Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

33

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Stonewall Vegetation 

Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each 

alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the 

public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the 

alternative (i.e., building roads then obliterating versus the use of skid trails) and some of the 

information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each 

alternative (i.e., the amount of erosion caused by helicopter logging versus skidding). 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including the no action and proposed action 

alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public. Table 8 displays treatments proposed by 

alternative.

Alternatives at a Glance

Table 8. Treatment Summary 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, 0 25 0
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Statement

34 

GROUP #: BRIEF TREATMENT DESCRIPTION

 HARVEST TREATMENT, FUELS TREATMENT

ALT. 1 

NO 

ACTION 

ACRES

ALT. 2 

ACRES

ALT. 3 

ACRES

Handpile/Burn

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 

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 acres proposed for burning in designated IRAs 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
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

35

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 (IRA) 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 Areas and on 664 acres (about 3.8 percent) within the Lincoln Gulch 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. To help facilitate management, outside of these IRAs approximately 

2.6 miles of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal.

Figure 15 displays the proposed action with INFISH buffers. This alternative represents the 

proposed action from scoping. Mapping corrections resulted in slight adjustments in acre and 

mile figures from scoping. Project design features are displayed in table 9. 

Treatment Descriptions

This section explains the treatments proposed for alternative 2 – proposed action by groups. See 

Figure 14 for a visual display.

Group 1. This group includes 18 treatment units comprising about 974 acres. Treatment 

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

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

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

trees except that thinning regimes would favor retaining smaller trees of a more desirable species 

over larger trees of a less desirable species, and would favor keeping smaller, healthier and 

disease-free trees over larger, diseased trees. In general, the species preference for retention 

would be aspen, western larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, 

and subalpine fir in descending order. This general order of preference may be modified for 

individual stands to address management objectives such as retaining species diversity, site 

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

stand/unit prescriptions. 

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

vary widely. Thinning would be by hand or machine. 

All cut, live trees of a merchantable size would be removed for utilization. All merchantable 

dead trees would be removed, except those needed to meet other resource concerns (e.g., snag 

and downed large woody debris requirements). 

Following thinning and removal, units would be underburned or jackpot burned to reduce fuels. 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Statement

36 

Group 2. This group includes 25 treatment units comprising about 1,132 acres. Treatments 

would thin small-diameter trees of little to no merchantable value. The thinning regime would 

generally be as described above for Group 1, except that post-thinning average tree spacing 

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

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

Group 3. This group includes 19 treatment units comprising about 745 acres. Treatments 

proposed are seedtree and shelterwood harvest/regeneration systems (appendix B). Most trees, 

except as needed for shelter and seed production would be removed. In some of the shelterwood 

treatments, trees would be retained in groups; in others the remaining trees would be relatively 

evenly distributed. All cut, live trees of a merchantable size would be removed for utilization. All 

merchantable dead trees would be removed, except those needed to meet other resource concerns

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

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

planted with some combination of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch where needed 

to regenerate the stands to the desired seral and fire-resistant species.

Group 4. This group includes 11 treatment units comprising about 223 acres. Treatments 

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

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

or western larch. Remaining live and dead merchantable trees would be removed for utilization, 

except for those identified for other resource needs. Following cutting and removal, units would 

be prescribe burned, the type of burn varying by individual unit fuels reduction and site 

preparation treatment need. Natural regeneration by Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine is expected 

to occur to some degree and Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch may be planted, the 

mixture differing by individual unit. 

Group 5. This group includes two treatment units comprising about 25 acres. The treatments 

would remove dead and dying trees, slash non-commercial-sized trees, and reduce fuels by 

handpiling and burning. All cut merchantable trees would be removed for utilization using 

ground-based equipment except as needed to meet other resource concerns.

Group 6. This group includes three treatment units comprising about 449 acres. The treatments 

would cut small trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to lowintensity prescribed burning. The prescribed burning would create openings less than 5 or 10 

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

cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, and preparing sites for natural regeneration.

Group 7. This group includes three treatment units comprising about 410 acres. The treatments 

would cut small trees on portions of the treatment areas to create fuelbeds conducive to lowintensity prescribed burning. Where the opportunity exists, small trees would be cut to create 

small openings around available whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir

trees to enhance the regeneration of those species. Units would be prescribe burned to reduce 

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

The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 5, 10, or 20 acres depending upon the 

treatment unit.
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

37

Group 8. This group 

includes seven

treatment units 

comprising about 4,604 

acres. The treatments 

would cut small trees 

on portions of 

treatment areas to 

create fuelbeds 

conducive to lowintensity prescribed 

burning. Where 

opportunity exists, 

small trees would be 

cut to create small 

openings around 

available whitebark 

pine, ponderosa pine, 

western larch, and 

Douglas-fir to enhance 

regeneration of those species. 

 Figure 12. View looking towards units 88 and 84 proposed for group 8 treatment

Units would be prescribe burned to reduce fuels, cause additional mortality of undesirable trees, 

and prepare sites for natural regeneration. The treatments would create patches of mortality up to 

30 or 75 acres depending upon the treatment unit. 

Aspen is in a number of units proposed for treatment. The aspen can be considered seral to either 

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

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

substantial, although still minor, portion of the stocking, for example Unit 3. Comments 

concerning the aspen in unit exams range from “suppressed in the understory” to “vigorous in 

the overstory, but proportionally not much suckering.” In general, we can characterize aspen in 

proposed units and the project area as (1) small clones, (2) heavily competing with—to 

suppressed by— conifers, and (3) a minor stand component (with a few exceptions). 

Whitebark pine can be found in several units from Group 6, 7, and 8. In general, the whitebark 

pine in the project area is considered highly infected by white pine blister rust, and can be 

considered seral to subalpine fir. On sites where it is a seral species in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains, whitebark pine depends upon fire to maintain its dominance or presence (Arno 2001, 

Keane 2001, Kendall and Keane 2001, Morgan and Murray 2001). In the absence of fire, 

subalpine fir has increased in presence, and the combination of increased subalpine fir and 

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

pine beetle have resulted in a decline in whitebark pin. 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Statement

38 

This page left blank intentionally
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

39

Figure 13. Alternative 2 – proposed action treatments
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Statement

40 

This page left blank intentionally 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

41

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 Areas 

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 Areas. The Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless 

Areas would not be treated. To help facilitate management, outside the IRAs approximately 0.4 

mile of road would be built then obliterated immediately following timber removal. 

Figure 16 displays alternative 3 treatment units with INFISH buffers. Project design features are 

listed in table 9. 

Treatment Descriptions

Groups 1-8. Under Alternative 3, treatments for units in Groups 1-8 would be the same as 

discussed above under Alternative 2. The treated areas would change from that discussed in 

Alternative 2 because under Alternative 3 several units are not proposed for treatment and 12 

units are proposed for treatment under new groups—Groups 9 and 10. Treatment acreages for 

alternatives 2 and 3 are displayed in table 8. 

Group 9. Under alternative 3, about 1,040 acres would be treated with a low-intensity and lowseverity prescribed burn (underburn). The purposes of the underburn would be to reduce surface 

and ladder fuels (small trees) and so modify future fire behavior while minimizing impacts to 

stand overstory and mid-story stocking from the prescribed burn. 

Group 10. This group includes units 46a and 47a. Treatments would be designed in a mosaic 

pattern to maintain cover and forage for wildlife while promoting ponderosa pine and aspen, and 

reducing ladder fuels. Portions of the stands would be thinned to (1) reduce understory 

competition from around large ponderosa pine trees, (2) thin heavily-stocked groups of trees on 

sites historically dominated by ponderosa pine, and (3) remove conifer competition from within 

and around quaking aspen. Treatment guidelines are as follows:

Reduce understory competition around large ponderosa pine, move areas toward or maintain 

multi-storied ponderosa pine structure, within 50 feet of ponderosa pine trees larger than 17 

inches d.b.h. remove all but two trees. Retained trees should be varied size and age classes.

In areas dominated by ponderosa pine, but lacking live trees greater than 17 inches d.b.h., 

trees would be thinned to 48 to 109 trees per acre depending upon tree size. 

Ponderosa pine snags greater than 17 inches d.b.h. would be favored for retention to meet 

Forest Plan direction for snags. 

Conifers less than 17 inches d.b.h. would be removed up to 100 feet of existing aspen 

patches. 

Post-thinning, slash would be jackpot burned or hand-piled and burned to reduce fuels. 

Treatments would affect up to 50 percent of these units. 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Statement

42 

This page left blank intentionally
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

43

Figure 14. Alternative 3 treatments
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44

This page left blank intentionally
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

45

Project Design Features, Best Management Practices and Mitigation 

for the Action Alternatives

The Forest Service developed the following mitigation measures and project design features that 

apply to all of the action alternatives. 

Table 9. Project design features, best management practices and mitigation

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

AIR- Air Quality Design Feature

AIR-1 

All prescribed burning would be implemented in full 

compliance with the Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) air program with 

coordination through the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 

and reported to the Airshed Coordinator during active 

burning periods. 

All alternatives, all burn units

AIR-2 

Burning would be dependent upon site conditions and 

weather conditions. Notice of the pile and prescribed 

burning timeframes, or burn windows, would be shared 

with the public through paper notices and announcements 

on the Forest website. 

All alternatives, all burn units

ARCH- Archaeology Quality Design Feature

ARCH-1 

Create a 30-meter buffer (approximately 100 feet) around 

known sites with flagging tape for avoidance. No 

mechanical thinning within buffered boundaries. 

Directionally fell trees away from sites. Do not pile burn on 

sites. Hand control line as necessary to prevent burning 

over sites.

All alternatives, affected units 

ARCH-2 

If any additional cultural resources are discovered during 

implementation of this project, work should cease in the 

area and a Forest Archaeologist would be contacted. 

Work in the area could only resume if mitigation measures 

can be determined and/or re-evaluated if necessary.

All alternatives, all units

BOT- Botany Design Feature

BOT-1 

If sensitive plant populations are located within the project 

area appropriate mitigation (e.g., site avoidance, avoid 

concentration of fuels on sites to be burned) would be 

followed upon consultation with a Forest Service botanist.

All alternatives, all units 

FUEL- Fire Fuels Design Feature

FUEL-1 

Prior to burning slash piles, logging areas may be open to 

public firewood gathering after the sale is closed, if wood 

is available. Other resource values, such as wildlife 

snags, down logs, and soils, would be protected. Notify 

the public of firewood opportunities after timber removal 

activities are completed.

Harvest units along existing 

open roads, all alternatives

FUEL-2 

Prescribed burning control lines would be constructed as 

needed for holding actions and/or to protect resource area 

concerns. This includes black line, fireline, pruning, saw 

line and hose lays. Existing roads, trails, creek drainages, 

wet meadows, rocky outcrops and other natural barriers 

would be used as control lines where possible.

All burn units, all alternatives

FUEL-3 

Obliterate the appearance of fire lines and skid trails 

adjacent to or that intersect existing roads and trails to 

reduce the potential for unauthorized motorized use.

All alternatives, all burn units
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

FUEL-4 

All burning would take place under the guidelines set forth 

in a prescribed fire burn plan developed specifically for 

this project area. Prescribed burn plans address 

parameters for weather, air quality, and contingency 

resources. 

All alternatives, all burn units

FUEL-5 

Hand piling and pile burning of natural and activity fuels 

may occur in portions of units adjacent to private land to 

reduce fuel loading levels prior to jackpot and 

underburning.

Alternative 2 units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 47, 49, 51, 73;

Alternative 3 units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 47a, 47c, 51, 

73

FUEL-6 Reduce fuel loading of CWD to approximately 10 

tons/acre, where possible.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Units: 76, 88.

FUEL-7 Reduce fuel loading of CWD to 10-15 tons/acre Alternatives 2 and 3 unit: 78.

FUEL-8 Slash understory fuels using chainsaws where needed to 

create burnable fuel bed.

Alternative 2 units: 76, 77, 78, 

79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

87, 88;

Alternative 3 units: 78, 80, 81, 

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

NOX- Noxious Weed Design Feature

NOX-1 

Incorporate all relevant guidance from FSM 2081.2 and 

the Environmental Protection Measures from the Helena 

National Forest Weed FEIS Record of Decision. 

All alternatives, all units 

NOX-2 

All landings, skid trails or other activity areas ( e.g., hand 

lines, control lines, burn piles) that have over 30 percent 

ground cover removal/soil surface disturbance due to the 

activity would be recontoured and seeded with a 

prescribed native seed mixture as soon as appropriate 

following the cessation of activities. Where slopes are 

under 15 percent, surfaces would be left rough to provide 

microtopography for seed and water catchment. Woody 

debris would be spread on the surface at a rate of 1 to 5 

tons per acre in these areas to provide site stability as 

well as additional microsites. Where slopes are over 15 to 

20 percent, surfaces would be left rough to provide 

microtopography for seed and water catchment. Woody 

debris would be spread on the surface at a rate of 5 to 10 

tons per acre in these areas to provide site stability as 

well as additional microsites.

Timber harvest units in 

Alternative 2 units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 

29, 47, 49, 51, 73;

Alternative 3 units: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 

29, 47a, 47c, 51, 73 

NOX-3 

Recommended certified weed seed free native seed 

mixtures are located in Appendix F of the Helena National 

Forest Plan.

Units with underburning for 

restoration would not be 

seeded

NOX-4 

Where feasible for restoration of disturbed ground (e.g., 

hand lines, control lines, burn piles), cover bare soils with 

a thin layer of duff from adjacent sites, if available. It is 

important to leave some duff on adjacent sites where 

cover material is collected.

In units identified for pile 

burning throughout the unit: 

Alternative 2 units: 3, 4, 9, 14, 

18, 21, 29;

Alternative 3 units: 3, 9, 14, 18, 

21, 29

In addition, this applies to 

portions of the following units 

where pile burning is proposed 

along the Forest boundary:

Alternative 2 units: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 10, 11, 12, 47, 49, 51, 73;
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

47

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 3 units: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 10, 11, 12, 47a, 47c, 51, 73

NOX-5 

Only herbicides approved for use under the Helena 

National Forest Noxious Weed Record of Decision (2006) 

would be applied. All herbicides would be applied in 

accordance with label restrictions under that decision.

All alternatives, all units

NOX-6 

The portions of the haul route that require road work (e.g., 

reconditioning, maintenance, construction) prior to haul 

should be treated with herbicides prior to the 

reconditioning early in the growing season to prevent 

seed set, and again in the fall following reconditioning to 

limit the effect of the ground disturbance.

Roads proposed for work, all 

alternatives 

NOX-7 

A 100-foot buffer around any sensitive plant species 

would be required when herbicides are applied. Within 

this buffer only hand pulling of weeds would be allowed, 

(Environmental Protection Measure #22 from the Helena 

National Forest Noxious Weed FEIS and Record of 

Decision 2006).

All alternatives, all units

RNG- Range Design Feature

RNG-1 Protect existing livestock management fencing, or repair if 

damaged during operations. All alternatives, where needed.

RNG-2 Fencing, temporary herding, or other techniques may be 

used to protect conifer regeneration where needed. All alternatives, where needed.

RNG-3 

Fence construction may be needed along allotment 

boundaries that would have natural barriers removed due 

to the project. This would primarily be of concern along 

the Stonewall allotment boundary on the west and east 

boundaries. Design all improvements for livestock 

management, such as fencing and water developments, 

in cooperation with a wildlife biologist.

All alternatives, where needed

REC- Recreation and Roadless Design Feature

REC-1 

No project activities would occur the week prior to, or 

during the first 2 weeks of the General Big Game Hunting 

rifle season or on weekends for the remainder of the 

General Big Game Hunting season. 

All alternatives, all units 

REC-2 No hauling on weekends and major holidays to minimize 

conflicts with the public users All alternatives, all units

REC-3 

Coordinate project implementation with recreation staff, 

Forest Public Affairs Officer and Law Enforcement to 

ensure the public is well informed of treatment schedules 

and potential impacts. Provide public notifications at of 

project activities (e.g., logging, hauling, prescribed 

burning) at major access roads, in local newspapers and 

on the Forest webpage. 

All alternatives, all units

REC-4 

Work with local snowmobile groups and Forest Service 

biologist to identify alternative groomed snowmobile 

routes where winter operations are considered. 

Snowmobile trails are groomed from December 1 through 

April 1.

(Note: Alternative routes may be a groomed path along 

the side of a haul route that would be safe for 

snowmobiles, or allowing the user group to groom an 

approved "detour" type route along existing roads to 

provide trail connections or loop riding opportunities that 

All alternatives
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

may have otherwise been impacted by hauling activity.)

REC-5 

Prioritize treatments adjacent to the Pine Grove 

Dispersed Camping Area/Trailhead and Arrastra Creek 

trailhead to limit the amount of time these areas may be 

closed to the public.

All alternatives, unit: 46

REC-6 

Protect recreation facilities including: picnic tables, firerings, toilets, signs, bulletin boards, hand pumps, fences, 

etc.

All alternatives, unit: 46

REC-7 

Cut stumps as flush as possible to the ground within the 

Pine Grove Dispersed Camping Area/Trailhead and 

Arrastra Creek trailhead area.

All alternatives, unit: 46

REC-8 

Within the Pine Grove Dispersed Camping Area/Trailhead 

and Arrastra Creek trailhead areas, leave 10 to 12 tons 

per acre of coarse woody material (greater than 3 inches 

diameter) from harvest activities.

All alternatives, units: 46

RDS- Roads Design Feature

RDS-1 

Roads would be maintained in accordance with direction 

provided in FSH 7709.15 (Transportation System 

Maintenance Handbook) and would be at a level 

commensurate with the need for the following operational 

objectives; resource protection, road investment 

protection, user safety, user comfort, and travel efficiency.

Roads proposed for work

RDS-2 

Remove danger trees, approximately one and a half tree

lengths from the roadway, as needed, along roads used 

for hauling and project implementation.

Roads proposed for work

RDS-3 

Roads that would be built then obliterated immediately 

following timber removal and road reconstruction would

be the minimum density, cost, and standard necessary for 

the intended need, user safety, and resource protection.

Roads proposed for work

RDS-4 

Roads built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal would be closed (e.g., gates, barricades) during 

operations to limit use to administrative use only. 

Roads proposed for work

RDS-5 

Upon project completion roads built then obliterated 

immediately following timber removal would be 

decommissioned and rehabilitated. Intersections with 

roads would be blocked by rocks, wood, or berms and 

would be slashed in and or ripped and covered with slash 

or seeded within site distance of open roads to reduce 

potential for use after the project harvest activities are 

completed.

Roads proposed for work

RDS-6 

Provide warning and other signing in accordance with 

Forest Service signing standards and restrict or 

temporarily close roads in active project areas to provide 

for public safety.

Roads proposed for work

RDS-7 

A wetting agent (water or other dust-reduction material) 

would be applied as needed to decrease or eliminate dust 

generated from timber hauling on aggregate and native 

surface roads to provide for air quality and public safety.

Roads proposed for work.

RDS-8 

Road design would be addressed in clauses in the 

contract package. At a minimum, the following items 

would be included in the design considerations: location, 

width, drainage, stream crossings, closures, 

decommissioning and rehabilitation.

All units, all alternatives
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

49

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

RDS-9 Existing open routes would be left in similar condition and 

drainage structures shall be left in functional condition. 

Roads proposed for use, all 

alternatives.

RDS-10

For roads built then obliterated immediately following 

timber removal that cross a drainage, associated 

temporary structures, and fills shall also be removed to 

the extent necessary to permit normal maximum flow of 

water and stream crossings restored to their original 

dimensions and contours.

Alternative 2 and 3, road #5 

between units 10 and 11 

SILV Silviculture Design Feature

SILV-1 

Conifers suppressing aspen clones would be thinned from 

within and around suppressed aspen. Cut-tree diameter 

limits and cutting distance from aspen would be 

established and defined in stand and unit prescriptions. 

However in general, conifers would be cut up to 18 inches 

d.b.h. in units where commercial-sized trees are proposed 

for removal, and up to 9 inches d.b.h. in units where 

precommercial-sized trees are proposed for cutting, up to 

a distance of about 120 feet from the outside edge of the 

aspen clone

Alternatives 2 and 3 units: 

14,15,16,18,21,23,24,26,

28,3,30,31,32,33,4,44,45,

48,47,48,49,50,51,54,55,59,

6,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,

69,7,70,71,72,73,75,

46b,47b,47c,61a 

SILV-2 

Assess low- and mixed-severity prescribed burning units 

containing groups or stands of whitebark pine to 

determine if areas need pre-burn treatments to protect 

whitebark pine from damage during burning, and to create 

openings to serve as nutcracker caching sites. If needed, 

pre-burn treatments should take place a year prior to the 

proposed landscape burning. The pre-burn treatments 

could include cutting and directional felling of conifer trees 

to increase fuel loadings, improve continuity of the 

fuelbed, and reduce fuel loads around whitebark pine 

trees. Treatment areas around mature whitebark pine 

trees designed to serve as nutcracker caching sites 

should be cut near-circular areas of 1 to 5 acres. 

Alternative 2 units: 

76,79,81,82,83,84,88

Alternative 3 units:

79,82,83,84,88

SILV-3 

Where the opportunity exists in prescribed burning units 

where pre-burning tree cutting is proposed, thinned areas 

should be located around large ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, western larch and aspen to protect the trees and to 

promote the regeneration of those species.

Alternatives 2 and 3 units: 

76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,

85,86,87,88, 80a 

SILV-4 All merchantable dead trees would be removed except as 

needed to meet other resource criteria.

Alternatives 2 and 3 units: 4, 5, 

and all regeneration and 

commercial thinning units.

S/WS/F- Soils, Watershed and Fisheries Design Feature

S/WS/F-1 

Maintain adequate soil cover following management 

treatments to reduce the risk of erosion. As a rough rule 

of thumb, at least 50 percent soil cover should be 

maintained on slopes less than 35 percent, and greater 

soil cover should be maintained on steeper slopes. Soil

cover includes vegetation, plant litter and duff, rocks 

(greater than 2 inch diameter), and woody material. 

All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-2 

Conduct vegetation management activities using partial or 

full-suspension yarding methods (i.e. skyline cable 

yarding)

All skyline Units:
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

S/WS/F-3 

For vegetation management activities in forested 

ecosystems, retain 5 to 20 tons per acre of coarse woody 

material (greater than 3-inch diameter) for warm, dry 

types, and 10 to 20 tons per acre for other types following 

vegetation treatments (Graham et al. 1994; Brown et al. 

2003). The purpose of this BMP is to sustain long-term 

soil nutrient cycling>

5-20 tons per acre coarse 

woody material: Alternative 2

units: 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, 26, 30-33, 

44, 50, 54, 55, 73, 75, 76, 78, 

80, 81, 84-86;

Alternative 3 units: 2, 6, 7, 15, 

16, 30a, 31a, 32a, 44a, 50, 73, 

75b, 78, 84, 85

(Balance of units 10-20 tons 

per acre coarse woody 

material)

S/WS/F-4 

Re-use existing skid trails where practical. Before use, 

skid trail locations would be approved by Forest Service 

personnel.

All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-5 

Where operations are restricted to the winter conditions, 

winter conditions guidelines are as follows:

0 inches of frozen soil−Need 10 inches of settled snow

2 inches of frozen soil−Need 6 inches of settled snow

4 inches of frozen soil−No snow cover 

If necessary, pre-pack snow on designated routes before 

work commences. This allows soil to freeze and the snow 

road to solidify. 

Alternative 2 Units: 1, 4, 5, 9-

13, 17, 19, 20, 28, 29, 43, 45-

47, 57, 58, 62, 63

Alternative 3 Units: 1, 4, 5, 9-

13, 43, 46b, 47b, 47c, 57, 58, 

62, 63 

S/WS/F-6 

For prescribed fire management activities in the timber 

removal treatment areas, design burn prescriptions to 

burn when the forest floor is moist.

Note: Proposed prescribed burns are designed to 

maintain some duff on the forest floor.

All alternatives

S/WS/F-7 

Harvesting and skidding operations would be limited to 

time periods when dry soil conditions exist (summer 

operating period).

All units NOT treated in the 

winter

S/WS/F-8 Skid trails would be designated with an average spacing 

of 100 feet. All tractor treated units

S/WS/F-9 

Following harvesting and skidding operations that result in 

the removal or displacement of litter, duff, soil, or coarse 

woody debris from the skid trail surface, the following 

activities would be conducted:

Litter, duff, soil, and woody debris displaced from the trail 

would be placed on the skid trail.

Slash and coarse woody debris that is placed on the skid 

trail would be compacted so that it is in contact with the 

soil surface.

Slash placed on skid trails would be placed over 65-70% 

of the skid trail surface to a depth of 2-3 inches 

(approximately 22-25 tons/acre).

Units requiring restoration: 

Alternative 2 Units: 1, 11-13, 

29, 43, 46, 47; 

Alternative 3 Units: 1, 11-13, 

43, 46b, 47b, 47c

S/WS/F-10

Landings would be de-compacted and/or scarified as part 

of site preparation.

Mulch and fine debris from on-site would be spread over 

the landing.

Grass or trees would be seeded or planted on the 

disturbed site.

Slash would be placed over 65-70% of the landing 

surface to a depth of 2-3 inches (approximately 22-25 

tons/acre).

Units requiring restoration: 

Alternative 2 Units: 1, 11-13, 

29, 38, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47; 

Alternative 3 Units: 1, 11-13, 

38, 40, 42, 43, 46b, 47b, 47c
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

51

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

Slash would be compacted so that it is in direct contract 

with the soil surface.

S/WS/F-11

Where practicable, slash would be piled and burned in 

areas where detrimental soil disturbance already exists 

(i.e., abandoned log landings, skid trails, and roads 

associated with past activity). 

Handpiles would be constructed so they are no larger 

than approximately 6 feet in diameter and 4 feet high. 

Prior to hand piling, slash would be left through one winter 

after cutting to allow for initial decomposition and nutrient 

leaching. 

(Exception: units adjacent to private land or those 

identified in the silviculture prescription with insect 

concerns may be piled and burned as soon as possible to 

reduce fire hazard.)

Units requiring restoration: 

Alternative 2: 14, 29 51; 

Alternative 3: 14, 51

S/WS/F-12

Where practical, burn piles would be covered with on-site 

mulch, fine debris, and slash. Burn piles would be seeded 

or planted with the appropriate grass or tree species.

Units requiring restoration: 

Alternative 2: 14, 29 51; 

Alternative 3: 14, 51

S/WS/F-13

In skyline corridors, place on-site mulch, fine debris and 

slash. Also seed or plant with the appropriate grass or 

tree species.

Units requiring restoration: 

Alternative 2: 15, 53; 

Alternative 3: 15, 53

S/WS/F-14 Precommercial thin (PCT) units would be hand thinned. 

Alternative 2: 2, 3, 14, 16, 18, 

21, 48-51, 59-61, 64-73, 75-88 

Alternative 3: 2, 3 14, 16, 17a, 

19a, 20a, 29a, 30a, 31a, 32a, 

44a, 45a, 46a, 47a, 48, 50, 51, 

59, 61a, 66-73, 75b, 78, 79, 

80a, 82-85, 87, 88

S/WS/F -15

Installation, removal or replacement of culverts would be 

restricted to periods when stream channels are dry or 

would be avoided from May 1 to August 1 to reduce the 

risk of affecting cutthroat trout eggs in stream gravels. 

As needed

S/WS/F -16

INFISH (USDA 1995) Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas (RHCAs) would be marked in the locations where 

dead tree removal is to occur between the road and the 

stream. A clear means of identifying trees that are to be 

cut and removed, cut and left in place, or left standing 

would need to be recognized. As provided for with INFISH 

(USDA 1995) standard RA-2, dead trees cut that are not 

needed for woody debris recruitment or floodplain needs, 

can be removed. Green commercial trees within the 

RHCA that have not been attacked by beetles and are not 

otherwise at risk of dying in the immediate future would

remain. Avoid locating log landings in RHCAs.

See Figure 15, RHCA map

with INFISH buffers 

S/WS/F -17

Additional areas requiring INFISH buffers are likely to be 

found during vegetation unit layout that are not currently 

identified on project area maps. These areas would be 

identified during implementation and the appropriate 

buffers and mitigations applied to them to meet INFISH 

(USDA 1995) and Helena Forest Plan standards.

RHCA boundaries

-Category 1--Fish bearing streams have a RHCA width of 

300 feet either side of the stream or the 100-year 

floodplain whichever is greater. 

See Figure 15, RHCA map

with INFISH buffers
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

-Category 2--For perennial streams not supporting fish,

the RHCA is 150 feet either side of the stream.

-Category 3-- For lakes and wetlands greater than one 

acre, the RHCA is a minimum of 150 feet but can be 

larger and extend to the outer limits of riparian vegetation, 

the extent of seasonally saturated soil, the extent of highly 

unstable areas, or the distance equal to the height of one 

site-potential tree.

-Category 4--For Seasonally flowing or intermittent 

streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides and 

landslide prone areas, the RHCA boundary is one-half 

site potential tree from the edges of the stream channel, 

wetland, landslide, or landslide prone area, or a 50-foot 

slope distance, whichever is greatest.

The following documents the specific treatment of 

trees within INFISH Categories 1-4 RHCAs associated 

with streams.

Situations where dead or insect infested trees may be 

removed while still meeting INFISH standard RA-2.

If the tree is between the creek and the road, within a tree 

length of the road, leaning toward the road or standing 

straight, and is not within a tree length of the creek and 

does not fall into what is considered a wider floodplain 

category (the situation where side channel development is 

possible) then the tree may be felled and removed 

If the tree is between the creek and the road, within a tree 

length of the road, not within a tree length of the creek, is 

on a bench elevated above the floodplain, and is standing 

either straight or leaning toward the road the tree can be 

removed.

Salvage trees within the RHCA can be removed in the 

situation where the road is between the creek and the 

tree, as these trees are not potential contributors to large 

woody debris or stream channel form and function. The 

exception would be when the road is immediately 

adjacent to the stream. In this situation, the tree can be 

removed if the portion of the tree bole exceeding four 

inches would not span the stream should the tree fall 

toward the creek.

For the separate situation where the road parallels a 

stream and then crosses a tributary to the stream, the 

salvage trees on the uphill side of the road, including 

those within a tree length of the tributary, can be cut and 

removed unless leaning directly toward the tributary. 

Precommercial thinning of green trees is allowed with 

hand treatment. 

Prescribed burning is allowed as long as it meets state 

SMZ rules.

S/WS/F -18

The State of Montana Stream Management Zone (SMZ) 

Law (2007) prohibits broadcast burning in SMZs (see 

Rule 3 (26.6.603), specific to prescribed burning). During 

broadcast or underburning, no ignition would take place in 

an SMZ; however, some fire may back into the SMZ.

SMZ portions of units 

S/WS/F-19 Follow all standard Forest Service timber contract road 

Best Management Practices. All cross drain culverts on All alternatives, all units
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

53

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

existing roads to be used for hauling in the project area 

would need to brought up to standard for functionality. 

Follow all applicable road and harvest BMPs listed in the 

FS Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook 

(USDA 2010) 

S/WS/F-20 Avoid hauling and other heavy-equipment traffic during 

conditions where the road surface is at or near saturation. All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-21

Avoid snowplowing on any road adjacent to a stream as 

much as possible. At stream crossings, avoid sidecasting 

of snow into the stream. Leave drainage points in the 

snow berm to avoid concentration of snowmelt on the 

road surface.

Identify specific sections of 

road 

S/WS/F-22 Avoid use of heavy equipment in any wetland identified 

during unit layout. All alternatives, all units 

S/WS/F-23 Minimize cleaning of vegetated roadside ditches that are 

providing adequate road drainage. All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-24

Areas cleared of vegetation such as landings or road side 

drainage ditches would be seeded with an approved 

native seed mix.

All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-25

Erosion control and drainage improvement BMPs would

be used to reduce sediment at stream crossings. 

Sediment filtering devices (e.g., filter fence and weed-free 

straw bales) would be used as needed to limit erosion and 

delivery of disturbed material into all streams or 

ephemeral drainages.

All alternatives, all units

S/WS/F-26

Sediment sites 607-E-01on Stonewall Creek and 626-B1-

01 on a tributary to Lincoln Creek would have sedimentfiltering devices installed combined with gravel surfacing 

to reduce erosion.

Alternatives 2 and 3

VIS- Visual Design Feature

Intermediate and Regeneration Harvest and 

Precommercial Thin

VIS-1 

Along roadways boundaries and private property, vary 

unit sizes, widths, shapes and distance from the center 

line. 

Consider leaving single trees and/or groups of trees to 

visually connect with the unit's edges.

Utilize natural breaks in topography and vegetation type 

to delineate treatment edges. 

Edges would be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a 

shadowing or edge effect in the cut unit. 

Where the unit is adjacent to denser forest including 

private land, the percent of thinning within the transition 

zone would be progressively reduced toward the outside 

edge of the unit. In addition, vary the width of the 

transition zone. 

Where the unit interfaces with an opening, the percent of 

thinning within the transition zone would be progressively 

increased toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, 

vary the width of the transition zone. 

Soften edges by thinning adjacent to existing unit 

boundaries, removing larger trees and favoring smaller 

ones, where applicable. This would reduce a vertical wall 

or edge effect. 

Alternative 2 - 1, 10, 13, 17, 

20, 39, 40, 41, 46 

Alternative 3 - 1, 10, 13, 17a, 

20a, 39, 40, 41, 46a, 46b
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

Road, Skid Trail, and Landing Construction

VIS-2 

Where feasible, locate and orient roads to minimize cut 

and fill. 

Cut and fill banks would be sloped to accommodate 

natural revegetation. 

Cut and fill slopes would be revegetated with native 

species where ever possible.

All alternatives, all roads built 

then obliterated 

VIS-3 

Side cast topsoil during the construction of roads built 

then obliterated immediately following timber removal, to 

use topsoil for obliteration and recontouring. 

All alternatives, all roads built 

then obliterated 

VIS-4 

Where roads built then obliterated immediately following 

timber removal and skid trails meet a primary travel route, 

they should intersect at a right angle and, where feasible, 

curve after the junction to minimize the length of route 

seen from the primary travel route.

Alternative 2 - 13 and 46

Alternative 3 -13, 46a, 46b

VIS-5 

Where feasible, retain screening trees one tree-height 

below roads and landings (including cable landings) when 

viewed from below. Avoid creating a straight edge of trees 

by saving clumps of trees and single trees with varied 

spacing.

All alternatives, all roads built 

then obliterated, all landings 

VIS-6 

When viewed from above, retain, screening trees one 

tree-height above roads and landings and/or prescribe a 

higher leave basal area. Avoid creating a straight edge of 

trees by saving clumps of trees and single trees with 

varied spacing.

All alternatives, all roads built 

then obliterated, all landings 

VIS-7 Log landings, roads, and bladed skid trails should be 

minimized within sensitive view sheds.

Alternative 2 - 1, 13, and 46

Alternative 3 – 1, 13, 46a, 46b

Slash Treatment 

VIS-8 

In sensitive foreground areas, stumps should be cut to 8 

inches or less in height, where possible. Slant stumps 

away from visually sensitive areas (travel routes, use 

areas, and water bodies, where possible 

Alternative 2 - 2, 13, 46, 73, 

76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 87, 88

Alternative 3 – 2, 13, 46a, 46b, 

73, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 

88

VIS-9 

All burn piles would be completely burned, or residual 

burnt material would be scattered within sensitive 

viewsheds.

Alternative 2 - 1, 13, and 46

Alternative 3 – 1, 13, 46a, 46b

Unit Marking

VIS-10

Use cut tree (as opposed to leave tree) marking or 

species designation, where appropriate to minimize the 

amount of marking in visually sensitive areas.

Alternative 2 - 1, 13, 16, 17, 46 

Alternative 3 - 1, 13, 16, 17a, 

46a, 46b 

VIS-11 Unit boundaries would be marked with water based paint. 

Alternative 2 - 1, 13, 16,17, 46 

Alternative 3 – 1, 13, 16, 17a, 

46a, 46b

VIS-12 Prescribed Fire 

See FUEL-2 

Alternative 2 – 46

Alternative 3 – 46a, 46b 

VIS-13

Tree Planting

Tree planting should be completed in an irregular pattern 

with clumping to mimic future islands similarly found in the 

characteristic landscape. 

All alternatives, all units 

WL- Wildlife Design Feature
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

55

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

WL-1 

Roads

Existing roads which are currently closed or restricted and 

utilized for this project would be retained in their preproject road status.

All alternatives

WL-2 

Roads

To retain habitat for snag dependent species and species 

dependent on large diameter trees, the location of roads 

to be built then obliterated immediately following timber 

removal, skid trails and cable corridors would ensure, 

whenever practical, that veteran and relic survivor trees 

and snags would not be removed during construction.

Alt 2 – Roads 3-9, Alt 3 – 

Roads 5, 7 and 8

WL-3 

Roads

To maintain habitat for snag-dependent species, the 

timber sale contract or contract administrator would 

ensure, whenever practical, that the design of skid trails 

and cable corridors avoid veteran and relic trees and 

snags

To be determined during 

implementation

WL-4 

Snags

The Forest Plan (1986) specifies that snags should be 

managed at 70 percent of optimum (2 snags/acre) within 

each 3rd-order drainage.

All alternatives, all units

WL-5 

Snags

Larch, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, spruce, and subalpine 

fir, in that priority, are the preferred species for snags and 

replacement trees (live trees left to replace existing 

snags).

All alternatives, all units

WL-6 

Snags

The following numbers and sizes of snags should be 

retained in cutting units if available.

In units with snags, keep a minimum of 20 snags and 10 

replacement trees per 10 acres, if available. If 20 snags 

are not available, then any combination totaling 30 should 

be left by the following d.b.h. classes.

13 snags and 6 replacement trees 7-11”

5 snags and 3 replacement trees 12-19”

2 snags and 1 replacement tree 20+”

In units – except those of pure lodgepole without snags, 

keep a minimum of 30 wind firm trees per 10 acres, if 

available, by the following d.b.h. classes:

21 trees from 7-11”

7 trees from 12-19”

2 trees from 20+”

In pure lodgepole stands without snags, all nonmerchantable material greater than 9 inches d.b.h. should 

be left on site, when it is consistent with fuel objectives.

All alternatives, all units 

WL-7 

Snags

In order to maintain habitat for snag-dependent species, 

leave refugia of untreated snag habitat (of several acres) 

well distributed throughout the project area.

All alternatives, all units

WL-8 

Woody 

Debris

Forest Plan wildlife coarse, woody debris objectives would 

be met through retention guidelines under S/WS/F-3. The 

following measure would be implemented to ensure larger 

diameter material is left on site: 

Where they are present on site, maintain at least 4 down 

logs per acre at least 12 inches diameter (at large end) 

and 20 feet long.

During burning, avoid the consumption of large coarse 

woody debris (e.g., logs greater than 10 inches in 

diameter at midpoint) to the extent possible. Where 

feasible and when consistent with fuel reduction 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to 

maintain pockets of understory vegetation and shrubs 

retained during timber harvest and small pockets of 

understory vegetation at scattered locations in unharvested burn units

WL-9 

Avoid harvest and road construction in and immediately 

adjacent to elk wallows, streams, wet meadows, rock 

outcrops, known raptor nest sites, and other key wildlife 

habitats.

WL-10

Elk 

Areas of elk calving activity would be closed to motorized 

use during peak use (Late May through July). These 

areas would be determined annually through coordination 

with the MFWP. 

All alternatives, all units

WL-11

Elk 

In order to minimize impacts to elk security, logging 

operations would be limited to one drainage at a time. All alternatives, all units

WL-12

Elk 

No timber harvest would occur within 150 ft. of any elk 

wallow identified during project layout. Also during 

prescribed burning, ignition would be implemented in a 

manner that would maintain cover within 150 ft. of 

identified wallows.

All alternatives, all units

WL-13

Aspen

Promote and protect existing aspen as needed during 

implementation. All alternatives, all units

WL-14 

Shrubs

In order to maintain a shrub component and where 

feasible and when consistent with fuel reduction 

objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to 

maintain 30 to 50 percent of existing shrubs in a patchy 

mosaic.

Alternatives 2 and 3, Unit 88

WL-15

Safety

Snags greater than 20 inches diameter of any species 

would be retained unless they pose a specific safety or 

operability concern 

All alternatives, all units

WL-16

Goshawk

Within active goshawk territories, maintain a 40-acre 

(minimum) no-activity buffer around known nests. Restrict 

ground-disturbing activities inside Post-fledgling Areas 

(420 acres) between April 15th and August 15th. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 units: 46

(46a,b), 47 (47a,b), 72, 80 and 

in units if any new nests are 

discovered

WL-17

Raptors

If raptor nests are identified during project 

implementation, a wildlife biologist would be contacted 

and appropriate buffers and Limiting Operating Periods 

established.

All alternatives, all units

WL-18

MIS

If nest sites for MIS and/or Migratory Birds are discovered 

during the layout or implementation of the proposed 

action, the wildlife biologist would be notified to determine 

appropriate protection measures. 

All alternatives, all units

WL-19

TES

If any threatened, endangered or sensitive species are 

located during project layout or implementation, a wildlife 

biologist would be notified. Management activities would 

be altered, if necessary, so that protection measures can 

be taken. 

All alternatives, all units

WL-20

Bald Eagle

Project prescribed burn plans would consider the Beaver 

Creek Eagle Nest as sensitive and ensure that smoke is 

adequately dispersed away from the nest during the 

nesting season (January 1 through July 15th).

All Alternatives all burning units

WL-21 Aircraft associated with proposed burning shall not be All Alternatives all burning units
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

57

DESIGN 

FEATURE

STONEWALL VEGETATION PROJECT DESIGN 

FEATURE

APPLICABLE 

UNIT/ALTERNATIVE

Bald Eagle permitted within 1,000 ft. of the Beaver Creek nest 

between January 1 and August 31.

WL-22

Lynx

Cutting of brush along low speed (closed) roads would be 

done to the minimum amount necessary to maintain 

public safety

All Alternatives all burning units

WL-23

Grizzly

Due to the importance of white bark pine regeneration to 

grizzly bear, existing white bark pine regeneration would

be retained to the extent possible during burning. Utilize 

modified unit boundaries, pre-treatment surveys, low 

intensity burns, or internal line construction to accomplish 

this. (See SILV-2 for additional whitebark pine measure), 

Alternative 2 units: 76, 77, 79, 

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88;

Alternative 3 units: 79, 80, 82, 

83, 84, 85, 87, 88

WL-24

Grizzly

In order to reduce impacts to Grizzly Bears, no 

mechanical treatment activities and hauling or prescribed 

burning would occur above 6,000 ft. elevation during the 

denning season (December 1 through March 31).

Alternative 2 Units: 37, 55, 56, 

76, 79, 81-85, 88

Alternative 3 Units: 37, 79, 82-

85

WL-25

To promote and maintain important habitat characteristics 

where treatments are proposed, treatments would be 

designed and laid out in coordination with a Forest 

Service wildlife biologist. 

Alternative 2 units: 40, 41, 42, 

43, 46, 47; 

Alternative 3 units: 40, 41, 42, 

43, 46a, 47a

WL-26

Stands classified as potential old growth - would be 

burned with a low-intensity prescribed burn to minimize 

mortality to trees greater than 19 inches DBH.

Alternative 2 unit 81

WL-27 Ignition patterns would be modified to minimize burning in 

areas classified as multiple-story lynx habitat.

Alternative 2 units 81, 82, 83, 

84, 88
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58

Figure 15. Proposed Action treatments with INFISH buffers 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

59

Figure 16. Alternative 3 treatments with INFISH buffers 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60

Monitoring

Noxious weed monitoring would consist of visually surveying all units that were previously 

infested. Areas that were not previously infested would be monitored for weeds by visually 

surveying the units in year one and year three following the disturbance and/or rehabilitation. If 

weed populations are found, those areas would be treated according to label guidelines and within 

the guidance provided in the HNF Weed Treatment Project FEIS (2006). 

If additional sensitive plant populations are found during implementation, those populations 

would be monitored to insure mitigation measures are effective.

All landings, skid trails or other areas of disturbance due to the logging activities that have over 

10 percent soil surface disturbance would be monitored for weed infestations each spring for 

three seasons following implementation. If any of the species on the Montana Noxious Weed list 

or County lists are located within the disturbed areas, the infestations would be treated using 

appropriate herbicides for three seasons following the harvest activity.

If it is determined that illegal off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is taking place in areas where 

treatments have occurred, steps should be taken to prohibit the use (i.e. signing, barrier 

installation, increased law enforcement).

Monitor National Forest System trail conditions following prescribed burning to determine if 

there is a need for increased trail maintenance for specific areas due to fallen trees or increased 

erosion. 

Monitor all cultural sites within the APE for effects associated with the selected actions, to ensure 

that the mitigation measures are implemented. If any additional cultural resources are discovered 

during implementation of this project, work should cease in the area and a Forest Archaeologist 

would be contacted. Work in the area could only resume if mitigation measures can be 

determined and/or re-evaluated if necessary.

Roadless Area monitoring would consist of visually surveying units treated with prescribed fire to 

determine if illegal off-highway vehicle use is taking place in treated areas. If monitoring reveals 

this is happening, steps would be taken to eliminate the use (i.e. signing, barrier installation, 

increased law enforcement).

The following road management monitoring recommendations are suggested for road facilities:

Complete the annual roads accomplishment report (RAR).

Roads within the project area should be surveyed as needed to comply with Forest 

Service-assigned road condition, survey requirements for deferred maintenance needs and 

real property inventory.

Best management practices (BMPs) evaluations should be performed periodically by the sale 

administrator. Best management practices evaluations should focus on effectiveness and on 

whether BMPs were applied.

The Southwestern Crown Collaborative (SWCC), one of the original 10 Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Projects (CFLR) selected for funding, has agreed to allocate 10 percent of 

the CFLR funds received to monitoring. The SWCC is in the process of developing a Long-term 

Monitoring Plan, which is still in draft. The role of the SWCC monitoring is to determine the 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

61

effects of forest restoration efforts with the goal of validating or improving restoration methods to 

achieve restoration objectives. Goals for ecological, social, and economic monitoring for the 

SWCC were articulated both within the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA) and the 

SWCC proposal. Five major goal areas for monitoring over the 10-year life of the project are: fire 

and fuel dynamics; biodiversity of plants and animals; soil and water; economic impacts; and 

social implications. 

Some of these monitoring efforts would likely occur in the Stonewall project; however, details of 

the SWCC’s specific monitoring plans in the Stonewall area have not been finalized.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

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

(See appendix A, table A-2 for specific comments pertaining to alternatives, by letter (L) and 

comment number (c) (denoted by L#, c#).) Some of these alternatives may have been outside the 

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

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized 

below. 

Maximize timber harvest and fuels reduction activities, particularly in the Wildland Urban 

Interface. (L1, c2) 

The wildland urban interface (WUI) was identified during development of the "Tri-County 

Regional Community Wildfire Protection Plan" (2005). The proposed action was designed to 

address fuels concerns on National Forest System lands adjacent to private lands. Treatments on 

private lands are outside the scope of our proposed action, but past, current and planned 

treatments are considered in the individual specialist's cumulative effects reports, where 

applicable.

We reviewed the project area to identify potential vegetative treatments based on site conditions.

This alternative would be similar to the proposed action, and is analyzed in detail. 

The roadless areas within the project area were created by the Rare 2 process identifying possible 

additions to the wilderness system. Management should reflect this quality. In addition, burning 

whitebark pine seedling and sapling areas, present in the roadless areas, could reduce white bark 

pine habitat, an important food source for grizzly bears. Consider an alternative that does not 

include prescribed burning in the roadless areas, but allows for the use of natural prescribed fire 

without mechanical treatments, including cutting trees and brush, in the roadless areas. (L5 c7; 

L48 c8) 

The large prescribed burn units in the roadless areas are proposed to improve the mix of 

vegetation composition and structure across the landscape making it more diverse, resilient, and 

sustainable to wildfire and insects. In particular, the burns in the roadless areas would be designed 

to encourage whitebark pine regeneration in proximity to existing mature whitebark pine trees. 

Portions of some units are lacking adequate ground fuels to carry fire across the desired burn unit 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62

locations. Without the prep work, burn prescriptions could not be implemented and fire lines 

could not be prepared.

For any action alternative, design features are incorporated to exclude large concentrations of 

whitebark pine regeneration from burning, and protect mature whitebark trees that may provide 

seed sources.

The no action alternative does not include slash treatments or prescribed burning in the roadless 

area but would address this issue. Implementing no management in these areas would allow the 

continuing trend regarding the reduction of whitebark pine and aspen. 

This alternative would not address the purpose and need to improve the mix of vegetation 

composition and structure, or modify fire behavior to create conditions that allow the 

reestablishment of fire as a natural process across the roadless area portions of the landscape. This 

alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

Burning activities proposed may char merchantable timber and decrease its value in areas 

managed for timber products. Consider an alternative that does not include prescribed burning in 

areas managed for timber products. Prescribed fire units in management areas T1-5 include all of 

units 2 and 78, and portions of units 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86 and 87. (L79, c2, c3)

The Forest Plan identifies prescribed burning as an appropriate tool for vegetation and fuels 

management (pages II/33 - 34), and the Forest Fire Management Plan direction in place at the 

time of implementation would be followed. The no-action alternative does not include controlled 

burning in areas managed for timber products. 

This alternative would not address the purpose and need to modify fire behavior to enhance 

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

process on the landscape. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

Proposed actions may disturb landscapes allowing existing weed populations to expand or 

allowing additional species to become established. Consider an alternative that eliminates units 

that have noxious weeds present on roads within units from fire management proposals. (L5 c2) 

The Forest Weeds FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2006) identified most of the roads in the project 

area for weed monitoring and treatment due to the presence of weeds. Appropriate preventive 

measures incorporated in the project design features include post treatment spraying of landings 

within the first year after mechanical treatment, and monitoring in the third and fifth years with 

retreatment if needed. 

The no action alternative addresses this suggestion and is analyzed. 

Eliminating units with noxious weeds would eliminate fire management treatments in all units in 

the WUI accessed by existing roads. Not treating areas within the WUI would not enhance 

community protection. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project of 

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

reestablishment of fire as a natural process on the landscape.

Eliminating the units within the WUI would not meet the purpose and need for the project of 

modifying fire behavior to enhance community protection. In addition, the appropriate project 

design and mitigation of relevant best management practices are incorporated in the action 

alternatives. Therefore, developing an alternative that eliminates units that have noxious weeds 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

63

present on the roads within them from fire management proposals is not necessary. This 

alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

Public comments noted the continued loss of motorized recreational opportunities as a primary 

concern. A recommendation was made to consider a Pro-Recreation Alternative that would 

address recreation opportunities and include the following characteristics (L26 c1, 2, 4): 

Dispersed camping within 300 feet of all existing routes 

Use of seasonal closures, where required, to protect the environment and wildlife with the 

intention of keeping routes open for the summer recreation season

All of the existing routes are needed as OHV routes due to the cumulative effects of all other 

closures

Additional OHV routes are needed to address the growing popularity of OHV recreation and 

the greater needs of the public for access and motorized recreation

Effects to recreation resources would be addressed in analysis and project design features would 

be included to minimize potential impacts to recreation opportunities within the project area.

Travel management is being evaluated in the current Blackfoot Travel Plan (Non-Winter) and the 

appropriate project design and mitigation of the relevant best management practices would be 

applied to any developed action alternative. Developing a Pro-recreation alternative with 

additional OHV routes was considered, but this would not address the purpose and need 

identified for this project for fuels reduction in the WUI or restoration across the landscape. 

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

Consider a watershed or ecosystem restoration alternative or incorporate restoration elements in 

the alternatives considered. (L53 c6, 10, 11) 

The Stone Dry Watershed Assessment (2009) was considered when developing the proposed 

action. The purpose and need includes a restoration element. The proposed action was designed to 

incorporate treatments that move the project area towards a more resilient forest to address 

restoration of vegetative composition and structural diversity elements. Effects to vegetation and 

watershed resources would be discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

Watershed restoration and reducing sedimentation is often focused on changes to roads, and 

includes fixing drainage structures, road design or decommissioning roads. Changes to existing 

road alignments and decommissioning existing roads are being evaluated in the current analysis 

for the Blackfoot Travel Management Plan (Non-Winter) and therefore not being considered in 

this proposal. Roads built for the Stonewall Vegetation Project would be obliterated immediately 

after timber removal.

Since many of the watershed elements of concern are being evaluated in the current Blackfoot 

Travel Plan (Non-Winter), and the appropriate project design and mitigation of relevant best 

management practices would be applied to any developed action alternative, a true or purer 

watershed restoration type alternative is not necessary; therefore, this type of alternative was not 

considered in detail. 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64

Comparison of Alternative Effects 

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

section displays a summary of effects to biophysical settings, species habitats and analysis issues

in the Stonewall Vegetation Project area by 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 

comparison 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 comparison 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 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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

65

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 comparison 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 evenaged, 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 comparison 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. 

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 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66

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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

67

for opportunities to manage fire for multiple objectives. Reintroducing fire to the landscape and 

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

desired condition as outlined in the LRMP. 

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

efforts and complements past treatments and those currently occurring or being proposed on 

adjacent federal, state and private lands.

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 will not reduce fire behavior. 

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

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

modeled conditions, making fire suppression efforts safer and more effective. With these 

alternatives, desired fuel loadings and fire behavior characteristics would be achieved and natural 

or prescribed fire could occur with less risk.

3. 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. 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68

Habitats of Special Concern

Snags

The forested landscape would 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 three to five years after death (Bull 1983, Mitchell 

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

environmental conditions that could affect the speed of bole decay (Bull 1983, Mitchell and 

Preisler 1998). For lodgepole pine, Bull (1983) found that eight years after death about 75 percent 

of the snags less than 25 cm had fallen and 42 percent of the snags greater than 25 cm had fallen. 

Mitchell and Preisler (1998) in their study of mountain pine beetle killed snags in Oregon found 

that tree size was not a factor in unthinned stands and that in unthinned stands, 50 percent were 

down in 9 years and 90 percent were down in 14 years. 

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

decline greatly as the lodgepole pine snags fall down. 

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. 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

69

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 (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
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70

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

Road impacts to elk and grizzly bear habitat as well as disturbance factors 

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, 

multi-story and mid-seral habitat affected in Lynx

Analysis Units (LAU’s 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 and Federal Candidate 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 open-canopy 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 postfledgling 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.
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

71

Species Indicator

Hairy Woodpecker

Effects to individuals and reproduction, acres of 

suitable habitat, acres of suitable habitat affected, 

changes in quality of suitable habitat, snag (all size 

classes) availability. Changes in project area 

distribution and use

American Marten

Effects to individuals and reproduction. Existing and 

affected suitable habitat. Changes in the quality of 

den and foraging habitat, project area distribution 

and use, and snag and downed woody debris 

(DWD) availability.

Commonly Hunted Species

Elk 

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, habitat 

effectiveness, acres of security habitat, changes in 

access and mortality, acres of foraging habitat, and 

compliance with the Montana logging study. 

Changes in hunting opportunity.

Mule Deer

Acres of hiding and thermal cover, acres of foraging 

habitat, changes in project area distribution and use 

and hunting opportunities. 

Migratory Species

Migratory Birds Changes (acres) in available habitat (Biophysical 

settings), compliance with MBTA.
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72

Effects Determinations

The following table displays effects determinations for wildlife by alternative

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 

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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

73

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

considering standards to promote lynx 

conservation and collectively 

application of the standards for 

vegetation management are expected 

to avoid adverse effects to lynx (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b p. 43).

May affect, not likely to adversely 

affect Critical Habitat

considering standards to promote lynx 

conservation and collectively application 

of the standards for vegetation 

management are expected to avoid 

adverse effects to lynx (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b p. 43).

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 and Federal Candidate 

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 

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, 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

to cause a trend toward federal 

listing for the gray wolf.

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 

unchanged, implementation of 

alternative 1 would have no impact on 

fisher. 

Approximately 88 percent of the 

existing suitable habitat would be 

maintained. Preferred riparian habitat 

and travel corridors as well as prey 

availability would be maintained and 

the risk of stand replacing wildfire is 

lowest under this alternative.

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.

Approximately 91 percent of the existing 

suitable habitat would be maintained. 

Preferred riparian habitat and travel 

corridors as well as prey availability 

would be maintained and the risk of 

stand replacing wildfire would be 

reduced under this alternative 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 

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.
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

75

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

is lowest 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 

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.

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 

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 

May impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute 

towards a trend in federal listing.

May impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute towards a 

trend in federal listing.
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

replacing wildfire and a long-term 

reduction in breeding and upland habitat 

is highest under this alternative.

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.

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 

stand replacing wildfire and a reduction 

in suitable nest habitat is highest under 

this alternative.

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 

use. The risk of stand replacing wildfire 

and a reduction in suitable habitat is 

lowest under this alternative.

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 

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 

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 

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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

77

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

highest under this alternative. percent of the suitable habitat over the 

long-term. Also the risk of stand 

replacing wildfire is lowest under this 

alternative.

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 

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.

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 

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 

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 e 

Hunting opportunities would be 

maintained and based on the analysis 

presented above and the following 

rationale, adequate elk habitat would 

continue to be available within both units 

to support desired levels of elk. 

Implementation would result in both 

short and long-term increases in 

available forage on approximately 

eleven percent of the combined herd 

units, including increases on 

summer, transition and winter range. 

The increase in forage is expected 

to maintain or improve herd health. 

There would be no increase in public 

access or changes to elk security 

habitat.

Within the combined herd units, 

approximately 93 percent of the 

existing hiding cover and 86 percent 

of the existing winter range thermal 

cover would be maintained. Cover 

would continue to be available within 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

percent of the existing thermal 

cover would be maintained. Cover 

would continue to be available 

within and adjacent to treatment 

units and across the landscape. 

Past wildfires have greatly reduced 

project area elk habitat and much 

of the remaining habitat is at risk. 

Implementation of alternative 2 

would reduce future wildfire risk. 

It is believed that active management is 

necessary to address fuel loading, 

species diversity and insect and 

disease concerns. Due to the 

predominance of mature forest, limited 

disturbance and reduced forage, some 

management is necessary to maintain 

herd health and increase elk 

populations within the elk management 

unit (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the 

treatments proposed under this 

alternative are designed to address 

these concerns and the long-term 

benefits associated with the increased 

forage availability and reduced wildfire 

risk, are believed to outweigh the risks 

associated with the anticipated 

reduction in cover.

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 

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 

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 

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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

79

SPECIES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3

and maintain hunting opportunities. opportunities would be maintained. 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.
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80

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 is 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 would 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 – Chapter 2

81

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 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82

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 – Chapter 2

83

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 actions 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 long-term 

indirect effects to recreation would be generally beneficial and help to maintain the existing recreation 

settings and scenic qualities within the project area. 

Cumulative effects to recreation resources would generally be short term, occurring during project 

implementation, and would relate to an increased presence of people, vehicles and the associated noise 

that may affect the recreation experience. Longer-term cumulative effects would impact the Pine Grove 

dispersed camping area, such as hazard tree removal and fence construction for a riparian exclosure, in 

addition to the actions proposed in the Stonewall Vegetation Project. These effects would remain until 

vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the vegetation treatment activities, approximately 3-5 

years, but would remain consistent with Roaded Natural ROS class (p.5). 

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 proposes prescribed fire 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. Alternative 3 proposed on 3,565 acres (about 0.4 percent) 

within the Bear Marshall Scapegoat Swan IRA. The Lincoln Gulch Inventoried Roadless Area would not 

be treated. 

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 
Chapter 2 – Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84

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. 

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 

sale and required design criteria is positive $68 thousand for the timber harvest 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 
Stonewall Vegetation Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2

85

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.

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. The 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 total jobs 

and labor income of $5.2 million 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.