish

Trout use redds (nests dug by fish in streambed gravels) in flowing waters for their reproductive strategy. 

When excessive sediment accrues to spawning and rearing sites, trout embryo and fry success decline 

below natural rates. Additionally, other trout life history elements such as juvenile survival, growth, and 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

564

adult survival also can be at risk if excess sediment reduces cobble spaces in riffle areas and pool 

volumes. Everest et al.1987, p. 133 concluded that salmonid species can cope with the natural variability 

in sediments, but their populations can be reduced substantially by persistent sedimentation that exceeds 

the natural levels under which they evolved. Average fine sediments in trout spawning habitat within 

project area streams may show short-term increases in fines at depth. In the long term, stream channels 

would show measurable decreases in the levels of fines as project area roads would deliver roughly 2 tons 

less sediment per year. 

Given the number of acres that would be treated in the project watersheds under alternatives 2 or 3, it is 

unlikely there would be a cumulative increase in water yield that would be detectable. The estimated 

water yield increase for project watersheds is below the DEQ-recommended threshold of 10 percent. 

Streams emanating from project watersheds appear to lose flow as they move from steeper areas and 

encounter deep valley floor sediments. Considering the dry (losing stream) nature of the channels in the 

Stonewall Project area watersheds, the potential increase in water yield would be unlikely to cause any 

negative effects (i.e., accelerated bank erosion).

Therefore, this vegetation treatment proposal may result in short-term impacts to fisheries resources from 

road maintenance treatments. The project incorporates special design elements that reduce sedimentation 

risk by incorporating RHCA buffers and use of low-severity burns. Most importantly, long-term sediment 

reduction (improvement) in trout reproductive habitat is predicted due to road BMP measures and culvert 

upgrades that also reduce flood hazard risks at these critical road/stream intersections. 

Cumulative Effects

A list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities is available in appendix C. Management 

activities that are most likely to influence aquatic species abundance, distribution and possibly persistence 

of populations are discussed in this section. 

Livestock grazing: This affects aquatic species because it alters stream morphology and vegetative 

conditions in the uplands and riparian areas. This changes the capabilities of hydrologic processes and 

stream morphology changes, reducing stream function. The result is a reduction and simplification in 

habitats. 

Irrigation diversions: The effects on aquatic species occur through the loss of instream flows and 

possibly temperature increases and loss of individuals in irrigation ditches. In some cases, diversion may 

benefit WCT because it is limiting upstream movement of nonnative species that would hybridize and/or 

compete with them.

Noxious weed treatment: Beneficial effects are expected from reversing trends in vegetative conditions. 

Potential negative effects if herbicides contact individuals directly. Risk is low for this; the HNF weed 

treatments provide mitigations to reduce risks of introduction of herbicide into streams and other water 

bodies. We expect the balance of effects related to this management to be beneficial.

Mining: Historic mining has had major affects to water quality and stream function in the project area, 

but there are no known water quality or stream channel conditions caused by historic mining that would 

be affected by the proposed activities. Placer operations have altered the physical function of some stream 

channels through the removal of stream gravels and channelization. Suction dredge mining operations are 

proposed or on-going at this time.

Prescribed burning: This has some risk of increasing short term sediment delivery because of the 

temporary loss of vegetative cover that occurs. This, however, is effectively mitigated in most situations 

through the application of treatment buffers around streams and other water bodies. Benefit would occur 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

565

through longer-term improved vegetation cover in riparian and uplands, which would reduce sediment 

delivery.

Dispersed recreation: This is common across the analysis area and would continue – and probably 

increase – in the future. Effects to aquatic species are likely minor. Even though most dispersed camping 

and other activities occur in close proximity to water, the length of streams disturbed is relatively small. 

Sediment delivery from dispersed recreation can occur but it is limited enough in scope in most cases to 

keep it from being a notable concern relative to aquatic populations. Angling probably results in a limited 

amount of mortality, even though state regulations prohibit anglers from keeping bull trout from streams 

in the analysis area. 

Range improvements: These are expected to help with livestock distribution, decreasing impacts to 

streams, and so limiting negative effects on stream channel morphology and stream function. 

Road and trail construction and maintenance: To support timber removal Alternative 2 proposes 

approximately 2.6 miles of roads to be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal;

alternative 3 proposes 0.4 mile. No permanent roads or trails are proposed. Required maintenance on 

roads for the project would reduce sources of sedimentation in the long term by 2 tons per year that are 

negatively affecting aquatic species and habitat. 

Hazard Tree Removal: This activity is limited to certain road and trail corridors and recreation sites. 

Effects to aquatic populations are likely minor. 

Alternative 1 (no action) would not promote a change in existing conditions within the analysis area. 

While this alternative meets the Forest Plan direction of “no measurable effect”, it does nothing to help 

ensure movement toward desired conditions. Because many streams are currently nonfunctioning or 

functioning at risk, alternative 1, when considered with other current, past and reasonably foreseeable 

actions could work cumulatively with the management activities/natural events discussed above to limit 

the potential to achieve healthy population densities in certain populations. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would promote improvement in stream conditions through long-term reductions in 

sediment delivery and physical impacts to stream channels, which would promote positive shifts in stream 

function across the analysis area. Therefore, the effects of the Stonewall Vegetation Project proposed 

actions when considered cumulatively with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions should 

promote the attainment of better habitat conditions, and more abundant and resilient aquatic populations. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with the Helena National Forest Plan, and other State and local laws, 

regulations, policies and plans. 

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no other relevant mandatory disclosures for the aquatic resources in the Stonewall Vegetation 

Project

Species Determinations

The Biological Effects Determination for westslope cutthroat trout and western pearlshell mussel, if 

implementing alternative 2 or 3 is: May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. 
Fisheries – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

566

The Biological Analysis Determinations for bull trout and bull trout critical habitat is: May effect, not 

likely to adversely affect. 

WCT Population Viability at the Project Level: 

Westslope cutthroat trout are the fish “management indicator species” for the Helena National Forest. 

They represent a measure of the effects of management activities on habitat with the objective of ensuring 

population viability (Forest Plan p. II-17). Westslope cutthroat trout are found in Stonewall planning area, 

and therefore, serve as the proxy population for viability analysis in fulfillment of the NFMA viability 

requirement.

This analysis uses a practical approach outlined in Ruggiero et al. (1994) and Region 1 guidance (Draft 

01/30/2004) in conjunction with criteria established by Rieman et al. (1993). Simply put, “...an analysis 

of population viability is about birth, death, immigration, and emigration rates and how environmental or 

ecological factors affect these rates over time” (Ruggiero et al. 1994, p. 366). In this exercise, select 

habitat attributes considered both ecologically significant to fish and sensitive to land management 

disturbances are borrowed from Overton et al. 1995, p. 1), and Region 1 guidance (USDA Forest Service 

Draft 1/30/2004). 

Table 147 displays these habitat attributes and which ones are affected by this proposal. Projections of 

change in any habitat attribute provide an indication whether negative effects to species or habitat is 

occurring. 

Table 147. WCT habitat variables from Overton and Region 1 guidance that may be influenced by proposed 

management in the Stonewall Project area

HABITAT FEATURE

EFFECTS OF ACTION

COMMENTS

MAINTAIN DEGRADE IMPROVE 

Bank Stability X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Bank Undercut X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Water temperature X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Width-to-depth ratio X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Width-to-maximum depth ratio X 

Substrate composition X X Degrade yr-1; improve yr 3+

Large woody debris (LWD) X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Pool frequency X 

Special guidance within stream 

buffers, 

SMZ regulations 

Invasive species X 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Fisheries

567

Sediment in stream substrates was described being the attribute most responsive to disturbance from this 

project. Other attributes of fish habitat (bank stability, temperature, LWD, etc.) were excluded from 

further consideration due to specific project design elements—300-foot stream buffers in conjunction 

with state SMZs and low-severity burn prescriptions that restrict disturbance from important stream 

corridors. 

Research has shown how increasing and decreasing levels of sediment in trout reproductive habitat affect 

trout embryo and fry survival rates negatively or positively respectively. When fine sediments elevate 

beyond natural levels in trout spawning habitat, the reproductive quality of that habitat diminishes 

resulting in a corresponding decrease in fry production. Mathematical equations to estimate existing and 

predicted embryo survival as a function of changes in sediment suggest success rate of hybrid WCT fry 

survival for this stream drops to 57 percent (from 62 percent) in year-one, and then improves to 78 

percent after year-three as a result of sediment source reduction treatments to road # 423 and 423-D1. 

Estimates of changes in the rates of embryo survival are not necessarily accurate, but are meant to help 

determine the amount of changes in sediment yield upon WCT populations in question. 

This analysis, therefore, predicts a short-term change in substrate composition risks, some minor 

downward trend in incubation and fry emergence success (birth rate) to the population before recovering 

to an improved trend over baseline after 3 years. WCT recruitment is likely more than adequate to offset 

minor short-term sediment increases near the populations in Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek. 

In the long term, treating hydrologically connected roads helps recover gravel quality slightly over 

baseline conditions. Therefore, there is some minimal risk to viability for this WCT population in the 

short-term with a long-term trend of maintaining reproductive habitat within the acceptable range of 

variation (32.7% ±9.9%). 

Recreation 

Introduction

This analysis describes the existing recreation activities, settings and opportunities within the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project area, and describes the potential effects to recreation from proposed activities. Portions 

of the Stonewall Project area are within the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan and Lincoln Gulch 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). The potential effects to roadless and wilderness characteristics of the 

IRAs and unroaded lands contiguous to the IRAs are in a separate section beginning on page 596. 

Overview of Issues 

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on recreation 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 are defined to analyze data regarding the potential for impacts of vegetation treatments and 

prescribed fire on recreation opportunities within the project area, and the impacts of prescribed fire on 

trail conditions within the project area

Loss of recreation opportunity, displacement of users, or a change in recreation experience due to 

vegetation treatments/prescribed fire activities (i.e. temporary closure of areas/visitors avoiding the 
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

568

area during the vegetation treatments/prescribed fire, or changes in scenery following the vegetation 

treatments/prescribed fire that affect the recreation setting) 

○ Measure: Life of the project 

Increased trail maintenance needs following prescribed fire (i.e. increased erosion due to runoff or 

fallen trees) 

○ Measure: Miles of trail affected

Methodology

An interdisciplinary team meeting and field tour of the proposed project area was attended in Lincoln, 

Montana by specialists on September 20-24, 2010. 

Analysis was accomplished using ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers 

from the Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District, including trails, roads, recreation sites, 

inventoried roadless areas, summer and winter ROS classes, winter use, and management areas. Online 

visitor information provided by the Helena National Forest and other local organizations provided an 

overview of the recreation opportunities and trends within the analysis area. A review of existing law, 

regulation and policy relevant to recreation resources within the project area was completed and are 

referenced where appropriate. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The potential direct and indirect effects to recreation resources were considered within the Stonewall 

Project area boundary. The direct effects would be short term and temporary, occurring during project 

implementation. The longer-term indirect effects would relate to ecosystem restoration, changes in visual 

qualities, and other items within the project area that would influence the recreation setting. 

Cumulative Effects Process

Cumulative effects to recreation within the Stonewall Project area boundary would relate to other 

administrative or Forest management activities occurring within or immediately adjacent to the project 

area. Cumulative impacts would result if other activities take place during implementation of the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project or until vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the vegetation 

treatment activities and prescribed fire, approximately 3-5 years. A complete list of past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable activities is in appendix C. 

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

The Forest

Fire suppression and moist growing conditions through much of this century resulted in a loss of open 

forest conditions and seral species (aspen, ponderosa pine and western larch). This has created a uniform 

landscape comprised of dense forests susceptible to insect and wildfire mortality (Douglas-fir and 

lodgepole pine). In addition, a large-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic has killed most of the mature 

lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. These conditions are elevating fuel levels, which poses a wildfire 

threat to nearby homes and communities in the wildland urban interface (WUI). 

Recreation

The project area provides access to a variety of recreation opportunities. While hunting and snowmobiling 

are the predominate recreation activities, other recreation uses include: camping, fishing, driving for 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

569

pleasure, off highway vehicle (OHV) travel and horseback riding, hiking, firewood gathering, berry 

picking, cross-country skiing and wildlife viewing. The following recreation facilities are located within 

the project area: Dry Creek Trailhead, Arrastra Creek Trailhead and Pine Grove dispersed camping area 

and trailhead. The Lincoln Ranger District receives most recreation use during the fall hunting season. 

Winter and summer visitation is slightly lower, and spring is the least used period. 

The National Visitor Use Monitoring Results from data collected in 2008 indicate that the Helena 

National Forest serves a mostly local client base with nearly 70 percent of visitor use coming from people 

who live within 50 miles of the Forest. A majority of this is day use. Approximately 60 percent of Forest 

visitors listed the following as their main recreation activities on the Forest: hunting, hiking/walking, 

cross-country skiing, viewing natural features, snowmobiling, and driving for pleasure (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). 

The Lincoln Ranger District issues special Use Permits for special events and commercial outfitters and 

guides. Several commercial outfitters are authorized to operate within the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex; these outfitters likely pass through the project area to access the Scapegoat Wilderness area 

during their operations. 

The southern boundary of the Scapegoat Wilderness is approximately 3 miles north of the Stonewall 

project area. The Scapegoat Wilderness is part of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. It is referred to 

as “The Crown Jewel of the National Wilderness Preservation System” and is a very popular place to visit 

for people from all parts of the country (USDA Forest Service 1986, FEIS Appendix C-29). The Arrastra 

Creek and Dry Creek trailheads are popular access points for the Scapegoat Wilderness and heavily used 

during the fall hunting season. 

The project area is also within the area known as the Southwest Crown of the Continent. The Crown of 

the Continent at a landscape level is an area that links the Canadian Rockies with the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem and the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness areas to the south.

The Southwestern Crown Collaborative (2010) describes this area as “...one of the most biologically 

diverse and intact landscapes in the western United States. The Crown has been described as one of the 

premier mountain regions of the world and contains many of the largest remaining blocks of roadless 

lands in the contiguous US. The presence of expansive open space in the Southwestern Crown provides an 

abundance of outdoor recreational opportunities, from hunting and fishing to hiking and snowmobiling. 

Public access to streams, lakes, and private and public lands is highly valued.” 

Roads and Trails 

The primary motorized access into the project area is National Forest System Road #4106, Beaver Creek

Road. It provides access to the Dry Creek Trailhead, Arrastra Creek Trailhead and Pine Grove dispersed 

camping area and trailhead, Huckleberry Pass, and serves as an important snowmobile trail. The road is 

popular with local residents who want to harvest huckleberries and firewood. Additional National Forest 

System roads that provide motorized access into the project area are Lincoln Gulch Road #626, Lone 

Point Road #1824, Lincoln Ditch Road #4043, and Park Creek Road #607. 

Other access into the project area is on designated National Forest System trails including Dry Creek Trail 

#483, Porcupine Basin Trail #488, Arrastra Creek Trail #482, Stonewall/Copper Creek Trail #485, 

Stonewall Mountain Trail #418, and Stonewall Trail #417. The last three trails identified are open to 

motorized travel. Table 148 displays information for other motorized and nonmotorized trails as well as 
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

570

groomed29 and ungroomed snowmobile trails within the project area. The entire project area is currently 

open for snowmobile use in the winter. 

Table 148. Stonewall Project area trails

Forest Trail Name Miles within Stonewall Project 

Area Trail Type

Stonewall/Copper Creek Trail #485 1.5 miles Forest System Trail – motorized & 

nonmotorized

Stonewall Mountain Trail #418 2.5 miles Forest System Trail – motorized & 

nonmotorized

Stonewall Trail #417 3 miles Forest System Trail – motorized & 

nonmotorized

Snowmobile Trails Miles within Stonewall Project 

Area Trail type (groomed/ungroomed)

Route 2, Beaver-Dry Creek Trail 7 miles Groomed

Route 1, Sucker Creek Road 1 mile Groomed

Stonewall Mountain Trail 3 miles Ungroomed

Trail near Reservoir Lake 1 mile Ungroomed

The Lincoln Ranger District is currently developing the Blackfoot Travel Plan (non-winter) that would 

designate motorized public access routes on a Motor Vehicle Use Map and the Blackfoot-North Divide 

Winter Travel Plan that would provide for a variety of motorized and nonmotorized winter recreational 

opportunities. The plans are under analysis and being developed in accordance with 36 CFR 212, Subpart 

B, Designation of Roads, Trails, and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

The Forest Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to inventory and describe the range 

of recreation opportunities available based on the following characteristics of an area: physical 

(characteristics of the land and facilities), social (interactions and contact with others), and managerial 

(services and controls provided). The recreational settings are described on a continuum ranging from 

Primitive to Urban. The Summer ROS classes within the Stonewall Project area include Semi-Primitive 

Motorized (SPM) and Roaded Modified (RM) (figure 84). The Winter ROS classes within the Stonewall 

project area include Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Roaded Natural (RN), and Roaded Modified (RM) 

(figure 85). The Helena Forest Plan includes the following ROS Class definitions: 

Semi-Primitive - A classification of recreation opportunity spectrum that characterizes a predominately 

natural or natural appearing environment of a moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but 

there is often evidence of other area users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite 

controls and restrictions may be present, but subtle. In areas designated as Semi-Primitive Motorized, 

motorized use may occur on primitive roads and motorized trails. 

Roaded Natural - A classification of the recreation opportunity spectrum where timber harvest or other 

surface-use practices are evident. Motorized vehicles are permitted on all parts of the road system (USDA 

Forest Service 1986). 

 

29 The groomed trails are as indicated on the Lincoln Area Snowmobile Trails Map compiled by the Ponderosa 

Snow Warriors Snowmobile Club (available in the project record)
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

571

Roaded Modified - A subclass of Roaded Natural that has typically been defined as areas exhibiting 

evidence of Forest management activities that are dominant on the landscape (USDA Forest Service 

2003). 

Figure 84. Summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

572

Figure 85. Winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

If the no-action alternative is chosen, there would be no direct effects from proposed activities to 

recreation resources. However, the risk of severe wildfire would remain because the ecosystem restoration 

and fuel reduction project would not occur. In the long term, this may result in indirect effects to 

recreation resources, potentially resulting in changes to the recreation setting or scenic quality of the 

project area. The beetle killed, dead and dying trees would eventually fall to the ground making crosscountry foot travel more difficult for hunting and hiking. In the long-term, this may result in displaced 

users as trees fall across trails and folks find other places to hunt, hike and walk. The effects to the 

recreation resource would continue over the next 10 to 15 years as dead trees fall to the ground and 

vegetation begins to reestablish. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no known cumulative effects to recreation resources from alternative 1.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

573

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Alternative 1 would have no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources relevant to the 

recreation resources within the project area. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

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 recreation and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The specific design features listed in table 9 pertaining to recreation are REC-1 through REC-8. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all 

action alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Activities from the proposed vegetation treatments including regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, 

precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning may directly affect recreation activities and experience in 

the project area. The vegetation treatments may require temporary road or trail closures or limited access 

to the immediate area to protect public safety. In addition, visitors may choose to avoid areas during the 

harvesting, hauling, or prescribed burning activities. These effects would be both temporary and short 

term. The project design features, listed in table 9 in chapter 2, limit hauling logs during hunting season 

and on weekends and holidays (see table 9, Rec-1 and Rec-2) and would minimize impacts to the majority 

of recreational users. Public notification at trailheads, on the Forest website and in the local media would 

allow adequate notice for those planning trips into the area to adjust their plans (See table 9, Rec-3). 

Commercial outfitters operating in the area during project implementation may also be directly affected

by limited access or trail closures. The public notification efforts would allow them to adjust their 

schedules. 

The proposed vegetation treatments may indirectly affect the recreation setting within the project area by 

changing the scenic qualities within the treatment areas. The harvest activities would reduce stand density, 

and the cut tree stumps would remain visible to visitors passing through the project area. The prescribed 

burning activities would create blackened areas on the landscape. These effects would be short term.

The long-term benefits of the proposed action, including a more diverse, resilient and sustainable forest

ecosystem, and reduction in the risk of negative impacts from severe wildfire or insects and disease, have 

the potential to indirectly benefit recreation by helping to maintain the settings and opportunities currently 

valued by the public for recreation within the project area. Studies suggest that less intense fires may have 

beneficial economic effects on outdoor recreation, whereas intense fires may have detrimental effects 

(Vaux, Gardner and Mills 1984).

Regeneration Harvest, Intermediate Harvest, Precommercial Thinning

The direct impacts to recreation from the harvest activities would be to the sights and sounds of 

equipment including chainsaws, feller bunchers, and cable logging equipment within the harvest units, 

and log truck traffic on the haul routes. Indirect affects to recreation would result from changes to the 

scenery following the harvest activities 
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

574

Removal of beetle-killed trees would reduce the amount of standing dead trees that would eventually fall. 

The harvest activities would reduce safety concerns and make cross-country travel by foot easier for 

dispersed recreational activities such as hunting and hiking. 

The Pine Grove dispersed camping area and trailhead is located within unit 46, which is proposed for 

intermediate harvest to restore open habitat, leaving a mature forest and the largest trees behind. After 

treatment, trees would be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart. This would result in short-term affects to recreation 

opportunities during the harvest activities, but the more open forest conditions would likely enhance 

opportunities for dispersed camping in the long term. A proposed haul route would also pass through this 

dispersed camping area. Project design features are in place to minimize impacts to the dispersed camping 

opportunities. They include prioritizing treatments adjacent to the dispersed camping area to limit the 

amount of time the area may be closed to the public, not permitting hauling on weekends and holidays, 

providing public notification of treatment schedules and protecting recreation facilities (See table 9, 

REC-2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8). 

Several of the groomed snowmobile routes have been identified as haul routes for the harvest activities. 

Approximately 3 miles of Route 2 - Beaver-Dry Creek Trail (along Roads 4106 and 607), approximately 

4 miles of Route 2A – Beaver Trail (not on Forest System land, along Road 4106) and approximately 4 

miles of Route 1 – Sucker Creek Road Trail (along Road 1800, 3 miles, not on Forest System land), 

would be used as haul routes. Route 2 passes through units 46, 47 and 51 and runs along the borders of 

units 75, 48, 49, and 50 proposed for intermediate harvest or precommercial thinning. The 1-mile segment 

of Route 1 on Forest System land is located within unit 57 where the mountain pine beetle has caused 

high mortality. This unit is proposed for regeneration harvest that would leave behind live trees to provide 

shelter and seed, and establish a new stand of young trees. The Forest would coordinate with local 

snowmobile groups to identify alternative routes if winter operations would affect the use of the groomed 

trails (See table 9, REC-4). 

Skid trails left by ground-based harvest and removal methods may open access to areas for off highway 

vehicles where vegetation previously prevented access. Design features are in place to minimize the 

appearance of skid trails where they intersect with existing roads and trails to reduce the likelihood of 

unauthorized motorized use (See table 2, Fuel-3). The ongoing Blackfoot Travel Plan (non-winter) and 

the Blackfoot – North Divide Winter Travel Plan, when completed, would designate public motorized 

access and motorized and nonmotorized recreational opportunities on the Lincoln Ranger District. The 

Stonewall Vegetation Project proposed action would not change any motorized route designations. The 

entire project area is currently open to cross-country travel by snowmobiles; the creation of more open 

forest conditions that would result from implementation of the proposed action could enhance the 

opportunities for snowmobiling within the project area. Cross-country travel by snowmobiles within the 

Stonewall Project area would be evaluated in the winter travel planning process.

Following the vegetation treatments, opportunities for firewood gathering would be enhanced (see table 9, 

FUEL-1). Huckleberries may see an increase in regeneration, therefore, picking opportunities may be 

fewer in the short term following treatments, but enhanced in the long term as plants start to reestablish 

(see the Wildlife Specialist Report (Reitz 2012) for additional information). 

Prescribed Burning

The direct impacts to recreation from the prescribed burning activities during project implementation 

would be the sights and sounds of people and equipment, including chainsaws and vehicles, and smoke in 

the air. Smoke in the air during the prescribed burns may have a direct affect to the quality of the 

recreation experience within the project area and in the adjacent dispersed camping areas by temporarily 

reducing air quality and visibility. Coordination with the Montana Airshed Group to ensure compliance 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

575

with the Clean Air Act would minimize this impact (see table 9 AIR-1 and additional discussion in the Air 

Quality Report (USDA Forest Service 2012g).

Indirect affects to recreation would result from changes to the scenery following the prescribed burning 

activities. 

There is potential for prescribed fire to affect Forest System trails by causing increased runoff and erosion 

or debris on the trails. There may be an increased incidence of burnt trees falling across the trails for 

several years following the prescribed burns. The Stonewall Mountain Trail #418 runs along the eastern 

boundary of units 80 and 82. The Stonewall Trail #417 runs along the northern boundary of the project 

area and units 82 and 83. The Stonewall/Copper Creek Trail #485 runs along the western boundary of unit 

85 and passes through the eastern edge of unit 84. All of these units are proposed for prescribed burning 

activities. The designated National Forest System trails on the Lincoln Ranger District receive regular 

maintenance. Specific trail maintenance requirements would be addressed as needed based on trail 

conditions. 

The proposed prescribed fire activity would include construction of hand fire lines. The fire lines may 

open access for OHVs where vegetation previously prevented access. Design features are in place to 

minimize the appearance of fire lines where they intersect with existing trails to reduce the likelihood of 

unauthorized use (see table 9, FUEL-3). The ongoing Blackfoot winter and summer travel plans discussed 

previously, when completed would guide motorized access on the Lincoln Ranger District. The proposed 

action would not change any motorized route or area designations. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

A majority of the proposed treatment units fall within the summer and winter ROS classes of Roaded 

Modified, while the only treatment proposed within the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class is hand

slashing of small diameter trees and prescribed fire. The proposed harvest and prescribed burning 

activities, including the short-term disturbance, would be consistent with Roaded Natural and Roaded 

Modified ROS classes where timber harvest or other surface use practices are evident. The proposed hand 

slashing of small diameter trees and prescribed fire would maintain a predominately natural or natural 

appearing environment and would be consistent with Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class (see page 5). 

There are no anticipated long-term effects on recreation opportunities or settings for the Stonewall Project 

area under alternative 2. Table 149 that follows shows the units and treatments proposed with potential 

impacts to specific recreation resources:

Table 149. Alternative 2 – proposed treatments and potentially impacted recreation resources

Unit 

Number

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Treatment Description

Potentially Impacted 

Recreation Resource 

46 Description Group 1 - Intermediate Harvest to Promote 

Mature Open Forests; Prescribed Fire - Underburn

Pine Grove Dispersed Camping & 

groomed snowmobile route (2)

47 Description Group 1 - Intermediate Harvest to Promote 

Mature Open Forests; Prescribed Fire - Underburn Groomed snowmobile route (2)

48 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin 

Young Forests; Underburn Groomed snowmobile route (2)

49

Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin 

Young Forests; Underburn or slash treatment along 

private

Groomed snowmobile route (2)

50 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin 

Young Forests; No fuels treatment Groomed snowmobile route (2)

51 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin Groomed snowmobile route (2)
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

576

Unit 

Number

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Treatment Description

Potentially Impacted 

Recreation Resource 

Young Forests; Underburn or slash treatment along 

private

57

Description Group 3 - Regeneration Harvest in Areas of 

High Mortality Retaining Seed and Shelter Trees; 

Jackpot Burn

Groomed snowmobile route (1), 

adjacent to trailhead #418, Stonewall 

Mountain Trail

75 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin 

Young Forests; Underburn Groomed snowmobile route (2)

80 Description Group 7 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 5, 10, or 20 Acres Trail #418, Stonewall Mountain Trail

82 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres

Trail #417 - Stonewall Trail , #418 - 

Stonewall Mountain Trail

83 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres Trail #417 - Stonewall Trail

84 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres

Trail #485 - Stonewall/Copper Creek 

Trail

85 Description Group 6 - Low Severity Prescribed Fire to 

Create Mortality Patches 5 to 10 Acres

Trail #485 - Stonewall/Copper Creek 

Trail

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

In alternative 2, proposed action, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources relevant to the recreation resources within the project area. 

Alternative 3 

The activities proposed in alternative 3 differ from those of alternative 2 - proposed action, relevant to the 

analysis of recreation resources. The relevant changes include fewer units proposed for intermediate 

harvest and fewer units proposed for prescribed fire and hand slashing of small diameter trees within 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Alternative 3 has no activities planned within the Lincoln Gulch IRA or 

in the unroaded area contiguous to this IRA. In addition, alternative 3 proposes fewer units for treatment 

in the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA. 

The relevant unit changes in alternative 3 are as follows: 

Units 46 and 47 change from intermediate harvest with underburn treatments in Group 1 for alternative 2, 

to units 46a and 47a in a new group, Group 10 for alternative 3. 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 stand would be thinned to reduce understory competition from 

around large ponderosa pine trees, thin heavily stocked groups of trees on sites historically dominated by 

ponderosa pine, and remove conifer competition from within and around quaking aspen. 

Units 49 and 75 proposed for intermediate harvest are removed. Units 76 and 77 proposed for prescribed 

fire are removed from the Lincoln Gulch IRA and the unroaded area contiguous to the IRA. The mixed 

severity prescribed fire proposed for unit 80 changes to unit 80a, jackpot burn. Units 81 and 86 proposed 

for mixed severity prescribed fire are removed from the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA and the 

unroaded area contiguous to the IRA. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

577

Direct and Indirect Effects

Regeneration Harvests, Intermediate Harvests, Precommercial Thinning

The Pine Grove dispersed camping area and trailhead is located within unit 46a proposed for intermediate 

harvest with jackpot burning in alternative 3. There would be short-term impacts to recreation 

opportunities during these activities, but the more open forest conditions would likely enhance 

opportunities for dispersed camping in the long term. A proposed haul route would also pass through this 

dispersed camping area. Project design features are in place to minimize impacts to the dispersed camping 

opportunities. They include prioritizing treatments adjacent to the dispersed camping area to limit the 

amount of time the area may be closed to the public, not permitting hauling on weekends, providing 

public notification of treatment schedules and protecting recreation facilities (see table 9, REC-2, 3, 5, 6, 

7 and 8). 

Several of the groomed snowmobile routes have been identified as haul routes for the harvest activities. 

Approximately 3 miles of Route 2 - Beaver-Dry Creek Trail (along Roads 4106 and 607), approximately 

4 miles of Route 2A – Beaver Trail ( not on Forest System land, along Road 4106) and approximately 4 

miles of Route 1 – Sucker Creek Road Trail (along Road 1800, 3 miles, not on Forest System land), 

would be used as haul routes. Route 2 passes through units 46a, 47a and 51 and runs along the borders of 

units 48, and 50 proposed for intermediate harvest or precommercial thinning. Alternative 3 would have 

slightly less potential to impact Route 2, since two of the units proposed for treatment (75 and 49) were 

removed from consideration in this alternative. The 1-mile segment of Route 1 on Forest System land is 

located within unit 57 where the mountain pine beetle has caused high mortality. This unit, proposed for 

regeneration harvest, would leave behind live trees to provide shelter and seed to establish a new stand of 

young trees. The Forest would coordinate with local snowmobile groups to identify alternative routes if 

winter operations would affect the use of the groomed trails (See table 9, REC-4). 

Prescribed Burning

Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres of prescribed burning; therefore, the potential impacts of noise from 

people and equipment would be less than those described in alternative 2. Smoke in the air during the 

prescribed burns may have a direct affect to the quality of the recreation experience within the project 

area and in the adjacent dispersed camping areas by temporarily reducing air quality and visibility. 

Coordination with the Montana Airshed Group to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act would 

minimize this affect (see table 9, AIR-1 and additional discussion in the Air Quality section). 

Indirect affects to recreation would result from changes to the scenery following the prescribed burning 

activities, but fewer changes can be expected in this alternative compared to alternative 2 because fewer 

acres are proposed for treatment.

There is potential for prescribed fire to affect Forest System trails by causing increased runoff and erosion 

or debris on the trails. There may be an increased incidence of burnt trees falling across the trails for 

several years following the prescribed burns. The Stonewall Mountain Trail #418 runs along the eastern 

boundary of units 80a and 82. The Stonewall Trail #417 runs along the northern boundary of the project 

area and units 82 and 83. The Stonewall/Copper Creek Trail #485 runs along the western boundary of unit 

85 and passes through the eastern edge of unit 84. All of these units are proposed for prescribed burning 

activities. The designated National Forest System trails on the Lincoln Ranger District receive regular 

maintenance. Specific trail maintenance requirements would be addressed as needed based on trail 

conditions. 
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

578

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

A majority of the proposed treatment units fall within the summer and winter Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum classes of Roaded Modified, while the only treatment proposed within the Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS class is hand slashing of small diameter trees and prescribed fire. The proposed harvest 

and prescribed burning activities, including the short-term disturbance, would be consistent with Roaded 

Natural and Roaded Modified ROS classes where timber harvest or other surface-use practices are 

evident. The proposed hand slashing of small diameter trees and prescribed fire would maintain a 

predominately natural or natural appearing environment and would be consistent with Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS class (p.5). There are no anticipated long-term effects on recreation opportunities or 

settings for the Stonewall Project area under alternative 3. 

Table 150 that follows shows the units and treatments proposed with potential impacts to specific 

recreation resources:

Table 150. Alternative 3 – proposed treatment and potentially impacted recreation resources

Unit 

Number Alternative 3 –Treatment Description Potentially Impacted Recreation

Resource

46a Description Group 10 – Intermediate Harvest – Improvement 

Cut; Jackpot burn, Handpiling, Burn Piles

Pine Grove Dispersed Camping 

& groomed snowmobile route (2)

47a Description Group 10 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin Young 

Forests; Low Severity Prescribed Fire Groomed snowmobile route (2)

48 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin Young 

Forests; Underburn Groomed snowmobile route (2)

50 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin Young 

Forests; No fuels treatment Groomed snowmobile route (2)

51 Description Group 2 - Intermediate Harvest to Thin Young 

Forests; Underburn or slash treatment along private Groomed snowmobile route (2)

57 Description Group 3 - Regeneration Harvest in Areas of High 

Mortality Retaining Seed and Shelter Trees; Jackpot Burn

Groomed snowmobile route (1), 

adjacent to trailhead #418 - 

Stonewall Mountain Trail

80a Description Group 9 - Low Severity Prescribed Fire Trail #418 - Stonewall Mountain 

Trail

82 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create Mortality 

Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres

Trail #417 - Stonewall Trail, 

#418 - Stonewall Mountain Trail

83 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create Mortality 

Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres Trail #417 - Stonewall Trail

84 Description Group 8 - Mixed Severity Fire to Create Mortality 

Patches up to 30 or 75 Acres

Trail #485 - Stonewall/Copper 

Creek Trail

85 Description Group 6 - Low Severity Prescribed Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches 5 to 10 Acres

Trail #485 - Stonewall/Copper 

Creek Trail

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

In alternative 3, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources relevant to the 

recreation resources within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Cumulative effects to recreation within the Stonewall Project area boundary would relate to other 

administrative or Forest management activities occurring within or immediately adjacent to the project 

area. Cumulative impacts would result if other activities take place during implementation of the 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Recreation

579

Stonewall Vegetation project or until vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the vegetation 

treatment activities and prescribed fire, approximately 3-5 years.

The effects of past actions within the Stonewall Project area are incorporated into the description of the 

existing condition. The present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area have 

been reviewed for potential cumulative effects when the direct or indirect effects of the alternatives are 

added to them. The projects occurring within the spatial and temporal boundaries described in this 

analysis for recreation resources cumulative effects analysis are considered here.

Since there would be no direct or indirect effect to the ROS classes, there would be no cumulative effects 

to the ROS classes within the project area.

Recreational activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, OHV travel on primitive roads, and 

snowmobiling and cross-country skiing in the winter would continue within the analysis area. Other 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities that would be occurring within the analysis area include 

hazard tree removal, weed treatments, road and trail maintenance, commercial guided recreation and 

special events, firewood cutting and continued use of grazing allotments. All of these activities, when 

added to the activities proposed in the Stonewall Vegetation Project have the potential to cumulatively 

affect the recreation experience within the project area. The primary impacts would be due to the 

increased presence of people, vehicles and associated noise that would directly affect the ability of 

recreational visitors to enjoy their desired experience, and may lead to the short-term displacement of 

visitors who choose to avoid the area during implementation of the various activities. 

The longer-term impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities, such as hazard tree removal

and weed treatments, when added to the activities proposed in the Stonewall Vegetation project, have the

potential to cumulatively impact the recreation setting by causing changes to the scenic qualities within 

the project area and creating a setting where resource modifications and utilization practices are evident, 

but harmonize with the natural environment as indicated in a Roaded Natural ROS setting (p.5). Most of 

these effects would be beneficial because they would increase the resiliency of forest conditions, and 

reduce the risk of potential negative impacts from severe wildfire, therefore, maintaining the recreation 

settings currently valued by the public. 

A complete list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the project area is in 

appendix C. 

Summary of Effects of All Alternatives 

Alternative 1, no action would have no direct or cumulative effects to recreation resources. The purpose 

and need for the Stonewall Vegetation Project “...improving the mix of vegetation and structure across the 

landscape so that it is diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects; modifying fire behavior to 

enhance community protection while creating conditions that allow the reestablishment of fire as a 

natural process on the landscape; enhancing and restoring aspen, western larch and ponderosa pine 

species and habitats; utilizing the economic value of trees through removal; and integrating restoration 

with socioeconomic considerations” would not be addressed. Potential long-term indirect effects to 

recreation resources would be due to the ongoing risk of severe wildfire that could lead to changes in the 

recreation settings, visual qualities and naturalness within the roadless expanse. 

Alternative 2, proposed action would have short-term direct effects to recreation resources during project 

implementation such as limited access to specific areas and increased presence of people and noise within 

the project area. Project design features are in place to limit potential affects (table 9). The proposed 

treatments would address the purpose and need for the Stonewall Vegetation Project, resulting in a more 

diverse, resilient and sustainable Forest ecosystem with reduction in risk of negative impacts from severe 
Recreation – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

580

wildfire. The long-term indirect effects to recreation would be generally beneficial and help to maintain 

the existing recreation settings and scenic qualities within the project area. 

Cumulative effects to recreation resources would generally be short term, occurring during project 

implementation, and would relate to an increased presence of people, vehicles and the associated noise 

that may affect the recreation experience. Longer-term cumulative effects would impact the Pine Grove 

dispersed camping area, such as hazard tree removal and fence construction for a riparian exclosure, in 

addition to the actions proposed in the Stonewall Vegetation Project. These effects would remain until 

vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the vegetation treatment activities, approximately 3-5 

years, but would remain consistent with Roaded Natural ROS class (p.5). 

The effects of alternative 3 relative to recreation resources would be similar to those described for 

alternative 2, but the impacts would occur on fewer acres. There would be no affects to the Lincoln Gulch 

IRA and fewer acres treated within the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA (see the Inventoried Roadless

Area Report (Valentine 2012a) for additional analysis). 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The proposed alternatives are consistent with the following:

Helena National Forest Plan 1986, Recreation Standards for Management Areas: M-1, T-1, T-2, T3, T-4, and W-1. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, guides 

management of recreation and wilderness resources on National Forest System lands.

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Introduction

This analysis describes the existing condition in portions of the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan (BMSS) 

and Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that are within the Stonewall Vegetation Project 

area. In addition, this roadless analysis describes the potential effects from the proposed activities 

identified in the alternatives of the Stonewall Project to the roadless area characteristics and wilderness 

attributes of the Inventoried Roadless Areas, as well as the unroaded lands contiguous to them. Additional 

detailed information is contained in the Inventoried Roadless Area report (Valentine 2012a), incorporated 

by reference.

Overview of Issues Addressed

During the public scoping process, five comments were received regarding IRAs. The comments were 

identified as nonsignificant (40 CFR 1501.7). Specific responses to the comments and explanations of 

how the comments were addressed either in the analysis or through project design features, are included 

in this DEIS in Appendix A – Public Involvement. 

The following issue is relevant to the roadless resources within the analysis area and is addressed by the 

analysis in this section:

Prescribed fire activities may affect roadless area characteristics within the project area. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

581

Indicators

Indicators are defined to analyze data regarding the potential for impacts to the roadless resource from 

project activities that may affect roadless characteristics and wilderness attributes. Impacts to the roadless 

area characteristics as described in 36 CFR 294.11 – Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule and 

wilderness attributes of roadless areas as described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1) – 

Wilderness Evaluation.

Measure: Acres affected and duration of the impact

Roadless Analysis Background and Direction

Classification of roadless areas began with the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) study in 

1973 and the subsequent RARE II study in 1978. The 1983 Helena Forest Plan included evaluation of 23 

roadless areas (USDA Forest Service 1986c, FEIS ROD). This met the direction in 36 CFR 219.17 

regarding evaluation of roadless areas, and was in compliance with a 1982 decision of the Ninth Circuit 

Court that found RARE II study to be inadequate. As a result of this evaluation, the Forest Plan provides 

management direction for 79,200 acres of undeveloped area outside of Wilderness to remain 

undeveloped, and the remaining 203,900 acres of undeveloped areas were assigned to other resource 

management goals (USDA Forest Service 1986b, c). The two IRAs within the Stonewall Project area 

(Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan and Lincoln Gulch) were among those areas assigned to other resource 

management goals, as described in the Affected Environment section of this section.

On Jan 12, 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule was published (36 CFR 294); the rule became 

effective on March 13, 2001. The 2001 rule prohibited road construction, road reconstruction and timber 

cutting, sale and removal in inventoried roadless areas with some exceptions. On July 13, 2003, the 2001 

Roadless Rule was enjoined by U.S. District Court Judge Brimmer in Wyoming, after which the Forest 

Service established Interim Directives for the management of roadless areas. 

In May 2005, the 2005 State Petitions Rule was established, which allowed governors to petition for 

individual, state-specific rules to manage IRAs in national forests and grasslands in their states. In 

October 2006, Judge Laporte (Northern District Court of California) set aside the State Petitions Rule and 

reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule (California ex rel. Lockyer v USDA). In December 2008, the Court 

limited its injunction to states within the Ninth Circuit and New Mexico (excluding Idaho). In August 

2009, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Northern District Court of California’s opinions. 

On Jan 12, 2007, the state of Wyoming again challenged the 2001 Roadless rule in Wyoming. On August 

12, 2008 in the District Court of Wyoming, Judge Brimmer issued a ruling enjoining the 2001 Roadless 

Rule for the second time (Wyoming v. USDA). This opinion was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of 

appeals. 

On May 28, 2009, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack issued Memorandum 1042-154, which reserves 

“to the Secretary the authority to approve or disapprove road construction or reconstruction and the 

cutting, sale, or removal of timber in those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps 

contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 

2, dated November 2000.” The Secretary's Memorandum 1042-154 is intended to assure careful 

evaluation of actions in inventoried roadless areas while long-term roadless policy is developed and 

relevant court cases move forward.

On August 3, 2009, the Forest Service received re-delegation of authority from the Secretary to authorize 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

582

Approval of any necessary timber cutting or removal or any road construction/reconstruction in 

emergency situations involving wildfire suppression, search and rescue operations, or other 

imminent threats to public health or safety in Inventoried Roadless Areas. The local line officer is 

delegated authority to make these decisions.

Approval of any timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas incidental to the 

implementation of an existing special use authorization. Road construction/ reconstruction are not 

authorized through this re-delegation without further project specific review. The local line officer 

is delegated authority to make these decisions.

On October 16, 2009, the Secretary re-delegated authority to the Forest Service for the cutting, sale, or 

removal of generally small diameter timber when needed for one of the following purposes: 

To improve threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat

a. To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that would 

be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period

b. For administrative and personal use, as provided for in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 

223, where personal use includes activities such as Christmas trees and firewood cutting and 

where administrative use includes providing materials for activities such as construction of 

trails, footbridges, and fences 

On May 28, 2010 and again on May 30, 2011, Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack renewed his reservation of 

final decision authority over certain forest management and road construction projects in inventoried 

roadless areas. The new Secretary’s Memorandum 1042-155 and 1042-156 include the same redelegations of authority to the Forest Service as described above. 

On October 21, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided Wyoming v. USDA

and found the Forest Service’s adoption of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) 

does not violate Federal law. The Tenth Circuit ordered the District of Wyoming Court to vacate its earlier 

ruling and lift its nationwide injunction of the Roadless Rule. Pending action by the District Court to 

vacate the permanent injunction, the Forest Service continued to follow the direction in the letter dated 

August 18, 2008 signed by the Deputy Chief for NFS (see Holtrop 2008) and the direction provided in the 

Secretary’s Memo 1042-156, described in Pena (2011).

On March 2, 2012, Judge Brimmer (Wyoming) lifted his injunction on the 2001 Roadless Rule. Lifting 

the injunction paves the way for implementation of the 2001 Roadless Rule nationwide, and in Region 1 

(except for Idaho) provides much needed consistency regarding the management of Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. 

On May 30, 2012, the Secretary’s Memorandum 1042-156 requiring review and approval of certain 

activities in Roadless Areas expired. In order to provide a smooth transition, the Chief is requiring review 

of certain activities (see Chiefs Letter dated May 31, 2012, and the associated attachments describing the 

Review Process, and Talking Points. Some activities will require review by the Chief and others by the 

Regional Forester. In Region 1, the Regional Forester review process has been delegated to Deputy 

Regional Forester Jane Cottrell, per the Regional Forester’s letter dated June 8, 2012. 

The Chief’s letter dated May 31, 2012 implements the following process for review of certain activities in 

Roadless Areas:

Except as noted below, the Chief will review all projects involving road construction or reconstruction 

and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

583

maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume 2 dated November 2000. 

Regional Foresters will review the following activities: 

a. Any necessary timber cutting or removal or any road construction or road reconstruction in 

emergency situations involving wildfire suppression, search and rescue operations, or other 

imminent threats to public health and safety in inventoried roadless areas.

b. Timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas incidental to the 

implementation of an existing special use authorization. Road construction or road 

reconstruction is not authorized through this re-delegation without further project specific 

review.

c. The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber when needed for one of the 

following purposes: 

1) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; 

2) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, 

such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of 

variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the 

current climatic period; or, 

3) For the administrative and personal use, as provided for in 36 CFR 223, where 

personal use includes activities such as Christmas tree and firewood cutting and 

where administrative use includes providing materials for activities such as 

construction of trails, footbridges, and fences. 

The activities proposed within the Stonewall project fall within the activities requiring Regional Forester 

review, as explained in c. 2, above. To fulfill this requirement, a briefing paper was prepared for the 

Regional Forester dated November 30, 2009 that included a project description and maps. On February 

13, 2012, the Regional Roadless Coordinator reviewed and commented on the Draft Roadless Resource 

Specialist Report. Additional discussion regarding compliance with the 2001 roadless rule is included in 

the “Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans” section. 

Methodology

An interdisciplinary team meeting and field tour of the proposed project area was attended in Lincoln, 

Montana by specialists on September 20-24, 2010. 

Analysis was accomplished using ArcMap and relevant Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers 

from the Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District, including trails, roads, recreation sites, 

inventoried roadless areas, summer and winter ROS classes, winter use, and management areas. On-line 

visitor information provided by the Helena National Forest and other local organizations was used as an 

overview of the roadless values and wilderness attributes within the analysis area. A review of existing 

law, regulation and policy relevant to roadless resources within the project area was conducted and 

relevant section of the Forest Plan and Forest Service Handbooks are referenced.

Roadless Analysis Methodology

The purpose of the analysis on the roadless resource is to disclose potential effects to roadless area 

characteristics and wilderness attributes from the Stonewall Project proposed activities, and determine if, 

or to what extent these effects might influence future consideration for wilderness recommendations. This 

analysis focuses on the potential effects of project activities on roadless characteristics as defined in 36 

CFR 294.11 – Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule and wilderness attributes as defined in the Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1). 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

584

Roadless area characteristics, as defined in 36 CFR 294.11 – Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule and 

evaluated in this analysis include the following:

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air 

Sources of public drinking water 

Diversity of plants and animal communities 

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation

Reference landscapes

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

Other locally identified unique characteristics

Wilderness attributes, as defined at FSH 1909.12 (72.1) and evaluated in this analysis include the 

following: 

Natural – The extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating

Undeveloped – The degree to which the impacts documented in natural integrity are apparent to most 

visitors

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation – Solitude is a personal, 

subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others and from 

developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is characterized by meeting nature on its own 

terms, without comfort and convenience of facilities.

Special features and values – Unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical features of an area

Manageability – The ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and maintain wilderness 

attributes

The following table shows the crosswalk between the wilderness attributes identified in Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12 and the 1964 Wilderness Act; and the roadless area characteristics defined in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294.11). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

585

Table 151. Wilderness attributes and roadless area characteristics crosswalk

WILDERNESS ATTRIBUTES ROADLESS AREA CHARACTERISTICS

Natural 

Ecological systems are substantially free from

the effects of modern civilization and generally

appear to have been affected primarily by forces of 

nature

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;

Sources of public drinking water:

Diversity of plant and animal communities;

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land;

Reference landscapes

Undeveloped

Degree to which the area is without permanent

improvements or human habitation

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic 

quality

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive 

and Unconfined Recreation

Solitude: opportunity to experience isolation from 

the sights, sounds, and presence of others from the 

developments and evidence of humans

Primitive and unconfined recreation: opportunity to 

experience isolation from the evidence of humans, 

to feel a part of nature, to have a vastness of scale, 

and a degree of challenge and risk while using 

outdoor skills

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

Special Features and Values

Capability of the area to provide other values

such as those with geologic, scientific,

educational, scenic, historical, or cultural

significance

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

Other locally identified unique characteristics.

Manageability

The ability of the Forest Service to manage an

area to meet size criteria and the elements of

wilderness

No criteria

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The potential direct and indirect effects to roadless resources were considered within the Stonewall 

Project Area boundary. The direct effects would be short term and temporary, occurring during project 

implementation. The long-term indirect effects would be related to ecosystem restoration, changes in 

visual qualities, and other items within the project area that would influence several of the areas roadless 

characteristics. 

Cumulative Effects Process

Cumulative effects to roadless resources were considered within the entire 866,330-acre Bear-MarshallScapegoat-Swan IRA that is managed by the Helena, Flathead, Lolo, and Lewis and Clark National 

Forests, the entire 17,261-acre Lincoln Gulch IRA that is managed by the Helena National Forest and 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

586

unroaded lands contiguous to these IRAs. Potential cumulative effects to roadless resources would be 

related to other activities occurring within the roadless expanse that have the potential to impact roadless 

area characteristics or wilderness attributes. Cumulative impacts to roadless resources would result if 

other activities take place during implementation of the Stonewall Vegetation project, or until vegetation 

growth obscures the visible stumps from the hand slashing of small diameter trees and hand firelines, 

approximately 3-5 years.

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

Analysis

The effects of past actions within the Stonewall Project area are incorporated into the description of the 

existing conditions. A list of past, present and foreseeable actions relevant to the cumulative effects 

analysis for roadless resources within the Stonewall analysis area is in volume 2, appendix C. Actions that 

overlap the roadless areas include: 

Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District:

Helena National Forest Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

Blackfoot North Divide Winter Travel Planning 

Blackfoot Travel Plan (non-winter) 

Alice Creek Wildlife Enhancement Project

Dry Creek Prescribed Fire

Southwest Crown Weed Treatments

Grazing Allotments (ongoing)

Flathead National Forest, Spotted Bear Ranger District: 

Soldier Addition II EA 

Spotted Bear River Project

Lewis and Clark National Forest, Rocky Mountain Ranger District:

Benchmark Fuels EA

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Plan EIS, Badger Two Medicine Area

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Plan EIS, Birch Creek South Area 

Lolo National Forest

Dick Creek Fuels

Swan Face Prescribed Burn

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

Fire suppression and moist growing conditions through much of this century resulted in a loss of open 

forest conditions and seral species (aspen, ponderosa pine and western larch). This has created a uniform 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

587

landscape comprised of dense forests susceptible to insect and wildfire mortality (Douglas-fir and 

lodgepole pine). In addition, a large-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic has killed most of the mature 

lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. These conditions are elevating fuel levels, which poses a wildfire 

threat to nearby homes and communities in the wildland urban interface (WUI).

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Stonewall Vegetation Project boundary encompasses portions of two IRAs, the Bear-MarshallScapegoat-Swan IRA (#A1485) and the Lincoln Gulch IRA (#1601). The portion of the BMSS IRA 

managed by the Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena National Forest is 53,995 acres in size and the 

project area overlaps with 12,254 acres. The Lincoln Gulch IRA is 8,246 acres in size and the project area 

overlaps with 3,193 acres (table 152 and figure 86). 

Table 152. Inventoried Roadless Area Acreage

Name of IRA Total Acres 

in IRA* 

Total Acres in IRA

managed by the 

Lincoln Ranger 

District

Acres of IRA

within the 

Stonewall Project 

Boundary

Percent of total IRA

acres within the 

Stonewall Project 

Boundary

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan 866,330 *53,995 12,254 1.4

Lincoln Gulch 17,261 17,261 3,193 18.5

Totals 883,591 71,256 15,447 1.7

*Portion of the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA managed by the Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District. Total acreage 

of the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA managed by the Flathead, Helena, Lolo and Lewis and Clark National Forests is 866,330 

acres (USDA Forest Service 1986, FEIS Appendix C-3).
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

588

Figure 86. Associated inventoried roadless areas
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

589

The Helena National Forest Plan established Forestwide multiple-use goals, objectives, and management 

area requirements as well as management area prescriptions. Roadless areas are well distributed 

throughout the Forest and managed to provide semi-primitive recreation opportunities (USDA Forest 

Service 1986a). The analysis of roadless lands, documented in Appendix C of the FEIS for the Forest 

Plan, described each roadless area, the resources and values considered, the range of alternative land uses 

studied, and the effects of management under each alternative (USDA Forest Service 1986b). As a result 

of the analysis, some roadless areas were recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System and others were assigned various nonwilderness prescriptions. The portion of the 

BMSS IRA that is within the project area is assigned primarily to Management Area (MA) M1 and W1 

with small areas of T1, T3, and T4 along the southern edge of the IRA. The portion of the Lincoln Gulch 

IRA that is within the project area is assigned primarily to MA T3 with small areas of W1, T1, T2, and 

M1 (figure 87). 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

590

Figure 87. Management areas in the inventoried roadless areas
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

591

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA 

The Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area is located in the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem. This roadless area surrounds the Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat wilderness 

areas. It also contains portions of the Swan Mountain Range north of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. 

The Flathead, Helena, Lolo and Lewis and Clark National Forests manage this large roadless area, which 

provides habitat for many wildlife species including, grizzly bear and black bear, cougar, lynx, fisher, 

marten, elk, whitetail deer and mule deer, wolf, moose, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep. The higher 

elevations provide important summer range habitat for big game species. 

The Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area is especially important to many members 

of the public because of its proximity to other wilderness areas, providing the opportunities for expansive 

hiking backpacking, hunting, cross-country skiing and equestrian travel. Livestock grazing, motorized 

recreation, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development represent other uses (USDA Forest Service 

1986b, FEIS Appendix C3 – C5).Access to the Scapegoat Wilderness from the south requires travel 

through the Stonewall portion of this roadless area. 

Roadless Area Characteristics

The roadless area encompasses 12 different locations; the Stonewall Mountain area, managed by the 

Lincoln Ranger District, is located along the southern boundary of the Scapegoat Wilderness. Most of the 

area west of Stonewall Mountain and Copper Creek is very steep and rocky. The area east of Stonewall 

Mountain to Copper Creek is steep and well-timbered on north facing slopes. It contains open growing 

stands of timber with small grassland parks on south and west facing slopes. Elevations range from 4,900 

feet in the Blackfoot Valley to 9,411 feet on Red Mountain 

Snowmobilers use the Stonewall Mountain Trail to travel to the Upper Copper Creek Basin and use the 

Alice Creek/ Lewis and Clark Pass area. Most of the drainage bottoms have access trails with the 

Reservoir Lake Trail in Arrastra Creek receiving the most use (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS 

Appendix C10-C-11). 

Wilderness Attributes 

Following is a list of the specific Wilderness Attributes defined in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

1909.12 (72.1) – Wilderness Evaluation. The Roadless Area Characteristics defined in 36 CFR 294.11 – 

Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule are also incorporated into the following descriptions: Wilderness 

Attributes and Roadless Area Characteristics Crosswalk in the Roadless Analysis Methodology section.

The descriptive paragraphs that follow are from the analysis of roadless lands conducted by the Helena 

National Forest in 1986 during development of the Forest Plan. Following those paragraphs are 

descriptions of activities and changes that have occurred since the Forest Plan was developed.

Natural – The extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating

Most of the plant and animal species that existed in this roadless area when the Lewis and Clark 

Expedition passed south of here nearly 200 years ago are still present. Most mammal species present then 

are still present now; however, some are considered threatened or endangered. The integrity of the 

fisheries has been altered by the stocking of grayling and rainbow trout, however, many miles of 

unaltered cutthroat streams remain. Some invasive plant species, such as spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, 

thistle, and clover have been introduced accidentally into the area through livestock use. These species are 

mainly along the trails. Off-trail, the plant community has changed little except for successional changes 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

592

and those brought about by naturally occurring fires. To the untrained eye, the natural appearance of this 

area is high (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-11).

Fire suppression and moist growing conditions through much of this century resulted in a loss of open 

forest conditions and seral species (aspen, ponderosa pine and western larch). This has created a uniform 

landscape comprised of dense forests susceptible to insect and wildfire mortality (Douglas-fir and 

lodgepole pine). In addition, a large-scale mountain pine beetle epidemic has killed most of the mature 

lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. 

These vegetative changes have impacted fish and wildlife habitat, and spotted knapweed is present within 

the IRA, however, the IRA generally continues to provide high quality soil, water and air; diversity of 

plant and animal communities; and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive 

species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land. See additional discussion of 

the roadless resources in volume 2, appendix D of this DEIS, Stonewall Roadless Characteristics 

Worksheet and in specific resource sections. 

Undeveloped – The degree to which development and uses are apparent to most visitors 

Human activities in some areas are evident, although most impacts are concentrated along road corridors 

and the exterior boundaries. In other areas, the only disruptions are trails, which access the adjacent 

Wilderness areas (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-11). There is some evidence of nonenergy mineral mining exploration that occurred in the Cotter Basin, Copper Camp, Alice Creek and 

Stonewall Creek areas. Most of this activity lies on the fringes of the area. There are old roads associated 

with these activities and evidence of past earth moving activities is present. Some clearcuts are in the 

Alice Creek, Beaver Creek, and Arrastra Creek Drainages, along the edge of the roadless area. Silver 

King Lookout is the only Forest Service maintained structure in the area. One special use cabin is located 

in the Alice Creek drainage, as well as fences used for controlling livestock. Seismic exploration has 

occurred here in recent years (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-21). 

Since the 1986 analysis of roadless lands, The Helena National Forest, consistent with Forest Plan 

direction, has continued harvest and fuels activities within the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA, as 

shown in table 153 that follows. These activities have contributed to some evidence of human access 

within the IRA; however, the IRA has generally retains the undeveloped characteristics described above. 

Table 153. Past harvest and fuel activities since 1986 in the portion of the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA

managed by the Helena National Forest

Activity Acres within IRA

Prescribed Burning 5,869

Wildfire 433

Fuels Treatment (yarding, rearranging, piling) 1,587

Thinning (hazardous fuels reduction) 1,551

Range Improvement 871

Timber Harvest (stand clearcut, shelterwood establishment cut, single tree 

selection cut, sanitation salvage, precommercial thin) 271

Reforestation Needs Created by Fire 1,203

Reforestation/Planting/Regeneration activities 1,657

TOTAL 13,309

*Data from “SWCumEffectsPastHarFuActivitiesIRAs_080911.xlsx” Acres rounded for display
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

593

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation – Solitude is a personal, 

subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others and from 

developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is characterized by meeting nature on its own 

terms, without comfort and convenience of facilities. 

In general, the BMSS IRA possesses high opportunities for solitude because of its size and the influence 

of the adjacent Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat wilderness areas. Much of it contains highly 

dissected topography that easily screens people from one another in a short distance. Some portions are 

influenced by adjacent roads and other developments.

The Stonewall area possesses very high opportunities for solitude. Screening of the more developed areas 

occurs over most of the area. Sounds of vehicles, chainsaws, and logging activity are screened from most 

of the area due to the topography and lay of the terrain. 

The area offers high opportunities for primitive recreation. A variety of topography challenges the visitor 

with its high mountaintops and steep valleys. The large size of the area offers the opportunity to get away 

from the man-influenced environment and experience excellent primitive recreation activities such as 

fishing, camping, hunting, backpacking, hiking, and horseback riding. People nationwide are attracted by 

the outstanding hunting and backcountry experiences here and in the adjacent wildernesses (USDA Forest 

Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C11-12). 

The Stonewall area offers a variety of topographic features to challenge the visitor. The high peaks, steep 

slopes, flat valley bottoms, and numerous streams, offer a different primitive recreation experience to 

visitors (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-21). 

Recreational activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel on primitive 

roads, and snowmobiling and cross-country skiing in the winter continue to be the primary recreation 

activities occurring within the IRA. Recreational use of the area has increased over time along with the 

corresponding increase in population and popularity of outdoor recreational activities. Implementation of 

various forest management activities and the associated increased presence of people, vehicles and 

associated noise over the years may have temporarily affected the opportunities for solitude and primitive 

and unconfined recreation.

The IRA continues to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The area 

has become highly valued due to its proximity to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, and its location 

within the Southwest Crown of the Continent, an area that links the Canadian Rockies with the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness areas to the south.

Special features and values – Unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical features of an area

The Stonewall area is also noted for other features. Red Mountain is the highest peak from Lincoln to 

Glacier National Park, rising 9,411 feet above sea level. It is one of the few sites in the United States 

where limber pine and whitebark pine grow together. 

The Red Mountain Research Natural Area (RNA) is located approximately 3 miles north of the Stonewall 

Project area.

The Lewis and Clark Trail passes up Alice Creek over Lewis and Clark Pass. This is of historical interest 

to many Forest users.

The area also supports a small herd of Rocky Mountain goats near Red Mountain (USDA Forest Service 

1986b, FEIS Appendix C-22). 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

594

Manageability – The ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and maintain wilderness 

attributes.

Because this area surrounds the Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat Wilderness Complex, it consists 

of several long, narrow segments that are usually separated by road corridors. The boundary along the 

adjacent wilderness areas are usually well defined by high ridges and major topographic features. Other 

boundaries parallel existing roads or land survey lines which are sometimes difficult to identify (USDA 

Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-12). 

The Stonewall area is large enough and the topography is such that any person visiting the area would 

gain the feeling that they are in a natural area free from human activities and development. The high 

peaks afford the viewer with vistas of part of the Scapegoat Wilderness mountain ranges and many of the 

major drainages in the district. Some distant roads and timber harvesting areas can be seen from these 

high points (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C21).

Lincoln Gulch IRA – Roadless Area Characteristics and Wilderness Attributes

The Lincoln Gulch IRA is located approximately 6 miles northwest of Lincoln, MT. The area includes the 

Ward Creek, Arrastra Creek, and Lincoln Gulch drainages. The terrain is characterized by very steep and 

timbered slopes. Arrastra Creek, the major drainage, runs northeast to southwest and roughly divides the 

area in half. The elevation ranges from 4,800 feet on the west side near Patterson Prairie to 7,432 feet on 

the summit of Black Mountain. The steep terrain confines most use to ridgetops and stream bottoms 

(USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-55). 

Wildlife species include elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, black bear, cougar, grizzly bear, wolverine, lynx, 

bobcat, coyote, other furbearers, numerous grouse species, and several nongame animals and birds. Deer 

and elk winter range is located along the southwest boundary (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS 

Appendix C-55). 

Recreation use of the area revolves around big game hunting. There are no lakes or major attractions, 

such as high mountain peaks, to attract large numbers of recreationists (USDA Forest Service 1986b, 

FEIS Appendix C-55). 

Natural – The extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating

Most of the area has had little human influence. The naturalness of the area is similar to that described 

above for the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA, with the exception of trail related impacts, since there 

are no trails within the Lincoln Gulch IRA. 

Undeveloped – The degree to which development and uses are apparent to most visitors 

The only disturbance within the area has been from scattered mining activity. The mining activity 

includes a ditch used for placer mining, which winds through the eastern finger of the area and terminates 

just south of the area at the old Lincoln Town site. The ditch was built at the turn of the century and has 

since been reclaimed by nature (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-56). 

There are several clearcuts adjacent to the area in the Lincoln Gulch and Beaver Creek drainages. An old 

logging road, which is no longer drivable, follows the bottom of Arrastra Creek about 200 yards into the 

area (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-56). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

595

Based on a recent review of management activities implemented by the Helena National Forest, no 

harvest or fuels activities have been conducted within the Lincoln Gulch IRA. Ongoing activities in the 

area include noxious weed treatments and livestock grazing. The area remains undeveloped. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation – Solitude is a personal, 

subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others and from 

developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is characterized by meeting nature on its own 

terms, without comfort and convenience of facilities. 

Even though this area is relatively small, it has a very high opportunity for solitude, due to rugged terrain 

that secludes the visitor from most outside disturbance. Occasional sounds of motorized vehicles or 

chainsaws can be heard. These sounds are associated with mining, logging, and hunting. The mining and 

logging would affect the area from spring breakup in May until early winter. Human activity is well 

dispersed throughout the area because there are no major attractions such as lakes to draw recreation use 

(USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-56). 

This area provides excellent primitive recreation opportunities. Because of the heavy timber and lack of 

trails, there is no motorized access into the area. Hunting and hiking are the main recreation uses. 

Horseback riding is limited due to topography and vegetative cover. The Lone-Point-Black Mountain 

ridge provides most of the horseback riding opportunity in this area (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS 

Appendix C-56). 

Hunting and hiking continue to be the primary recreation activities within the IRA. Recreational use of 

the area has increased over time along with the corresponding increase in population and popularity of 

outdoor recreational activities. Very few Forest management activities have been implemented and the 

IRA continues to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

Special features and values – Unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical features of an area.

Elk are abundant within this area and it has historically been a productive and primitive hunting area. 

Lincoln Gulch provides a large big game security area and the rugged terrain gives a hunter a unique 

challenge (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-57). 

Manageability – The ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and maintain wilderness 

attributes.

The entire area is on National Forest System land. There are presently no grazing permits or 

developments in the area. Conflicts might arise between wilderness use and mining or oil and gas 

exploration (USDA Forest Service 1986b, FEIS Appendix C-57). 

Other Unroaded Areas

Geographical Information System (GIS) information was used to assess the Stonewall Project area to 

determine the extent of other unroaded areas located outside of the inventoried roadless areas. A majority 

of the project area outside of the IRAs is within 1/8- mile of existing roads. Unroaded areas exist adjacent 

to the southern boundary of the Lincoln Gulch IRA (two areas approximately 400-600 acres in size, 

intersected by unit 77), adjacent to the southern boundary of the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA 

(several areas approximately 80-200 acres in size, intersected by units 79 and 86), and adjacent to the 

Forest boundary along the southern boundary of the project area (an area approximately 300 acres in size, 

intersected by units 46, 47, and 75). The unroaded lands adjacent to the IRAs have similar roadless 

characteristics and wilderness attributes as those described above and are considered in this analysis. The 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

596

small area along the southern project boundary does not meet the inventory criteria in FSH 1909.12 71.1 

and is not considered further in this analysis (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects

If the no action alternative is chosen, the proposed regeneration harvests, intermediate harvests, 

precommercial thinning and prescribed burning would not be implemented within the project area. There 

would be no direct effects from proposed activities to roadless resources.

However, there would be a chance of an indirect effect under alternative 1, as the ecosystem restoration 

and fuel reduction project would not occur, and the risk of severe wildfire would remain. In the long term, 

this may result in indirect effects to roadless resources potentially resulting in changes to the recreation 

setting or scenic quality of the project area. 

An effect to wilderness attributes from taking no action would be to Naturalness (the extent to which 

long-term ecological processes are intact and operating). Fire would not be reintroduced into this fireadapted ecosystem, fire suppression efforts would continue and the risk of large, severe wildfires would 

remain. This may detract from the characteristic of “naturalness” throughout the area, since conditions 

would not allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no known cumulative effects to roadless resources from the no action alternative. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

In the no action alternative, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources 

relevant to the roadless resources within the project area. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Under alternative 2, 8,562 acres are proposed for treatment. The proposed actions, outside of the IRAs, 

include using both commercial and noncommercial treatments to achieve the desired condition. These 

actions would include: regeneration harvests, intermediate harvests, precommercial thinnings, and 

prescribed burning. Implementing the proposed action could include the use of chainsaws, feller 

bunchers, and cable logging equipment. Approximately 2.5 miles of road would be built for project use 

then obliterated immediately following timber removal. Post treatment activities would include 

underburning, site preparation burning, jackpot burning, hand piling/ burning, tree planting, and 

monitoring of natural regeneration. 

The only action proposed within the two IRAs (BMSS and Lincoln Gulch) is prescribed fire and the 

associated hand slashing of small diameter trees. Commercial harvest and road construction would not 

occur in the two roadless areas.

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 is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. The FUEL-3 project design feature is relevant to 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

597

minimizing unauthorized motorized use associated with proposed activities within roadless areas. This 

analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all action 

alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects – Roadless Resources 

The activities proposed within the IRAs include construction of fire-lines, hand slashing of small diameter 

trees and prescribed fire. 

Table 154 shows the units and treatments proposed within the roadless expanse:

Table 154. Alternative 2 - Proposed treatment within inventoried roadless areas

UNIT NUMBER

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED 

ACTION – TREATMENT 

DESCRIPTION

ROADLESS AREA

76

123 acres, Description Group 6 – 

Low Severity Prescribed Fire to 

Create Mortality Patches 5 to 10 

Acres 

Lincoln Gulch IRA

77

541 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Lincoln Gulch IRA and unroaded 

lands contiguous to the IRA

79

257 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA and unroaded lands 

contiguous to the IRA

80

280 acres, Description Group 7 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 5, 10, or 

20 Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA, Trail #418

81

607 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA

82

776 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA, Trail #417,418

83

457 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA, Trail #417

84

806 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA, Trail #485

85

87 acres, Description Group 6 – 

Low Severity Prescribed Fire to 

Create Mortality Patches 5 to 10 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA, Trail #485

86

10 acres, Description Group 7 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 5, 10, or 

20 Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA and unroaded lands 

contiguous to the IRA
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

598

UNIT NUMBER

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED 

ACTION – TREATMENT 

DESCRIPTION

ROADLESS AREA

87

36 acres, Description Group 7 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 5, 10, or 

20 Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA

88

865 acres, Description Group 8 – 

Mixed Severity Fire to Create 

Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA

Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics and Wilderness Attributes for IRAs and Contiguous 

Unroaded Lands 

Roadless Areas: The Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is 866,330 acres 

and managed by the Helena, Lewis and Clark, Lolo and Flathead National Forests. The portion of the 

Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA managed by the Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena National 

Forest covers 53,995 acres, and the Stonewall Vegetation Project area overlaps with 12,254 acres. The 

Lincoln Gulch IRA covers 8,246 acres, and the Stonewall Vegetation Project area overlaps with 3,193 

acres.

Natural – Reintroducing fire into this fire adapted ecosystem would begin reversing the trends caused 

from past fire suppression and reduce the risk of large, severe wildfires. This would enhance the 

characteristic of “naturalness” throughout the area, by establishing forest characteristics that would have 

been more typical of this area if fire had been allowed to play its natural role in landscape processes. 

Management-ignited prescribed fire, however, is a form of “modern human control or manipulation” and 

would to some extent affect the “untrammeled” and natural character within the roadless areas. There is 

disagreement about whether the effects of additional management actions such as prescribed fire (i.e.

trammeling) to correct the effects of previous management actions such as the suppression of natural fire

(i.e.: trammeling) is appropriate (Yung, undated). 

The proposed action would enhance or help to maintain the roadless resources including high quality soil, 

water and air; diversity of plant and animal communities; and habitat for threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land. 

Undeveloped – There would be little evidence that the fires were initiated as a management tool versus 

natural ignition. The fire hand lines would create a linear disturbance within the roadless area. Stumps 

from the hand slashing of small diameter trees may remain visible for several seasons following the 

prescribed fire, which may detract from the undeveloped character for visitors traveling through the 

roadless area. There are also concerns that the hand lines could encourage unauthorized motorized use.

Design features are in place to obliterate fire handlines adjacent to or that intersect existing roads and 

trails to reduce the potential for unauthorized motorized use (see project design feature: FUEL-3). 

Blackened trees from the prescribed burning would be noticeable; however, fire is a natural process and 

should not affect the roadless integrity.

The proposed prescribed fire would help ensure the forest maintains a visual appearance characteristic of 

a wildfire within its natural regime as opposed to an unnaturally intense wildfire, thereby enhancing or 

helping to maintain the roadless characteristic of natural appearing landscapes with high scenic integrity.

The creation of openings in the forest from low and mixed severity prescribed fire ranging from 5 to 75 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

599

acres in size would create a visually appealing mosaic in the landscape, enhancing the overall existing 

landscape character.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation – There may be short-term 

effects to “solitude” within the project area during project implementation due to the presence of Forest 

personnel managing the prescribed fire and noise associated with the use of chainsaws for the hand 

slashing of small diameter trees. The proposed activities would not affect opportunities for “primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation.” See additional discussion of the roadless resources in Attachment 1: 

Stonewall Roadless Characteristics Worksheet. 

Special features and values – The proposed action would not affect the special features or values of the 

BMSS IRA because there are no special features within the Stonewall project area. The proposed action 

would maintain the productive and primitive Elk hunting opportunities within the Lincoln Gulch IRA for 

approximately15-20 years and enhance these opportunities in the long term. Hand lines within sites could 

alter historic and prehistoric sites. 

Manageability – Overall, the effects to wilderness character within the IRAs would be minor and short 

term. The proposed action would not affect the suitability of the area for designation as Wilderness 

pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Table D-1 in volume 2, appendix D displays effects to roadless characteristics.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

In alternative 2, proposed action, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources relevant to the roadless resources within the project area. 

Alternative 3 

The actions proposed in alternative 3 differ from those of alternative 2 - proposed action, relevant to the 

analysis of roadless resources. The relevant changes include fewer units proposed for prescribed fire and 

hand slashing of small diameter trees within the IRAs. Alternative 3 has no activities planned within the 

Lincoln Gulch IRA or in the unroaded lands contiguous to this IRA and proposes fewer units for 

treatment in the BMSS IRA. 

The relevant unit changes in alternative 3 are:

Units 76 and 77 proposed for prescribed fire are removed from the Lincoln Gulch IRA and the unroaded 

lands contiguous to the IRA. The mixed severity prescribed fire proposed for unit 80 is changed to unit 

80a, Jackpot burn; and units 81 and 86 of mixed severity prescribed fire are removed from the BearMarshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA and the unroaded lands contiguous to the IRA. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 proposes construction of fire handlines, hand slashing of small diameter trees and prescribed 

fire within the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA and unroaded lands contiguous to the IRA. There are 

no actions proposed within the Lincoln Gulch IRA or the unroaded lands contiguous to the IRA in 

alternative 3. Table 155 shows the units and treatments proposed within the roadless expanse: 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

600

Table 155. Alternative 3 - proposed treatment within inventoried roadless areas

Unit Number Alternative 3 – Treatment Description Roadless Area

79

257 acres, Description Group 8 – Mixed Severity 

Fire to Create Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA and unroaded 

area contiguous to the IRA

80a 280 acres, Description Group 9 – Low Severity 

Prescribed Fire

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA, Trail #418

82

776 acres, Description Group 8 – Mixed Severity 

Fire to Create Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA, Trail #417,418

83

457 acres, Description Group 8 – Mixed Severity 

Fire to Create Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA, Trail #417

84

806 acres, Description Group 8 – Mixed Severity 

Fire to Create Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA, Trail #485

85

87 acres, Description Group 6 – Low Severity 

Prescribed Fire to Create Mortality Patches 5 to 10 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA, Trail #485

87 36 acres, Description Group 7 – Mixed Severity Fire 

to Create Mortality Patches up to 5, 10, or 20 Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA

88

865 acres, Description Group 8 – Mixed Severity 

Fire to Create Mortality Patches up to 30 or 75 

Acres 

Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA

Effects to Roadless Area Characteristics and Wilderness Attributes for IRAs and Contiguous 

Unroaded Lands 

Alternative 3 does not propose any treatment within the Lincoln Gulch IRA or unroaded lands contiguous 

to the IRA, therefore, the impacts would be the same as described in alternative 1- no action. 

The impacts from alternative 3 on the BMSS IRA and unroaded lands contiguous to the IRA would be the 

same as described in alternative 2, proposed action, but would occur on fewer acres due to the elimination 

of the mixed severity prescribed fire in units 81 and 86. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

In alternative 3, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources relevant to the 

roadless resources within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Cumulative effects to roadless resources were considered within the entire 866,330-acre BMSS IRA that 

is managed by the Helena, Flathead, Lolo, and Lewis and Clark National Forests, the entire 17,261 acre 

Lincoln Gulch IRA and the unroaded lands contiguous to the IRAs. Potential cumulative effects to 

roadless resources are related to other activities occurring within the roadless expanse that have the 

potential to impact roadless area characteristics or wilderness attributes. Cumulative impacts to roadless 

resources would result if other activities take place during implementation of the Stonewall Vegetation 

project, or until vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the hand slashing of small diameter 

trees and hand firelines, approximately 3-5 years. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

601

Past harvest and fuel activities (1954-2010) have been conducted on approximately 74,972 acres across 

the 866,330 acre BMSS IRA that is managed by four National Forests (37,288 on the Flathead NF; 

13,888 on the Helena NF; 17,767 on the Lewis and Clark NF; and, 6,029 on the Lolo NF), or 8.6 percent

of the total IRA acreage (see volume 2, appendix C, table C-6). 

Recreational activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel on primitive 

roads, and snowmobiling and cross-country skiing in the winter would continue within the analysis area.

Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities that would be occurring within the analysis area 

include hazard tree removal, weed treatments, trail maintenance, commercial guided recreation, and 

ongoing use of grazing allotments. All of these activities, when added to the activities proposed in the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project have the potential to cumulatively affect the roadless values and wilderness 

attributes within the analysis area. The primary effects would be due to the increased presence of people, 

vehicles and associated noise that would directly affect solitude and opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 

The long-term impacts of other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities, such as noxious weed 

treatment and hazard tree removal, when added to the activities proposed in the Stonewall Vegetation

Project, have the potential to cumulatively impact the natural and undeveloped characteristics by causing 

changes to the scenic qualities within the project area and creating a setting where “resource 

modifications and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment” as 

indicated in a Roaded Natural ROS setting. Most of these effects would be beneficial because they would 

increase the resiliency of forest conditions and reduce the risk of potential negative impacts from severe 

wildfire, therefore, maintaining the roadless and wilderness qualities that are currently valued by the 

public. A list of past, present and foreseeable actions relevant to the cumulative effects analysis for 

roadless resources within the Stonewall analysis area is in volume 2, appendix C, table C-7. 

Summary of Effects for All Alternatives 

Alternative 1, no action would have no direct or cumulative effects to roadless resources. The purpose and 

need for the Stonewall Vegetation Project “... improving the mix of vegetation and structure across the 

landscape so that it is diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects; modifying fire behavior to 

enhance community protection while creating conditions that allow the reestablishment of fire as a 

natural process on the landscape; enhancing and restoring aspen, western larch and ponderosa pine 

species and habitats; utilizing the economic value of trees through removal; and integrating restoration 

with socioeconomic considerations” would not be addressed. Potential long-term indirect effects to 

roadless resources would be due to the ongoing risk of severe wildfire that could lead to changes in the 

recreation settings, visual qualities and naturalness within the roadless expanse. 

In alternative 2, prescribed fire is proposed within IRAs to promote ecological restoration of a mix of 

vegetation composition and structure across the landscape. Prescribed fire is proposed on 4,182 acres 

(about 0.5 percent) within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan IRA and on 664 acres (about 3.8 percent) 

within the Lincoln Gulch IRA. The proposed action would have short-term direct impacts to roadless 

resources during project implementation such as increased presence of people and noise within the project 

area. Project design features are in place to limit potential effects. The proposed treatments would address 

the purpose and need for the Stonewall Vegetation Project, resulting in a more diverse, resilient and 

sustainable forest ecosystem with a reduction in risk of negative impacts from severe wildfire. The longterm indirect effects from alternative 2 to roadless resources would be generally beneficial and help to 

maintain the existing recreation settings and scenic qualities within the project area. 

Impacts would be stable or improving for a majority of roadless area characteristics and wilderness 

attributes with short-term impacts to the undeveloped character from the hand slashing of small diameter 
Inventoried Roadless Areas – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

602

trees and construction of hand fire lines, short-term impacts to solitude during project implementation, 

and potential adverse effects to cultural resources. 

Cumulative effects to roadless resources would generally be short term and related to an increased 

presence of people, vehicles and the associated noise that may affect solitude. 

In alternative 3, prescribed fire is proposed within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan IRA to promote 

ecological restoration of a mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape. Prescribed 

fire is proposed on 3,565 acres (about 0.4 percent) within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan IRA. The 

Lincoln Gulch IRA would not be treated. The effects of alternative 3 relative to roadless resources would 

be similar to those described for alternative 2, but the impacts would occur on fewer acres. There would 

be no impacts to the Lincoln Gulch IRA and fewer acres treated within the BMSS IRA.

The alternative comparison summary in chapter 2 provides a comparison of effects from project activities 

by alternative for roadless resources.

Cumulatively there may be short-term impacts to solitude and undeveloped character with long-term 

benefits to naturalness throughout the IRA. Additional management activities within the IRA including 

travel planning, weed treatments and livestock grazing would also occur. These activities are compatible 

with the management of roadless resources and may cumulatively represent short-term impacts to solitude 

throughout the IRA due to the presence of people. 

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

The proposed alternatives are consistent with the following:

Helena National Forest Plan 1986, Management Goals for Management Areas: M-1, T-1, T-2, T-3, 

T-4, and W-1. 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1) – Wilderness Evaluation, that provides 

definitions for the wilderness attributes of Inventoried Roadless Areas.

36 CFR 294.11 – Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule and related Secretary’s Memorandum 

1042-155 and 1042-156. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, 

guides management of recreation and wilderness resources on National Forest System lands.

As of March 2, 2012, the 2001 Roadless Rule is in full effect after Judge Brimmer (Wyoming) lifted his 

injunction on the Rule (see the “Roadless Analysis Background and Direction” section in the Inventoried 

Roadless Area section), The Stonewall project complies with the 2001 Roadless rule, as follows: 

d. The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the 

following purposes and would maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area 

characteristics as defined in § 294.11. To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, 

within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance 

regimes of the current climatic period (36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii)). 

e. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart (36 CFR 294.13(b)(2)). 

The cutting of generally small diameter timber is needed to implement the proposed prescribed fire 

treatments. Consistent with 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii), prescribed fire is proposed within the Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRA) to promote ecological restoration of a mix of vegetation composition and structure 

across the landscape. The proposed actions would enhance or help to maintain the roadless characteristics, 

as defined in 36 CFR 294.11, including high quality soil, water and air; diversity of plant and animal 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

603

communities; and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, and natural appearing landscapes with high 

scenic quality. 

Consistent with 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2), the cutting of generally small diameter timber is incidental to the 

implementation of the proposed prescribed fire, a management activity that is not otherwise prohibited by 

the Roadless Rule.

Scenery 

Introduction

The Forest Plan uses Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) when setting objectives to manage the viewed 

landscape. The VQOs were determined using the Visual Management System (VMS) framework found in 

Agricultural Handbook (AH) 462, “National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1, The 

Visual Management System”. Components of VMS used when analyzing effects from management 

activity on the visual resource are discussed in the Methodology section of this analysis. All VMS 

components referred to in this analysis are defined in the Glossary section. The Visuals Report (Bonnett 

2012) was completed to determine compliance with the direction found in the Forest Plan and Other 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans. 

Overview of Issues Addressed 

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on the visual resource 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 for a complete listing of the issues and an explanation of how the 

agency determined their disposition. 

Indicators

Indicators are defined to analyze data regarding the potential for impacts to scenery from project 

activities.

A landscape analyses should be completed to show the changes that would occur from the proposed 

actions. What are the visual impacts?

Measure: Effects to visual resources analyzed and VQO forest plan compliance disclosed.

A feathering of Timber harvest along the existing straight line harvested areas would benefit the 

existing visual condition. Property lines adjoining private inholdings, state and BLM lands should be 

considered for this type of timber harvest also.

Measure: Design features incorporated to reduce the appearance of lines in units adjoining 

private inholdings, state and BLM lands to meet the visual quality objectives.

The public also submitted comments to consider effects of activities on the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail (CDNST) corridor. The CDNST lies outside the project area and no activities are proposed 

within a 5-mile distance of the CDNST. Additional comments from the public included the visual 

benefits of dead trees verses clearcuts as a personal preference and that smoke from burning reduces 

visibility and diminishes the appreciation for scenic vistas. Assumptions for viewing preferences were 

based on information in Forest Service handbooks and considered in this analysis. Smoke, reducing 

visibility within a viewshed, is short term, lasting only the duration of the burn. Therefore, the effect is 

considered minimal. 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

604

Figure 88. Stonewall Project visual resource 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

605

Methodology 

The Forest used the Visual Management System (VMS) framework to develop their Visual Quality 

Objectives (VQOs). The VQOs are used as standards and guidelines when managing the visual resource. 

The VQO refers to “degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape” (USDA Forest Service 

1974, p. 46). Acceptable alteration is analyzed qualitatively using “degree of alteration” and “duration of 

impact” components from the “Visual Management System” (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 28 and 30). 

In addition, degree of acceptable alteration is determined through the use of other agency handbooks, and 

professional experience and judgment based on expected outcomes of similar activities elsewhere on the 

Forest. The current insect conditions (mountain pine beetle epidemic and high levels of western spruce 

budworm) found in the project area allow the opportunity for the rehabilitation management goal to be 

used when managing the visual resource (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 28 and 40). A detailed 

description of the method used when evaluating the visual resource to disclose effects and determine 

Forest Plan compliance follows. This methodology was developed under consultation with and approved 

by the Forest landscape architect.

Seen area was determined per Forest Plan direction. The Forest Plan and information from the Forest 

landscape architect were used to identify sensitive travel routes, use areas, and water bodies used when 

determining seen area. The term sensitive area is used throughout this document when referring to 

sensitive travel routes, use areas, and water bodies. Forest Geographical Information System (GIS) layers 

and the Helena National Forest America’s Great Outdoors Montana 2006 map were used to locate these 

sensitive areas on a map used for field reconnaissance. All sensitive areas considered when determining 

seen area are listed in Table 156. 

ArcMap GIS was used to display distance zones (foreground, middleground, and background) from 

sensitive areas when determining seen area. Distance zones of foreground, middleground, and 

background, are defined in the Glossary section. In addition, views from private lands were considered 

when determining project seen area. When evaluating effects the most restrictive distance was assigned to 

a unit if the unit was viewed in more than one distance zone. Table 156 also shows the expected viewed 

distance zones and seen areas from the sensitive areas. Also, topographic relief displayed on field maps 

was used to assist in determining seen area during field reconnaissance. Views of the project area were 

photo documented and are displayed in this section.

The Forest Plan adopted VQO acres for the project area were determined using the Forest VQO GIS layer 

in conjunction with addition direction per management area found in the Forest Plan. These VQOs are 

shown on figure 88. GIS analysis was used to determine VQO acres viewed within the project seen area.

Effects from management activities are disclosed. Anticipated changes in the unit’s attributes (basic 

vegetation patterns, rock formations, and water forms) elements (line, form, color, and texture) were 

considered when determining direct and indirect effects of viewed management activity (USDA Forest 

Service 1974, p. 8). This information was then used to determine Forest Plan VQO compliance. 

Cumulative effects were described in terms of changes in the characteristic landscape attributes (basic 

vegetation patterns, rock formations, and water forms). Existing viewed disturbances were documented to 

be used in the appropriate sections in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

sections of this analysis. Viewed management activities were analyzed to determine Forest Plan 

compliance. Distance zones were used when describing the viewed landscape being evaluated (USDA 

Forest Service 1974, p. 7). Management area direction listed under the Forest Plan and Other Relevant 

Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans section was considered for compliance.

Whether the activity stayed within the “degree of alteration” and “duration of impact” acceptable range 

for the VQO from the perspective of the casual forest visitor was determined (USDA Forest Service 1974, 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

606

p. 28 through 32). The acceptable “degree of alteration” for a VQO was determined by comparing 

expected visual contrast with the surrounding natural landscape (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 28). The 

“duration of impact” was determined from estimating the length of time a management activity is 

expected to be visually evident to the casual Forest visitor (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 30). Design 

features were developed to reduce impacts to an acceptable level if it was determined the impacts would 

not allow the VQO to be met in the short-term. Design features were developed to decrease the time the 

disturbance would be viewed in the landscape and to assure Forest Plan compliance. If the short-term 

timeframe was not initially met upon implementation of an activity but it was possible to implement a 

design feature within that same short-term timeframe that allowed the VQO to be met in the long-term 

time frame then the VQO was considered met. This decision was based on the use of “should” in VMS 

when describing duration of impact for each VQO (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 30, 32, 34, and 36) and 

(USDA Forest Service 1986, p. II/14). 

In units where the proposed activity is expected to restore an undesirable visual impact to a desired visual 

quality, the rehabilitation goal was used (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 28). With the rehabilitation goal, 

VQO compliance was determined by first projecting the final outcome of the implementation of the 

design feature. Then a determination was made as to whether this expected outcome would achieve the 

assigned VQO. If the design feature applied allowed the disturbance to be minimized to an acceptable 

level for the VQO within the long-term timeframe of 20 years, then compliance was achieved (USDA 

Forest Service 1986, p. II/14). Twenty years is used as the long-term timeframe because it could take 20 

years before new vegetation fills in created openings allowing areas to blend back into the landscape. 

Design features were also developed to allow the VQO to be met in the shortest timeframe allowing the 

desired visual quality to be achieved in the case where the rehabilitation goal is used (USDA Forest 

Service 1974, p. 40). If design features could not be designed and implemented within the VQO “duration 

of impact” short-term timeframe, then the VQO would be considered not met (USDA Forest Service 

1974, p. 30). 

In determining design features the following were considered:

Professional Experience 

Agriculture Handbook (AH) Numbers 434, 608, 462, 559, and 483 for technical guidance. 

Forest specialists input 

“Northern Region Scenic Resource Mitigation Menu & Design Considerations for Vegetation 

Treatments” dated March 12, 2009 (unpublished document) 

The inventory roadless areas (IRAs) scenic attribute is analyzed in the Inventory Roadless Area Report 

(Valentine 2012a). This section analyzes the VQOs of these areas where management activity is proposed.

Indicators 

The viewed VQO assigned through the Forest Plan within seen areas provided the primary qualitative 

analysis indicator when determining direct and indirect effects. Consideration of an activity’s “duration of 

impact” and “degree of alternation” within the viewed VQO also provided qualitative analysis indicators. 

The degree of acceptable alteration (“degree of alteration” and “duration of impact”) for each VQO was 

determined considering natural disturbances found in the characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service 

1974, p. 27-28). The size of a management activity is compared to the size of similar natural activities 

expected in the landscape. Activities mimicking natural disturbances or simulating vegetation patterns 

found or expected to be found in the landscape are said to be viewed similarly to their natural counterparts 

by the casual forest visitor. “Duration of impact is discussed in more detail in the Temporal Boundaries 

section of this report. Changes in the characteristic landscape attributes, when considering past, present, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

607

and reasonably foreseeable activities (natural or manmade) within all seen areas, provided the qualitative 

analysis indicator when determining cumulative effects. 

Viewed VQO acres within distances of sensitive areas affected by management activities were determined 

in order to provide additional quantitative analysis indicators for alternative comparisons (USDA Forest 

Service 1974, p. 7).

Spatial Boundaries

Views extending beyond the project analysis area from sensitive areas were determined. In addition, 

views into the project area from sensitive areas and lands of other ownership (i.e., private lands) were 

determined. All sensitive areas used for this analysis are listed in Table 156. When assessing direct and 

indirect effects, the viewed units within the seen area, as determined from the sensitive areas show on 

figure 88, were considered the spatial boundary. When assessing cumulative effects all viewed lands 

within the seen area from sensitive areas listed in table 156 (including sensitive areas listed in the table 

notes) were considered the spatial boundary.

Temporal Boundaries 

The temporal boundary used varied from “immediate upon project completion” up to 5 years (short-term) 

and up to 20 years (long-term) when analyzing effects from an activity. The short-term timeframes were 

determined by reviewing the VQO information provided below. The criteria below was considered short 

term when determining if the “duration of impact” was met for each VQO upon implementation of a 

management activity. 

Retention – “Reduction in line, form, color, and texture contrast should be accomplished during 

operation or immediate upon project completion” (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 30). 

Partial Retention – “Reduction in line, form, color and texture should be accomplished as soon after 

project completion as possible or at a minimum within the first year” (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 

32). 

Modification – “Reduction in line, form, color, and texture should be accomplished in the first year or 

at a minimum should meet existing regional guideline” (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 34). 

Maximum Modification – “Reduction of contrast should be accomplished in five years” (USDA 

Forest Service 1974, p. 36). 

Rehabilitation – the VMS does not define a timeframe for duration of impact. 

In addition, the following concepts were taken into consideration when compliance with both the “degree 

of alteration” and “duration of impact” criteria per VQO was determined:

“Each landscape unit has its individual capacity to accept alteration without losing its inherent visual 

character” (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 4). 

“Visual impact of management activities increase as the viewer’s line of sight tends to become 

perpendicular to the slope upon which the management activity is to take place” (USDA Forest 

Service 1974, p. 4). 

Each objective describes a degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based upon the 

importance of aesthetics (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 28). 

Whether or not the disturbance from management activity is consistent with the natural disturbances 

viewed in the landscape is also considered when determining if a VQO was met (USDA Forest 

Service 1974, p. 30). 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

608

“Generally, considerable change can take place in the positive or natural appearing elements even 

under Retention VQO if the change achieves desirable variety and follows the principles of landscape 

design, such as proper scale and arrangement of these elements” (USDA Forest Service 1980, p. 7). 

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The locations of existing and new landings were not available.

Assumptions

An entire unit was considered viewed if any portion of the unit was viewed from a sensitive area. It was 

assumed private property adjacent to the project area provided foreground views to the project area. The 

most revealing distance zone was assigned to the unit if that unit was viewed from multiple distance 

zones. The most restrictive VQO was assigned to a unit if more than one VQO existed for that unit. 

Effects to the most restrictive VQO (assigned through Forest Plan direction) from the most revealing 

distance zone were determined for viewed units. This allowed the greatest potential impact viewed in the 

landscape to be disclosed.

Design features necessary to meet the most restrictive VQO from the most revealing distance zone were

developed. It was assumed a design feature that decreased viewed effects to a VQO from the most 

revealing distance zone would also decrease the effects viewed from other lesser revealing distance zones. 

If a design feature was needed to meet a VQO in a viewed unit, it was assumed the design feature would

be applied across the entire unit depending on topography and shape of that unit. Existing visual condition 

of the landscape described in the Affected Environment section and the Affected Environment section in 

the vegetation section (Amell 2012) was considered in the determination of whether cumulative effects 

may have adverse impacts on the characteristic landscape’s attributes. When determining if there would 

be adverse impacts upon analyzing cumulative effects it was assumed that design features would be 

implemented. 

The rehabilitation goal was used where it was determined proposed activities would not immediately 

achieve the assigned VQO due to the existence of one of the following scenarios: 

A disturbance (natural or manmade) dominated the unit 

The proposed activity allowed the desired future condition defined in the Silviculture section to 

be achieve sooner than with no action 

The current existing condition hindered the desired future condition of the landscape to be met in 

the short-term

Dead trees from insect infestations were considered obtrusive elements. It was assumed a landscape with 

less visible dead trees is a visually desired landscape. These assumptions are based on Forest Service 

handbook guidance, which states natural disturbances are considered alterations to the characteristic 

landscape and the characteristic landscape is defined as what visually represents the basic vegetative 

patterns, landforms, rock formation and water forms viewed (USDA Forest Service 1980, p. 55 and 

USDA Forest Service 1974, p.7). This assumption differs from some public comments received on 

personal preferences of viewing aesthetics.

It was assumed existing and new landings may be viewed in units with proposed activities. Specific 

landing location information was not available. It is assumed that no catastrophic fires or additional fires 

would occur when analyzing effects for the no action alternative. Beetle caused mortality exists on 

approximately 40 percent of the existing mature lodgepole pine stands in the project area and is expected 

to increase. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

609

Affected Environment

Components of the Visual Management System (VMS) used to describe the existing condition of the 

project area are characteristic landscape (vegetative patterns, landforms, rock formations, and water 

forms) within distance zones viewed from primary and secondary travel routes, use areas and water 

bodies (USDA Forest Service, 1974, p. 7 and p. 18). This description includes management activity 

(USDA Forest Service 1974, p.8). All travel routes, use areas, and water bodies listed in Appendix B of 

the Forest plan, identified in the Stone Dry Vegetation Treatment NFMA Report for Scenery and 

Recreation September 30, 2009 (USDA Forest Service 2009), incorporated by reference, and additional 

areas identified by the Forest landscape architect were taken into consideration when determining the 

existing condition for the project area. Additional affected environment information considered in this 

analysis can be found in the vegetation section (Amell 2012).

Existing Condition

Character Type

“The mountains in the Columbia Rockies subregion (character type) are generally rounded and subdued 

where they have been severely glaciated. Valley floor elevations are about 2,000 feet above sea level and 

ridgetops range from about 7,000 to over 10,000 feet. Glaciers, permanent snowfields, and craggy 

topography are outstanding features. Vegetation is moderately varied, with some natural openings. This 

subregion (character type) contains sagebrush, grasslands, and ancient cedar groves. It is an area of high 

gradient streams and outstanding high mountain lakes. Hot springs are uncommon, but do occur. Portions 

of this subregion (character type) have been heavily impacted by past logging and mining practices; large 

portions are relatively untouched, roadless, and rugged. Natural fire processes are part of this landscape. 

The landscape character type of the project area is classified as Columbia Rockies” (USDA Forest Service

1980a, Visual Character Types & Variety Class Descriptions, R1 80-11, p.39). 

Seen Area Identification

Figure 89 displays visual resource photo points that identify places within the project area where the 

photos depicted in figure 90 thru figure 99 were taken. It also shows the proposed units for alternative 2, 

boundaries for inventoried roadless areas and contains information for recreation. 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

610

Figure 89. Stonewall Visual Resource Photo Points Map
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

611

Mortality caused by beetles exists on approximately 40 percent of the existing, mature lodgepole pine 

stands in the project area and is expected to increase. These beetle-killed trees, which can be viewed in 

figure 90, figure 92, and figure 95, negatively impact the landscape. Large portions of the project area can 

currently be described as a contiguous fuel-bed, with heavy accumulations of dead and down timber. 

Figure 90. Photo Point 1-View looking northwest from 

Forest Route 1040 towards the project area 

(Approximately 5 miles east of Lincoln, near the 

Aspen Grove Campground. This is approximately 4 

miles southeast of the project area, not displayed in 

figure 56)

Figure 91. Photo Point 2-View looking north from 

State Highway 200 into unit 2

Figure 92. Photo Point 3-View north down Forest Route 

626

Figure 93. Photo Point 4-View northeast into the 

project area from Lincoln Gulch cemetery
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

612

Figure 94. Photo Point 5-View North from the Lincoln 

District Office. Due to topography, distance, and 

vegetative screening, the project area is not seen from 

the Lincoln District Office.

Figure 95. Photo Point 6-View northwest on 

County Route 433 into the project area

Figure 96. Photo Point 7-View west down State Highway 

200 with the project area in the middleground

Figure 97. Photo Point 10-View south from Forest 

Route 330 towards Bear-Marshall-ScapegoatSwan IRA. Due to topography, the project area is 

not seen from Forest Route 330.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

613

Figure 98. Photo Point 8-View looking southwest 

from Forest road 330 of Snowbank Lake 

Northeast of the project area, not displayed in figure 56. There 

are no views from the lake into the project units due to the 

surrounding topography.

Figure 99. Photo Point 9-View within Pine Grove 

campground

Seen areas for direct and indirect effects along with cumulative effects spatial boundaries were identified 

during field visits. Sensitive areas used were determine through a combination of areas listed in 

Management Areas R-1, R-2, areas listed in Appendix B of the Forest Plan and areas listed on page 2 and 

6 of the Stone Dry Vegetation Treatment NFMA Report for Scenery and Recreation September 30, 2009.

Additional sensitive areas given by the Forest landscape architect were also used in seen area 

determination. Table 156 lists the viewed distance zones into the project area determined from sensitive 

areas. This total seen area was used for cumulative effects purposes.

The following sensitive areas did not provide views into the Stonewall project area, but were considered 

for total seen area determination for cumulative effects purposes: Forest System Road 330 (Forest Plan 

Appendix B), Copper Creek and Aspen Grove Campgrounds (R-2 and Appendix B), Lincoln Ranger 

Station (Forest Plan Appendix B) figure 6, Continental Divide Trail (Forest Plan), Snowbank Lake (Forest 

Plan Appendix B), Indian Meadows (R-1 and Forest Plan Appendix B), Silver King Mountain (R-1 and 

Forest Plan Appendix B), Scapegoat Wilderness (Forest Plan), Stonewall Subdivision (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). 

Table 156. Distance zones viewed into the project area from travel routes, use areas, and water bodies from 

sensitive areas

Sensitive Areas (Travel Route,

Use Area, or Water Body )

Foreground 

Views

Middleground 

Views

Background 

Views Management Direction

State Highway 200 X X N/A Appendix B of the Forest 

Plan 

Lincoln Gulch IRA (#1601) X N/A N/A Forest Plan

Bear-Marshal-Scapegoat-Swan 

IRA (#A1485) X N/A N/A Forest Plan

Lincoln Springs Subdivision N/A X N/A USDA FS, 2009

Lincoln Gulch Cemetery X N/A N/A USDA FS, 2009

Lincoln Gulch Historic Site X N/A N/A USDA FS, 2009
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

614

Sensitive Areas (Travel Route,

Use Area, or Water Body )

Foreground 

Views

Middleground 

Views

Background 

Views Management Direction

Pine Grove Campground X N/A N/A USDA FS, 2009

Stonewall/Copper Trail X N/A N/A USDA FS, 1974

Stonewall Trail X N/A N/A USDA FS, 1974

Stonewall Mountain Trail X N/A N/A USDA FS, 1974

Distance zone information from table 156along with topography information was used to determine seen 

areas and viewed units in the field. Viewed units for the proposed action are shown in figure 100 and 

listed in table 157. All units listed are treated as completely viewed when determining VQO acres for 

compliance. 

Table 157. Proposed action viewed units and their VQO from travel routes, use areas, and water bodies

Travel Route, Use Area, 

or Water Body 

Foreground View 

Unit/ (VQO) Middleground Viewed Unit/(VQO)

State Highway 200 1/(R), 2/(R) *3/(R), *5/(R), *8/(R), *10/(R), *73/(R) 

39/(PR), 40/(PR), 41/(PR), 20/(PR), 44/(PR)

Lincoln Gulch IRA

(#1601) 

76/(PR), 77/(M) N/A

Bear-MarshalScapegoat-Swan IRA

(#A1485)

79/(R), 87/(R), 80/(R), 82/(R), 81/(R), 

85/(R), 83/(R), 84/(R), 88/(R), 

N/A

Lincoln Springs 

Subdivision N/A 39/(M), 40/(M), 41/(PR), 20/(PR), 44/(PR)

Lincoln Gulch Cemetery 16/(MM), 17/(MM), 78/MM N/A

Lincoln Gulch Historic 

Site 13/(M) N/A

Pine Grove 

Campground 46/M N/A

Stonewall/Copper Trail 84/(R) N/A

Stonewall Trail 82/(R) N/A

Stonewall Mountain 

Trail 82/(R), 80/(R) N/A

Note: No units are expected to be viewed in the background that are not viewed in the foreground or middleground from the 

sensitive areas listed in table 3. The VQOs for units were determined using a combination of the Forest VQO map and Forest Plan 

information (USDA Forest Service 1986), Appendix B, p. B/2. R= retention, PR=partial retention, M=modification, MM=max 

modification. 

*The VQO for units 3, 5, 8 10, and 73 are Retention based on the Forest VQO map which assigned a higher VQO to these areas 

when compared to using the matrix found in appendix B of the Forest Plan.

Environmental Consequences

Environmental effects for each alternative were considered in detail and described from the expected 

perspective of the casual Forest visitor (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 30). Effects from management 

activities were described using dominant elements (line, form, color, and texture) viewed within distance 

zones (foreground, middleground, and background) from a travel route, use area, or water body (USDA 

Forest Service 1974, p. 7 and p. 8). The degree of acceptable alteration (“degree of alteration” and 

“duration of impact”) for each VQO was determined considering natural disturbances found in the 

characteristic landscape (USDA Forest Service 1974, p. 27, and p. 28). The size of a management activity 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

615

is compared to the size of similar natural activities expected in the landscape. Activities mimicking 

natural disturbances or simulating vegetation patterns found or expected to be found in the landscape are 

said to be viewed similarly to their natural counterparts by the casual forest visitor. All previous 

information was used when determining acceptable duration of impact and degree of alteration for all 

effects sections under all alternatives. In addition the “rehabilitation goal” was used, as described in the 

Methodology section of the Visual Report (Bonnett 2012) based on the criteria in the VMS and direction 

found in the Forest Plan. 

See the Stonewall Vegetation Project Visual Report (Bonnett 2012), incorporated by reference, for more 

detailed descriptions of effects.

Alternative 1 – No Action 

There would be an increase in line, form, and color from viewing beetle infested trees as these trees lose 

their foliage in the short term. Effects of dead trees in the viewshed are added black lines in the landscape 

from the dead trees. Loss of these trees would equate to a decrease in the forest canopy followed by an 

increase in ground texture intermixed with the surrounding, remaining forest canopy leading to various 

size openings in the long-term. These effects would be noticeable in the foreground and middleground 

from sensitive areas by the casual forest visitor in the short and long term. Figure 90 shows dead trees in 

the middleground of the project seen area. Down woody material would increase as dead trees fall, 

increasing ground fuel density. The increase in fuel density would increase the potential for these areas to 

experience more intense forest fires. 

There would be no vegetation treatments or fuel treatments implemented for alternative 1. There would be 

no construction of landings or roads built then obliterated in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects for alternative 1 because no project activities are proposed.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects because no project activities are proposed under this alternative.

Conclusion

There are no direct or indirect effects from project activities. Effects from no action, previously described, 

could lead to an altered viewed landscape in the foreground and middleground views from sensitive areas. 

These dead trees would provide an altered landscape expected to be viewed as part of a natural 

disturbance by the casual forest visitor. However, dead trees could be considered undesirable elements in 

the landscape by some viewers. It could take 20 years or more before areas with beetle mortality fill in 

with new vegetation, allowing these areas to blend back into the landscape. 

Visual quality objectives would be met since no management activity is proposed under this alternative

and changes would be from ecological processes. The viewed vegetation patterns found in the 

characteristic landscape could undergo a change when effects from all infested trees viewed in the total 

seen area are considered. This alternative is in compliance with Forest Plan, policy, laws and regulations.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action includes using both commercial and noncommercial treatments to address the 

purpose and need, and move the project area towards the desired condition. These actions would include: 

regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, and prescribed fire. The proposed action includes using 

prescribed fire and treating slash in inventoried roadless areas (Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan and 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

616

Lincoln Gulch). There would be approximately 2.6 miles of roads built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal under this alternative. In addition, there would be approximately 45.6 miles of 

road that would be maintained for use. Commercial harvest and road work would not occur in the two 

inventoried roadless areas. Implementing the proposed action could include the use of chainsaws, feller 

bunchers, skidders, and cable logging equipment. Post treatment activities would include underburning, 

site preparation burning, jackpot burning, hand piling/burning, treeplanting, and monitoring of natural 

vegetation. Treatment descriptions Groups 1 through 8 apply to alternative 2. Treatment descriptions for 

each group can be found in chapter 2. 

Table 158 lists activities included in the proposed action. Treatments, prescription, and logging systems 

are defined in the silvicultural report (Amell 2012). Viewed effects to the visual resource from proposed 

activities are disclosed. Effects to the viewed landscape (figure 100) were assessed to determine Forest 

Plan compliance. The visual quality objectives for this project include acres in retention, partial retention, 

modification, and max modification. The viewed units and their VQOs are listed in table 158. Table 159

shows the total VQO acres proposed for treatments for this alternative within foreground and 

middleground distances zones.

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 scenery and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The specific design features listed in table 9 pertaining to scenery/visual are VIS-1 through VIS-13, This 

analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all action 

alternatives. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

617

Figure 100. Stonewall visual resource proposed action viewed units
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

618

Table 158. Viewed treatment units with proposed vegetation treatment, prescriptions, logging systems, 

distance zone, and VQO for the alternatives 2 and 3 

Treatment Prescription Unit *DZ/VQO Logging 

System

Alt 2 

Acres 

Alt 3 

Acres 

Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn 44 MG/PR skyline 97 

Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn 46 FG/M tractor 251 

Intermediate Harvest Intermediate thin patches 46a FG/M tractor 223

Intermediate Harvest Improvement Cut, Underburn 8 MG/R skyline 62 62 

Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, 

Underburn 46b FG/M tractor 27

Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin 73 MG/R HAND 33 33

Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, 

Handpiling, Burn Piles 16 FG/MM HAND 3 3 

Intermediate Harvest Precommercial Thin, 

Handpiling, Burn Piles 3 MG/R tractor 37 37 

Intermediate Harvest Sanitation, Slashing, 

Handpiling, Burn Piles 5 MG/R tractor 18 18

Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings 

<5 acres 2 FG/R HAND 146 146

Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings 

<5 acres 78 FG/MM HAND 38 38 

Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings 

<5 acres 85 FG/R HAND 143 143 

Prescribed Fire Low-intensity and severity 

underburning 17a FS/MM HAND 38

Prescribed Fire Low-intensity and severity 

underburning 20a MG/PR HAND 24

Prescribed Fire Low-intensity and severity 

underburning 44a MG/PR HAND 97

Prescribed Fire Jackpot burn or pile and burn 46a FG/M HAND 223

Prescribed Fire Jackpot burn or pile and burn 80a FG/R HAND 326

Prescribed Fire Low Severity Fire, Openings 

<10 acres 76 FG/PR HAND 123 

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<20 acres 80 FG/R HAND 326

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<30 acres 77 FG/M HAND 709

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<30 acres 79 FG/R HAND 337 337 

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<30 acres 81 FG/R HAND 629

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<30 acres 84 FG/R HAND 831 831 

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<30 acres 88 FG/R HAND 865 865 

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<5 acres 87 FG/R HAND 36 36

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<75 acres 82 FG/R HAND 776 776
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

619

Treatment Prescription Unit *DZ/VQO Logging 

System

Alt 2 

Acres 

Alt 3 

Acres 

Prescribed Fire Mixed Severity Fire, Openings 

<75 acres 83 FG/R HAND 457 457 

Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, 

Jackpot Burn 17 FG/MM tractor 38

Regeneration Harvest Clearcut with Reserves, 

Underburn 10 MG/PR tractor 18 18

Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, 

Jackpot Burn 13 FG/M tractor 41 41 

Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, 

Jackpot Burn 20 MG/PR tractor 32

Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, 

Underburn 39 MG/PR skyline 42 26

Regeneration Harvest Seedtree with Reserves, 

Underburn 40 MG/PR tractor 11 11 

Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with 

Reserves, Site Prep Burn 1 FG/R tractor 96 96 

Regeneration Harvest Shelterwood (Group) with 

Reserves, Underburn 41 MG/PR skyline 12 12 

Grand Total 6,206 4,720

*DZ=Distance Zone, FG=Foreground, MG=Middleground, R=Retention, PR=Partial Retention, M=Modification, MM=Maximum 

Modification. Not all actions in a unit listed above are viewed.

Table 159. Distance zone viewed VQO acres for alternatives 2 and 3

Distance Zone* VQO Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres

Foreground MM 78 78

Foreground M 1,000 291

Foreground PR 126 3

Foreground R 4,634 4,004

Middleground MM

Middleground M 16

Middleground PR 196 1898

Middleground R 151 151

R=Retention, PR=Partial Retention, M=Modification, MM=Maximum Modification

Direct and Indirect Effects

Proposed activities in treatment units expected to be viewed are displayed in table 158. Units viewed in 

the background were also viewed in the middle ground and foreground. Not all activities listed under each 

viewed unit are expected to be viewed as described further for each activity. Viewed effects from 

management actions are discussed below. Acres for viewed units listed in table 158 are not repeated 

throughout this section. Sensitive areas are listed in table 157 and are not repeated throughout this section. 

The discussion that follows addresses effects from proposed activities, determines compliance, and 

discusses design features necessary for compliance.
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

620

Harvest Treatments

Foreground

Marked trees for retention and unit boundaries may be visible in foreground areas. No degree of alteration 

is expected from this activity. The duration of impact could be more than five years until the marking 

paint fades. Implementing VIS-10 and VIS-11 would decrease the possibility of painted trees being 

viewed in the landscape allowing both M and MM to be met. 

Upon completion, intermediate thinning, a more open forest at the ground plane and in the mid to upper 

canopy is expected to be viewed throughout these units. Remaining canopy cover would be less when 

compared to canopy cover prior to implementation. These effects are expected to last more than 20 years

but would not dominate the landscape. Thinning activities would appear similar to other areas found in 

the landscape that are naturally established over time. The impact from thinning is not expected to be

noticeable by the casual forest visitor. Intermediate thinning activities would be considered within the 

degree of acceptable alteration for both M and MM. 

Regeneration treatments (clear cutting, seed tree and shelterwood treatments) would create openings or 

more open canopy areas in the landscape. These openings and areas of open canopy are not expected to 

be continuous because the reserve tree technique would be utilized. Clearcut units would be less than 40 

acres allowing the openings to mimic other similar size openings occurring naturally in the surrounding 

landscape. Creating openings could leave a wall of vegetation causing an edge effect that could be noticed 

by the casual forest visitor as an unnatural activity. When considering the size of the openings, the degree 

of alteration for MM is expected to be met. If an edge effect is created the duration of impact could last 

over 20 years. Implementation of design feature VIS-1 which allows the edge effect to be blended and 

appear natural in the landscape would allow MM to be met. 

Middleground

Improvement cuts, precommercial thinning, and sanitation cuts are not expected to be viewed in the 

middleground from sensitive areas. No viewed effects from sensitive areas are expected upon 

implementation of these activities in this distance zone.

Regeneration treatments viewed in the middleground would have effects similar to the ones previously 

described for foreground views. However, these effects would be less visible smaller size leaving for even 

smaller clearcut areas. Clearcut areas would also be broken up by reserve trees. The degree of alteration 

would be met even in PR. Implementing design feature VIS-1 would eliminate the edge effect also 

allowing the duration of impact for PR to be met.

Prescribe fire (Low Severity and Mixed Severity) and Underburning

Foreground 

Effects expected to be viewed in the foreground are fire line boundaries and burned ground vegetation 

with some small pockets of tree mortality with the low and mixed severity burn units and burned 

vegetation leaving some areas with little tree mortality with underburning. Fire line boundaries could add 

artificial lines. These boundary lines could look unnatural if straight lines and other geometric patterns are 

used during unit layout. The line/geometric effect could last more than a year until vegetation begins to 

grow and blend the unnatural lines into the landscape. The effects from the fire on the ground vegetation 

and tree mortality is not expected to be discernible as a management activity by the casual forest visitor

when compared to effects from other natural fires found in the landscape.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

621

When considering the line effect, the degree of alteration based on the size of the activity in these units 

would be met for R, MM, and PR. Implementing Vis12/Fuel2 would eliminate artificial lines allowing the 

duration of impact to be met for all VQOs. This design feature would allow the fire line to look more like 

a natural fire occurrence. 

Handpiling and burning of the piles would add unnatural forms and texture to the landscape that would be 

viewed. These piles would be burned prior to the completion of the project allowing this effect to meet the 

duration of impact for M and MM. 

Upon handpile and jackpot burning, small pockets of tree mortality in close proximity to the burn piles

and charred branches may be viewed from the implementation of this activity. The small pockets of dead 

trees are not expected to dominate the landscape and can be viewed as part of a natural disturbance. This 

effect is considered within the degree of acceptable alteration and duration of impact for both M and MM. 

Charred branches left over from the burning of piles are expected to be viewed in the landscape. Within 

five years new vegetation would have grown in, eliminating the possibility to view the burnt vegetation. 

The degree of alteration for both M and MM would be met. The duration of impact for MM would be 

met. The duration of impact for M would be met with the implementation of VIS-9 and S/WS/F-12. 

Burn activities would temporarily add smoke into the air obstructing foreground and middleground views 

from sensitive areas. This effect is short term and would subside upon completion of the burning activity. 

At which point M and MM would be met.

Middleground

The prescribed fire is not expected be viewed in the middleground from sensitive areas. Therefore, no 

viewed effects are expected from prescribed fire activities for this distance zone for any unit. 

After underburning is completed the effects from the activity is not expected to be viewed in the 

middleground due to the distance the proposed activity would be from sensitive areas and the canopy 

cover of these units. No viewed effects in the landscape from this activity are anticipated. 

Hand piling and burning of the piles are not expected to be viewed from sensitive areas because of the 

existing overstory in these units, distance to the units from sensitive area, and the undulating topography 

of the landscape between the sensitive areas and the units. Slashing is not expected to contribute to

viewed effects in the landscape.

Transportation

There would be approximately 2.6 miles of road built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal under this alternative shown in figure 100. In addition, there would be approximately 45.6 miles 

of road that would be maintained for use under this alternative. 

The road construction work associated with this alternative would not be viewed in the foreground or 

middleground due to the distance the proposed activity would be from sensitive areas (figure 100). 

Therefore, there would be no viewed effects from this activity in the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects

The characteristic landscape is expected to continue to perpetuate. Management activity viewed 

disturbances would increase when considering all viewed units proposed for treatment. However, with the 

project design features the VQOs would be met. Units where dead trees would be removed would 
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

622

ultimately look similar to the end result of the natural decay cycle. This alternative would decrease the 

length of time the dead trees are viewed in the landscape.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Regulations

Activities for the Stonewall Vegetation Project, when implemented with project design features and 

mitigation measures (chapter 2, table 9), would be in compliance with the Forest Plan for the Helena 

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1984) and National and Regional policies, standards, and 

guidelines in the Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks and the Northern Regional Guide. See the 

Visuals Report (Bonnet 2012) for more details. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 includes the same types of treatments and prescriptions as alternative 2 along with Groups 9 

and 10 treatments. A complete description of each activity can be found in chapter 2. All effects to the 

visual resource from proposed activities are disclosed. Effects to the viewed landscape were used to 

determine Forest Plan compliance. The visual quality objectives for alternative 3 are retention, partial 

retention, modification, and maximum modification. Figure 101 displays the viewed units and their 

VQOs. 

The viewed units and their VQOs are shown in table 158. Table 159 shows the total VQO acres proposed 

for treatments for this alternative within foreground and middleground distances zones.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

623

Figure 101. Stonewall visual resource alternative 3 viewed units
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

624

Direct and Indirect Effects

All units expected to be viewed and acres of proposed activities for these units are displayed in table 157. 

Not all activities listed under each viewed unit are expected to be viewed as described further for each 

activity. Viewed effects from management actions are discussed below. Acres for viewed units listed are 

not repeated throughout this section. Sensitive areas listed in table 156 are not repeated throughout this 

section. The discussion that follows addresses effects from proposed activities, determines compliance, 

and lists design features necessary for compliance.

Harvest Treatments

Foreground 

Marked trees for retention and unit boundaries may be visible in foreground areas. No degree of alteration 

is expected from this activity. The duration of impact could be more than five years until the marking 

paint fades. Implementing VIS-10 and VIS-11 would decrease the possibility of painted trees being 

viewed in the landscape allowing both M and MM to be met. 

Upon completion, intermediate thinning, a more open forest at the ground plane and in the mid to upper 

canopy is expected to be viewed throughout these units. Remaining canopy cover would be less when 

compared to canopy cover prior to implementation. These effects are expected to last more than 20 years

but would not dominate the landscape. Thinning activities would appear similar to other areas found in 

the landscape that are naturally established over time. The impact from thinning is not expected to be 

noticeable by the casual forest visitor. Intermediate thinning activities would be considered within the 

degree of acceptable alteration for both M and MM. In foreground areas, when compared to alternative 2, 

fewer acres are proposed for intermediate thinning treatments in alternative 3.

Regeneration treatments (clear cutting, seed tree and shelterwood treatments) would create openings or 

more open canopy areas in the landscape. These openings and areas of open canopy are not expected to 

be continuous because the reserve tree technique would be utilized. Clearcut units would be less than 40 

acres allowing the openings to mimic other similar size openings occurring naturally in the surrounding 

landscape. Creating openings could leave a wall of vegetation causing an edge effect that could be noticed 

by the casual forest visitor as an unnatural activity. When considering the size of the openings, the degree 

of alteration for MM is expected to be met. If an edge effect is created the duration of impact could last 

over 20 years. Implementation of design feature VIS-1 which allows the edge effect to be blended and 

appear natural in the landscape would allow MM to be met. In foreground areas, when compared to 

alternative 2, fewer acres are proposed for regeneration harvest in alternative 3.

Middleground

Improvement cuts, precommercial thinning, and sanitation cuts are not expected to be viewed in the 

middleground from sensitive areas. No viewed effects from sensitive areas are expected upon 

implementation of these activities in this distance zone. In middleground areas, when compared to 

alternative 2, fewer acres are proposed for improvement cut in alternative 3.

Regeneration treatments viewed in the middleground would have effects similar to the ones previously 

described for foreground views. However, these effects would be less visible smaller size leaving for even 

smaller clearcut areas. Clearcut areas would also be broken up by reserve trees. The degree of alteration 

would be met even in PR. Implementing design feature VIS-1 would eliminate the edge effect also 

allowing the duration of impact for PR to be met. In middleground areas, when compared to alternative 2, 

fewer acres are proposed for regeneration treatments than in alternative 3. 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Scenery

625

Prescribe fire (Low Severity and Mixed Severity) and Underburning

Foreground 

Effects expected to be viewed in the foreground are fire line boundaries and burned ground vegetation 

with some small pockets of tree mortality with the low and mixed severity burn units and burned 

vegetation leaving some areas with little tree mortality with underburning. Fire line boundaries could add 

artificial lines. These boundary lines could look unnatural if straight lines and other geometric patterns are 

used during unit layout. The line/geometric effect could last more than a year until vegetation begins to 

grow and blend the unnatural lines into the landscape. The effects from the fire on the ground vegetation 

and tree mortality is not expected to be discernible as a management activity by the casual forest visitor

when compared to effects from other natural fires found in the landscape.

When considering the line effect, the degree of alteration based on the size of the activity in these units 

would be met for R, MM, and PR. Implementing Vis12/Fuel2 would eliminate artificial lines allowing the 

duration of impact to be met for all VQOs. This design feature would allow the fire line to look more like 

a natural fire occurrence. In foreground areas, 326 acres less in the mix severity prescription in alternative 

3 when compared to alternative 2. 

Handpiling and burning of the piles would add unnatural forms and texture to the landscape that would be 

viewed. These piles would be burned prior to the completion of the project allowing this effect to meet the 

duration of impact for M and MM. 

Upon handpile and jackpot burning, small pockets of tree mortality in close proximity to the burn piles

and charred branches may be viewed from the implementation of this activity. The small pockets of dead 

trees are not expected to dominate the landscape and can be viewed as part of a natural disturbance. This 

effect is considered within the degree of acceptable alteration and duration of impact for both M and MM. 

Charred branches left over from the burning of piles are expected to be viewed in the landscape. Within 

five years new vegetation would have grown in, eliminating the possibility to view the burnt vegetation. 

The degree of alteration for both M and MM would be met. The duration of impact for MM would be 

met. The duration of impact for M would be met with the implementation of VIS-9 and S/WS/F-12. 

Burn activities would temporarily add smoke into the air obstructing foreground and middleground views 

from sensitive areas. This effect is short term and would subside upon completion of the burning activity. 

At which point M and MM would be met. 

Middleground

The prescribed fire is not expected be viewed in the middleground from sensitive areas. Therefore, no 

viewed effects are expected from prescribed fire activities for this distance zone for any unit. 

After underburning is completed the effects from the activity is not expected to be viewed in the 

middleground due to the distance the proposed activity would be from sensitive areas and the canopy 

cover of these units. No viewed effects in the landscape from this activity are anticipated. 

Handpiling and burning of the piles are not expected to be viewed from sensitive areas because of the 

existing overstory in these units, distance to the units from sensitive area, and the undulating topography 

of the landscape between the sensitive areas and the units. Slashing is not expected to contribute to

viewed effects in the landscape.
Scenery – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

626

Proposed underburning increases in overall amount of underburning in middleground for alternative 3 

when compared to alternative 2; however, alternative 3 has fewer acres proposed for jackpot burning, 

when compared to alternative 2. 

Slashing is not expected to be viewed in any distance zone from any sensitive areas. Therefore, there 

would be no viewed effects from this activity in the landscape.

Transportation

There would be 0.4 miles of road constructed for use and then obliterated under this alternative. In 

addition, there would be approximately 43.8 miles of road that would be maintained for use under this 

alternative.

The road construction work associated with this alternative would not be viewed in the foreground or 

middleground due to the distance the proposed activity would be from sensitive areas. Therefore, there 

would be no viewed effects from this activity in the landscape.

Cumulative Effects

The characteristic landscape is expected to continue to perpetuate. Management activity viewed 

disturbances would increase when considering all viewed units proposed for treatment. However, with the 

project design features the VQOs would be met. Units where dead trees would be removed would 

ultimately look similar to the end result of the natural decay cycle. This alternative would decrease the 

length of time the dead trees are viewed in the landscape. Cumulative effects for this alternative are

expected to be similar to alternative 2, with fewer acres impacted by alternative3.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and other Regulations

Activities for the Stonewall Vegetation Project, when implemented with project design features and 

mitigation measures (chapter 2, table 9), would be in compliance with the Forest Plan for the Helena 

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1984) and National and Regional policies, standards, and 

guidelines in the Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks and the Northern Regional Guide. See the 

Visuals Report (Bonnet 2012) for more details. 

Conclusions

The action alternatives would be in compliance with the Forest Plan and other regulations with the 

implementation of the visual design features. Both action alternatives would allow the VQOs to be met.

Cultural Resources 

Introduction

Past human behavior and activities can be inferred through material remains observed in the present. 

Generally, cultural resources are the material manifestation of activities from the past but can also refer to 

places that are deemed sacred or significant to people in the present. They can be historical 

documentation, or oral evidence. These resources can be prehistoric, historic, architectural, structures, 

places, objects, and traditional cultural properties (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2360.5). 

The following questions are addressed to determine effects on cultural resources in the Helena National 

Forest:

Are the cultural resources evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP)?
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources

627

If the cultural resources are evaluated, are they eligible for inclusion in the NRHP? 

Will eligible cultural resources be damaged or adversely affected?

Will cultural resources that are otherwise ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP, but have value 

determined by the forest to merit protection, be adversely affected by the proposed project. 

Will cultural resources be protected and adverse actions mitigated? 

Overview of Issues 

The Forest Plan requires the integration of cultural resources in project planning and forest management. 

Compliance inventory, evaluation of site significance and project effect, consultation with the Montana 

State Historic Preservation Office and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and implementation of 

mitigation treatment plans for project affected cultural resources would comply with the NHPA and its 

implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800, as well as Helena National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1986) standards and guidelines. 

Comments pertaining to disclosing the effects of project activities on cultural resources 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. 

Ground disturbance and prescribed fire in the Historic Lincoln Townsite could result in loss of the 

historical integrity of this site. This is addressed with project design features to avoid adverse impacts to 

the known cultural resource sites. 

Methodology 

Effects to cultural resources are analyzed based on potential damage or adverse effects to all cultural sites 

within the project boundary by Helena National Forest standards. The best available science was used in

preparation of this analysis. The most recent cultural GIS data for the Forest was analyzed and field work 

has been previously undertaken in support of this planning effort conducted in accordance with FSM 

2360. Sources of information examined as part of the background research to identify previously 

identified cultural resources include the current Heritage GIS layers and reports documenting previous 

archaeological studies within the project boundary. Following the analysis described above, the 

consequences were analyzed as follows:

All sites were assessed for possible adverse effects or damages.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The above methodology assumes that all known sites in the project area have been adequately identified.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial context for analysis is the extent of the current project area. The temporal context for effects 

analysis is two-fold. The immediate temporal context is essentially the direct effects that the current 

proposed project would have on cultural resources; that is, immediate changes to site condition or 

integrity, or even National Register status, as a direct result of project actions. The long-term temporal 

context is essentially the indirect effects that the current proposed project would have on cultural 

resources, that is, long-term changes to site condition, integrity, or National Register status resulting from 

changes instigated by the project actions.
Cultural Resources – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

628

Affected Environment

The prehistory and history of the upper Blackfoot River Valley and analysis area are discussed in various 

historical records (i.e., Beck 1989; UBVHS 1994), cultural resources overviews (i.e., Knight 1989; Scott 

2001) and agency heritage compliance inventory reports (i.e., Brumley et al. 1998; Davis and Godin 

2003). People have inhabited the upper Blackfoot River Valley for millennia. American Indian groups 

once occupied, seasonally used or traveled through this large river valley and the adjacent foothills and 

mountain ranges. Today, the Salish (Flathead) in particular attach great cultural significance to the ancient 

campsites, hunting and plant food gathering places, tool stone quarries and paint pigment sources, vision 

questing sites and old trails found throughout the upper Blackfoot River Valley (Godin 2003) 

The Euro-American settlement of the upper Blackfoot River Valley mirrors that of Montana in general. 

The Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804-1806 gave way to fur trapping and trading, then early military 

expeditions and railroad route explorations. A gold strike in Abe Lincoln Gulch near present day Lincoln 

brought permanent settlement. Nearby placer mining in Jefferson Creek Nevada Creek, and Washington 

Creeks attracted more people who eventually established small communities what were supported by 

mining, farming, ranching and logging. Early in the 20th Century, federal administration of mountain 

forests and surrounding lands, and increased public participation in outdoor recreation, added other 

dimensions to the rural life way. This natural resource and tourist oriented economy still characterizes the 

sparsely populated upper Blackfoot River Valley (ibid).

Existing Condition

The 36 CFR 800 regulations define an area of potential effect as:

“...the geographic area of areas within an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations 

in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential 

effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different 

kinds of effects caused by the undertaking “(36 CFR 800.16(d)).

The area of potential effect for analysis is the Stonewall Vegetation Project area and treatment areas. All 

cultural resources located within the area of potential effect are included in the analysis. The area of 

potential effect for this project lies within the Lincoln Ranger District boundary of the Helena National 

Forest specifically in T14N, R9W, sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, and 29; T14N, R10W, section1; T15N, 

R8W, sections 19, 29, 30, 31 and 32; T15N, R9W, sections 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, and 36; T15N, R10W, section 36. 

The Stonewall Project area is used for many recreation activities. These activities include hunting, 

snowmobiling, and fishing, off highway vehicle (OHV) travel, hiking, firewood, cross-country skiing, and 

camping. The area is busiest during the fall hunting season. 

The Helena National Forest provided the most up to date GIS layers with previous cultural resource 

inventories and site locations. The Helena National Forest provided the previous site forms and cultural 

resource inventories performed within the Stonewall project area. Twenty percent of the Stonewall project 

area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. There have been 23 previous surveys totaling 

4,732 acres within the Stonewall project boundary. The surveys were performed for timber sales, land 

exchanges, mining claims, and roads projects. 

The previous cultural resource inventories conducted in the Stonewall project area yielded eight known 

cultural resources within the areas of potential effects. These include six historic and two prehistoric 

cultural resource sites. According to previous cultural resource reports and site forms, two sites are 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources

629

considered Eligible for the NRHP, one site is unevaluated, and five sites are considered ineligible for 

listing on the NRHP. See table 160 for a list of archaeological sites within the project area. 

Table 160. Cultural resources within the Stonewall Vegetation project boundary 

STATE NUMBER SITE TYPE NRHP STATUS

24LC244H/24PW62 Historic Eligible

24LC421H Historic Ineligible

24LC425P Prehistoric *Unevaluated

24LC467H Historic Eligible

24LC828H Historic *Unevaluated

24LC840P Prehistoric Ineligible

24LC1114H Historic Unevaluated

24LC1274H Historic *Unevaluated

24LC1191/24PW622 Historic *Unevaluated

*These sites have not received an official determination yet. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no-action alternative, none of the proposed action activities would occur in the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project area.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1, no new direct or indirect effects would occur, because no project activities are 

proposed. Cultural resources would continue to be vulnerable to the effects of fuel loading within the 

project area, increasing the risk of wildfire. Cultural resources would continue to naturally deteriorate 

over time. Cultural resources would continue to be threatened by natural processes (wildfire, erosion) and 

simply from recreational activities that bring people in contact with cultural sites.

Fire has a negative effect on cultural resources due to high temperatures, an inability to control the effects, 

and because resource inventories cannot be conducted in advance. Fire suppression activities such as 

bulldozer-created control lines, hand lines, and fire retardant drops all have the potential to destroy or 

damage cultural resources. In addition, wildfires cause erosion through vegetation loss resulting in 

resource deterioration. Vegetation loss may also inadvertently lead to increases in vandalism and looting 

of cultural sites. The high temperatures of wildfires cause rapid surface weathering of features and 

artifacts, accelerating loss.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to cultural resources are potential impacts on cultural sites from past, present, and 

future activities. Previous activities would have been mitigated via cultural resources inventory and 

documentation, and subsequent mitigation of adverse effects. Future activities would require cultural 

resource inventory prior to implementation and proper mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to sites eligible for the National Register.

Conclusions

The no-action alternative would have an undesired effect on cultural resources. Most significant of these 

is the increased risk of damage to cultural resources from catastrophic wildfires resulting in artifact 

damage, wooden structure and feature loss, and loss of site integrity through erosion.
Cultural Resources – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

630

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The Helena National Forest proposes to reduce an over-abundance of fuels in the project area near 

communities and improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape that is 

diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects. Proposed treatments for alternative 2 includes 

include regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed fire on 

approximately 8,562 acres. All of these actions have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources if 

mitigation measures are not implemented. Positive effects of the proposed action to heritage resources 

include an opportunity for the Forest to monitor eligible cultural sites, a reduction in fuel load, and the 

management of control lines to reduce the risk of wildfire. These actions all help in protecting the cultural 

resources of the Helena National Forest. 

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 cultural resources and other resources is displayed in table 9, chapter 2. 

The specific design features listed in table 9 pertaining to archaeological cultural resources are ARCH-1 

and ARCH-2. 

This analysis is based on the implementation of all design features. Project design features apply to all 

action alternatives. If project design features are followed, then it is recommended that the project be 

allowed to proceed as a no adverse effect activity. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 2 new direct effects would likely occur without mitigation measures. Direct effects to 

cultural resources are those that physically alter, damage, or destroy all or part of a resource; alter 

characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s significance; introduce 

visual or audible elements out of character with the property or that alters its setting; or resource neglect 

to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed (USDA Forest Service 2005: III-411). The proposed action 

has the potential to directly affect the cultural resources within the proposed project area. Several 

potential impacts to cultural resources were identified including: thinning projects, the construction of 

temporary roads, and burn treatments. Direct effects of tree thinning and road construction activities are 

mostly through ground disturbance caused by ground machinery disturbance, road grading, felling trees, 

and skidding logs or trees. Felled trees can also damage or destroy features and historic structures. Burn 

treatments have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources by burning historic structures and 

damaging or destroying artifacts and features within archaeological sites. 

Indirect effects under the current proposal are related primarily to reducing the risk of wildfires in the 

project area. Adverse effects to cultural resources tend to be greater in wildfire situations because of high 

temperatures, an inability to control the effects, and because resource inventories cannot be conducted in 

advance (USDA Forest Service 2005: III-413). In addition, wildfires cause erosion through vegetationcover loss, resulting in resource deterioration. Vegetation-cover loss may also inadvertently lead to 

increases in vandalism and looting of cultural sites. The high temperatures of wildfires cause rapid surface 

weathering of features and artifacts, accelerating loss.

Alternative 3 

The Helena National Forest proposes to reduce an over-abundance of fuels in the project area near 

communities and improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape that is 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources

631

diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects. Proposed treatments for alternative 3 include 

regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed fire on approximately 

6,562 acres. All of these actions have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources if mitigation 

measures are not implemented. Positive effects of the proposed action to heritage resources include an 

opportunity for the Forest to monitor eligible cultural sites, a reduction in fuel load, and the management 

of control lines to reduce the risk of wildfire. These actions all help in protecting the cultural resources of 

the Helena National Forest.

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

Same as alternative 2.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Effects would be similar to alternative 2, with 2,000 fewer acres of potential impacts from proposed 

treatments.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to cultural resources are potential impacts on cultural sites from past, present, and 

foreseeable actions. Previous activities would have been mitigated via cultural resources inventory and 

documentation, and subsequent mitigation of adverse effects. Future activities may require cultural 

resource inventory prior to implementation and appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented to 

avoid or minimize adverse effects to resources.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

All alternatives comply with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for cultural resources. Forest 

Service Policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect cultural resources, 

including lands that will leave Federal agency control through sale or exchange, be surveyed for cultural 

resources in order to comply with 36 CFR §800 – Protection of Historic Properties, Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. 

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

As undertakings develop, the Forest is required to comply with the Section 106 process or follow protocol 

as established with the State Historic Preservation Office.

Conclusions

In summary, the proposed action alternatives 2 and 3 could have both negative and positive impacts on 

cultural resources within the project area. There would be no adverse or negative effects if the proposed 

project design features and mitigation measures are followed. The negative effects are the possibility of 

cultural resources damage from ground disturbance from the use of heavy machinery, log and tree 

removal, road construction, and the heat damage to resources from prescribed fires. The loss of vegetation 

can indirectly lead to vandalism to cultural resources because of the increased visibility. Project design 

features would mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources within the project area. Positive effects 

include the reduction of fuels that could result in fire damaged cultural resources and increased erosion of 

archaeological sites.
Cultural Resources – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

632

Alternatives 2 or 3 would meet the Helena National Forest management goals for cultural resources by 

reducing the risk of fire. Damages to cultural resources from wildfires, suppression efforts and erosion, 

are irreversible losses of cultural resources.

If any additional cultural resources are discovered during implementation of this project, work should 

cease in the area and a Forest Archaeologist would be contacted. Work in the area could only resume if 

mitigation measures can be determined and/or re-evaluated if necessary.

Economics 

Introduction

The management of the natural resources on the Helena National Forest (HNF) has the potential to affect 

local economies. People and economies are an important part of the ecosystem. Use of resources and 

recreational visits to the National Forests generate employment and income in the surrounding 

communities and counties, and generate revenues returned to the Federal Treasury or used to fund 

additional on-the-ground activities to accomplish resource management objectives.

This section delineates the affected area, assesses potential environmental justice impacts, and outlines 

methods and results of analyzing the economic effects of the Stonewall Vegetation Management Project, 

including the project feasibility, financial efficiency, and economic impacts. Project feasibility and 

financial efficiency relate to the costs and revenues of doing the action. Economic impacts relate to how 

the action affects the local economy in the surrounding area.

Methodology

The economic measures used for this analysis are project feasibility, financial efficiency, economic 

impacts, and environmental justice. These measures, including methodologies, are described below.

Project Feasibility

Project feasibility is used to determine if a project is feasible, that is, will it sell, given current market 

conditions. The determination of feasibility relies on a residual value (stumpage = revenues - costs) 

feasibility analysis that uses local delivered log prices and stump to mill costs to determine if a project is 

feasible. The appraised stumpage rate from this analysis is compared to the base rate (revenues considered 

essential to cover regeneration plus minimum return to the Federal treasury). The project is considered to 

be feasible if the appraised stumpage rate exceeds the base rates. If the feasibility analysis indicates that 

the project is not feasible, the project may need to be modified. A project that is not feasible indicates an 

increased risk that the project may not attract bids and may not be implemented.

Financial Efficiency

Financial efficiency provides information relevant to the future financial position of the program if the 

project is implemented. Financial efficiency considers anticipated costs and revenues that are part of 

Forest Service monetary transactions. Present net value (PNV) is used as an indicator of financial 

efficiency and presents one tool to be used in conjunction with many other factors in the decision-making 

process. PNV combines benefits and costs that occur at different times and discounts them into an amount 

that is equivalent to all economic activity in a single year. A positive PNV indicates that the alternative, 

including all activities is financially efficient. Financial efficiency analysis is not intended to be a 

comprehensive analysis that incorporates monetary expressions of all known market and nonmarket 

benefits and costs. Many of the values associated with natural resource management are best handled 

apart from, but in conjunction with, a more limited financial efficiency framework. These nonmarket 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

633

benefits and costs associated with the project are discussed throughout the various resource sections of 

this document. 

Costs for restoration activities are based on recent experienced costs and professional estimates. Activity 

costs not related to the timber sale are included in the PNV analysis, but they are not included in 

appraised timber value. Two PNV’s are calculated, one that includes all costs associated with each 

alternative and one which includes only those costs that are necessary to facilitate the removal of timber.

Economic Impacts (Jobs and Labor Income)

Economic impacts are used to evaluate potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the economy. 

Economic impacts are estimated using input-output analysis. Input-output analysis is a means of 

examining relationships within an economy, both between businesses and between businesses and final 

consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for consumption in a given time period. The 

resulting mathematical representation allows one to examine the effect of a change in one or several 

economic activities on an entire economy, all else constant. This examination is called impact analysis. 

The IMPLAN modeling system (MIG 2003) allows the user to build regional economic models of one or 

more counties for a particular year. The model for this analysis used the 2009 IMPLAN data. IMPLAN 

translates changes in final demand for goods and services into resulting changes in economic effects, such 

as labor income and employment of the affected area’s economy.

The economic impact effects are measured by estimating the direct jobs and labor income generated by 

(1) the processing of the timber volume from the project, and (2) Forest Service expenditures for 

contracted restoration activities included as part of the proposed treatments. The direct employment and 

labor income benefits employees and their families and, therefore, directly affects the local economy. 

Additional indirect and induced multiplier effects (ripple effects) are generated by the direct activities. 

Indirect effects are felt by the producers of materials used by the directly affected industries. Induced 

effects occur when employees of the directly and indirectly affected industries spend the wages they 

receive. Together the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total economic impacts to the local 

economy. 

Data used to estimate the direct effects from the timber harvest and processing were provided by the 

University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) (Morgan et al. 2007). This 

national data is broken into multi-state regions and is considered more accurate than that which is 

available from IMPLAN. The Northern Rockies BBER Region (Montana and Idaho) is used for this 

analysis. The BBER data represents the results of mill censuses that correlate production, employment, 

and labor income. The economic impact area for this analysis consists of Lewis & Clark, Broadwater and 

Powell Counties, Montana. 

Potential limitations of these estimates are the time-lag in IMPLAN data and the data intensive nature of 

the input-output model. Significant changes in economic sectors since the latest data for IMPLAN have 

been adjusted using information from the University of Montana’s BBER. 

Environmental Justice

As stated in Executive Order 12898, it is required that all federal actions consider the potential of 

disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations in the local region. The principals of 

environmental justice require agencies to address the equity and fairness implications associated with 

federal land management actions. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1997) provides the 

following definitions in order to provide guidance with the compliance of environmental justice 

requirements:
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

634

“Minority population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general 

population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis...”

“Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with 

the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, agencies may 

consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one 

another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type 

of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.”

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The analysis area for the efficiency analysis is the project area (figure 102). The temporal scope of the 

analysis is the duration of the proposed activities. The project is expected to be accomplished over a 10-

year period with the harvest activity occurring primarily in the first 4 years.

Timber management activities within the project area have the potential to impact the economic 

conditions of local communities and counties. To estimate the potential effect on jobs and income, a zone 

of influence (or economic impact area) was delineated. The impact area was chosen based on commuting 

data suggesting a functioning economy and where the timber is likely to be processed (log flows) (Meti 

Corp 2010). This analysis suggested that Lewis & Clark, Powell and Broadwater Counties were the 

appropriate counties to include in the economic impact analysis area (figure 102). 

Figure 102. Economic impact area
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

635

Affected Environment 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project is located on the Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena National Forest 

and includes portions of both Lewis & Clark and Powell Counties, Montana. Broadwater County and 

Powell County are likely destinations for the majority of the sawlog material as a result of the project. 

Since these are the three counties that would be most affected by the project in terms of social and 

economic effects, the Affected Environment section focuses on these three counties. 

Population and Demographic Change

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Lewis & Clark County grew by 30.2 percent 

between 1990 and 2009. Powell County grew 6.8 percent while the population of Broadwater County 

grew by 44.0 percent over the same period (table 161). Population growth in both Lewis & Clark and 

Broadwater County outpaced the growth observed in the State and Nation. The average state density is 

6.8 persons per square mile (US Census Bureau 2010). The analysis area contains one of Western 

Montana’s least densely populated counties, Powell County, with 3.0 persons per square mile. Lewis and 

Clark County has a density of 18.3 persons per square mile, while Broadwater County has a density of 4.7 

persons per square mile. 

Table 161. Estimated Population Change 1990 to 2009

COMMUNITY 1990 2000 2009 PERCENT 

CHANGE

Lewis & Clark County Population 47,586 55,878 61,942 30.2 Increase

Powell County Population 6,640 7,7178 7,089 6.8 Increase

Broadwater County Population 3,328 4,366 4,793 44.0 Increase

State of Montana Population 800,204 903,293 974,989 21.8 Increase

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Population Estimates, 2000 Census, 1990 Census

The racial composition of the population in the State of Montana and the analysis area in 2000 is shown 

in table 162. The overwhelming majority of the population across the state and within Lewis & Clark, 

Powell and Broadwater Counties is white. The total population of all races other than white was less than 

10 percent at both the county and state level. 

Table 162. Racial Composition of 2000 Population 

MONTANA BROADWATER 

COUNTY, MT

LEWIS 

AND 

CLARK 

COUNTY, 

MT

POWELL 

COUNTY, 

MT

U.S.

Total Population 902,195 4,385 55,716 7,180 281,421,906

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 18,081 58 843 140 35,305,818

Not Hispanic or Latino 884,114 4,327 54,873 7,040 246,116,088

White alone 807,823 4,214 52,571 6,568 194,552,774

Black or African American alone 2,534 12 104 35 33,947,837

American Indian alone 54,426 50 1,078 244 2,068,883

Asian alone 4,569 5 282 31 10,123,169

Native Hawaiian & Oth.Pacific Is. 425 3 26 0 353,509

Some other race 569 1 16 10 467,770
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

636

MONTANA BROADWATER 

COUNTY, MT

LEWIS 

AND 

CLARK 

COUNTY, 

MT

POWELL 

COUNTY, 

MT

U.S.

Two or more races 13,768 42 796 152 4,602,146

Percent of Total 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 2.0% 1.3% 1.5% 1.9% 12.5%

Not Hispanic or Latino 98.0% 98.7% 98.5% 98.1% 87.5%

White alone 89.5% 96.1% 94.4% 91.5% 69.1%

Black or African American alone 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 12.1%

American Indian alone 6.0% 1.1% 1.9% 3.4% 0.7%

Asian alone 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 3.6%

Native Hawaiian & Oth.Pacific Is. 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Some other race 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

Two or more races 1.5% 1.0% 1.4% 2.1% 1.6%

Employment and Economic Well-Being

From 1970 to 2009, total employment for full- and part-time jobs increased by 121 percent in Broadwater 

County (from 1,067 to 2,354), Lewis & Clark County employment grew by 162 percent (from 17,317 to 

45,758) and Powell County grew by 42 percent (from 2,576 to 3,666)(USDC 2011). The State of Montana 

saw an increase in total employment of 108 percent, over this same period. State employment growth was 

largely due to increases in service and professional sector employment (including retail trade, health and 

social services, transportation, utilities, finance, education, etc.). These sectors represent approximately 61 

percent of employment in both counties. By contrast in the three-county impact area, the mining and 

fossil fuels sector decreased by 17.1 percent between 1990 and 2000. 

From 1990 to 2009, average annual unemployment rates in the three counties followed similar patterns as

the state and national level, falling to a low of 2.4 percent in September 2007 and rising in response to the 

economic downturn to a high of 6.7 percent in January 2010. The highest unemployment observed in the 

three counties was in Powell County, with a rate of 11.0 percent in January 2011(US Department of Labor

2011). Lewis and Clark County also peaked in January 2011 with an unemployment rate of 6.2 percent 

while at the same time Broadwater County checked in at 9.6 percent Lewis & Clark County has the 

highest rate of government labor force of the three-county region, which explains the lower 

unemployment rate during this period, since government employment tends to be more secure.

Per capita income is considered one of the most important measures of economic well-being. However, 

this measure can be misleading. Per capita income is total personal income divided by population. 

Because total personal income includes non-labor income sources (dividends, interest, rent and transfer 

payments), it is possible for per capita income to be relatively high due to the presence of retirees and 

people with investment income. And because per capita income is calculated using total population and 

not the labor force as in average earnings per job, it is possible for per capita income to be relatively low 

when there are a disproportionate number of children and/or elderly people in the population. From 1970 

to 2009 all three counties saw increases in per capita income. Broadwater County saw the greatest 

increase in per capita income of the three county region with a 70 percent increase (adjusted for inflation 

to 2010$) from $17,752 to $30,203. Lewis & Clark County saw a 65 percent increase (adjusted for 

inflation to 2010$) from $23,939 to $39,407 while Powell County saw a 49 percent increase from 

$16,748 to $25,033.
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

637

Unlike per capita income, which is affected by nonlabor income, average earnings per job are indicators 

of the quality of local employment. Higher average earnings per job indicate that there are relatively more 

high-wage occupations. From 1970 to 2009, Lewis & Clark County saw an 11 percent increase in average 

earnings (adjusted for inflation to 2010$) from $38,824 to $43,140. Powell County saw a 1 percent 

decrease (adjusted for inflation to 2010$) from $31,501 to $31,277 while Broadwater County also 

experienced a 1 percent decrease (adjusted for inflation to 2010$) from $29,243 to $28,854. There are a 

number of reasons why average earnings per job may decline. These include: (1) more part-time or 

seasonal workers entering the workforce; (2) a rise in low-wage industries, such as tourism-related 

sectors; (3) a decline of high-wage industries, such as manufacturing; (4) more lower-paid workers 

entering the workforce; (5) the presence of a university with increasing enrollment of relatively low-wage 

students; (6) an influx of workers with low education levels that are paid less; (7) the in-migration of 

semi-retired workers who work part-time or seasonally; and (8) an influx of people who move to an area 

for quality of life rather than profit-maximizing reasons.

National and regional trends in industry sectors influence the ability of communities to adapt to changing 

circumstances. Employment in extractive industries such as timber and mining, as well as in ranching and 

agriculture, are declining in western Montana. Projections indicate continued declines in employment in 

these areas. The differences between today’s national forest timber sale program and the program that was 

in place a decade or so ago has changed. However, the role that timber production from NFS lands plays 

in national and regional economies through logging and related activities has existed for a considerable 

time, and is integral to local communities and individuals directly employed by them. In Montana the sale 

of timber from National Forest lands has declined substantially in the last 30 years from a high of 481 

million board feet in 1983 to a low of 66 million board feet in 2003, mainly due to increased litigation and 

changing market structures. Since the low in 2003, trends have been positive. In 2010, 185 million board 

feet of timber was sold from National Forest lands in Montana. On the HNF during the same period, the 

sale of timber has been more erratic with a high of 23 million board feet of timber sold (due to a 

Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak) in 2010 and a low of 1 million board feet in 1999. The most consistent 

period was during the 1980s decade when all years saw between 10 and 17 million board feet sold 

annually. See the Vegetation section for a detail of volume sold in Region One, Montana, Idaho, and the 

Helena National Forest for the last 30 years. Figure 103 that follows shows a chart graph displaying the 

same information. 
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

638

Figure 103. Volume display for R1, Montana, Idaho and HNF from 1980-2010

The Helena National Forest is a major employer and landholder in Montana’s capital city and the 

surrounding communities. Consequently, Forest Service budget reductions and policies impact 

employment opportunities throughout the region. There have been changes in the forest timber sale 

program over the past 30 years as objectives have changed and timber harvest levels have declined. The 

most likely destination of timber from the Stonewall Vegetation Project is Sun Mountain Lumber in 

Powell County or RY Timber in Broadwater County. The percentage of manufacturing jobs (including 

forest products) in Powell County in 2000 was 10.7 percent and 17.3 percent in Broadwater County 

compared with only 3.2 percent in Lewis & Clark County, which does not have a major timber processing 

facility. There are several small wood processing facilities in the Lincoln Valley that may be a destination 

for some of the timber products associated with this project.

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no-action alternative would not harvest timber, implement BMPs on haul routes, return fire to the 

landscape or implement any of the proposed activities, and therefore, incurs no financial costs. Alternative 

1 would produce no revenue and have no effects on jobs or income. It would also fail to meet the Helena 

National Forest Plan for management area T, which emphasizes timber production while protecting other 

resources.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Project Feasibility

The estimation of project feasibility was based on the Region 1 Sale Feasibility Model, which is a 

residual value timber appraisal approach. This method takes into account logging system, timber species 

and quality, volume removed per acre, lumber market trends, costs for slash treatment, and the cost of 

specified roads, temporary roads and road maintenance and results in an accurate timber appraisal and is 

referred to as stumpage. The appraised stumpage rate from the feasibility analysis is compared to base 

rates (revenues considered essential to cover regeneration plus minimum return to the federal treasury), 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

639

which in this case is the minimum rate of $3.00/CCF (hundreds of cubic feet). The appraised stumpage 

rate and base rates for each alternative are displayed in table 163. For each of the action alternatives, the 

appraised stumpage rate is greater than the base rate, indicating that each of the alternatives is feasible 

(highly likely to sell). 

Conclusions

Alternative 2 has the highest appraised stumpage rate ($6.31/CCF) and, therefore, would likely generate 

the most revenue. Alternative 3 has a lower appraised stumpage rate ($3.36/CCF), which is nearing the 

base rate ($3.00/CCF), however it is still likely to sell given current market conditions.

Estimates of timber value are based on current fair market values of timber. Timber markets have 

fluctuated in the past 5 years, dropping significantly during the 2008 recession, and then rebounding 

slightly in subsequent years. Current markets have not returned to their pre-2008 levels; however Forest 

Service timber sales have continued to sell during these challenging markets. A major factor that 

influences the value of the timber particularly in the Stonewall Project area is the quality of the dead and 

dying lodgepole pine (LP). A significant percentage of the volume in this project comes from dead and 

dying LP, the mortality a result of the mountain pine beetle outbreak that began in 2008 and continues 

today. Following mortality LP retains its value as a sawlog product for a time. As the tree begins to 

deteriorate that value as a sawlog diminishes, however the tree may still be viable for other less valuable 

products. Any delay in implementation could negatively affect the feasibility of this timber and jeopardize 

the purpose and need of this Decision by rendering the project economically infeasible. 

Table 163. Project Feasibility and Financial Efficiency Summary (2011 dollars)

CATEGORY MEASURE ALTERNATIVE 

1 (NO ACTION) 

ALTERNATIVE 

2 

ALTERNATIVE

3 

Timber Harvest 

Information Acres Harvested 0 1,969 1,074

Volume 

Harvested (CCF) 0 22,022 14,299

Base Rates 

($/CCF) $0 $3.00 $3.00

Appraised 

Stumpage Rate 

($/CCF)

$0 $6.31 $3.36

Predicted High 

Bid ($/CCF) $0 $11.96 $9.01

Total Revenue 

(Thousands of $) $0 $241 $119

Timber Harvest & 

Required Design 

Criteria 

PNV

(Thousands of $) $0 $178 $68

Timber Harvest & 

All Other Planned 

Non-timber 

Activities

PNV 

(Thousands of $) $0 -$1,231 -$1,096

Financial Efficiency

The financial efficiency analysis is specific to the timber harvest and restoration activities associated with 

the alternatives (as directed in Forest Service Manual 2400-Timber Management and guidance found in 

the Forest Service Handbook 2409.18). Costs for sale preparation, sale administration, regeneration, and 
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

640

restoration activities are included. All costs, timing, and amounts were developed by the specialists on the 

project’s interdisciplinary team. If exact costs were not known, the maximum of the cost range was used 

to produce the most conservative PNV result. The expected revenue for each alternative is the 

corresponding predicted high bid from the sale feasibility analysis. The predicted high bid is used for the 

expected revenue (rather than the appraised stumpage rate) since the predicted high bid is the best 

estimate of the high bid resulting from the timber sale auction. The PNV was calculated using a 4 percent

real discount rate over the 10-year project lifespan (2013-2022). For more information on the values or 

costs, see the project file.

This analysis is not intended to be a comprehensive benefit-cost or PNV analysis that incorporates a 

monetary expression of all known market and nonmarket benefits and costs that are generally used when 

economic efficiency is the sole or primary criterion upon which a decision is made. Many of the values 

associated with natural resource management are best handled apart from, but in conjunction with, a more 

limited benefit-cost framework. An example of this is the difficulty in capturing the benefits in monetary 

terms of prescribed fire on wildlife habitat. These benefits are discussed qualitatively throughout the EIS

document, within each resource section. 

Table 163 summarizes the project feasibility and financial efficiency, including the base rates, appraised 

stumpage rate, predicted high bid, total revenue, and PNV for each alternative. Because all costs of the 

project are not related to the timber sale, two PNVs were calculated. One PNV indicates the financial 

efficiency of the timber sale, including all costs and revenues associated with the timber harvest and 

required design criteria. The required design criteria, as used here, include cost allowances for purchaser 

required work such as road maintenance and purchaser deposits to fund Forest Service work such as brush 

disposal. For a more detailed view of timber sale related costs, see the Economics project file.

The second PNV includes all costs for each action alternative, including activities that could be funded by 

the Forest Service, KV or potential Stewardship revenues. The costs used in the PNV calculations can be 

found in table 164 which displays those activity expenditures associated with each alternative, but not 

included in the appraisal. Sale preparation costs of $13.50/CCF, sale administration costs of $4.50 per 

CCF, and regeneration exam costs of $15.00 per acre are excluded from table 6. The cost of sale 

preparation, sale administration and regeneration exams for alternative 2 is $439,956. The cost of sale 

preparation, sale administration and regeneration exams for alternative 3 is $298,692. 

Stewardship Opportunities

An integrated resource timber contract (IRTC) or stewardship contract as it is more commonly referred to 

enables the Forest Service to trade goods for services. The Forest Service exchanges timber for an equal 

value of environmentally beneficial work. Common types of projects included in Stewardship Contracts 

include weed spraying, road decommissioning, culvert replacement, precommercial thinning, slashing, 

etc. The starting point for the available revenue is the estimated stumpage value from the sale feasibility 

analysis minus an allowance for essential regeneration costs. This value is then adjusted downward by 25 

percent to account for potential underrun. This stumpage value estimate is applied since it is a 

conservative value of the timber sale. The 25 percent adjustment provides a cushion to the available 

revenue estimate to account for potential factors such as the cruise volume being overestimated or

degradation of dead material.

No determination has been made as to whether to use a stewardship contract to implement the Stonewall 

Vegetation Project. Some factors that would determine the use of a stewardship contract include the value 

of the timber at the time of contract, the availability of needed projects in the area and the level of 

degradation of the dead lodgepole pine that makes up a large percentage of the sawlog volume in the 

project. The estimated available revenue after the aforementioned adjustment ranges from approximately 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

641

$104,069 in alternative 2 to $36,011 in alternative 3. Both alternatives have a high likelihood of selling 

and producing positive revenue available for stewardship activities. Alternative 2 proposes more acres of 

harvest, more volume harvested, has higher potential revenue and therefore would generate greater 

available revenue for stewardship activities.

Conclusions

Table 163 that displays project feasibility and financial efficiency indicates that both action alternatives 

are financially inefficient (negative PNV) when including all activities associated with the analysis. Table 

163 also indicates that both action alternatives are feasible when considering only timber harvest and the 

required design criteria. Alternative 2 has the highest PNV for the timber harvest and required design 

criteria at positive $178 thousand, and negative $1.2 million when considering all analysis activities. For 

alternative 3, the PNV for the timber harvest and required design criteria is positive $68 thousand, and 

negative $1.1 million for all decision activities. The no-action alternative has no costs or revenues 

associated with it. 

A reduction of financial PNV in any alternative as compared to the most efficient solution is a component 

of the economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative. The no-action alternative 

would not harvest timber or take other restorative actions and, therefore, incur no costs. As indicated 

earlier, many of the values associated with natural resource management are nonmarket benefits. These 

benefits should be considered in conjunction with the financial efficiency information presented here. 

These nonmarket values are discussed in the various resource sections found in this document.

When evaluating trade-offs, the use of efficiency measures is one tool used by the decision maker in 

making the decision. Many things cannot be quantified, such as effects on wildlife and the restoration of 

watersheds and vegetation. The decision maker takes many factors into account in making the decision.

Table 164. Activity Expenditures by Alternative (not included in appraisal)

ACTIVITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 

Sale preparation $0 $297,297 $193,036

Sale administration $0 $99,099 $64,345

Weed Spraying- connected to harvest $0 $18,000 $18,000

Weed Spraying- not connected to harvest $0 $31,600 $31,600

Weed Monitoring $0 $3,333 $3,333

Planting $0 $493,884 $473,688

Silvicultural exams $0 $58,575 $43,650

Precommercial Thinning $0 $405,256 $294,276

Noncommercial thinning/slashing $0 $5,750 $5,750

Hand piling and burning

of nonactivity fuels- Jackpot $0 $14,600 $11,900

Post-Harvest Burn $0 $303,875 $259,000

Prescribed burning $0 $409,725 $296,550

Economic Impact Effects

The analysis calculated the jobs and labor income associated with the processing of the timber products 

harvested, and all other activities in the Decision, such as prescribed fire, noncommercial fuel reduction, 

post-harvest diversity planting, and precommercial thinning. Timber products harvested and the 

nontimber activities would have direct, indirect, and induced effects on local jobs and labor income. In 
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

642

order to estimate jobs and labor income associated with timber harvest, levels were proportionately 

broken out by product type (

table 165). In order to estimate jobs and labor income associated with reforestation and restoration 

activities, expenditures for these activities were developed by the resource specialists. Only the 

expenditures associated with the contracted activities are included in the impact analysis.

Table 165. Proportion of Timber Harvest by Product Type

PRODUCT TYPE ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Sawmills 70 70

Log Homes 5 5 

Post & Poles 5 5 

Pulp 20 20

Table 166 displays the direct, indirect and induced, and total estimates for employment (part and fulltime) and labor income that may be attributed to each alternative. Since the expenditures occur over time, 

the estimated impacts of jobs and labor income would be spread out over the life of the project. It is 

important to note that these may not be new jobs or income, but rather jobs and income that are supported 

by this project. These impacts are shown both in total (over the life of the project) and on an annual basis. 

It is anticipated that the timber harvest would occur over a 4-year period. 

Table 166. Economic Impacts (Employment and Labor Income), Total and Annual ($2011)

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 NO ACTION

TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL 

Non-timber Activities

Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed* 

Direct 29 3 25 3 0 

Indirect and Induced 8 1 7 1 0 

Total 36 4 31 3 0 

Labor Income Contributed** ($M2011) 

Direct $855 $95 $737 $82 $0

Indirect and Induced $236 $26 $204 $23 $0

Total $1,091 $121 $941 $105 $0

Timber Harvest Activities

Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed 

Direct 71 18 46 11 0 

Indirect and Induced 63 16 41 10 0 

Total 134 34 87 22 0 

Labor Income Contributed ($M2011) 

Direct $3,445 $861 $2,237 $559 $0

Indirect and Induced $3,190 $797 $2,071 $518 $0

Total $6,635 $1,659 $4,308 $1,077 $0
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

643

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 

ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 NO ACTION

TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL 

All Activities 

Part and Full Time Jobs Contributed 

Direct 100 21 71 14 0 

Indirect and Induced 71 17 48 11 0 

Total 171 38 118 25 0 

Labor Income Contributed ($M2011) 

Direct $4,301 $956 $2,974 $641 $0

Indirect and Induced $3,425 $824 $2,275 $540 $0

Total $7,726 $1,780 $5,249 $1,182 $0

* Employment is the total full and part-time wage, salaried, and self-employed jobs in the region.

**Labor income includes the wages, salaries and benefits of workers who are paid by employers and income paid to proprietors.

Conclusions

The no-action alternative would not change jobs or income because there are no proposed project 

activities associated with this alternative.

Alternative 2 proposes harvest of 22,022 hundred cubic feet (Ccf) of timber products and could result in a 

total of 171 jobs and labor income at $7.7 million over the life of the project. On an annual basis, this 

would amount to approximately 38 jobs per year over a period of 10 years. Annual effects are greatest 

with this alternative since it has the most timber harvest. If the harvest takes longer than anticipated, the 

total impacts would remain the same, but the annual contributions would be reduced. Approximately 134 

direct, indirect and induced jobs and $6.6 million of labor income are associated with the proposed timber 

harvest activities, with the rest associated with restoration activities.

Alternative 3 proposes harvest of 14,299 Ccf of timber products could result in a total of 118 jobs and 

$5.2 million in total labor income over the life of the project. On an annual basis, this would amount to 

approximately 25 jobs per year over a period of 10 years, and $1.2 million annually in total labor income. 

Approximately 87 direct, indirect and induced jobs and $4.3 million of labor income would be associated 

with the timber harvest activities, with the rest associated with restoration activities.

Environmental Justice

According to the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA (1997), “minority populations 

should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or 

(b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.” Table 

162 shows that the total share of all minority populations represented less than 10 percent of the 

population in the state and the analysis area in 2000. Thus, the U.S. Census data suggest minority 

populations within the analysis area do not meet the CEQ’s Environmental Justice criterion. 

Guidance from CEQ on identifying low-income populations states that “...agencies may consider as a 

community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of 

individuals (e.g., migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common 

conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” Low-income populations are defined, based on the 2000 

Census standard, as persons living below the poverty level (based on total income of $17,604 for a family 
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

644

household of four). Persistent poverty status requires a county to have experienced an individual poverty 

rate in excess of 20 percent for several Census years. In 2000, 10.8 percent of the population in 

Broadwater County, 12.6 percent of the population in Powell County and 10.9 percent of the population 

in Lewis & Clark County were living below the poverty level. Based on these data, the characteristic of 

persistent poverty is not present in the analysis area.

Conclusions

Table 165 predicts more employment and labor income opportunities would be created by alternatives 2 

and 3. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would not likely adversely affect minority or lowincome populations. Implementation of the no-action alternative maintains the status quo and provides no 

additional employment or income in the economic impact area.

The Executive Order also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an 

action proposed by an agency has the potential to affect fish or wildlife. There are no Native American 

Reservations or designated Native American hunting grounds located in or near the analysis area. None of 

the alternatives restrict or alter opportunities for subsistence hunting and fishing by Native American 

tribes. Tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Helena National Forest are included on 

the project mailing list and have the opportunity to provide comments on this project. 

Other Disclosures

This DEIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the Council on 

Environmental Quality implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. NEPA at 40 CFR 

1502.25(a) directs, “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impacts 

statement concurrently with and integrated with... other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

The action alternatives would be located entirely on national forest system lands. The action alternatives 

are not in conflict with planning objectives for County or local tribes.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the 

Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical 

assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, 

and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur within the first few years of project 

implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue 

producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be managed 

in such a way that they are available for future generations. The harvesting and use of standing timber can 

be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be 

reestablished and grown again if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. This long-term 

productivity is maintained through the application of the project design features described in chapter 2, in 

particular those applying to the soil and water resources.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, openings would be created in regeneration cutting units in the short term, but 

well-stocked vigorous stands would be established for the long term as a result of post-harvest 

reforestation and stand tending. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide timber products, in decreasing yields, 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

645

to benefit consumers in the short term. With alternatives 2 and 3 harvest units there would be a short-term 

increase in fuel hazard in the period between harvesting and activity fuel treatment. This would be 

accompanied by a long-term increase in stand vigor, a reduction in fuel hazard, and a corresponding 

decrease in the risk of stand-replacing fire occurring within the harvest units. There would also be a 3- to 

5-year increase in fuel hazard from post-harvest treatments and a corresponding increase in stand vigor as 

discussed in the Fire and Fuels section of this chapter. 

Big game security habitat under the action alternatives would be reduced, causing short-term habitat 

degradation. If an action alternative is selected, a site-specific forest plan amendment would be required 

for Forest Plan standards 3 and 4a (FP pgs. II/17-18). The treatments would allow the development of 

healthy, more vigorous stands that are more sustainable for those habitat values in the long term. These 

effects are discussed in the Commonly Hunted Species section of this chapter.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of any action alternative could cause some adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for one 

resource at the expense of the use or condition of other resources. Some adverse effects are short term and 

necessary to achieve long-term beneficial effects. Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated, or 

avoided by limiting the extent or duration of effects. The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify 

specific harvest units and roads was designed to eliminate or lessen the significant adverse consequences 

to resource protection standards of the Helena National Forest Plan. The application of project design 

features was intended to further limit the extent, severity, and duration of potential effects. Such measures 

are discussed throughout this chapter. Regardless of the use of these measures, some adverse effects 

would occur. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable resources such as soils, wetlands, 

cultural resources, or the extinction of a species. Such commitments are considered irreversible because 

the resource has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at a 

great expense, or because the resource has been destroyed or removed. No irreversible commitments of 

resources were identified.

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber 

productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way of road. These are 

opportunities that are forgone for the period of time that the resource can’t be used. For the action 

alternatives, there are irretrievable commitments of the growth of forest vegetation from the creation of 

new landings and new skid trails. This loss is not irreversible. Upon project completion landings, 

necessary for logging operations, have a low probability of maintaining long-term soil productivity. The 

type of vegetation growing on these sites will likely be grass and brush. The amount of landings is small 

and skid trails are expected to recover and are expected to show little to no adverse effects. 

Required Permits

At this time it is uncertain whether this project would require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit, due to several factors. 

In Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (“NEDC”), the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that stormwater runoff associated with two logging roads that flows 

into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels before being discharged into forest streams and rivers is a 

point source discharge for which a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is 
Economics – Chapter 3 – Stonewall Vegetation Management Project

646

required. The Court of Appeals then remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with 

its opinion. The State of Oregon and other parties filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme 

Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The United States was not a party to litigation.

NEDC v. Brown involved a citizen suit; thus any available relief on remand would be limited to 

addressing the violation in question and is only binding on the involved parties. Because the USDA 

Forest Service was not a party, the Ninth Circuit's decision did not impose any affirmative duties on it. 

However the case has implications for federal land management agencies.

In response to NEDC v. Brown, EPA issued a formal notice on March 23, 2012 in the Federal Register 

(77 FR 30473) indicating its intent to expeditiously propose revisions to its Phase I stormwater 

regulations (40 C.F.R. §122.26) to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not 

stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity.” The notice also states that EPA intends to 

further study and seek public comment on alternative approaches for addressing stormwater discharges 

from forest roads.

Additionally, following the Ninth Circuit's decision, Congress took legislative action suspending any 

potential permitting requirement imposed by the decision: 

From the date of enactment of this Act until September 30, 2012, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency shall not require a permit under section 402 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), nor shall the Administrator directly or indirectly 

require any State to require a permit, for discharges of stormwater runoff from roads, the 

construction, use, or maintenance of which are associated with silvicultural activities.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, § 429, Pub. L. No. 112-74, 125 Stat. 786, 1046-1047 (Dec. 23, 

2011). 

Thus, until September 30, 2012, no NPDES permits are required for stormwater discharges from 

roads associated with silvicultural activities. 

Permanent legislation is also pending in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that 

would amend Section 402 of Clean Water Act to exempt stormwater discharges resulting from 

silvicultural activities from NPDES permit requirements. 

Due to these factors, it is uncertain at this time whether any NPDES permitting requirements apply, or 

would apply in the future to stormwater discharges from logging roads. Should it be determined that an 

NPDES permit is required for this project, the Forest Service will comply with any applicable NPDES 

permitting requirements. 

On March 20, 2013, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held runoff from 

most logging roads is not storm water runoff related to industrial facilities and so not subject to the Clean 

Water Act’s requirement for a NPDES permit (Decker v. NEDC). The Supreme Court gave deference to 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of its own regulation, the Industrial 

Stormwater rule, of the Clean Water Act. In a regulation promulgated just prior to the ruling in this case, 

the EPA found its regulation’s references to facilities, establishments, manufacturing, processing and an 

industrial plant mean the regulation extends only to traditional industrial buildings, such as factories and 

associated sites. Most logging roads are not associated with such sites unless they are directly related to 

raw materials storage areas and sites for the processing of raw materials, such as sawmills. The Court 

found deference warranted here because the EPA’s interpretation of its regulation was consistent with its 

earlier regulations. (U.S. S. Ct.). 
Stonewall Vegetation Management Project – Chapter 3 – Economics

647

Roads associated with timber harvest are not considered by the EPA to produce pollutant discharges that 

require point-source discharge permits because they do not come from industrial sources nor do they 

result from manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant. 40 CFR 

§122.26(b)(14).