United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2010

Decision Notice and 

Finding of No Significant 

Impact

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer County, South Dakota
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer.
3

Decision Notice 

& Finding of No Significant Impact

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project

USDA Forest Service

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer County, South Dakota

Introduction

A Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided here. The 

DN documents my decision and provides my explanation of the management and environmental 

reasons I used to make my decision in selecting an alternative to implement. The FONSI 

presents the reasons why I find this action will not have a significant effect on the human 

environment and therefore why an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The 

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment (August 2010 EA), completed for this 

project, is incorporated by reference. The DN/FONSI documents the following:

• Background description of the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project Area 

• My decision (i.e., the permitted livestock management activities selected)

• The rationale for my decision

• The alternatives considered

• The public involvement conducted

• The legal requirements for environmental protection

• A Finding of No Significant Impact 

• The implementation date

• The rights to appeal and administrative review

• Contact information, and

• My signature and date, as the responsible official

The Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

amended (USDA Forest Service 2006), and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) are also incorporated by reference in this DN/FONSI.

Background

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to reauthorize domestic livestock grazing on six 

allotments on the Hell Canyon Ranger District in Custer County, SD. The allotments include 

Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw. The project area 

includes approximately 105,700 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and 950 acres of

interspersed private land. All proposed actions within the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project 

apply to NFS lands only. The project area is located near Custer, SD, and Newcastle, WY; the 

main east-west access through the project area is US Highway 16 (figure 1). 
4

The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project falls under the authority and guidelines of the 1996 

schedule the Forest Service provided the United States Congress in response to the 1995 

Rescission Act. The 1995 Rescission Act directed the Forest Service to complete environmental 

analysis on grazing allotments on National Forest System (NFS) lands. This project is for the last 

6 allotments (out of the 46 allotments on the Hell Canyon Ranger District) that need 

environmental analysis completed under the Rescission Act. 

Management Direction

The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (hereinafter 

referred to as Forest Plan and cited as “USDA Forest Service 2006”) provides direction for the 

management of the Forest. The Forest Plan contains management goals and objectives, 

management area direction, and desired conditions for the Forest (described in detail in 

Appendix D of the EA). Resource specialists reviewed the current condition of the project area 

and compared these conditions with the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan, as well 

as other applicable goals and objectives. Opportunities for improvement were identified.

Livestock grazing is an authorized use of NFS lands on the Black Hills National Forest. Goal 3 

of the Forest Plan states that sustained commodity uses should be provided in an environmentally 

acceptable manner and that rangelands should be maintained in satisfactory range condition. 

Commodities, including livestock, contribute to the economies of local and regional 

communities. Because sustained commodity production depends on sustainable ecosystems, the 

Forest Plan further directs that livestock grazing would occur without impairing the health of 

ecosystems and in a manner compatible with other Forest uses. 

In order to determine site-specific need for action in the project area, existing and desired 

conditions were described and compared, as described in detail in Chapter 1 of the EA. 

Management area (MA)-specific desired conditions are provided in the Forest Plan and are 

summarized in table 1. The majority of the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Tepee, and Water Draw 

Allotments are within MA 5.4. The French Creek and Lower Beaver Allotments are primarily 

within MA 5.1. The Fanny Boles Research Natural Area (RNA, MA 2.2) occurs in a small 

portion of the Lower Boles Pasture of the Lower Beaver Allotment. This area is steep and rugged 

and receives only incidental use by livestock.
5

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Hell Canyon Range 2010 allotments
6

This page intentionally left blank
7

Table 1. National Forest management area acreage/percent within the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project area

MA Emphasis Acres

%

(NFS 

lands

only)

Livestock 

Grazing 

Allowed?

Primary 

Allotments Desired Conditions

5.1 Resource 

Production

32,150 30 Yes French Creek

Lower Beaver

Trees managed to 

produce forest products 

while providing forage 

production

5.4 Big Game 

Winter 

Range

71,000 67 Yes Bull Flats

Lithograph

Tepee

Water Draw

Provide big game winter 

range while maintaining 

healthy plant 

communities; grazing is 

managed to be 

compatible with big 

game objectives 

3.7 Late Successional 

Forest 

Landscape

2,235 2 Yes Lithograph Provide large and old 

trees with varying stand 

sizes and densities, with 

few signs of 

development

2.2 Research 

Natural 

Areas

315 < 1 Yes, as 

needed to 

conserve 

biological 

characteristics, 

with least 

impact on 

desired 

characteristics

315 acres or 

1% of Lower 

Beaver

Conserve ecological 

processes; develop 

RNA management plan 

to determine grazing 

suitability and desired 

vegetation conditions 

Total (NFS 

Lands)

105,700 100

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Planning Process

This proposal was listed in the Black Hills National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in 

October 2009. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during 

scoping from late-September through late-October 2009. The letter was directly mailed to 52 

individuals, groups, and agencies, and to 31 tribal governments, and was posted on the Black 

Hills National Forest website. A news release was also issued and appeared in the Rapid City 

Journal on October 2, 2009. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is complete. 

Coordination has occurred with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and 

Jewel Cave National Monument as part of the planning process. For more information on public 

involvement, refer to the Public Involvement section later in this document.

Eleven responses to scoping were received via letter, fax, and email and are summarized in 

Appendix C of the EA. Scoping results were used to confirm key issues analyzed in the EA and 

to identify a reasonable range of project alternatives. Key issues are resource impacts directly or 

indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) 

identified two key issues:

• Issue 1: Riparian Area Health

• Issue 2: Range Improvements and Cost
8

Riparian Area Health. Those that commented felt that due to the limited nature of riparian 

areas in the southern Black Hills, more should be done to address and improve conditions. 

Commentors mentioned Forest Plan direction for protection and management of these areas and 

ensuring a proactive approach. Riparian health and improved protection and management of 

riparian areas is part of the purpose and need for this project and is addressed by the proposed 

action. Riparian health is also addressed by the no-action (no grazing) alternative. Project design 

features applicable to all action alternatives were developed to ensure protection and 

enhancement of riparian areas in the project area. 

Measurement Indicators: The measurement indicators for this issue include miles of improved 

stream and riparian health and number of improved areas of concern. Measurement indicators for 

monitoring include stubble height on key species within the greenline and streambank alteration 

(short-term monitoring) and results of multiple indicator method (MIM) monitoring for longterm monitoring.

Range Improvements and Cost: Those that commented questioned the expenditure of funds on 

lengthy pipelines and other improvements when less costly methods might be used. Some 

commentors questioned how expenditures are weighed against other factors such as natural 

resource stewardship and social aspects. Several alternatives were considered (see chapter 2 of 

the EA) that would potentially reduce cost of improvements and address this issue, but would not 

necessarily meet the purpose and need for action. Livestock grazing and economics are included 

in chapter 3 of the EA with a comparison of costs by alternative. 

Measurement Indicators: The measurement indicators for this issue include total number of 

range improvements and cost. The IDT, comprised of resource specialists, a team leader and the 

District Ranger, considered these issues in developing alternatives to the proposed action, 

including design criteria. 

The IDT completed their draft analysis of the effects of three alternatives. This analysis was 

documented in the Hell Canyon Range 2010 EA presented to the public for comment. A legal 

notice was published in the Rapid City Journal on June 23, 2010, which announced the 

availability of the EA for a 30-day comment period. A total of 6 comment letters were received 

during the comment period, which ended July 23, 2010. All of these comments have been 

considered and responded to (see Appendix F in the EA).

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the project is to authorize livestock grazing on these six allotments and to ensure 

grazing is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Forest Service rangeland 

allotment management process calls for periodic reviews of allotment conditions and 

management practices. All of these allotments are due for environmental review, and if 

necessary, current rangeland management practices would be revised. The underlying needs for 

this proposal include:

• Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the Forest Plan.
9

• Improve bank stability and increase riparian vegetation diversity and abundance in 

specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and riparian ecosystem 

conditions are moving toward desired conditions.

• Improve administration of the French Creek Allotment and minimize conflicts with 

private landowners, where feasible and practical.

Chapter 1 of the EA provides additional detailed information on the purpose and need for action. 

The environmental assessment (EA) documents the analysis of three alternatives to meet these 

needs. 

Decision

The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project purpose and need provides the basis and scope for the 

proposed action and alternatives under direction of the 1997 Revised Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2006 Phase II Amendment (Forest 

Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 and Appendix D of the EA. 

Based on public feedback, the analysis disclosed in the EA, information in the project record and 

management direction and policy, I have decided to implement Alternative 3 including the 

design criteria, monitoring plans, and adaptive management options outlined in Chapter 2 and 

Appendix B of the EA. I believe this alternative does the best job of meeting the purpose and 

need for the project. It provides a continued benefit to the local communities while keeping 

impacts of livestock grazing at acceptable levels. Additionally, I approve the desired conditions 

listed in Table 2 and Table 5 of the EA as the desired conditions for these six allotments.

This alternative will meet Forest Plan direction for range management by continuing to authorize 

livestock grazing as an acceptable use on these NFS lands. These lands were found to be 

suitable for livestock grazing as part of the Forest Plan revision process as documented in the 

EIS for the 1997 Forest Plan. I have reviewed the suitability determination for these lands and 

have found no need to change that determination.

Features of Alternative 3 - Proposed Action, Using Adaptive 

Management

The following discussion summarizes the features of Alternative 3. For additional information on

this alternative refer to Chapter 2 of the EA. Allotment-specific features are shown below in 

Table 2.

Livestock grazing will be authorized on the Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, 

Tepee, and Water Draw Allotments. Some current grazing practices, as described in the EA in 

Chapter 2 under “Alternative 2 – Current Management,” will be changed to resolve grazingrelated resource issues. 

A maximum of 6,455 AMs or equivalent will be authorized on NFS in the project, totaling 

approximately 105,700 acres. Maximum allowable forage utilization will range from 50 to 55 

percent depending on the vegetation type and the current range conditions, as described in more 

detail for each allotment in Chapter 2 of the EA and in project design criteria also included in 

Chapter 2 of the EA. Table 2 describes allotment-specific actions that will be implemented. 
10

Table 2. Allotment-specific Elements of the Decision for the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project 

Bull Flats Allotment French Creek 

Allotment

Lithograph 

Allotment

Lower Beaver 

Allotment

Tepee Allotment Water Draw 

Allotment

Permitted Use 374 Animal Months 

(AMs)

529 AMs 1,364 AMs 2,017AMs 1,920 AMs 252 AMs

Season of Use June 1 – October 15 June 1 – Sept 30

June 15 – July 4 for 

French Creek unit for 

first 2 years

June 1 – October 31 June 11 – Sept 30 

for six pastures 

May 1 – June 1 for 

Thompson Canyon 

pasture

April 1 – May 31 for 

Kennedy Canyon 

pasture

June 1 – October 31 

for three pastures

May 1 – May 31 for 

Hill pasture

June 1 – October 31

Grazing system Four-pasture 

deferred rotation

Four-pasture 

deferred rotation, 

starting in year 3 

Three-pasture 

deferred rotation

Two-pasture 

deferred rotation for 

6 pastures 

Single use pasture 

system for Thomson 

and Kennedy 

Canyon

Two-pasture 

deferred rotation 

system for 3 

pastures

Single use pasture 

system for the Hill 

Pasture

Three-pasture rest 

rotation grazing 

system

Allowable Forage 

Use

Riparian Stubble 

Height Standards 

for rush and sedge 

species

50%

4-6 inches

50%

4-6 inches

50%

4-6 inches

50% 

4-6 inches

50%

4-6 inches

50 - 55%

4-6 inches

Improvements 

Authorized

None 1 to 1.5 miles of new 

fence to split the 

Pope Springs Unit 

into two pastures 

0.5 miles of drift 

fence converted to 

permanent fence

2 miles of new 

pipeline to improve 

0.5 miles of new 

pipeline to improve 

water distribution 

1 new stock tank to 

improve livestock 

distribution 

2 riparian 

area/cultural 

resource area 

0.15 miles of new 

pipeline to improve 

water distribution 

1 new stock tank to 

improve livestock 

distribution 

Backfill nonfunctional 

stock dam and 

spread slash to 

1.6 miles of new 

pipeline to improve 

water distribution 

3 new stock tanks to 

improve livestock 

distribution 

2 tanks relocated to 

address resource 

concerns

3.8 miles of new 

pipeline to improve 

water distribution 

6 new stock tanks to 

improve livestock 

distribution 

1 tank relocated to 

address resource 

concerns
11

Bull Flats Allotment French Creek 

Allotment

Lithograph 

Allotment

Lower Beaver 

Allotment

Tepee Allotment Water Draw 

Allotment

water distribution 

5 new stock tanks 

and 35 new dugouts 

to improve livestock 

distribution 

1 tank relocated to 

address resource 

concerns

4 riparian area 

protections with 

fence (this total 

includes new fences 

and/or expansion of 

existing fences)

1 new spring 

development

protections with 

fence (this total 

includes new fences 

and/or expansion of 

existing fences)

enhance protection 

of sensitive cultural 

sites

2 riparian 

area/cultural 

resource area 

protections with 

fence (this includes 

new fences and/or 

expansion of existing 

fences)

1 new spring 

development

6 riparian 

area/cultural 

resource area 

protections with 

fence (this total 

includes new fences 

and/or expansion of 

existing fences)

Adaptive Options Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered; most 

likely options include 

use of water, change 

in livestock class, or 

change in permitted 

numbers, AMs or 

season

Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered. 

If monitoring 

indicates by year six 

of implementation 

that existing 

conditions along 

French Creek are not 

moving toward 

desired conditions in 

a reasonable 

timeframe, an 

adaptive 

management option 

would be 

implemented. The 

option selected will 

include consideration 

of creating either a 

Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered; most 

likely options include 

change in permitted 

numbers, AMs or 

season, haul water to 

tanks, different 

grazing system, or 

change class of 

livestock

Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered; most 

likely options include 

different grazing 

system, change in 

permitted numbers, 

AMs or season, or 

use of water

Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered; most 

likely options include 

different grazing 

system, change in 

permitted numbers, 

AMs or season, haul 

water to tanks, or 

construct fence to 

exclude livestock

Any option from EA, 

Table 4 would be 

considered; most 

likely options include 

different grazing 

system, change in 

permitted numbers, 

or new water 

development.

At Heritage Site 

39CU0021 additional 

SHPO consultation 

will occur if gravity 

feed to relocated 

tank does not work
12

Bull Flats Allotment French Creek 

Allotment

Lithograph 

Allotment

Lower Beaver 

Allotment

Tepee Allotment Water Draw 

Allotment

riparian exclosure or 

a riparian pasture 

along French Creek, 

or removing livestock 

completely from the 

French Creek 

pasture.
13

The following improvements will be implemented across the project area under Alternative 3: 

• 1 to 1.5 miles of new fence built to split pastures and 0.5 miles of drift fence converted to 

permanent fence

• 8 miles of new pipeline to improve water availability and distribution

• 16 new stock tanks and 35 new dugouts to improve livestock distribution

• 4 stock tanks removed or relocated to address resource concerns

• 14 springs, ponds, riparian areas or cultural resource sites protected (this total includes 

new fences or expansion of existing fences)

• 2 new spring developments

Improvements will be constructed over the 10-year permit period based on priority and as funds 

become available. I will use the prioritized implementation schedule developed by the IDT and 

available in the project record as the basis for implementation. This schedule will also be used in 

preparation of individual Allotment Management Plans for each allotment in the project area. 

Maps of each allotment showing proposed improvements are provided in Appendix A of the EA.

Monitoring will occur over time on each allotment. The IDT and I will use monitoring results to 

determine if adjustments are needed to ensure adequate progress is being made toward desired 

conditions. Monitoring is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the EA and a monitoring plan for 

each allotment is included in Appendix B of the EA. 

Alternative 3 is based on the principle of applying adaptive management and will be 

implemented using regional guidance (Quimby 2007). A proposed course of action was selected 

as a starting point believed to best meet or move toward the desired condition. Some practices 

alone may not meet the desired condition, but in combination with other practices, desired 

conditions may be met or moved toward being met. The suite of potential adaptive management 

options that may be used to address a site-specific need during the course of project 

implementation is included in Table 4 of the EA in Chapter 2. Most likely options for specific 

allotments and pastures are listed in Table 5 in Chapter 2 of the EA. The IDT fully evaluated the 

expected impacts of implementing any of these options when needed to move existing conditions 

toward desired conditions, as reflected in Appendix E of the EA. 

Project Design Criteria

Design criteria are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the EA and are incorporated here by 

reference. These features will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts 

that might result from implementation of Alternative 3. These design criteria are integral to, and 

are considered part of, Alternative 3; analysis of effects presented in chapter 3 of the EA is based 

on implementation of these non-discretionary features. Appendix D of the EA includes a list of 

relevant standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and Region 2 Watershed Conservation 

Practices (USDA Forest Service 2006) that were used in development of design criteria for this 

project. These practices were reviewed during project development and in the creation of the 

monitoring plan. Design criteria, allowable use levels, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and 

watershed conservation practices form the foundation for implementation of Alternative 3. 

Monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation are key elements of adaptive management and thus key elements of 

the selected action. As described in Chapter 2 of the EA, monitoring helps determine how Forest 
14

Plan and NEPA decisions are being implemented, whether implementation is achieving the 

desired outcome, or whether changes in management are needed. Through monitoring, the Forest 

Service can measure whether or not desired conditions are being achieved in an appropriate 

timeframe. Through adaptive management, allotment management plans can remain dynamic, 

relevant, and useful over many years. 

Two types of monitoring are associated with AMPs: implementation monitoring and 

effectiveness monitoring. Implementation (short-term) monitoring will be used to measure 

whether or not Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, while effectiveness (longterm) monitoring will be used to evaluate how effective management actions are at moving 

toward or achieving the desired conditions. These techniques are described in detail in Chapter 2 

of the EA and site-specific monitoring plans for each allotment will be implemented as part of 

my decision and are shown in Appendix B of the EA. 

Rationale for Selected Action

Need for Action

I believe that this alternative addresses project objectives/need for action, as summarized in 

Table 3. Alternative 3 addresses the need to improve livestock management so that it is 

consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines of the Forest Plan. I also believe 

that this alternative addresses the need to improve bank stability and increase riparian vegetation 

diversity and abundance in specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and 

riparian ecosystem conditions are moving toward desired conditions. Alternative 3 is expected to 

reduce soil disturbance, improve bank stability, and increase vegetative diversity at springs and 

riparian areas on all allotments that have these resources. Site-specific proposed actions and both 

short- and long-term monitoring are an integral component of this alternative aimed at 

addressing this need. Implementation of adaptive management options if these initial actions are 

not successful in moving these areas toward desired conditions provides a solid framework for 

achieving this goal on all allotments. 

I believe this alternative will address the need to improve administration of the French Creek 

Allotment and minimize conflicts with private land owners, where feasible and practical. 

Alternative 3 includes the movement of two permittees from the French Creek Allotment to the 

Water Draw allotment and a reduction in permitted numbers. Both of these actions will reduce 

the existing conflicts with private landowners. 

Key Issues

Issue 1: Riparian Health

This issue was developed in response to public and IDT concerns regarding how livestock 

grazing is currently impacting these sensitive riparian resources and how these impacts can be 

alleviated. Table 3 includes a summary of how this key issue is addressed by each alternative 

considered in detail in the EA. Alternative 3 is expected to improve riparian health on 90 percent 

of streams in the project area and 55 percent of the site-specific areas identified as concerns. 

Over time, I expect that even more areas of concern will improve with adherence to Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and use of adaptive management options. These expected 
15

improvements are substantially greater than that expected with Alternative 2, Current 

Management. 

Issue 2: Range Improvements and Cost

This issue was developed in response to public concerns regarding the expense associated with 

livestock grazing on public lands and the additional expense associated with proposed new 

improvements as part of Alternative 3. Table 3 includes a summary of how this key issue is

addressed by each alternative considered in detail in the EA. Under Alternative 3, the Forest 

Service would incur higher costs and generate lower revenue to permittees for all allotments 

combined than Alternative 2, Current Management, due to the higher number of structural 

improvements, adaptive management options and additional monitoring. Because these actions 

are needed to meet Forest Plan direction project objectives and Key Issue 1, I have selected 

Alternative 3. 

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by primary project objectives and key issues 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 2 – Current 

Management

Alternative 3 – Proposed 

Action

Project Objectives

Improve livestock 

management so that 

it is consistent with 

the Forest Plan

Consistent with Forest Plan 

for resource management 

and protection, but does 

not achieve Forest Plan 

Goal 3—providing 

sustainable commodity 

uses and productive use of 

range forage.

Generally consistent with 

Forest Plan, but does not 

meet Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines in 

all areas, particulary in 

riparian areas; would not 

achieve standards and 

guidelines and desired 

conditions for riparian 

areas and wildlife habitat 

as well or as quickly as 

alternative 3.

Is most consistent with Forest 

Plan direction by providing for 

commodity uses in an 

acceptable manner, improved 

resource conditions, and 

movement toward or 

maintenance of desired 

conditions in a reasonable 

timeframe.

Improve bank 

stability and increase 

riparian vegetation 

diversity and 

abundance in specific 

areas so spring and 

stream health, wildlife 

habitat, and riparian 

ecosystem conditions 

are moving toward 

desired conditions

Met; these resource 

conditions would improve 

in the short- and long term.

Not met; these resource 

conditions would not move

toward desired conditions 

in a reasonable timeframe 

with no change in current 

management.

Met; proposed actions and 

adaptive management 

options would address these 

resource concerns.

Improve 

administration of the 

French Creek 

Allotment and 

minimize conflicts 

with private land 

owners, where 

feasible and practical

Met; removal of livestock 

from this allotment would 

remove the conflict.

Not met; current conflicts 

would remain.

Met; movement of 2 

permittees to the Water Draw 

Allotment, reduction in head 

and proposed actions would 

address this concern.

Key Issues

Riparian Health

Measurement 

indicators: miles of 

improved stream and 

riparian health; 

number of improved 

watershed areas of 

concern

9.81 miles improved (90%)/

29 areas of concern 

improved (100%) 

1.64 miles improved (15%)/

5 areas of concern 

improved (17%)

9.81 miles improved (90%)/

16 areas of concern 

improved (55%)
16

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 2 – Current 

Management

Alternative 3 – Proposed 

Action

Range 

Improvements and 

Cost

Measurement 

indicators: total 

number of range 

improvements; total 

cost (cost of 

improvements and 

maintenance; does 

not include 

administration or 

monitoring costs)

0 new range 

improvements.

$0 spent on new range 

improvements and 

maintenance.

$672,810 spent by USFS 

over 10 years on removal 

of improvements and 

continued maintenace on 

some kept for wildlife.

Over long term, cost would 

be eliminated.

5 new range improvements 

(for heritage resource 

protection).

$24,430 spent on new 

range improvements but 

resource concern areas 

would not be addressed 

except for heritage 

resource concern areas.

$70,440 spent over 10 

years by USFS.

Costs would continue over 

long term.

4 stock tanks 

removed/relocated; 2 miles of 

fence (1 – 1.5 miles of fence 

and 0.5 miles of drift fence 

converted to permanent 

fence); 8 miles pipeline; 16 

stock tanks; 14 

spring/riparian area 

protections; and 2 spring 

developments would address 

resource concern areas.

$165, 140 spent over 10 

years by USFS. 

Costs would continue over 

long term.

Conclusion

In making my decision, I considered how well the alternatives address the purpose and need for 

action, the degree to which the alternatives responded to issues raised during the analysis, and 

how well each alternative met Forest Plan direction. Alternative 1 (No Action/No Grazing) does 

not respond well to the purpose and need. Livestock grazing would be eliminated under this 

alternative. Alternative 2 continues livestock grazing but does not address the need to improve 

resource conditions and provide management flexibility. Alternative 3 best meets the purpose 

and need for action, and best addresses issues, while also meeting Forest Plan direction for the 

following reasons:

• Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 would result in maintenance and/or movement 

toward desired conditions. Alternative 1 would result in achievement of desired 

conditions more quickly, by eliminating livestock grazing entirely. Environmental 

impacts (as summarized in Table 8 of the EA) would be fewer under Alternative 1 than 

under Alternative 3, but implementation of Alternative 1 will not meet Forest Plan 

Objectives 301 and 302. Under Alternative 3 the effects of grazing will be managed by 

controlling the timing, frequency and intensity of use and monitoring has been identified 

to alert management to any changes in desired conditions. 

• Under Alternative 3, the Forest Service would incur higher costs and generate lower 

revenue to permittees for all allotments combined when compared to Alternative 2,

Current Management, due to the higher number of structural improvements, adaptive 

management options and additional monitoring. Costs associated with removal of fences 

and water developments would be a short-term cost to the taxpayer under Alternative 1, 

but this alternative would also eliminate all economic benefits to fifteen permittee 

families. Because these cost-incurring structural improvements are needed to meet Forest 

Plan direction, project objectives and issues, I have selected Alternative 3. 
17

My decision is based on the following; consistent with the purpose and need for action:

1. Improving livestock management so it is consistent with the Forest Plan

2. Improving riparian health

3. Minimizing conflicts with private landowners on the French Creek allotment

I believe the selected action provides the best balance among the alternatives; it provides a 

continued benefit to local communities while keeping impacts of livestock grazing at acceptable 

levels. It best meets Forest Plan Goal 3 to provide commodity uses in an environmentally

acceptable manner and Forest Plan Objective 301 to produce on a sustained basis and make 

available up to 233 million pounds of forage for livestock and wildlife use each year (weather 

permitting). It responds well to public comments and addresses the key issues developed through 

public scoping. 

The selected action will move this area toward a more resilient resource condition that will be 

better able to withstand changing climatic conditions in the future. 

For these reasons, I select Alternative 3- Proposed Action, Using Adaptive Management to 

authorize livestock grazing on the Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee 

and Water Draw Allotments and to improve rangeland and riparian area conditions in the project 

area. 

This alternative complies with direction in the Black Hills NF Forest Plan and the Forest Service 

NEPA regulations found at 36 CFR 220.7. 

Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected action, I considered two other alternatives in detail. A brief summary 

of these alternatives is presented below. Further information on the alternatives can be found in 

Chapter 2 of the EA.

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, livestock would no longer be authorized within the project area 

and each allotment would be vacated. Existing permits would be phased out after giving 

permittees notice as provided for in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, chapter 10, 

section 16.13, R2 Interim Directive of 1/20/2004 which says, “...the authorized officer shall

provide one year’s written notice before the modification takes effect, except in emergency 

situation.” Improvements such as fences, gates, and pipelines would be removed as time and 

funding allow. Improvements such as stock tanks, spring developments, and other water features 

used by wildlife would not be removed. 

This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. 

Alternative 1 would result in the fastest improvement in rangeland and riparian resources. It 

successfully addresses the riparian health key issue over the short- and long-term and the range 

improvements and cost issue over the long-term. It would also address the riparian health project 

objective and the French Creek allotment administration objectives. However, it would result in 

the greatest negative economic impact to local ranch families and local communities and would 

not meet Goal 3 of the Forest Plan or Objective 301 of the Forest Plan. 
18

Based on the analysis in the EA, my knowledge of local community dynamics, and public 

comments on the Proposed Action, I also feel that there is a potential for this alternative to result 

in the development of private lands within and adjacent to the National Forest System lands. This 

is due to the dependence on grazing from National Forest system lands by some range 

permittees. If these permittees lose the option of grazing on Forest Service lands, it is possible 

that some ranching operations would no longer be economically viable. Ranchers may be forced 

to sell their ranchlands for residential or commercial development. Maintaining a level of 

grazing in an environmentally acceptable manner would reduce the likelihood of these ranches 

being lost to development. 

Since Alternative 3 includes actions to keep allotments at desired conditions or to move 

allotments toward these conditions in a reasonable timeframe, the cancellation of these grazing 

permits is not warranted for resource protection at this time. For these reasons, I did not select 

Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Livestock grazing would continue as prescribed in current allotment management plans (AMPs) 

or annual operating instructions (AOIs) as implemented over the last 3 to 5 years. The Water 

Draw Allotment, which has an AMP but currently has no permit, would continue to be managed 

as a vacant allotment. While current management has changed over time to better address certain 

situations and known problems, there are areas where this management has been unsuccessful in 

meeting or moving toward desired conditions from the Forest Plan. Total animal months would 

remain as currently permitted. Current grazing management systems for all allotments would 

continue. Existing improvements and those currently approved would be maintained as assigned 

in term grazing permits and would be reconstructed as necessary. New improvements not 

currently authorized in an existing AMP would not be developed. Current on-the-ground 

management of all six allotments would continue under alternative 2 and adaptive management 

would not be used to address changing conditions.

Continuation of current grazing under current AMPs and AOIs would generally be consistent 

with the Forest Plan but would not meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines in all areas. 

Desired conditions for riparian areas and wildlife habitat would not be met as well or as quickly 

as Alternative 3. Implementation of Alternative 2 would cost considerably less than Alternative 3 

in the short- and long-term and so would meet the range improvements and cost key issue better 

than Alternative 3. However, the project objective to improve riparian health and to improve 

administration of the French Creek allotment would not be met. The riparian health key issue 

would be met in some small areas but not the extent as it would under Alternative 3. For these 

reasons, I did not select Alternative 2. 

Alternatives not Considered in Detail

Consideration of alternative ways to achieve the purpose and need for action were explored by 

the IDT, considering environmental effects of the proposed action and issues brought forward 

during scoping. Potential alternatives were dismissed from further analysis if they did not meet 

the purpose and need for taking action, conflicted with Forest Plan direction or other laws or 

regulations, were duplicative of alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components 

that would cause unnecessary environmental harm or unreasonable cost. 
19

The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project IDT considered 8 additional alternatives/alternative 

components that were not carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA. Descriptions of these 

alternatives and an explanation for why each was eliminated from detailed analysis are located in 

the EA, Chapter 2.

Public Involvement

Scoping

This proposal was listed in the Black Hills National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in 

October 2009. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during 

scoping from late-September through late-October 2009. The letter was directly mailed to 52 

individuals, groups, and agencies, and to 31 tribal governments, and was posted on the Black 

Hills National Forest website. A news release was also issued and appeared in the Rapid City 

Journal on October 2, 2009. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is complete. 

Coordination has occurred with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and 

Jewel Cave National Monument as part of the planning process. 

Eleven responses to scoping were received via letter, fax, and email. Scoping results were used 

to confirm issues analyzed in this document and identify a reasonable range of project 

alternatives. 

EA Distribution 

On June 23, 2010, a legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal notifying the public of 

their opportunity to comment on the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment (June 

2010 EA). A notification was also published in the Custer County Chronicle on June 23, 2010 

and the News Letter Journal on June 24, 2010. Copies of the June 2010 EA were mailed to 29 

individuals, groups and state and local agencies who expressed interest in the project and to 32 

tribal representatives. The EA was also posted on the project website. The comment period 

concluded on July 23, 2010. Six responses were received. See Appendix F in the August 2010 

EA for responses to comments. None of these comments generated a need for re-analysis or 

required major substantive changes in the document, although minor factual corrections and 

clarifications have been made to the EA in response to these comments, as described in 

Appendix F of the August 2010 EA. All letters received are contained within the project file.

Best Available Science

My decision is based upon consideration of the best available science. I have reviewed the record 

and found it contains a thorough review of relevant scientific information and responsible 

opposing views. Where appropriate, the record acknowledges incomplete or unavailable 

information, and scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the extensive literature citations in

both the specialist reports in the project record and in Chapter 5 of the EA shows that relevant

literature was reviewed and considered by resource specialists.

In addition, the EA and project record show that literature cited by the public during the scoping 

period and during the comment period was reviewed and considered by resource specialists on 

the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project Interdisciplinary team. Finally, resource specialists 

acknowledge in the project file their use of the best science available to them in preparation of 

this EA.
20

Finding of No Significant Impact

I have reviewed the environmental effects of the selected alternative as disclosed in the EA. I 

have also evaluated whether the selected alternative constitutes a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment or whether the environmental impacts would be significant 

based on their context and intensity, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 CFR §1508.27). 

I have determined that the implementation of the selected alternative will not result in any 

anticipated effects that exceed the level at which a significant effect on the human, biological, or 

physical environment in terms of context or intensity would occur. Both beneficial and adverse 

effects have been considered. The effects from the selected alternative are expected to be minor. 

The effects are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique and unknown risks. The action 

will not, in relation with other actions, cause cumulatively significant impacts. I have reviewed 

Alternative 3 actions in terms of both context and intensity, as described in detail below:

1. Context - This project is local and would affect only the project area. The issues identified 

during scoping and considered in alternative development and analysis are local in nature. 

Effects are limited to the vicinity of the planned activities. The selected alternative is consistent 

with the requirements of the Forest Plan and contributes to moving toward or meeting the goals 

and objectives of the Forest Plan. None of the effects disclosed in the Hell Canyon Range 2010

EA is different from those anticipated in the FEIS for the Forest Plan. 

2. Intensity – Severity of projected impacts is subdivided into several individual components, as 

suggested by 40 CFR §1508.27 as follows:

• Beneficial and adverse impacts of this decision are addressed in Chapter 3 of the EA. No 

significant impacts were identified. My decision is not biased by the beneficial effects of 

the action.

• There will be no significant effects on public health and safety. Livestock grazing has a 

long history in the local communities dating back to the late 1800s, and permitted grazing 

has occurred on National Forest System Lands for over 100 years. No significant public 

health and safety issues were identified during the analysis process. 

• There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area, such as 

proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild 

and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas located in the project area. No significant 

direct and indirect effects will occur to wetlands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers 

or ecological critical areas, as they are either not present or will be protected by project 

design features, as shown in Chapter 3 of the EA. Project design features (EA, Chapter 2) 

include measures to protect riparian areas and to protect and monitor cultural resources. 

Archaeological sites will maintain their National Register characteristics. For these 

reasons, there will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area.

• The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly 

controversial. While some aspects of livestock grazing tend to be somewhat socially 
21

controversial, the effects of the selected alternative on the human environment are not 

scientifically controversial (EA, Chapter 3). The effects on biological diversity, water 

quality, soils and other elements of the environment have been described and adaptive 

management actions have been included, such that this project contributes to maintaining 

habitat for viable populations of plant and animal species, as well as to maintaining water 

quality and soil productivity. No new or unusual methods or activities are proposed. The 

effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are very unlikely to involve 

unique or unknown risks, and are not likely to be highly controversial because there is no 

scientific controversy on the impacts of the project (EA, Chapter 3).

• Grazing has been authorized on the Black Hills National Forest for over 100 years (EA, 

Chapter 1). The effects analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve 

unique or unknown risk (EA, Chapter 3). We have considerable experience, beginning in 

the 1960’s and before, with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis 

shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. 

• The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects

(EA, Chapter 1). The action does not represent a decision in principle about future 

considerations. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to be evaluated under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the significance of the effects of 

those specific actions.

• The cumulative actions considered in the environmental analysis are listed in Table 9 of 

the EA and discussed by resource in Chapter 3. The cumulative impacts of the proposed 

action, considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are not 

significant (see EA, Chapter 3).

• The potential effects on cultural resources have been considered in the analysis. No 

adverse effects are anticipated. A heritage resource inventory was completed for the 

project area; the survey protocol was concurred with by the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Office on April 28,2008. In a letter dated February 2, 2010, SHPO 

concurred that the project will have no adverse effect on heritage resources.

• The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat 

that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973, because 

federally listed listed species or designated critical habitat do not occur within these 

allotments (EA, Chapter 3). A determination for Forest Service Region 2 sensitive 

species for the selected Alternative found that there will be no trend towards Federal 

listing or loss of viability in the planning area, including fish, wildlife and plants (EA, 

Chapter 3). These BA/Es are part of the project record and were used in preparation of 

the EA. In addition, a Management Indicator Species (MIS) analysis for this project was 

completed and it determined that the proposed action, and its relationship to MIS species 

and the habitat types they represent, is not expected to impact the viability of these 

species in the future (EA, Chapter 3)

• As described in more detail below, the selected action will not violate Federal, State, or

local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and 
22

regulations were considered in the EA (EA, Chapter 3). All state water quality 

requirements will be met as well as other Federal, State, and local requirements imposed

for the protection of the environment. Effects on water quality, floodplains, and wetlands 

are documented in the EA and project file. Design Criteria will be used to protect water 

quality and to meet standards imposed by the Forest Plan and the State. No violations of 

environmental laws and requirements were identified through the environmental effects 

analysis. The action is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (EA, Appendix D).

Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to 

consider the potential effects of undertakings on historic, architectural or archaeological 

resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Potential impacts to these resources have been evaluated in compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA. These design features include ensuring livestock concentration areas avoid culturally 

sensitive areas and any newly discovered sites are considered. Indirect effects are also possible 

and include increased exposure of sites due to removal of vegetation, which can lead to looting, 

vandalism, and increased unauthorized off-highway vehicle activity. These effects would be 

negligible to minor, due to limited public access in the area. Proposed actions and monitoring 

are a component of Alternative 3 for the purpose of minimizing or avoiding impacts, as 

described in more detail in the EA. For purposes of section 106 consultation, implementation of 

Alternative 3 would result in no adverse effect to cultural resources. The South Dakota SHPO 

concurred with this finding on February 2, 2010. This letter is in the project file.

The cultural resource section of the EA and the cultural resources report provide more detail on 

this determination.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose the 

effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The 

Act’s requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement is designed to provide decision 

makers with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects of a proposed action prior 

to adoption and to inform the public of such effects. The Act establishes the format and content 

requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the Hell 

Canyon Range 2010 EA, DN and FONSI was completed in accordance with this Act.

The Endangered Species Act, 1973

Separate Botany, Fisheries and Wildlife Biological Assessment and Evaluations (BA/Es) have 

been prepared to document possible effects of any activities on endangered, threatened, proposed 

or sensitive species in the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project area. A determination was made that 

no threatened or endangered species currently exist in the project area, nor does the project area 

contain critical habitat for any listed species. Therefore, the Hell Canyon Range 2010 project 

would have “No Effect” on threatened, endangered or proposed species and no impact on critical 

habitat. The effects of the Hell Canyon Range 2010 project on Region 2 sensitive species were 

analyzed and documented in both the Botany BA/BE and the Wildlife and Fish BA/BE for this 

project. These documents were used in the preparation of these sections of Chapter 3 of the EA 
23

and each document is included in full in the project file. Determinations of effect to sensitive 

species are summarized in Table 8 and Table 15 in the EA and range from no effect to may 

affect, but not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

The Clean Water Act

This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. There are 

approximately 10.88 miles of perennial or intermittent streams within the project area; the 

majority of these are intermittent. Only one stream on the French Creek allotment in the project 

is listed in the South Dakota 2010 303(d) Waterbody List as being impaired, meaning that it is 

not meeting water quality standards for its beneficial use (as a cold water fishery and limited 

contact recreation). As stated in the Soil and Water section of Chapter 3 of the EA, the state will 

be completing a full assessment of French Creek which should provide updated information on 

this situation; it appears that the reasons for impairment are listed as levels of dissolved oxygen 

caused by drought-related impacts and natural sources. 

Livestock grazing has the potential to affect water resources. As stated in the Soil and Water 

section of the EA, over 90 percent of the streams in the project area would improve with 

implementation of the selected action. The selected alternative will not degrade water quality 

below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, 

application, and monitoring and implementation of design criteria associated with project 

activities.

Clean Air Act of 1970

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for protecting and enhancing the nation’s 

air resources. Federal and state ambient air quality standards are not expected to be affected or 

exceeded by implementing the selected action. This action is consistent with the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management

As outlined in the Soil and Water section of Chapter 3 of the EA, floodplains will not be affected 

by implementation. This project is in compliance and meets the requirements of the Executive 

Order for Floodplain Management.

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands

As outlined in the EA, there are some wetlands present in conjunction with riparian areas on the 

allotments, although the vast majority is not considered jurisdictional wetlands. Livestock 

grazing impacts as described in the EA are not expected to change the character or function of 

these areas. Alternative 3 would improve conditions through adaptive management actions as 

described in the EA. Alternative 3 is consistent with this Order. 

Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to focus attention on human health and 

environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The purpose 

of the executive order is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. None of the counties in the study area contain low-income or minority populations 

as defined by Executive Order 12898. There would be no disproportionate negative effect on 

such communities under any of the alternatives. Public involvement efforts used for this project 
24

provided ample opportunity for participation in the analysis process. Implementing this decision 

will not subject anyone to discrimination because of his or her race, color or national origin.

Executive order 11593, entitled Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment

The Order, issued May 13, 1971, directs federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under

their jurisdiction, to nominate to the NRHP all federally owned properties that meet the criteria, 

to use due caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that 

federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned 

properties. This project satisfies the requirements of E.O. 11593.

Executive Order 13112

Executive order 13112 directs that federal agencies not carry out actions that would cause the 

introduction or spread of invasive species, unless the agency determines that the benefits of such 

actions clearly outweigh the potential harm, and that all feasible and prudent measures to 

minimize risk to harm will be taken. The risk of noxious weed introduction and spread was 

evaluated in the EA (Rangeland Vegetation Section of Chapter 3). Analysis concluded that while 

there is some risk of spread, this would be minimized by implementation of project design 

features and adherence to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds

This project is fully consistent with this executive order. Migratory birds were fully evaluated in 

the Wildlife Report and the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 of the EA. Populations are expected to 

remain stable under implementation of the selected alternative and habitats may improve due to 

riparian area protections (Table 8 and 15 of the EA).

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 1976, which amends the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974

All alternatives were developed to be in full compliance with NFMA as summarized below.

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan

The NFMA law (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) requires me to ensure that permits, contracts, cooperative 

agreements, and other activities carried out on the Black Hills National Forest are consistent with 

the Forest Plan. My decision is consistent with the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan, as Amended.

• Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan goals and objectives (EA, Chapter 1)

• I have reviewed the Black Hills National Forest Region 2 Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) guidance for projects. The effects of planned activities on management indicator 

species are consistent with the Forest Plan (EA, Chapter 3).

• Planned activities are consistent with Management Area direction (EA, Chapter 1).

• Planned activities comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (EA, Chapters 1 

and 3)

• Planned activities are consistent with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

(EA, Appendix D).
25

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act

The 1982 planning rule has been superseded and is no longer in effect. The Forest Service is

implementing this project under the 2000 Planning Rule.

The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan’s management indicator species is determined by the 

Forest Plan’s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and 

monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest, Forest Plan contains no 

obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for management indicator species.

Phase II Record of Decision, pages 8 and 20; Forest Plan as Amended, page I-11, Objective 238. 

The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require 

population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; 

Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238). The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project 

analyzed several management indicator species (white-tailed deer, golden-crowned kinglet, 

grasshopper sparrow, black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, ruffed grouse, and song

sparrow) because habitat for these species is available in the project area. Populations of MIS 

evaluated are likely to persist on the Forest under Alternative 3; populations would remain 

stable.

Conclusion

The actions from Alternative 3 are in compliance with all Federal, State, and local environmental 

protection laws. Based on the EA and the above considerations, I find that the selected 

alternative is not a major action and it will not constitute a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, it does not require the preparation of an environmental impact 

statement.

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 215. This decision is also subject to administrative review under 36 

CFR Part 251 Subpart C by term grazing permit holders or applicants (§251.86). However, term 

grazing permit holders or applicants must choose to appeal under either 36 CFR 251 or 215, but 

not both (§251.85).

Notices of Appeal that do not meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 or 36 CFR 

251.90 as appropriate will be dismissed.

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 215

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 (June 2003). A written appeal 

must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this 

decision in the Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, South Dakota. It is the responsibility of the 

appellant to ensure their appeal is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal 

notice of the decision in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time 

to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any 

other source.

Paper appeals must be submitted to:
26

Black Hills National Forest Supervisors Office

Appeal Deciding Officer

Attn: Ed Fischer

1019 N. Fifth Street

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-9200

Fax: (605) 673-9350

Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-black-hills@fs.fed.us

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the office address above between the hours of 8:00 am and 

4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

For appeals filed electronically, the name of the project decision being appealed should appear in 

the subject line. Electronically filed appeals must be readable in Microsoft Word, Rich Text or 

Adobe pdf formats. When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should normally 

receive an automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If the appellant 

does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the appellant’s 

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means (§ 215.15(c)(3)).

It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, 

focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an appeal 

must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 and include the following information:

1. Appellant’s name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available;

2. Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for 

electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);

3. When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant (§ 

215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request;

4. The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of 

the

5. Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;

6. The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal 

under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d));

7. Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks, and rationale for those

changes;

8. Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the

disagreement;

9. Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the

substantive comments; and

10. How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation or policy.

Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 will be dismissed.

To be eligible to appeal this decision on this project, an individual or group must have provided a 

comment or otherwise expressed interest in this project by the close of the comment period. 
27

Appeals filed under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C

Appeals filed under 36 CFR, Part 251, must be submitted (by regular mail) to: 

Black Hills National Forest Supervisors Office

Appeal Deciding Officer

Attn: Ed Fischer

1019 N. Fifth Street

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-9200

Fax: (605) 673-9350

Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-black-hills@fs.fed.us

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 

For appeals filed electronically, the name of the project decision being appealed should appear in 

the subject line. Electronically filed appeals must be readable in Microsoft Word, Rich Text or 

Adobe pdf formats. When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should normally 

receive an automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If the appellant 

does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the appellant’s 

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. In cases where no identifiable name is 

attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature 

is one way to provide verification.

Appeals must be filed within 45 days following the date on the notice of the written decision 

(§251.88). Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. Appeals 

filed under 36 CFR 251 Subpart C must have a copy of the appeal simultaneously sent to the 

Deciding Officer (§251.88) at: Deciding Officer, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills 

National Forest; Attention: Lynn Kolund, District Ranger, 330 Mt. Rushmore Road, Custer, 

South Dakota, 57730 or Fax: 605-673-5461.

It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and rationale, 

focusing on the decision, to show why the Deciding Officer’s decision should be reversed 

(§251.90). The Deciding Officer is willing to meet with applicants and holders to hear and 

discuss any concerns or issues related to the decision (§251.93).

An appellant may also include in the notice of appeal a request for oral presentation (§251.97) or 

a request for stay of implementation of the decision pending decision on the appeal (§251.91).

Implementation Date

Once this decision is made, Term Grazing Permits, Allotment Management Plans (AMPs), and 

Annual Operating Instructions (AOIs) may be issued provided that they are in compliance with