United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

April 2013

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Stonewall Vegetation Project 

Volume 1 

Lincoln Ranger District, Helena National Forest

Lewis & Clark and Powell Counties, Montana
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Stonewall Vegetation Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties, Montana

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Kevin Riordan, Forest Supervisor

Helena National Forest 

2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602 

For Information Contact: Amber Kamps, District Ranger 

Lincoln Ranger District 

1569 Highway 200, Lincoln, MT 59639 

406-362-7000 

Abstract: The Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena National Forest proposes to treat stands within an 

analysis area of about 24,010 acres to improve long-term forest health and reduce fuels within the 

Stonewall Vegetation project area. The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including: the no 

action (alternative 1), the proposed action (alternative 2) and an additional alternative created in response 

to issues raised during public scoping (alternative 3). Several other alternatives were considered but 

dropped from detailed analysis (see chapter 2). Treatments were designed to improve the mix of 

vegetation composition and structure across the landscape that is diverse, resilient, and sustainable to 

wildfire and insects, and modify fire behavior to enhance community protection while creating conditions 

that allow the reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape. 

Alternative 2 proposes a total of 8,564 acres (about 36 percent of analysis area) of commercial and 

noncommercial treatments. Harvest treatments (regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, and 

precommercial thinning) are proposed on a total of 3,099 acres. Fuels treatments would follow timber 

removals, including slashing, pile burning, jackpot burning, and underburning. In addition to post-harvest 

burning, prescribed fire is also proposed within the inventoried roadless areas (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 Inventoried 

Roadless Area and on 664 acres (about 3.8 percent) within the Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Outside of the IRAs, approximately 2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal. Treatments proposed under alternative 2 would reduce elk hiding and thermal 

cover in both the Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek herd units, whereas the amount and distribution of 

forage would increase. Neither herd unit would meet Forest Plan standard 3 or 4a. This alternative would 

require a site-specific, nonsignificant forest plan amendment for standards 3 and 4(a) for the reductions in 

elk hiding cover and thermal cover. 

Alternative 3 proposes a total of 6,564 acres (about 27 percent of analysis area) of commercial and 

noncommercial treatments. Harvest treatments (regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, and 

precommercial thinning) are proposed on a total of 2,298 acres. Fuels treatments would follow timber 

removals, including slashing, pile burning, jackpot burning, and underburning. In addition to post-harvest 

burning, prescribed fire is proposed within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan Inventoried Roadless Area 

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 

Inventoried Roadless Area. The Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Area would not be treated. Outside 

of the IRAs, approximately 0.4 mile of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber 
SummaryStonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ii 

removal. Treatments proposed under alternative 3 would reduce elk hiding and thermal cover in both the 

Beaver Creek and Keep Cool Creek herd units, whereas the amount and distribution of forage would 

increase. Neither herd unit would meet Forest Plan standard 3 or 4a.This alternative would require a sitespecific, nonsignificant forest plan amendment for standards 3 and 4(a) for the reductions in elk hiding 

cover and thermal cover.

At this time, alternative 3 is my preferred alternative. Modifications to any or all of the alternatives may 

be considered for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) depending on comments received 

regarding this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) or to incorporate new information. The final 

decision may be different than my preferred alternative as presented in this document.

This proposed project would implement the Helena National Forest, Forest Plan; it is not authorized 

under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. This proposed project is subject to 36 CFR 218 subparts A and 

B, and will be subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR part 218. It is important that reviewers 

provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Forest Service’s 

preparation of the FEIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment 

period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. Only those who submit 

timely and specifically written comments regarding the proposed project or activity during a public 

comment period established by the responsible official are eligible to file an objection. For objection 

eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting timely and specifically written 

comments regarding the proposed project must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request. 

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names, addresses, email addresses, and 

phone numbers of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record and will be available 

for public inspection. Comments will be accepted for 45 days beginning on the first day after the date of 

publication of the notice of availability of this DEIS in the Federal Register.

Send Comments to: Amber Kamps, District Ranger 

1569 Highway 200, Lincoln, MT 59639
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

i 

Summary

The Helena National Forest, Lincoln Ranger District, is proposing the Stonewall Vegetation Project in 

response to public interest to work with the Forest Service conducting landscape management activities. 

The area affected by the proposal includes approximately 24,010 acres (approximately 23,670 acres are 

National Forest System lands) within Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties, Montana. The project area is 

on the Lincoln Ranger District, approximately 4 miles north and west of the town of Lincoln, Montana.

Proposed activities would include using commercial and noncommercial treatments to move towards 

desired conditions. Proposed actions include: regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, precommercial 

thinning, and prescribed burning. The proposed action includes using prescribed fire and tree slashing to 

promote ecological restoration of a mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape 

within the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan and Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). 

Prescribed fire is proposed on up to 4,182 acres (about 0.5 percent) within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat 

Swan Inventoried Roadless Area, and up to 664 acres (about 3.8 percent) within the Lincoln Gulch 

Inventoried Roadless Area. Commercial timber harvest and road construction would not occur in the two 

roadless areas. Outside the roadless areas, approximately 2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal. 

This action is needed to address differences between the existing conditions and desired conditions 

described in the Forest Plan (pg. II/1 and II/2 goals 4, 10, 11, 14 and 16) (USDA Forest Service 1986). 

See chapter 1 management direction and existing condition descriptions. Existing conditions within the 

greater watershed area includes declines of ponderosa pine, western larch, and aspen habitats, elevated

fuels in the wildland urban interface, and a landscape-level departure from natural fire processes. After 

the 2003 Lincoln Complex Fires that burned approximately 36,000 acres and required a partial evacuation 

of the community of Lincoln, residents expressed a desire to see forest management designed to reduce 

the risk of future catastrophic events. The fire risk and fuels concerns for this area were also identified in 

the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Tri-County Fire Working Group 2005) as the highest priority 

need for treatment.

Development of the Proposed Action 

The Lincoln Restoration Committee (LRC) of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) is a 

group of private citizens with diverse community interests who came together in 2008 (formerly as the 

Lincoln Working Group) with the purpose of developing recommendations for restoration projects on the 

Lincoln Ranger District, while working within the framework developed by the MFRC. The Helena 

National Forest has been working with the LRC in compliance with Executive Order 13352 of August 

2004—Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation. 

The proposed action was developed over time involving three areas. Two areas were brought forward to 

the Forest Service by the LRC, and the third area was developed after Forest Service specialists reviewed 

conditions within the entire watershed (Cole 2009a, b; Cole 2010; Farley 2009; Heinert 2009a, b; Ihle 

2010; Kurtz 2009; Lundberg and Alvino 2006; Marr 2009; Milburn et al. 2006; Milburn 2009; Olsen 

2010a, b, c; Randall 2009; Shanley 2009, 2010; Sitch 2009; USDA Forest Service 2010; Walch 2010; 

Wyatt 2009). This analysis covers all three areas. The recommended actions associated with the three 

areas are consistent with the goals in the Forest Plan (see table 1. Crosswalk of MFRC Principles with 

Forest Service direction).

In addition, a Forestwide landscape-level assessment of insect conditions and predictions was done in 

2008 (Gibson 2008) that identified the Stonewall area as a high priority for management. The Lincoln 

community is very aware of the mountain pine beetle epidemic and high levels of western spruce 
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ii 

budworm activity across the landscapes in the Upper Blackfoot Valley and west side of the Continental 

Divide.

Benefits anticipated as an outcome of proposed actions include: restoration of ponderosa pine, dry 

Douglas-fir, and western larch sites to a more natural fire regime; maintain or improve vigor and restore 

aspen groves and whitebark pine; and enhance wildlife habitat conditions. 

Public Involvement 

We published the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on January 13, 2010. The NOI asked for 

public comment on the proposal to be received by February 22, 2010. We sent about 700 letters 

explaining the proposal and asking for comment to interested individuals, groups and agencies on January 

15, 2010. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, we held an open house on February 3, 

2010, and project information was available on the Forest website at www.fs.usda.gov/helena/. The 

project has been listed in the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions since April 1, 2010. Appendix A of 

the draft environmental impact statement includes the content analysis of the scoping comments received.

We received a total of 80 scoping responses via email, public comment form and letters; 30 were in 

support of the proposed project activities. The majority of responses suggested information to include in 

the analysis documents, identified language to clarify, or listed elements pertaining to a specific resource 

to include in the effects analyses. The resource specialists’ reports include this information as well as the 

analysis of the project effects on the various resources. The resource specialists’ reports are filed in the 

project record and incorporated by reference and summarized in Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, of this draft EIS.

Eight responses expressed concerns or suggestions regarding travel management of area roads and 

motorized, winter recreation opportunities. The Stonewall Vegetation Project is not a travel planning 

project and does not propose to change the permanent road system in the project area. Travel management 

of existing routes is addressed in the “Blackfoot-North Divide Winter Travel Plan” and the “Blackfoot 

Travel Plan (Non-Winter)” analyses. 

A few responses included items of literature to be considered, some noted as opposing science 

information. As part of the analysis for this project, resource specialists reviewed and considered relevant 

scientific literature, including submitted articles. The literature review is included in the project record 

and available on the forest website www.fs.usda.gov/helena/. 

Using the comments from the public, and other agencies the interdisciplinary team developed a list of 

issues to address. 

Issues 

All of the comments received as a result of scoping and meetings were reviewed by the interdisciplinary 

team and responsible official and used to identify those which may have a significant cause-effect 

relationship with the proposal. Specialists analyzed effects in their report comparing trade-offs for the 

decision-maker and public to understand. These issues were used to: 

Formulate alternatives 

Prescribe specific design feature to reduce undesired effects 

Provide clarification in specialist reports or evaluate the comparative merits of the effects of 

alternatives
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

iii

Formulate Alternatives 

These are issues regarding the action and its effects on a particular resource or group of resources that are 

unresolved or renders the action less effective in accomplishing the purpose and need for this project. 

Wildlife Habitat: Proposed vegetative removal and burning treatments may reduce the quality change 

structure and composition of vegetation or availability of habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species and designated critical habitat; management indicator species (MIS); big game hiding cover, 

thermal cover, and security cover. The public expressed concern with fragmentation of habitat from roads 

(habitat connectivity) and viability of old-growth and snag-dependent species.

Indicators:

Changes in grizzly bear security cover and potential conflicts with humans. Core habitat, Open Road 

Density (ORD) and Total Road Density (TRD) are specific measures used to evaluate changes within 

the grizzly bear management units (Arrastra and Red Mountain sub units) that overlap the project area

Habitat suitability changes within the Lynx Analysis Units (LAU's bl-7 and bl-8) Acres of lynx 

habitat affected is evaluated according to the Northern Rocky Mountain Lynx Management Direction 

(NRMLMD) standards and guidelines. 

Changes in availability of the number of snags and tons of downed woody debris 

Acres of suitable MIS and sensitive species habitat impacted

Acres of elk hiding cover, thermal cover, and security habitat within the project area and elk herd 

units 

Maintaining or providing habitat connectivity

Acres of old growth affected and effects to snag-dependent species

Addressed by Design Features or Evaluated for Comparison

In addition to the issue identified above, we analyzed the effects of the proposed action and alternatives 

based on implementing design criteria and disclose the differences of effects between alternatives for the 

following: 

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 Forest-wide effort and 

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

Use of roads that would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal, and use of 

existing roads: 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, water quality and fisheries through sedimentation, and associated wildlife habitat. 

Amount of Prescribed Fire: Concern that the Forest Service has limited experience implementing 

prescribed fire in mixed-severity fire regimes. Concern with the amount of acres proposed for prescribed 

burning; proximity to private land and timing of burns introduce risk to private lands (e.g., loss of homes, 

buildings, smoke effects to air quality).
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iv 

Pretreating areas with vegetation removal adjacent to private land boundaries is designed to remove 

potential fuels prior to prescribed burning. Pile burning is proposed to more closely manage areas to 

receive active burning. 

The issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action.

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. No timber removal, fuels reduction, or prescribed burning for forest restoration would be 

implemented to accomplish project goals. 

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action

This alternative represents the proposed action from scoping. Mapping corrections resulted in slight 

adjustments in acre and mile figures from scoping. 

Alternative 2 proposes a total of 8,564 acres of commercial and noncommercial treatments. Harvest 

treatments (regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, and precommercial thinning) are proposed on a 

total of 3,099 acres. Fuels treatments would follow timber removals, including slashing, pile burning, 

jackpot burning, and underburning. In addition to post-harvest burning, prescribed fire is proposed within 

the inventoried roadless areas (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 Inventoried Roadless Area and on 664 acres (about 3.8 

percent) within the Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Area. To help facilitate management, outside 

these IRAs approximately 2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal.

Alternative 3 – Preferred 

This alternative was developed to address issues raised during scoping regarding reducing potential 

impacts to habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species and designated critical habitat; 

management indicator species (MIS); big game hiding cover, thermal cover, and security cover. 

Treatments were reviewed and adjusted to reduce impacts to habitat (figure 14). 

Alternative 3 proposes a total of 6,564 acres of commercial and noncommercial treatments. Harvest 

treatments (regeneration harvest, intermediate harvest, and precommercial thinning) are proposed on a 

total of 2,298 acres. Fuels treatments would follow timber removals and include slashing, pile burning, 

jackpot burning, and underburning. In addition to post-harvest burning, prescribed fire is proposed within 

the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan Inventoried Roadless Area 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. To help facilitate management, outside these IRAs approximately 0.4 mile of road would be built 

then obliterated immediately following timber removal. 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

v 

Alternatives at a Glance

Table S- 1. Acres of proposed harvest and fuels treatments by alternative

GROUP #: BRIEF TREATMENT DESCRIPTION

 HARVEST TREATMENT, FUELS TREATMENT

ALT. 1 NO 

ACTION 

ACRES

ALT. 2 

ACRES

ALT. 3 

ACRES

Group 1: Intermediate Harvest to Promote Mature Open Forests 0 974 232

Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn 0 36 0

Improvement Cut, Underburn 0 938 232

Group 2: Intermediate Harvest to Thin Young Forests 0 1,132 822

Precommercial Thin 0 523 409

Precommercial Thin, Handpile Underburn 0 0 29

Precommercial Thin, Handpiling, Burn Piles 0 78 50

Precommercial Thin, Underburn 0 289 141

Precommercial Thin, Underburn or Slash Treatment 

along PVT 0 242 193

Group 3: Regeneration Harvest in Areas of High Mortality 

Retaining Seed and Shelter Trees 0 745 664

Seedtree with Reserves, Broadcast Burn 0 29 29 

Seedtree with Reserves, Jackpot Burn 0 73 41 

Seedtree with Reserves, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles 0 18 18 

Seedtree with Reserves, Underburn 0 223 207 

Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Jackpot Burn 0 137 137 

Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Site Prep Burn 0 96 96 

Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Slashing, Handpile/Burn 0 25 0

Shelterwood (Group) with Reserves, Underburn 0 114 114 

Shelterwood with Reserves, Site Prep Burn 0 30 22 

Group 4: Regeneration Harvest in Areas of High Mortality 

Retaining Rare Live Trees 0 223 152

Clearcut with Reserves, Broadcast Burn 0 98 80 

Clearcut with Reserves, Jackpot Burn 0 53 0

Clearcut with Reserves, Site Prep Burn 0 54 54 

Clearcut with Reserves, Underburn 0 18 18 

Group 5: Intermediate Harvest to Remove Minor Amounts of 

Dead/Dying Trees 0 25 25

Sanitation, Slashing, Handpiling, Burn Piles 0 25 25 

Total Harvest Treatments (acres) 0 3,099 1,895

Group 6: Low Severity Prescribed Fire to Create Mortality Patches 

5 to 10 acres 0 449 326

Low Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres 0 326 326 

Low Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres 0 123 0

Group 7: Mixed Severity Fire to create mortality patches up to 5, 

10, or 20 acres 0 410 36

Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <5 acres 0 36 36 

Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <10 acres 0 48 0

Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <20 acres 0 326 0

Group 8: Mixed severity fire to create mortality patches up to 30 

or 75 acres 0 4,604 3,265

Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <30 acres 0 3371 2032 

Mixed Severity Fire, Openings <75 acres 0 1233 1233 
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vi 

GROUP #: BRIEF TREATMENT DESCRIPTION

 HARVEST TREATMENT, FUELS TREATMENT

ALT. 1 NO 

ACTION 

ACRES

ALT. 2 

ACRES

ALT. 3 

ACRES

Group 9: Low Severity Prescribed Fire 0 0 638

Jackpot Burn 0 0 326

Underburn 0 0 312

Group 10: Intermediate Harvest to Promote Mature Open Forests 0 0 403

Improvement Cut, Jackpot Burn 403

Grand Total Project Treatments (acres) 0 8,564 6,564

Logging Systems

Tractor logging (total acres) 0 1,944 1,834

Skyline logging (total acres) 0 663 491

Hand treatments 

 Intermediate Harvest – Precommercial Thin (acres)

 Prescribed fire (acres)

0 

0

493

5,463

285

3,954

Burning Treatments

Total area proposed for burning treatments (acres) 0 8,041 6,155

Total area proposed for burning in designated IRAs (acres) 0 4,845 3,565

Roads 

Roads Built for Project Use then Obliterated (miles) -- 2.6 0.4

Road Maintenance (miles) -- 45.6 43.8

Total Road Miles Used -- 48.2 44.2

Timber Volume (Ccf) -- 22,022 14,299

In addition to the alternatives considered in detail, public comments received in response to the proposed 

action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Six additional 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration. Some of these alternatives were 

outside the scope of restoration, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be 

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

Major Conclusions Include: 

Effects related to the significant issues and project purpose and need 

A brief summary of the effects as related to the significant issues and purpose and need identified for the 

Stonewall Vegetation Project follows in the Comparison of Alternative Effects Section. 

Decision Framework 

The environmental impact statement is not a decision document; it discloses the environmental 

consequences of implementing action alternatives or no action at this time. Based upon the effect of the 

alternatives, the responsible official will decide on the following main points: 

Whether or not to implement the proposed action or an alternative to the proposed action and 

appropriate mitigation 

What monitoring requirements are appropriate to evaluate implementation of this project

Whether a Forest Plan amendment is necessary e.g. reductions in big game habitat 

In addition to deciding whether the above activities occur, the responsible official will also choose the 

degree to which (if at all) activities are implemented. The final decision will be based on the information 

in this document and the supplementary information contained in the project record, consideration of 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

vii

public comments, how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need for the project and 

whether the selected alternative complies with agency policy, applicable State and Federal laws, and 

Forest Plan direction. 

At this time, alternative 3 is my preferred alternative. Modifications to all of the alternatives may be 

considered for the final environmental impact statement (EIS) depending on comments received regarding 

this draft EIS or to incorporate new information. The final decision may be different than my preferred 

alternative, as presented in the draft EIS.

Comparison of Alternative Effects 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.

Vegetation

Vegetative conditions within the project area are described in chapter 1 and chapter 3. Proposed 

treatments address the purpose and need of the project. Following is a summary of the vegetative effects

Purpose and Need: Enhance and Restore Aspen, western larch, and ponderosa pine species and 

habitats

Whether a treatment would result in an increase in a particular tree species depends upon the type of 

treatment, the characteristics of the tree species, and the current presence of the tree species in the area 

receiving the treatment. Treatments vary widely in the opportunity they provide to manipulate the 

presence of a particular species. Intermediate treatments provide a great deal of control through tree 

selection preferences applied during thinning if the tree species is present and regeneration treatments 

provide a great deal of control through control of seed sources and planting of preferred species. Prescribe 

burns provide opportunities to increase fire-tolerant or shade-intolerant early seral species such as 

ponderosa pine, western larch, and quaking aspen through killing competing fire-intolerant species and 

through creating open areas for regeneration although the degree of control is not great simply due to the 

variable nature of prescribed burning. 

The effects of the three alternatives upon within-stand tree species compositions by treatment group and 

as a proportion of the landscape are displayed in chapter 3 (Table 29. Alternative comparisons for 

ponderosa pine, western larch, whitebark pine, and aspen). 

Alternative 1 would continue the current condition in which the four species have declined in presence 

within stands and upon the landscape due to succession and the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic. In 

the long-term, those four species would continue to decline as succession continues. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would result in an increase in the presence of all four species, with alternative 2 leading to the greatest 

increase due to the greater treatment area involved, and the greater area in regeneration and intermediate 

treatments which have the greatest potential for modifying species composition at the stand level.

Purpose and Need: Improve the mix of vegetation composition and structure across the landscape 

that is diverse, resilient, and sustainable to wildfire and insects

The expected effects of the three alternatives on within-stand species compositions are displayed in 

chapter 3 (Table 30. Alternative comparisons for stand structures).

Under alternative 1, the current condition would persist, and the general track of tree species on the 

landscape would be toward increases in Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce and decreases 

in the early seral species—ponderosa pine, quaking aspen, western larch, whitebark pine, and lodgepole 
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

viii 

pine. Lodgepole pine would regenerate in many areas in which it was a major component before the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic, becoming a component in mixed-species stands with Douglas-fir, 

Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. Treatments in both alternatives 2 and 3 would modify the current 

condition and increase ponderosa pine, western larch, quaking aspen, and whitebark pine as discussed 

above. Both alternatives would improve the mix of tree species in treated areas, resulting in tree species 

mixtures that would be more diverse and resilient. Alternative 2 would result in greater effects than 

Alternative 3 due to the greater acreage treated, and the greater acreage treated with intermediate and 

regeneration treatments. 

The effects of the three alternatives on stand structures in terms of tree diameter distributions for proposed 

treatment type groups are displayed in chapter 3 (Table 30. Alternative comparisons for stand 

structures). 

Alternative 1 would continue the current condition in the short term and long term; stand understories 

would become denser and the stands more closed. Stand diameter distributions would remain the same in 

the short-term and in the long-term would tend to become more steeply weighted toward smaller 

diameters due to ingrowth and natural mortality of the larger diameter classes. Treatments in both 

alternatives 2 and 3 would modify the track that the stands are on with the degree and nature of the effects 

depending upon the type of treatment. Intermediate harvests (Groups 1 and 10) would “flatten” the 

diameter distributions by thinning small and mid-sized trees while retaining the largest trees—creating 

open multi-story structures. Precommercial thinning (Group 2) would create open, single-story stands by 

pre-commercially thinning even-aged, closed, single-story plantations. Regeneration treatments (Groups 3 

and 4) would create even-aged stands with a small number of older and larger trees present as seed 

sources, shelter, or retention trees. Removing dead and dying trees and slashing undesirable understory 

trees (Group 5) would create stands that are open and almost single-story. Low-intensity prescribed burns 

(Groups 6 and 9) would flatten the diameter distributions due to killing many of the smaller diameter trees 

and would create stands that are more open and still multi-story. Mixed-severity prescribed burns (Groups 

7 and 8) would create areas that are mosaics of structures including open and closed single-story, open 

and closed multi-story, and early-seral grass/forb/shrub openings. The effects of all treatments would last 

into the long-term but eventually the stands would become more closed and multi-story as trees grow and 

as the stand understories fill in. 

The effects of the three alternatives on stand structures at the landscape level by comparing the proportion 

of change within Biophysical Setting/vegetation fuel class combinations are displayed in chapter 3 (Table 

31. Alternative comparisons for landscape-level stand structures). 

Under alternative 1 in the short-term the current condition would persist, which in general is below 

desired in (1) early seral and mid-seral open for all biophysical settings, (2) mid-seral closed in the two 

subalpine fir biophysical settings, and (3) in late-seral open for the two Douglas-fir and the ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir Biophysical Settings. Vegetation-fuel classes are above desired in all other combinations. 

Long-term trends under Alternative 1 would be: decreasing early seral, mid-seral closed, mid-seral open, 

and late-seral open in almost all biophysical settings due to tree growth and filling in of stand 

understories. Both alternative 2 and alternative 3 would: (1) increase area in early seral for all BpS, (2) 

decrease area in mid-seral closed for all BpS, (3) increase area in mid-seral open for all but upper 

subalpine BpS, (4) increase area in late-seral open for all BpS, and (5) decrease area in late-seral closed in 

all Bps. Alternative 2 would bring about greater change than alternative 3 due largely to the greater 

acreage treated. Both alternatives 2 and 3 would move the vegetation-fuel classes toward the reference 

condition, but largely due to the small portion of the analysis area proposed for treatment there would still 

be relatively great differences between present and reference condition for many BpS/vegetation-fuel 

class combinations.
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

ix

Purpose and Need: Forest health in terms of reduced susceptibility (increased resistance) of 

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

In chapter 3, table 32 (Alternative comparison for insects and diseases) we compare the three alternatives 

in terms of susceptibility to several insects and diseases that are impacting stands in the project area 

Under alternative 1, in the short term there would be little change from the current condition, which in 

general is (1) low and long-term decreasing risk for those insects and diseases dependent upon early seral 

trees such as the pines (e.g., mountain pine beetle), (2) higher and long-term increasing risk and impacts 

from those dependent upon Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce, and (3) relatively low but 

long-term increase in susceptibility to armillaria which affects all conifers but for which pines and 

western larch are more resistant than the other conifers. Both alternatives 2 and 3 would generally reduce 

susceptibility to insects and diseases in treated stands and on the landscape. Exceptions to this would be 

white pine blister rust, for which we cannot say that the treatments would directly reduce the disease and 

Douglas-fir beetle for which the prescribed burning may increase risk in the treated areas to a small 

degree and short period of time. Over the landscape, both alternatives would increase resistance to insects 

and diseases by increasing tree species diversity and age class diversity, reducing stocking and so 

increasing individual tree resistance, and modifying structures. Alternative 2 would reduce susceptibility 

to a greater degree than alternative 3, largely because a greater area is being treated.

Transportation

Under the no-action alternative, no changes would be made to the existing transportation network on and 

adjacent to the project area. There would be no changes to effects or impacts on the project transportation 

network. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would use approximately 48.2 and 44.3 miles, respectively, of roads would access 

vegetation treatment units and connect with Montana State Highway 200. Existing roads would serve as 

project access and haul routes on nearly 45.6 miles under alternative 2 and 44.3 miles under alternative 3. 

Under alternative 2 another 2.6 miles of new roads would be constructed to access treatment units. Under 

alternative 3 approximately 0.4 mile of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal. These roads would be closed (e.g., gates, barricades) during operations to limit use to operators 

only, and obliterated or rehabilitated immediately following vegetation treatments. 

Cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable actions are expected to have minor impacts on the 

project transportation network. Project haul routes would be maintained and improved in accordance with 

BMPs to accommodate haul vehicles. Sediment sites would be mitigated to reduce long-term sediment 

delivery. Annual road maintenance activities would also occur on National Forest System roads and also 

on adjacent State and private roads.

Fire and Fuels

The mechanical treatments proposed would reduce surface fuels, raise canopy base heights by reducing 

ladder fuels and stand density, resulting in modified fire behavior potential. The result would be safer, 

more efficient and direct initial attack of unwanted fires by fire suppression forces. 

The prescribed burn treatments would reduce fuels and break up contiguous vegetation to create a 

heterogeneous fuelscape so that areas with high fire behavior potential are interspersed with areas of 

mixed and low fire behavior potential, thereby limiting the potential for high-intensity crown fire to 

spread towards the WUI. Fire management has evolved over time and fire managers look for 

opportunities to manage fire for multiple objectives. Reintroducing fire to the landscape and allowing it to 
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

x 

occur as a natural process is desired in order to move the landscape toward the desired condition as 

outlined in the LRMP. 

The Stonewall Vegetation Project would be important to the success of future fire suppression efforts and 

complements past treatments and those currently occurring or being proposed on adjacent federal, state 

and private lands.

The following analysis issues or concerns were identified for this project during the scoping period. The 

alternatives will address the issues as follows.

1. Wildland Fire and Homes: Proposed treatments may be inefficient and ineffective in reducing 

home losses due to fire.

Proposed treatments would reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels and change the fuel model profile, 

thereby decreasing the area with potential for flame lengths greater than four feet and reducing potential 

crown fire risk. In addition, alternative 2 or 3 would reduce the risk of wildfire impacts to adjacent private 

lands and other resource values. By treating these areas, they become more resilient to stand-replacing 

wildfire and allow greater protection within the WUI zone. 

2. Fire Behavior: Proposed fuels reduction work would not reduce fire behavior. 

Fire modeling suggests the proposed treatments would effectively reduce fire behavior. Following 

implementation of a chosen alternative, the treated areas should exhibit surface fire under the modeled 

conditions, making fire suppression efforts safer and more effective. With these alternatives, desired fuel 

loadings and fire behavior characteristics would be achieved and natural or prescribed fire could occur 

with less risk.

3. Prescribed Burning: Concerns over risk of fire escaping burn boundaries during prescribed 

burning operations. 

All prescribed burning would occur when weather and fuel conditions are favorable. All burning would 

take place under the guidelines in the prescribed fire burn plan developed specifically for project-related 

burning activities. Prescribed burn plans address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency 

resources and potential escapes.

Air Quality

Wildfires are known to result in high levels of emissions and associated National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) violation and worst visibility. Vegetation management treatments provide the 

opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce the magnitude of wildfire air quality problems. According to 

(Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010) wide-scale prescribed fire application can reduce CO2 fire emissions for 

the western US by 18 to 25 percent. The total amount of pollutants released by prescribed burning under 

alternative 2 and 3 would be spread out over several years and would occur when emissions would be 

unlikely to have significant adverse effects on human health and visibility. After implementation, it is 

estimated that subsequent wildfires in the project area could produce less pollutants due to less fuel 

available to burn. 

All prescribed burning would be implemented in full compliance with Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) air program with coordination through the Montana/Idaho Airshed 

Group. All action alternatives would meet Forest Plan Standards for air quality by following coordination 

requirements. The project complies with the Federal Clean Air Act.
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xi

Habitats of Special Concern

Snags

The forested landscape will experience additional bark beetle mortality from the ongoing mountain pine 

beetle (MPB) epidemic. The levels of additional mortality are a matter of speculation, but available 

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

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

Amman 1980, Klein et al. 1978, Mitchell and Preisler 1991). Mountain pine beetles strongly favor 

infesting the trees of larger diameter each year and over the life of the infestation infesting smaller trees 

each year until the average host tree diameter declines to a point that the tree habitat cannot produce 

sufficient numbers of beetles to maintain the outbreak (Cole and Amman 1969, Cole and Amman 1980). 

The outbreaks are relatively short, lasting about 6 years (Cole and Amman 1969, Cole and Amman 1980). 

Given the magnitude of the mortality that has occurred in the project area as of the writing of this report, 

we suspect that the epidemic is declining.

The lodgepole pine snags would start falling in 3 to 5 years after death (Bull 1983, Mitchell and Preisler 

1998). Snag fall rates depend on tree species, tree size, cause of death, and environmental conditions that 

could affect the speed of bole decay (Bull 1983, Mitchell and Preisler 1998). For lodgepole pine, Bull 

(1983) found that 8 years after death about 75 percent of the snags less than 25 cm had fallen and 42 

percent of the snags greater than 25 cm had fallen. Mitchell and Preisler (1998), in their study of 

mountain pine beetle-killed snags in Oregon, found that tree size was not a factor in unthinned stands and 

that in unthinned stands, 50 percent were down in 9 years and 90 percent were down in 14 years. 

In the short term, snag numbers would be very high, but in the long term, snag numbers would decline 

greatly as the lodgepole pine snags fall down. 

As discussed and displayed above, given the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic, snags in the project 

area are abundant and far exceed forest plan requirements. Under alternative 2, the intermediate and 

regeneration treatments would reduce snag levels to the forest plan requirements within the treatment 

units and the mixed-severity prescribed burns would increase snag levels within the burn units. After the 

treatments are done, snag levels would slightly decrease in the 3rd-order drainage 0203, slightly increase 

in the 3rd-order drainage 0204A, and slightly increase in the project area. They would still exceed 19 

times the forest plan requirements. Under alternative 3, the intermediate and regeneration treatments 

would reduce snag levels to the forest plan requirements and the prescribed burns would increase snag 

levels. After the treatments are done, snag levels would slightly decrease in the 3rd-order drainage 0203, 

slightly increase in the 3rd-order drainage 0204A, and slightly increase in the project area. They would 

still exceed 20 times the forest plan requirements.

Old Growth

Effects to designated old growth in the two 3rd-order drainage are the same under all alternatives because 

no activities are proposed in designated old growth in these drainages. Following the process described 

above, about five percent of each 3rd-order drainage is designated to manage as old growth. All old 

growth would continue to develop successionally under all alternatives. Changes would be slight in the 

short term, but could be substantial in the long term. Single-story and two-story stands would become 

more multi-story. Closed canopies would remain closed, and open stands would become closed over time. 

Down woody fuels would continue to accumulate. 

About 63 percent of the designated old growth is Douglas-fir type. With continuing succession, more 

small trees would become established with the species composition trending toward subalpine fir (Fischer 

and Clayton 1983). These stands are susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), western spruce budworm 
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xii 

(WSB), and root disease. ADS data appears to indicate that DFB has consistently declined in recent years, 

while WSB infestation was extensive in 2009, substantially less was recorded in 2010 (Amell 2012). 

Douglas-fir beetle tends to infest large and old Douglas-fir and heavily stocked stands. Their impacts can 

also be affected by weather conditions, for example droughts that reduce host tree vigor. With increasing 

stocking, tree size and age over time, we can expect DFB to continue to impact the stands to some degree, 

increasing with the next droughty period. Since forests in the area, including the old growth stands, are 

progressing toward dominance by Douglas-fir and subalpine fir, we can expect the impacts of WSB to 

continue if not increase. Diseases would continue to impact stands at current levels.

In the long term, dense forest conditions with multiple-layer stands and increasing surface fuels would 

support increasingly intense fire behavior and severe fire effects (Buhl 2012). Stand replacement fire 

would become more likely on the landscape and old growth stands more susceptible to the impacts. 

No designated old growth in 3rd-order drainages would be treated under any alternative. Forest Plan 

direction regarding old growth would be met. Under alternative 2 outside of the 3rd-order drainages, three 

stands (42201139, 42201147, and 42201152) that may potentially be old growth would be prescribed 

burned; one stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (41502089) would be prescribed burned, 

and one stand that has been verified by a recent stand exam (42303103) would be thinned and prescribed 

burned. Under alternative 3 outside of the 3rd-order drainages, one stand that has been verified by a 

recent stand exam (41502089) would be prescribe burned, and one stand that has been verified by a recent 

stand exam (42303103) would be partially thinned and the fuels burned. 

Stands proposed for treatment would be changed by the treatments, with species compositions “pushed” 

toward dominance by seral fire-tolerant conifers, and stand structures “pushed” to or toward open, but 

still multi-story, structures with relatively flat diameter distributions. Treated potential and verified old 

growth stands would still qualify as old growth following the treatments. 

Wildlife

Overview of Issues

The following issues were identified as a result of public scoping and used to develop alternatives to the 

proposed action. Also, these issues as well as other issue indicators identified to measure potential 

impacts to wildlife from alternatives considered in the project environmental impact statement are 

displayed in the following table. Effect indicators are collectively used to assess species viability or 

population changes. 

Restoration of vegetation communities 

Grizzly bear habitat impacts 

Elk security cover and the LRMP standard. 

Lynx habitat: Designated Critical Habitat and Stand Initiation Phase acreage 

Wildfire hazard, risk, and fuels

Habitats including ponderosa pine, western larch and aspen: maintenance or restoration 

Road impacts to elk and grizzly bear habitat as well as disturbance factors 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xiii

Species Indicator

Threatened and Endangered Species

Grizzly Bear

Effects to individuals and changes in security cover and 

potential conflicts with humans. Security Core habitat, 

Open Road Density (ORD) and Total Road Density 

(TRD) are specific measures used to evaluate changes 

within the recovery area, whereas changes in cover and 

forage within and outside the NCDE are assessed. 

Canada Lynx

Effects to individuals and acres of stand initiation, multistory and mid-seral habitat affected in Lynx Analysis 

Units (LAUs bl-7 and bl-8). Compliance with the Northern 

Rocky Mountain Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) 

standards and guidelines. 

Wolverine

Effects to individuals and acres of natal denning and 

foraging habitat. Availability of remote and dispersal 

habitat and changes in connectivity and human access.

Sensitive Species

Gray Wolf Effects to individuals and changes in big game. Den, 

rendezvous and foraging habitat affected.

Fisher Effects to individuals and acres of den, rest and foraging 

habitat. Changes in human access.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Effects to individuals and acres of and effect to foraging 

habitat.

Bald Eagle

Effects to individuals, suitable nest habitat affected, 

effects to reproduction and nest and foraging habitat 

availability.

Black-backed Woodpecker Effects to individuals, acres of suitable habitat, changes 

in quality and distribution of suitable snag habitat.

Flammulated Owl

Effects to individuals and acres of suitable habitat. Short 

and long-term changes in the quality of suitable opencanopy habitat, availability of large diameter (>=19 

inches) snags.

Western Toad Effects to individuals, acres of breeding and upland 

habitat affected.

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Acres of nest and 

foraging habitat, nest, foraging and post-fledgling habitat 

affected, landscape level changes in habitat. Ability of 

the project area to support nesting pairs.

Pileated Woodpecker

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Acres of old 

growth habitat, existing and affected suitable habitat, 

changes in quality of foraging and nesting habitat, large 

snag (>=20 inches d.b.h.) availability and changes in 

project area distribution and use.

Hairy Woodpecker

Effects to individuals and reproduction, acres of suitable 

habitat, acres of suitable habitat affected, changes in

quality of suitable habitat, snag (all size classes) 

availability. Changes in project area distribution and use

American Marten

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Existing and 

affected suitable habitat. Changes in the quality of den 

and foraging habitat, project area distribution and use, 

and snag and downed woody debris (DWD) availability.
Summary – Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xiv 

Species Indicator

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk 

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, habitat effectiveness, 

acres of security habitat, changes in access and 

mortality, acres of foraging habitat, and compliance with 

the Montana logging study. Changes in hunting 

opportunity.

Mule Deer

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, acres of foraging 

habitat, changes in project area distribution and use and 

hunting opportunities. 

Migratory Species

Migratory Birds Changes (acres) in available habitat (Biophysical 

settings), compliance with MBTA.
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xv

Effects Determinations

Effects determinations for wildlife species by alternative are displayed in the following table

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

Threatened and Endangered

Species

Grizzly Bear

The risk of stand replacing wildfire 

remains high, but no direct effects are 

anticipated and in the absence of 

wildfire, grizzly habitat would be largely 

unchanged. Because whitebark pine 

would likely continue to decline, 

implementation of alternative 1 may 

affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect grizzly bear.

Improve landscape level foraging 

habitat, maintain whitebark pine, result 

in short and long-term reductions in 

cover and increase the risk of 

bear/human interaction. However, 

based on the above analysis and the 

following rationale, implementation of 

alternative 2 may affect, but not likely 

to adversely affect grizzly bear.

Improve landscape level foraging habitat, 

maintain whitebark pine, result in short 

and long-term reductions in cover and 

increase the risk of bear/human 

interaction. However, based on the 

above analysis and the following 

rationale, implementation of alternative 3 

may affect, but not likely to adversely 

affect grizzly bear.

Canada Lynx

No effect.

The risk of wildfire remains high, 

however, because there are no direct 

effects and considering winter foraging 

and den habitat remains largely 

unchanged, implementation of 

alternative 1 would have no effect on 

Canada lynx.

All treatments fall within a WUI, meet 

exceptions for VEG 05 and VEG 06, 

and comply with VEG 10. Treatments 

comply with VEG 01 and VEG 02, and 

fuel treatment projects that do not meet 

VEG S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG 

S6 occur on less than 6 percent of the 

available habitat on the Helena Forest. 

Proposed treatments comply with 

Northern Rocky Mountain Lynx

Management Direction (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b), and there are no 

effects anticipated that were not 

considered in the BO (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b). As a result 

implementation of alternative 2 may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect Canada lynx.

All treatments fall within a WUI, meet 

exceptions for VEG 05 and VEG 06, and 

comply with VEG 10. Treatments comply 

with VEG 01 and VEG 02, and fuel 

treatment projects that do not meet VEG 

S1, VEG S2, VEG S5 and VEG S6 occur 

on less than 6 percent of the available 

habitat on the Helena Forest. Proposed 

treatments comply with Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lynx Management Direction 

(USDA Forest Service 2007b), and there 

are no effects anticipated that were not 

considered in the BO (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b). As a result 

implementation of alternative 3 may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect Canada lynx.

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat No effect.

All treatments are consistent with the 

NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

While some treatments within winter 

foraging habitat would occur within the 

WUI, treatments were designed 

considering standards to promote lynx 

conservation and collectively 

application of the standards for 

vegetation management are expected 

All treatments are consistent with the 

NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

While some treatments within winter 

foraging habitat would occur within the 

WUI, treatments were designed 

considering standards to promote lynx 

conservation and collectively application 

of the standards for vegetation 

management are expected to avoid 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xvi 

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

to avoid adverse effects to lynx (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b p. 43).

May affect, not likely to adversely 

affect Critical Habitat

adverse effects to lynx (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b p. 43).

May affect, not likely to adversely 

affect Critical Habitat

Wolverine

Although recent fires have reduced 

wolverine foraging and den habitat, 

suitable habitat would continue to be 

available. While the risk of future wildlife 

is greatest under this alternative, there 

is no way to predict if or when wildfire 

would occur. As a result and based on 

the above analysis and the following 

rationale, implementation of alternative 

1 would not jeopardize the wolverine.

The Stonewall project was analyzed for 

effects to wolverines based on 

vegetation changes, movements across 

the landscape, and the distribution from 

human activities associated with the 

project. Based on the analysis 

provided and the following rationale, it 

is determined that implementation of 

the Stonewall Vegetation Management 

Project would not jeopardize the 

wolverine. 

The Stonewall project was analyzed for 

effects to wolverines based on 

vegetation changes, movements across 

the landscape, and the distribution from 

human activities associated with the 

project. Based on the analysis provided 

and the following rationale, it is 

determined that implementation of the 

Stonewall Vegetation Management 

Project would not jeopardize the 

wolverine. 

Sensitive Species

Gray Wolf

Suitable wolf habitat, including remote 

areas for denning and big game 

populations would remain largely 

unchanged. As a result, and considering 

that human use and access is not 

expected to increase, implementation of 

alternative 1 would have no impact on 

wolves.

No known den or rendezvous sites 

would be affected. Disturbance to 

foraging wolves during implementation 

could occur, but would involve shortterm disturbance during 

implementation. Big game populations 

and wolf foraging opportunities would 

be maintained in the short term and 

increased in the long term. The 

likelihood of stand replacing wildfire is 

lowest under this alternative. 

Alternative 2 has the potential for shortterm impacts to foraging or dispersing 

wolves. However, based on the 

analysis and the above rationale, 

implementation of alternative 2 may 

impact individuals, but are not likely 

to cause a trend toward federal 

listing for the gray wolf.

No known den or rendezvous sites would 

be affected. Disturbance to foraging 

wolves during implementation could 

occur, but would involve short-term 

disturbance during implementation. Big 

game populations and wolf foraging 

opportunities would be maintained in the 

short term and increased in the long 

term. The likelihood of stand replacing 

wildfire would be reduced across the 

landscape, but at a reduced level from 

that of alternative 2.

Alternative 3 has the potential for shortterm impacts to foraging or dispersing 

wolves. However, based on the analysis 

and the above rationale, implementation 

of alternative 3 may impact individuals, 

but are not likely to cause a trend 

toward federal listing for the gray wolf.

Fisher

Suitable habitat would be largely 

maintained. Risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is greatest under this alternative.

Because there are no direct effects 

anticipated and considering suitable 

fisher habitat would remain relatively 

Approximately 88 percent of the 

existing suitable habitat would be 

maintained. Preferred riparian habitat 

and travel corridors as well as prey 

availability would be maintained and 

the risk of stand replacing wildfire is 

Approximately 91 percent of the existing 

suitable habitat would be maintained. 

Preferred riparian habitat and travel 

corridors as well as prey availability 

would be maintained and the risk of 

stand replacing wildfire would be 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xvii

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

unchanged, implementation of 

alternative 1 would have no impact on 

fisher. 

lowest under this alternative.

The action alternatives would reduce 

fisher habitat by 11 to 12 percent and 

alter the structural conditions on 

approximately 38 percent of the 

existing fisher habitat. Based on the 

above analysis and the following 

rationale, implementation of alternative 

2 may impact individuals, but are not 

likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing for fisher.

reduced under this alternative when 

compared to no action.

The action alternatives would reduce 

fisher habitat by 9 to 10 percent and alter 

the structural conditions on 

approximately 24 to 25 percent of the 

existing fisher habitat. Based on the 

above analysis and the following 

rationale, implementation of alternative 3 

may impact individuals, but are not 

likely to cause a trend toward federal 

listing for fisher.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

No impact. 

Hibernacula, swarming and roost habitat 

would not be affected and foraging 

habitat would be largely unchanged. 

The risk of stand replacing wildfire is 

highest under this alternative.

The action alternatives would affect 

suitable habitat on 35 percent of the 

project area. Based on the above 

analysis and the following rationale, 

implementation of alternative 2 may 

impact individuals, but are not likely 

to result in a trend towards federal 

listing for the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat.

Hibernacula, swarming and roost 

habitat would not be affected A total of 

8,562 acres of suitable foraging habitat 

would be affected by treatment. No 

mortality is anticipated although shortterm disturbance from smoke to 

foraging bats could occur. Available 

foraging habitat would be widespread 

and the risk of stand replacing wildfire 

is lowest under this alternative.

The action alternatives would affect 

suitable habitat on 27 percent of the 

project area. Based on the above 

analysis and the following rationale, 

implementation of alternative 3 may 

impact individuals, but are not likely 

to result in a trend towards federal 

listing for the Townsend’s big-eared bat.

Hibernacula, swarming and roost habitat 

would not be affected. A total of 6,562 

acres of suitable foraging habitat would 

be affected by treatment. No mortality is 

anticipated although short-term 

disturbance from smoke to foraging bats 

could occur. Available foraging habitat 

would be widespread and the risk of 

stand replacing wildfire is reduced under 

this alternative.

Bald Eagle

No impact. 

No anticipated impacts to the existing 

eagle nest, although the risk of wildfire 

is highest under this alternative.

Existing habitat in the project area 

habitat would be largely unaffected. As 

a result alternative 2 may impact 

individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal 

listing for the bald eagle.

No direct effects to nesting birds or 

reproduction anticipated. Approximately 

100 acres of potentially suitable nest 

habitat would be reduced. Foraging 

habitat would not be treated, although 

Existing habitat in the project area 

habitat would be largely unaffected. As a 

result alternative 3 may impact 

individuals, but are not likely to result 

in a trend toward federal listing for the 

bald eagle.

No direct effects to nesting birds or 

reproduction anticipated. Approximately 

100 acres of potentially suitable nest 

habitat would be reduced. Foraging 

habitat would not be treated, although 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xviii 

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

short-term disturbance to foraging birds 

could occur. Untreated nest and 

foraging habitat would continue to be 

widely available. Risks of wildfire are 

lowest under this alternative.

short-term disturbance to foraging birds 

could occur. Untreated nest and foraging 

habitat would continue to be widely 

available. Risks of wildfire would be

reduced when compared to no action.

Black-backed Woodpecker

No impact. 

Suitable BBW habitat would continue to 

be widely available across the Forest.

May impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute 

towards a trend in federal listing. 

Suitable BBW habitat would continue to 

be widely available across the Forest.

May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a 

trend in federal listing. 

Suitable BBW habitat would continue to 

be widely available across the Forest. 

Flammulated Owl

May impact individuals, but would 

not likely contribute towards a trend 

in federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability.

Suitable flammulated owl habitat would 

continue to decline under this 

alternative. While large diameter nest 

trees would increase in the short term, 

availability would decline over the long 

term. The likelihood of high intensity 

wildfire is greatest under this alternative.

May impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute 

towards a trend in federal listing for 

the flammulated owl. 

Owl habitat would be restored or 

created on almost 4,200 acres or 31 

percent of the dry forest community. 

Treatments would promote ponderosa 

pine and potential nest trees across the 

landscape and the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire is lowest under this 

alternative.

May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a 

trend in federal listing for the 

flammulated owl. 

Owl habitat would be restored or created 

on almost 2,800 acres or 21 percent of 

the dry forest community. Treatments 

would promote ponderosa pine and 

potential nest trees across the landscape 

and reduce the likelihood of stand 

replacing wildfire when compared to no 

action.

Western Toad

No impact. 

Western boreal toads and their habitat 

would not be affected. The risk of stand 

replacing wildfire and a long-term 

reduction in breeding and upland habitat 

is highest under this alternative.

May impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute 

towards a trend in federal listing.

Suitable habitat would continue to 

occur on sites treated and long-term 

foraging habitat would be improved. 

The likelihood of impacts to breeding 

and upland habitat from high severity 

wildfire is lowest under this alternative.

May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a 

trend in federal listing.

Suitable habitat would continue to occur 

on sites treated and long-term foraging 

habitat would be improved. The 

likelihood of impacts to breeding and 

upland habitat from high severity wildfire 

would be reduced when compared to no 

action.

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status. 

Suitable nest habitat would increase, 

although landscape diversity associated 

with foraging and post-fledging habitat 

would be largely unchanged. Risk of 

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status.

Suitable nest, forage and PFA habitat 

would occur in all affected drainages 

and landscape conditions resulting from 

treatment are consistent with goshawk 

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status.

Suitable nest, forage and PFA habitat 

would occur in all affected drainages and 

landscape conditions resulting from 

treatment are consistent with goshawk 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xix

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

stand replacing wildfire and a reduction 

in suitable nest habitat is highest under 

this alternative.

use. The risk of stand replacing wildfire 

and a reduction in suitable habitat is 

lowest under this alternative.

use. The risk of stand replacing wildfire 

and a reduction in suitable habitat would 

be reduced.

Pileated Woodpecker and Hairy 

Woodpecker

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status for the pileated or 

hairy woodpeckers.

Suitable snags and nesting and foraging 

habitat would be maintained and 

continue to be widely available.

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status for the pileated or 

hairy woodpeckers.

A long-term reduction in habitat would 

occur on 540 acres, whereas the 

quality of suitable habitat would be 

reduced for 10 to 20 years on 2,666 

acres. Over the long term restoration of 

open grown ponderosa pine and 

western larch may improve habitat on 

5,700 acres and the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire Is lowest under this 

alternative.

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status for the pileated or 

hairy woodpeckers.

A long-term reduction in habitat would 

occur on 200 acres, whereas the quality 

of suitable habitat would be reduced for 

10 to 20 years on 1,920 acres. Over the 

long term restoration of open grown 

ponderosa pine and western larch may 

improve habitat on 4,500 acres and the 

risk of stand replacing wildfire Is reduced 

under this alternative.

American Marten

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status.

Existing habitat would be maintained. 

The risk of stand replacing wildfire is 

highest under this alternative.

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status.

Treatments would improve species and 

landscape diversity, and maintain 93 

percent of the suitable habitat over the 

long-term. Also the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire is lowest under this 

alternative.

Not likely to cause a local or regional 

change in habitat quality or 

population status. 

Treatments would improve species and 

landscape diversity, and maintain 96 

percent of the suitable habitat over the 

long term. The risk of stand replacing 

wildfire is reduced under this alternative.

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk 

In the Beaver Creek unit hiding cover 

would continue to be available to meet 

the 50 percent level of Forest Plan 

standard 3. Due to the effects of the 

2003 Snow Talon fire, the Keep Cool 

unit is below and would continue to be 

below the 50 percent level of Forest 

Plan standard 3. With continued MPB 

mortality, hiding and thermal cover 

within both units would continue to 

decline. While forage availability may 

increase in some areas, due to 

continued fire suppression and 

overstocked stand conditions, overall 

Treatments proposed under alternative 

2 would reduce elk hiding and thermal 

cover in both herd units, whereas the 

amount and distribution of forage would 

increase. Neither unit would meet 

Forest Plan standard 3 or 4a. This 

alternative would require a sitespecific, nonsignificant forest plan 

amendment for standards 3 and 4(a) 

for the reductions in elk hiding cover 

and thermal cover.

Hunting opportunities would be 

maintained and based on the analysis 

presented above and the following 

Treatments proposed under alternative 3 

would reduce elk hiding and thermal 

cover in both herd units, whereas the 

amount and distribution of forage would 

increase. Neither unit would meet 

Forest Plan standard 3 or 4a. This 

alternative would require a sitespecific, nonsignificant forest plan 

amendment for standards 3 and 4(a) 

for the reductions in elk hiding cover 

and thermal cover.

Hunting opportunities would be 

maintained and based on the analysis 

presented above and the following 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xx 

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

forage availability would continue to be 

low. Due to the reduced cover 

conditions, neither herd unit meets 

Forest Plan standard 4a for big game 

security. Cover would continue to 

decline, however, it is expected that 

available habitat would continue to 

support desired levels of elk. Finally, 

due to increased fuel loading, the risk of 

a long-term loss of cover from stand 

replacing wildfire is greatest under this 

alternative.

Herd numbers would be largely 

unchanged. Effects of predation would 

be largely unchanged. The risk of a 

long-term reduction in cover from 

wildfire is highest under this alternative.

rationale, adequate elk habitat would 

continue to be available within both 

units to support desired levels of elk.

Implementation would result in 

both short- and long-term 

increases in available forage on 

approximately eleven percent of 

the combined herd units, including 

increases on summer, transition 

and winter range. The increase in 

forage is expected to maintain or 

improve herd health. 

There would be no increase in 

public access or changes to elk 

security habitat.

Within the combined herd units 

approximately 89 percent of the 

existing hiding cover and 86 

percent of the existing thermal 

cover would be maintained. Cover 

would continue to be available 

within and adjacent to treatment 

units and across the landscape.

Past wildfires have greatly reduced 

project area elk habitat and much of the 

remaining habitat is at risk. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would 

reduce future wildfire risk.

It is believed that active management is 

necessary to address fuel loading, 

species diversity and insect and 

disease concerns. Due to the 

predominance of mature forest, limited 

disturbance and reduced forage, some 

management is necessary to maintain 

herd health and increase elk 

populations within the elk management 

unit (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the 

treatments proposed under this 

alternative are designed to address 

these concerns and the long-term 

benefits associated with the increased 

rationale, adequate elk habitat would 

continue to be available within both units 

to support desired levels of elk. 

Implementation would result in both 

short- and long-term increases in 

available forage on approximately 

eleven percent of the combined herd 

units, including increases on 

summer, transition and winter range. 

The increase in forage is expected 

to maintain or improve herd health. 

There would be no increase in public 

access or changes to elk security 

habitat.

Within the combined herd units, 

approximately 93 percent of the 

existing hiding cover and 86 percent 

of the existing winter range thermal 

cover would be maintained. Cover 

would continue to be available within 

and adjacent to treatment units and 

across the landscape. 

Past wildfires have greatly reduced 

project area elk habitat and much of the 

remaining habitat is at risk. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would 

reduce future wildfire risk. 

It is believed that active management is 

necessary to address fuel loading, 

species diversity and insect and disease 

concerns. Due to the predominance of 

mature forest, limited disturbance and 

reduced forage, some management is 

necessary to maintain herd health and 

increase elk populations within the elk 

management unit (MFWP 2004). 

Collectively, the treatments proposed 

under this alternative are designed to 

address these concerns and the longterm benefits associated with the 

increased forage availability and reduced 

wildfire risk, are believed to outweigh the 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xxi

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

forage availability and reduced wildfire 

risk, are believed to outweigh the risks 

associated with the anticipated 

reduction in cover

risks associated with the anticipated 

reduction in cover

Mule Deer

Deer cover on winter, transition and 

summer ranges would be altered due to 

continued MPB mortality. Forage 

availability would increase somewhat 

but would continue to remain low, and 

over the long-term, herd health would 

not be expected to improve. Adequate 

forage and cover would continue to be 

available to support existing populations 

and maintain hunting opportunities.

Treatments proposed under alternative 

2 would reduce deer hiding and thermal 

cover and increase deer forage. Based 

on the analysis presented previously 

and the following rationale, adequate 

cover would continue to be available to 

support existing populations, whereas 

foraging availability would increase 

over the short and long term. Hunting 

opportunities would be maintained.

Treatments proposed under alternative 3 

would reduce deer hiding and thermal 

cover and increase deer forage. Based 

on the analysis presented previously and 

the following rationale, adequate cover 

would continue to be available to support 

existing populations, whereas foraging 

availability would increase over the short 

and long term. Hunting opportunities 

would be maintained.

Migratory Species

Migratory Birds

Migratory bird habitat would remain 

largely unchanged. This alternative 

complies with the MBTA.

Project design features are in place to 

maintain migratory bird habitat and 

reduce potential mortality. This 

alternative complies with the MBTA.

Project design features are in place to 

maintain migratory bird habitat and 

reduce potential mortality. This 

alternative complies with the MBTA.
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xxii 

Plants

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. Under alternative 1 whitebark pine would not increase in 

the short term and is expected to decline from present levels in the long term.

Alternatives 2 and 3 include soil disturbing activities with the potential to affect unknown herbaceous 

sensitive plant populations. Alternatives 2 and 3 address the purpose and need by proposing 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. Alternative 2 would affect more acres than 

alternative 3. The proposed actions are designed to reduce potential for stand-replacing wildfire events in 

the treated stands. Reducing potential for stand replacing events may reduce wildfire impacts to specific 

resources. Proposed activities under alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with recommendations for 

restoration of whitebark pine ecosystems, and in 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.

Summary of determination of effects to sensitive plant species are displayed in the following table. 

Species Common name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Roundleaf orchid MII* MII MII

Scalloped moonwort MII MII MII

Peculiar moonwort MII MII MII

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper MII MII MII

Sparrow egg lady’s slipper MII MII MII

Howell’s gumweed MII MII MII

Hall’s rush MII MII MII

Missoula phlox MII MII MII

Whitebark pine MII MII MII

*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.

Noxious Weeds

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. 

Potential impacts would be greatest under alternative 2 followed by alternative 3. 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 2006) and Best Management 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xxiii

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.

Soil 

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 (CWD) 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.

Alternative 2 has the most proposed treatment acres, followed by alternative 3. The action alternatives 

would result in potentially detrimental soil disturbance. However, based on research and professional 

experience, the positive effects of reintroducing fire far outweigh negative potential effects from 

disturbing a larger acreage of land.

Watershed Resources 

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. 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. With design features proposed in this project, sediment 

delivery from roads would remain one ton per year for Lincoln Creek, and reduce 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 proposed 

in alternatives 2 and 3 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, 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 modeling results suggest a potential increase of 2 to 8 

percent in the affected watersheds. 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 National Forest. 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 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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xxiv 

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.

Fish Habitat 

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. 

The analysis used 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). Selected habitat attributes 

considered both ecologically significant to fish and sensitive to land management disturbances are 

borrowed from Overton et al. (1995) and Region 1 guidance (Draft 1/30/2004). The population consists of 

both fluvial and resident components Pierce et al. (1997). Radio tracking of WCT indicates wide-ranging 

movements and use of various tributaries for spawning (Pierce et al. 2004). This analysis predicts a shortterm 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. 

Western cutthroat trout 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 western cutthroat trout 

population in the short-term with a long-term trend of maintaining reproductive habitat within the 

acceptable range of variation.

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. 

The Biological Analysis Determinations for bull trout and bull trout critical habitat is: May effect, not 

likely to adversely affect. 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xxv

Recreation 

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. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose activities that 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. 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 wildfire. Alternative 2 treats more acres and would have more effects than alternative 3. The longterm 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). 

There would be no effects to the Lincoln Gulch IRA and fewer acres treated within the Bear-MarshallScapegoat-Swan IRA. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Alternative 1, no action would have no direct or cumulative effects to roadless resources. Potential longterm 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. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 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 result in a more diverse, 

resilient and sustainable forest ecosystem with a reduction in risk of negative impacts from severe 

wildfire. The long-term indirect effects from the action alternatives to roadless resources would be 

generally beneficial and help to maintain the existing recreation settings and scenic qualities within the 

project area. Alternative 2 would treat more acres than alternative 3. 

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. 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xxvi 

Visual

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 alternative 3. Both action alternatives 

would allow the VQOs to be met and would be in compliance with the Forest Plan and other regulations 

with the implementation of the visual design features. 

Cultural 

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.

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 with implantation of project design features 

and mitigation measures. 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.

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. With project design features the project is anticipated to have 

no adverse effect.

If 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.

Economic Financial Efficiency

Project feasibility and financial efficiency indicates that both action alternatives are financially inefficient 

(negative Present Net Value (PNV)) when including all activities associated with the analysis. 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 proposed 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 proposed

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 (e.g., reduced fuel loadings for 

future reduced fire severity, improving vegetative species mix across the landscape) are nonmarket 

benefits.
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Summary 

xxvii

Economic Impact

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

More employment and labor income opportunities would be created by alternatives 2 and 3 when 

compared to no action. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would not likely adversely affect 

minority or low-income 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. 
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xxviii 

Acronyms

ADS Aerial Detection Surveys

BD Bulk Density

BMPs Best Management Practices

BpS Biophysical Settings

CE Cumulative Effects

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

d.b.h. Diameter Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DFB Douglas-fir Beetle

DSD Detrimental Soil Disturbance

DWD Down Woody Debris

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIA Forest Inventory Analysis

FP Forest Plan

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

FS Forest Service

GHG Greenhouse Gasses

HNF Helena National Forest

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area 

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MFRC Montana Forest Restoration Committee

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NNIS Nonnative Invasive Species

NRLMD Northern Rocky Mountain Lynx Management Direction

PFA Post Fledgling Area

SWCC Southwestern Crown Collaborative

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TPA Trees per Acre

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior
Stonewall Vegetation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement-Acronyms

xxix

USFWS United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service

WSB Western Spruce Budworm

WUI Wildland Urban Interface